Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and her committee for their report and the thoughtful way in which they have approached the subject, on which there are, unsurprisingly, strongly held views. There is much in the report that I agree with: membership of this House should carry responsibilities, and the public are entitled to expect active participation from those entrusted with the role. However, I am less convinced that the proposals before us address the wider questions facing this House. My assumption is that the purpose of introducing a retirement age is at least in part to address concerns about the size and composition of your Lordships’ House. Indeed, the Labour Party’s manifesto argued that because appointments are for life, the second Chamber has become too large and it committed to introducing a mandatory retirement age. If that remains the Government’s objective, I would welcome some clarity from the Leader of the House in response to this debate. Is the primary purpose of a retirement age to reduce the size of the House? If that is the objective, I struggle to see how retirement alone will achieve it. The committee makes that point. It notes that increasing departures from a retirement age will not reduce the size of the House if those departures are used simply as opportunities to make additional appointments. It also observes that focusing only on departures and not arrivals will have limited effects. I think the committee is right. The unlimited power of the Prime Minister to appoint whomever they wish to a job for life cannot be ignored. For many years, proposals such as those contained in the Burns report have recognised that reducing the size of the House requires restraint in appointments. Without some mechanism to manage inflow, we risk treating the symptoms while leaving the underlying problem unresolved. I confess to some disappointment that the committee did not look more favourably on the idea of term limits, although I was pleased to hear the support for them from a committee member, the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos. We should think seriously about the principle that no parliamentary position should be held indefinitely. Being a Member of this House should not be something that we cling to for life. We have failed in our duty if we have not encouraged, mentored and prepared the next generation or the next expert to contribute more effectively than we ever could. I say this as someone who, under the committee’s recommendations, would be retiring in 2076. Regular renewal is healthy. Fresh perspectives are healthy. Term limits would also create a culture in which Members know that their time is finite. That encourages people to participate, contribute and make a positive impact. Quite frankly, I do not think that positions for life are a particularly healthy principle in a modern democracy. On participation, I welcome the committee’s recognition that the current threshold is too low and that reform is needed. The proposed requirement is a step forward, but I emphasise that this is a small improvement rather than a transformational one. Participation matters, but participation requirements alone will not address the deeper questions that continue to surround this House. The new Prime Minister described this House as “scandalous” during his recent by-election. I therefore look forward to seeing what is presented by the Prime Minister. As noble Lords know, I have a strong interest in wider reforms of your Lordships’ House. I have a Private Member’s Bill due for Second Reading later this year to explore the next stage of the Government’s manifesto commitment to replace the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber. While I welcome this report and the practical transitional recommendations it contains, I hope that the Leader of the House can clarify how the Government believe that these proposals will achieve the objectives set out in Labour’s manifesto. If the intention is to reduce the size of the House and strengthen public confidence, what measures will accompany retirement and participation requirements to address appointments and membership as a whole? I look forward to hearing the rest of this very interesting debate and to my retirement in 2076.