Contribution
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews.
It is worth reflecting on Ian Dunt’s comments on How Westminster Works and Why It Doesn’t:
“There is a place with a proud record of standing up to government. It works diligently and thanklessly to improve legislation. It applies expertise to policy. It seeks consensus. It is independent minded and rejects partisan point-scoring. It acts with a seriousness that is absent almost anywhere else in the political system. It is the House of Lords”.
Participation requirements would enhance that contribution. This is a job, not a status. We are legislators, so voting should count. However, as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. Ideas become refined by us being together, listening to and disagreeing courteously with each other.
Prospective Members should be informed before their appointment is finalised what sustained contribution to this House entails, and that it is expected from day one. Requiring retirement would, however, threaten what Dunt admires. The 2024 Labour manifesto said:
“Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament … Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy”.
It is peculiarly ageist to have a cut-off point at 80 when many octogenarians are contributing very substantially while some younger Peers, often by virtue of other significant responsibilities, are not. Declaring an interest, I, like many others, if this report were implemented, would be retiring in 2029. For me, declining cognitive and possibly physical ability might require retirement at some point, but not age. As long as I can contribute to society through my work here, I think I should. To him who has been given much, much will be expected.
As an aside, it is assumed that noble Lords leaning on the red Benches with their eyes closed are asleep when actually we have our ears to the speakers in the rosettes and are concentrating hard. Perhaps it is the sound system that is archaic and needs retiring, not those using it.
We are a self-regulating house. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, I have concerns about declining cognitive abilities that should be dealt with sensitively by party Whips or others with seniority who might ask trusted colleagues to initiate difficult conversations. They could encourage reduced participation, suggest retirement or even agree that a Peer will not speak. There is already subtle pressure in this House not to outstay one’s welcome. I hope someone would take me to one side if needed. I have seen this work: someone with a remarkable work history and a strong track record of contribution here began to show effects of dementia. A Peer they trusted gently suggested that they lay down their responsibilities, and they did. Any Peer might need this. Some 5% to 7% of dementia sufferers in the UK are aged below 65.
To reiterate, it is simply ageist to tie ability to age, but, more importantly, we are here to serve the country, not ourselves. Firing the over-80s disenfranchises the many octogenarians, nonagenarians and centenarians still contributing enormously to our society. The rigours of the Second World War are still in their hearts and bones. Their perspective is invaluable, and a nation that forgets its past is in danger of repeating its mistakes. David Attenborough is 100 and the late Queen died at 96, but there are many older men and women in more ordinary walks of life who still contribute enormously. One of the four centenarians in this year’s honours list received the BEM, indicating remarkable community service.
I appreciate the committee’s efforts to smooth the transition for existing Peers so that retirement is not suddenly forced upon them and the House is not suddenly bereft of subject expertise and experience. But even with the committee’s more gradualist plans, we have heard that almost 60% of Cross-Benchers would be gone by 2034.
I will end with Dylan Thomas, and I think my noble friend Lord True started with Dylan Thomas. We should not
“go gentle into that good night”
of auto-retirement. For those of us still in command of our faculties, still up for the job, “Old age should burn”, although maybe not rave, until “close of day”.