Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con)

My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will recognise how delighted I was to see that I was to be the final Back-Bench contributor to this long debate. However, my claim to fame may have been pinched by my noble friend Lady Hooper, who will be speaking in the gap. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this debate following my service on the committee. I thank my fellow committee members, our chair—the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton—and the excellent House of Lords team who supported the committee during its deliberations. I approached my contribution to the committee’s task wearing a collaborative hat. Nevertheless, it is important to establish that this collaborative view was taken on the basis of the task that had been set out by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. The committee was created to come up with a feasible alternative to the Government’s manifesto commitment to introduce a retirement age of 80 and to create a new level of participation, and we have done exactly that. To make my own position clear, I would not wish to see the introduction of any retirement age. Many Peers over 80 years of age make a valuable contribution to the work of the House, as has been demonstrated in this debate. Equally, I did not support the changes to the hereditary Peers serving in your Lordships’ House, another manifesto commitment, but that argument was lost. Reforming this House requires care. However, care, as I have had to remind myself, should not become an excuse for inaction. The public are entitled to expect us to examine our own arrangements with the seriousness that we bring to legislation affecting everyone else. For me, the test was straightforward: would these changes impact the ability of the House to carry out its work effectively while strengthening confidence in the institution? The committee’s principal retirement proposal is an age limit of 80, phased in for existing Members from 8 July 2029. The initial threshold would be 85, falling annually until it reaches 80 in July 2034. That timetable would apply irrespective of when the next general election is held. As my noble friend Lord Wolfson said, there is an important distinction in implementation. For existing Members, the committee proposes a resolution expressing the House’s expectation that they should retire. This would depend on co-operation from Members and party groups, but it would not override the statutory rights of noble Lords. New Members would be given a written undertaking before receiving their peerage to retire by their 80th birthday. Breaching that undertaking could then attract sanctions, including expulsion. We should be candid about what this means. If the House chooses a system founded on co-operation, each of us must take responsibility for making it work. Agreeing a resolution would be the beginning of that responsibility. I also recognise that retirement is a deeply personal matter. A Member may have devoted decades to public service and still feel capable of contributing. Any change should therefore be implemented with dignity. We can uphold a common rule while still expressing gratitude to those affected by it. The second main proposal concerns participation: attendance on at least 20% of sitting days averaged over two Sessions. This requirement would be implemented through Standing Orders, using existing statutory sanctioning powers, with expulsion for failure to comply. Members on leave of absence would be exempt, and exceptional circumstances would be considered through a separate process. I would hope that anyone accepting a place in your Lordships’ House does so with an ambition to contribute substantially. Equally, we should ask whether our rules allow someone with valuable experience to combine parliamentary service with continuing responsibilities elsewhere. A doctor, an employer or a charity leader may bring particular insight, precisely because they remain engaged in that work. The challenge is to secure a dependable commitment while preserving that connection. Alongside these changes, the committee’s report deals with capacity issues and raises concerns about Members on leave of absence retaining access without registering financial interests. Finally, the report cautions that departures will not reduce the size of the House if they simply enable additional appointments. That point deserves a clear response from His Majesty’s Government. Members who are being asked to accept changes to their own service should be able to see how those changes contribute to a coherent approach to the future of your Lordships’ House. I support taking these proposals forward. They are perhaps the start of a process. Their success, however, will depend on clear rules, fair administration and a willingness to honour the commitments we make. We have an opportunity to demonstrate that this House can address difficult questions about its own future responsibility, and, in my view, we should take this opportunity. If we decide not to take it, it will leave the Government entirely free to implement their manifesto pledge to introduce a retirement age of 80 by primary legislation. They would have every right to do so, and could do so under the Salisbury convention.