Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne got to the nub of the question when he asked what all this is for. The answer, at least in part, is as a result of a certain squeamishness. Cognitive decay is cruel and age, as we all know, affects all of us unequally. This retirement proposal is not just about reducing the numbers in this House. At its heart, it seeks to remove those who might, in the colourful words of my noble friend Lord Hamilton, have “lost their marbles”. A retirement age of 80 is really a measure to avoid a hard conversation. While I approve of avoiding awkward conversations, the cost is too high. The loss of expertise and experience would gravely damage the work of this House. Therefore, would a capacity test not be a better measure and allow us to avoid an arbitrary deadline at the age of 80? Consideration of that has been hinted at in other speeches from noble Lords this evening. No doubt such a test of capacity—following the measures that were permitted by this House to be added to the hereditary peers Act—could be conducted with humanity and kindness by the House authorities and, dare I say it, by the Whips. This is an answer that warrants careful consideration. One last point relates to a bugbear of mine. There can be no such thing as a “Peer emeritus”. We have no monopoly on the title “Lord”. Since at least the Acts of Union of 1707 there have been two categories of Peers: parliamentary and non-parliamentary. From 1707 to 1963, the Scottish Peerage elected 16 from among themselves to attend this House. The rest of those Scottish Peers were non-parliamentary. Similarly, from 1801, only 28 of the Irish peerage were sent here to serve in this House. The rest were non-parliamentary Peers. As a result of the iniquitous legislation passed by the Government, all hereditary Peers are now non-parliamentary Peers, unless they have the good fortune also to hold a life peerage. That category of non-parliamentary Peers now includes all life Peers who have retired from this House under the provisions of the 2014 Act. I can therefore reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that the Lord Privy Seal is entirely right—as is often the case—when she says that those who are not Members of this House are entitled to vote and they are still entitled to use the title that they have been given by the Crown in accordance with their Letters Patent, as is right and proper. This has been the case for many centuries, especially if they are still on the Roll of the Peerage.