Contribution
My Lords, I strongly welcome the report. I congratulate my noble friend and her colleagues on producing a unanimous, thoughtful and forward-looking report, which I hope we can, in effect, endorse today and, in due course, adopt its recommendations.
Taking on the implementation of a manifesto commitment ourselves is surely the best way to bring about change—not being dragged screaming and shouting to the inevitable outcome, but through debate and consensus. I therefore very much regretted the tone and content of the speech by the Leader of the Official Opposition. I would have thought that the noble Lord, Lord True, would have learned from his experience of resisting and resisting the Grocott Bill, which would have very gradually ended the hereditary principle. We probably would never have had to “expel”, in his words —or, in ours, let go of—the hereditaries. He resisted that in government and then in opposition, and that is a shame. I hope we can do this differently.
This is a working, legislative House, and whatever decisions we make today must be centred on what enables our—Peers’—time, expertise and collective wisdom to be best used. This is not a retirement House, and appointment to it should be not as a thanks for services rendered but, as the heading on my list when I came here said, as a “working Peer”. Our central role is to share responsibility with the Commons to make laws.
I have always worried about being appointed for life rather than for as long as one can contribute, which is why I welcome the introduction of a participation requirement—although, like my noble friend, I would have quite liked appointment terms. I strongly welcome the introduction of a retirement age, partly because we all fade with age but, more importantly, because if we are to do good work here we need to be continuously refreshed by those who have more recently been in their particular area of work or expertise.
When I arrived 16 years ago, I was very fresh from the consumer and charity world, but that experience is now 16 years old. Surely it is right that we move over and let those with more up-to-date experience, contacts and knowledge make their contribution to emerging legislation in their areas of expertise. We do not hold in our heads all the experience of the world.
We could do this through maximum terms of appointment, as I have said, but the Labour Party manifesto took the other view: that age was the correct criterion. Of course we will lose some Members who we will miss a lot—although I still think we will be friends with them—but we would be able to welcome a new generation with much to offer.
These proposals will not solve the issue of the size of the House, but they do two things. First, they signal that we recognise the need for a reduction in size and have designed a tool to start that process, rather than leaving it to the Commons and the Government, who could be rather more draconian. Secondly, it begins our side of that bargain: we are choosing to slim down, and our example should, I hope, help stay the hand of future Prime Ministers—whether under this or any other Government—about how many people they appoint here.
The Government were elected on a manifesto with a retirement age of 80. We should help that happen. The process is ingenious: it is staged, but clear and predictable. We have all looked to see our date of retirement, and I will tell noble Lords a secret: I will be leaving on my birthday—I am one of those. There will be a time, therefore, when I will be the oldest person in the House. I never thought that would be my aspiration, but it is now.
I support the report. Let us do this ourselves—willingly, not with it enforced on us, and with a bit of humility.