Lord Sikka (Lab)

My Lords, I support some of the committee’s suggestions but not others. I have never knowingly supported discrimination based on gender, race, religion, disability or age and will not support a mandatory retirement age of 80 for Members of this House. There are excellent Members of that age and above who have brought unparalleled wisdom and experience to this House. It is worth noting that the UK does not have a general retirement age. Though we have a state pension age, the two are not the same. There is no mandatory retirement age for an MP, Prime Minister, Head of State, councillor, company director or mayor. People can continue in office for as long as they can discharge their duties. Therefore, the introduction of one retirement age for Members of this House is inappropriate. Yes, there is a maximum retirement age for judges and magistrates, but the crucial difference is that in most cases they make decisions as individuals, whereas Members in this House make decisions collectively. Some have argued that forced retirement at 80 will help to renew this House while bringing in younger Peers. There is no barrier to that and it is good to see younger Peers in this House. Some complain that we have too many Peers, but that has not prevented parties appointing new ones. I have no problem with a 20% attendance requirement as a condition for continued membership of this House. However, I wonder who will be sending reminders to Members of how close they are to the 20% threshold and what the scenes will be in the last chance saloon. I can understand the committee’s difficulties in grappling with a possible requirement to ask for participation instead of attendance. Participation depends on potluck in the ballots and whether the Bills fall within noble Lords’ area of expertise. During Oral Questions, Members can bob up and down but may not catch the Government Whip’s eye. Some may wish to be a member of a committee but may not be favoured by the party Whip and be silenced. Ultimately, we need to distinguish working Peers from the rest, and as an emeritus professor, I like the concept of an emeritus Peer—there is a kind of symmetry to it. The reform that I really wish to see is unfortunately beyond the remit of the committee—the replacement of this House by an elected Chamber. In the 21st century, we should not have an unelected Chamber of political appointees, with reserved seats for clergy from just one religious denomination. Other countries have two elected chambers of Parliament, and we should learn from their experiences. This possible reform raises complex constitutional issues and needs broad and prolonged public conversations. The last thing we need is a clone of the House of Commons, where ruling parties over the years have curtailed debates and leaders have silenced critical voices by banishing dissenters altogether. It is also unacceptable to have both Houses under the control of one party, and its Members must not be on the payroll of private interests either. Therefore, I urge the Government to begin the process of a meaningful reform of the House of Lords and bring proposals forward so that we can make the desired constitutional change as soon as possible.