Contribution
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the typically energetic noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I enjoyed his contribution as ever. I am yet another to add my congratulations to the committee and particularly to its redoubtable chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, who must have been in a great sea of ideas, proposals and statistics but somehow managed to find the island of consensus in that. It was quite an achievement.
We had a major debate on House of Lords reform in November 2024. I advocated a transitional arrangement for the retirement age whereby only new Members were subject to it. I also advocated a participation rate of 10%, this number being set to take account of low-frequency, high-impact Members who, because of their professional careers, find it harder to attend. The report has come down in a slightly different place on both these issues. With a 20% participation rate, the Cross Benches and our larger number of low-frequency, high-impact Members would need to manage their attendances most carefully. I have looked at this a lot, and I assess it as being difficult but possible.
The first proposed mini-cliff edge on age of July 2029 is, in terms of managing the Bench strength of the House, frighteningly near. Appendix 5 makes it clear there could be 135 gaps. When one looks at the actual names, some of them bring great expertise and experience here, and we would need to replace that. Thinking on how to ensure that the House retains its necessary skill and experience base would need to start very soon. I and others therefore believe that the date of July 2029 could not wisely be brought closer.
I come to an issue peculiar to the Cross Benches—the supply of replacement Members for us. We receive today about two-thirds of our Members directly from the Prime Minister’s office and his list, as it were, and about one-third who begin in HOLAC. We today represent 19.4% of the House, so we are below the 20% which was the number suggested and accepted in the Burns process, which I think there is a logic behind. However, in the first tranche we will lose up to 37 Members in July 2029. Right at the start of this debate, we heard all the data and how significantly horrible it is for us in the excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for which I am very grateful. We therefore need a supply of replacements, and ensuring that we have appropriate new Members with appropriate skills and expertise will greatly benefit our House. HOLAC in particular has been very successful at finding good colleagues. I know it has many suitable applicants for whom there is no place. I look forward very much to the noble Baroness the Leader’s comments on this most important area for us and, I think, the House.
In that constitutional debate of November 2024, I described the Prime Minister’s prerogative as the biggest unfairness in all the various arrangements that we have in our House. The power of one person, the Prime Minister, irrespective of the size or state of their majority, to appoint as many Members as they like to this legislature, is outsized and without precedent in any other liberal democracy. At this time of challenged political stability, there is a very strong case for the revision of this prerogative so that it cannot be misused following a future general election. It is something of great importance to this House, to Parliament and to the country in general. I hope that we will hear some comments from the Leader. It is time to have a cross-party discussion about this without any preconditions.
I would be in favour of treading the path that the committee has outlined, acknowledging the legal risk that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, and other noble Lords have pointed out. However, there must be associated clarity on the Cross-Bench replacements and, most importantly, there must be action and discussion on the Prime Minister’s prerogative.