Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)

My Lords, at first sight, the “Retirement” section of this report has much to commend it. I welcome the fact that the committee was looking for a solution that would avoid the need for legislation on this issue, very much for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has just been mentioning. It must surely be right for the House itself to decide what to do and how to control this process. I also welcome the decision to identify a notional date “for the end of this Parliament” in place of the words used in the manifesto commitment. They left the date open to whatever date is chosen for the next election. For my part, the element of certainty that it introduces—I am in the same position as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on this point too—would mean that I could plan ahead as to the date of my retirement without running the risk that an early election would upset these plans. That said, I wonder whether it was right for the committee to accept that the retirement age has to be set at 80, given the situation we are in just now, without giving greater weight to the effect that this would have on the various party groupings. Many of us on the Cross Benches have already reached the age of 80. Of course, the effects of advancing age vary from person to person, and views about what people over 80 can do tend to change the closer one gets to that age. Many of us are still very active in the service of this House. I was already over 80 when I was elected for the second term to serve as Convenor of the Cross Benches. If we have to set a retirement age—and I emphasise the word if—it would surely be better to aim higher and set it at 85. I have no self-interest in making that point as I am now over that age, but it would give more time for those such as former judges, who cannot come here until they have retired, to make a meaningful contribution to the work of the House before they must leave. Further, setting the age of 85 instead of 80 would mitigate a very real problem for the Cross Benches, to which my noble friend Lord Patel has referred. The number of those on our Benches who would be facing compulsory retirement by July 2029 under the proposed scheme is 69. That is getting close to half of those sitting on the Cross Benches referred to in paragraph 33 of the report, which is 154. Setting the age at 85 would reduce that number from 69 to 31, which is more in keeping with what we could cope with, given how slow recruitment to these Benches is. As for the “Participation” section, I accept that the most practical solution is to concentrate on attendance. My practice as convenor was to write to those who fell below 10%, suggesting that it was time for them to retire. Given that we would be setting a threshold and not making a suggestion, 20% would seem more reasonable. But there is a practical problem that the report does not address. How are less frequent attenders to keep track of their performance? It would be most unfortunate if a Member who had very good reasons for not being able to attend regularly was to fall short by a tiny margin that could easily have been made up if he or she had been given notice that there was a risk of falling short. Something needs to be done to address this problem if we are to proceed with this proposal. I make one further point. Mention is made in paragraph 97 of setting up an emeritus association for retired Members. This idea is all very well for those who live in London and the south-east, for whom keeping in touch will be relatively easy, but further thought needs to be given to what this would have to offer for people like me who live further afield, given that reimbursement of the cost of travelling from the places where they live will no longer be available when they retire. An emeritus association is a very good idea, but it must be suitable for everyone.