Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Davies, if I am still around, I will leave your Lordships’ House in July 2029. I shall do so with regret and equanimity. I assure your Lordships that the few observations that I am about to make do not spring from self-interest. I pay tribute to the work of the committee. It has faithfully fulfilled its remit. But, as others have suggested, was it the right remit? Your Lordships have an obligation not to obstruct government legislation which gives effect to a manifesto commitment, but I know of no convention which requires your Lordships’ House to take the initiative in implementing the Government’s manifesto when the Government have not seen fit to bring forward legislation. I endorse the question put by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. What is the mischief which these proposals are designed to remedy? It is said that your Lordships’ House is too big. By what yardstick? What harm does the size of the House inflict, and what are the practical consequences of its size? The largest number who voted in the three highest attended Divisions of the 2024-26 Session was 523, on two occasions, and 512, a number close to but smaller than the number who will remain after the first tranche of these proposals is implemented in July 2029. It is reasonable to assume from those numbers that there are some 200 Members of your Lordships’ House who rarely attend, except perhaps to fulfil the requirements necessary to maintain their membership. What harm do they do? I have always believed that if something isn’t broke, you shouldn’t fix it. I do not believe your Lordships’ House is broke, regardless of the number of Peers who are eligible to attend its proceedings. Not only do I believe that these proposals are unnecessary but I believe that they would have unfortunate consequences. There are many Members of your Lordships’ House who make valuable contributions to our proceedings long after they have reached the age of 80. Who can doubt that our proceedings would have been the poorer if we had been deprived of the wisdom of the late and very much lamented Lord Mackay of Clashfern after he reached the age of 80?