Baroness Bull (CB)

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the committee and its chair for taking on the task and for its report, which I generally welcome. The size of the House was one of three rationales for reform in the 2024 manifesto, and I share the regret that the committee had no mandate to tackle what is surely the fundamental problem: any retirement measures we put in place will have limited effect on size without corresponding measures on the numbers that come in. The data since 2024 demonstrates this problem. When the manifesto described the Lords as too big, there were 785 eligible Members. Even with the removal of hereditary Peers, the Chamber today is bigger than it was then, and all but two of the new appointments arrived through prime ministerial patronage. I share concerns about the impact of age-based retirement on the balance of the House. The analysis already mentioned from Professor Meg Russell suggests that the Cross Benches will indeed be hit hardest, reduced by 61% by 2034. With no agreed formula for HOLAC appointments, the refreshing of these Benches will be dependent on the will of the party in power. Here, history gives little cause for optimism. The last five years have seen just eight HOLAC appointees. Does the Leader of the House agree that without a step change over the five years ahead, the valuable contribution of these Benches will be seriously diminished? We also need to be mindful of how age-based retirement impacts on the skills and the diversity of our membership. I firmly believe that this House will be fully effective only if it is fully diverse, and it is, without doubt, more diverse now than it has ever been. Yet, even with these advances, the combined effect of our procedures, our timetable and the allowance system still force an unhappy trade-off between socioeconomic diversity, age, regional background and attendance. Put simply, anyone who is in early to mid-career, needing to juggle income generation with family or caring responsibilities, had better live within the M25 if they are going to meet participation requirements, while simultaneously working enough hours to pay a mortgage, accrue a pension and be home in time to look after their dependants. That is before we even consider maternity leave, sick pay or paid parental leave—all statutory rights for most people of working age. The report acknowledges the impact of a participation requirement on Peers in early-stage careers or those who come from outside the south-east, but it is silent on the more complex issue of intersectionality. Yet this House needs Members who bring a range of overlapping backgrounds, identities and experiences. Intersectional representation broadens the range of perspectives that we bring to legislation and to policy. It enhances the effectiveness of our scrutiny and oversight. I fully support a requirement on participation, partly because, as a HOLAC appointee, like the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I always understood that fulfilling this role meant turning up and contributing, and partly because non-participation so seriously damages public perception of this House. We need to face up to the ways in which our processes and practices already create barriers to participation and then consider the impact of any changes, not just on diversity but on intersectionality. I welcome the report in as far as its remit allows it to go, but I end by circling back to the point on which I began. If this House is to play its part in fixing the mechanisms out, we should insist that the Government play their part and fix the mechanisms in.