Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)

My Lords, I was privileged to be a member of the committee, but before I come to the report itself I want to focus on a curiosity: why was the Select Committee set up in the first place? The commitment in the Labour manifesto was very clear: to have a retirement age of 80 and for Peers to leave at that age. The Government did not hesitate to bring in a Bill to remove the hereditary Peers, so why are they hesitating about this? I think there are two reasons. First, I do not think those who wrote on this subject in the manifesto thought through the implications at all—they just scribbled a few words that sounded good. Secondly, I do not think the Government really want to have going through Parliament a Bill that could open a Pandora’s box on House of Lords reform. That is why I believe the Leader of the House instead wanted to find a way to bring in a retirement age without legislation; hence the device of a Select Committee to let the Government off the hook. This is why the terms of reference specifically asked us to look at options which would not require primary legislation. The committee’s terms of reference were also curious in some other ways. We were not asked to consider whether there should be a retirement age; that there would be one was a given. The terms of reference did not specify the objective we were being asked to achieve. There was no mention of reducing the number of Peers in the House. Yes, we were asked to say what impact our proposals might have on the size and working of the House, but not on whether the impact would be positive or adverse. In other words, the terms of reference meant that we had to skirt round many of the hard issues which would be debated more thoroughly if there were legislation. Nevertheless, within these constraints, I believe the committee did produce a thoughtful and comprehensive report. I thank, in particular, the chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, who steered us skilfully to our conclusions, and the clerk Judith Brooke and her team who were very patient as we made more demands upon them. Finally, I turn to what I regard as a core issue, which is if there is to be a retirement age, how to implement it for existing Members. The terms of reference asked us to report on options, and we did. We set out two options: either legislation or a resolution by the House. The legal advice was clear: option one, legislation, would make retirement mandatory; without legislation, retirement would not be mandatory. However, a resolution could be passed by the House expressing the view that Members should retire no later than the age of 80, but it would not be binding on Members and would instead depend on the co-operation of individual Members and on peer pressure. There was another factor which preyed on my mind. Would it be right for the House of Lords alone to decide for itself at what age Members should be compelled to retire? Should an unelected House, as we are, decide who could and could not sit in the Lords? Yes, when it comes to transgressions of personal behaviour, but should we do so otherwise? Nevertheless, after much discussion, the committee came to the view that, if the primary objective was simply to implement a retirement age, a resolution of the House was the simplest way. However, the two options are very clearly set out in the report, and I believe it is now for both the House and the elected Government to consider and evaluate each of them.