Baroness D’Souza (CB)

My Lords, of those who have already spoken, more than half welcome this report, as do I. I had hoped that all that would remain would be to vote on whether we are in favour of it. I had hoped that the report would have been fully accepted by the House and then implemented as soon as possible. That said, it is unlikely that any process would be entirely simple. As we have heard, some will continue to object to the idea of a retirement age and argue for life membership, while others will query the suggested retirement age, perhaps alongside additional creative ideas on how best to measure participation. But what we have here is a workable, sensible, well thought-through plan that will contribute to the reform of the House. We should seize it with both hands as a step towards much-needed further regulation of appointments to the House of Lords. In so doing, we would begin—I hope—to establish a leaner culture which would become an established convention which all involved in the recruitment process and the working of the House would respect: a House that is certainly smaller and in which all Members are committed to contributing to the work of the Lords. The non-legislative incremental changes put forward in this report would allow the House to exercise its much-valued self-regulation. However, as most speakers have touched on, the fundamental issue is that the recommendations are based on the assumption that the Prime Minister of the day would exercise restraint in the appointment of new Peers and co-operate in maintaining numbers below, say, 650. Should this not happen in the coming years, it is likely that the Government will enforce stringent legislative changes. These changes would not necessarily take into account party balance or dangers such as creating a cliff edge. In seeking a balance of numbers between the two major parties, there may need to be some constructive co-operation—not to say courage, at least on the part of the Whips, who will have to persuade some minimally contributing Peers to retire earlier than the rules require. As we have heard, the Cross Benches will be disproportionately affected by retirement rules, having an older age profile than other groups and due to the heavy losses of hereditary Peers. This diminution of what most consider and agree to be a valuable voice in the Lords may be further exacerbated by the extremely spare recruitment rate of independent Peers—approximately two per annum in recent years. Given that the HOLAC appointments system ensures an inflow of experts in fields often far from politics, as well as the growing need for expertise in technology areas that have not yet been established, there is a case for an increase in nominations to the Cross Benches. This report represents a genuine step forward and it should be embraced, so that arrangements for leaving can be matched by those addressing recruitment to the House of Lords.