Baroness Eaton (Con)

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and her committee, for their work. As one of the House’s endangered species, being in the over-80 bracket, I was reluctant to put my name on the speakers’ list. Clearly, I have an interest in the outcome of the process. As the speakers’ list is sizeable, it is very unlikely that I will add anything new or exceptional to the debate. However, the more I pondered the issue for debate, the more I became unclear about the assumed problem that the supporters of the proposals are claiming and aiming to resolve. So I look forward very much to the Leader of the House responding to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Why are Peers aged over 80 perceived as such a problem? Institutional memory is vital. Those of us who have been involved in large institutions and organisations where we have seen a raft of senior figures leave or be removed know of the dangers that follow—the dangers of the constant reinventing of the wheel, as so often happens. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, raised the issue of discrimination. Age discrimination does not relate to mental capacity, health or ability to contribute. If any Members of your Lordships’ House develop issues of limited capacity, I understand that we have powers and caring ways of helping to resolve the issue, both for them and for the House. These mechanisms are already in existence. Members under 80 may also lose capacity. The scrutiny work of this House is vital. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, at Monday’s Second Reading, the other place is failing to thoroughly scrutinise much of the legislation it sends to us. Thorough scrutiny by this House is essential. I understand that 301 Peers will be reaching the age of 80 by 2029. This loss will have a serious destabilising effect on the Chamber. Committees will be underpopulated and the daily functioning of the House could be seriously disrupted. We are regularly told that as a nation we have an increasing elderly population. Surely the elderly need representation in this House. We, the elderly, have experience and understanding of the problems of being old. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, for his comments on diversity and inclusion, which were very appropriate in this context. I have heard many speakers who disagree, but it is still not certain why these proposals are perceived as necessary. If the aim is to have a smaller House, why not use participation in the Chamber and the contribution made to the working of the House to guide such decisions? I look forward to hearing the Leader of the House’s responses.