Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord True for his comments. I wish to take noble Lords back to 1969 or 1970. I think most of us in this House—although not all—can probably remember those times fairly clearly. We had two state-owned airlines: BEA and BOAC. They were state-owned airlines, so it was a closed shop if you wanted to join. The trade union representatives were all male. The cabin crew were a mixture, but only the male cabin crew had full-time contracts, in the sense of a career-type contract. I joined BEA, and I have my contract with me today; it is memorabilia. We had no seniority or prospect of promotion to be pursers. One of the key aspects of my employment contract was that there was an age limit. You had to leave either by the time you were 36 or after 10 years. If you left after serving five or 10 years, you would get £300 after five years and £600 after 10 years. If you served the full 10 years, you got an extra £150. The reality was that it was age discrimination. The employer I joined—I was very excited—was open to changing the contract, but my colleagues, the Transport and General Workers’ Union shop stewards, were wholly opposed to the stewardesses receiving an equalising contract. This resulted in my being elected as one of the first female shop stewards in BEA. It was not something I planned, but it happened. I rather enjoyed industrial relations, and I spent quite a few years afterwards being involved in industrial relations. By today’s standards, this was not only sexist but ageist, so we changed the rules and equalised our terms and conditions, and the rest is history. Let us fast forward to today. Five years ago, I was appointed to this House. I did not have a contract, but I had my Letters Patent from Her Majesty the Queen, which meant that I would be here until I died or decided to retire. However, within two years of the Labour Government being elected in 2024, they dispatched our hereditary Peers because of who their fathers were, despite the fact they were a diminishing number of colleagues in this House. I did not agree with that. Now we wish to impose an age limit on Members, including possibly looking at taking retrospective action on those who are already sitting in this House. Notwithstanding that, the Prime Minister recently appointed two Labour Peers aged 81 to this House. I find that quite interesting. That brings me to my conclusion. As has been clearly pointed out by my noble friend Lord Wolfson, we were appointed, and we should be able to remain in this House as long as we choose to, and as long as we contribute to this House. To do otherwise, based on age, is simply age discrimination. Here I am, at the end of my career, yet again in the hands, it appears, of the left, or a Labour Government who purport to stand against discrimination but have no compunction discriminating against Members of this House because of their age.