Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his very kind words—totally undeserved but very kind. I very much support this report and its recommendations. As we have a manifesto commitment, it seems to me extremely difficult to go behind it. I am well over the age of 80, so the proposed staggering of the exits of over-80s seems to me entirely sensible; others will have to work out what happens with the loss of Cross-Benchers. I hope the Leader of the House will bear in mind how diminished we are going to be. This will of course affect a number of people coming in late. As the last speaker pointed out, we had two Labour Peers coming in over the age of 80 very recently. It will particularly affect the judiciary, who come in any time over 70, and many at 75, which is the retirement age. As has already been said, many of the judiciary chair committees and have a useful function in this House, and we are very short of judicial Peers at this moment. There is an idea that we do not have to leave, which is perfectly true—quite clearly, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, is right—but I feel that if we are not wanted, we ought to go. I am much more concerned about participation. The peerage, it seems to me, is the gateway for working in this House, and I think that we really ought to consider whether there should be two sorts of Peers, quite apart from the Peers who do not sit here anyway. I can talk about the first sort, because it happened to me. I happen to have come through HOLAC, and the only question I was asked was, “If you get it, will you turn up?”, to which I said yes—and so I do today. But I believe, and I spoke to the Leader of the House about this some years ago, that there should be another sort of Peer appointed, at the head of the honours system. That Peer would not sit in this House: it would be an honour. But any Peer who is asked to sit in this House really ought to be required to say, “I will not come in unless I am actually going to work”. I do not know whether that happens today. It certainly happens through HOLAC, but I suspect it does not happen through the patronage at No. 10. I would like to see these two sorts of Peers, and I just wonder whether there is any chance that might come about. I believe that a degree of self-denial by Prime Ministers would help enormously to reduce the House and would be much preferable to the present system, and I have to say that I was very disturbed, and remain so, by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar. I think it should be reflected on by this House and possibly discussed again at No. 10. The final thing I want to say is that I oppose legislation. I think this House has to work it out. If we have legislation, it will open the gates in the House of Commons and we do not know what might happen—it could be extremely dangerous for this House.