Contribution
I will do, given a chance. The noble Lord, Lord True, when he was Leader of the Opposition, told me that his party opposed it, that it was not his party’s policy. I even offered and got support from the shadow Cabinet for the legislation and the noble Lord will confirm that it was rejected by the party opposite when it was in government. I was told that then Government did not want that policy. I did try. It would have been a better way forward, and I think this is a better way forward as well. Let the House make decisions.
On the need for legislation, I think the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, paraphrased the report very well when he addressed its comments. Does this House really believe that if there is a one-clause Bill to introduce a retirement age, they are not going to change that number when it goes to the other end, to the House of Commons? I think this House could take responsibility and show that we are able to do so. That was the reason I set up this committee. The size of the House is an issue, but the way to address it, as other noble Lords have said, is not just through a retirement age—I do not think that anybody thinks that will be the entirety of the way to address that.
I made the point a moment ago, and I have said it when we have looked at these issues before, including during the passage of the hereditary Peers Bill: this will be an opportunity for the House itself to bring forward proposals, to take action and to show that it can lead reforms rather than resist them. If this House wants to have influence on policy that affects it, the way to do so is to take action ourselves. I hope we will consider that. We have an opportunity here to do so.
The report before us has been genuinely led by the House. Over 100 Members submitted evidence to the committee and it has been interesting to listen to the views of the House today. I have been clear that I am listening to the debate. I have not yet responded to the report formally through the Government but will do so and take note of this debate as well.
I turn to the specifics of the report. The committee makes the point that, because Members of this House tend to be appointed later in their careers, with an average age at introduction of 59, it is entirely logical for our retirement age to be higher than in other professions. By striking the balance at the age of 80 by 2034, which is later than for judges, magistrates and our Bishops, we do not lose the benefit of a Peer’s experience prematurely, but we do address some of the concerns that have been raised and it allows us to bring in the new expertise and talent we need. I was particularly grateful to the committee for looking at transitional arrangements. The point that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, did not seem to take to was that this gives colleagues time to prepare. It will help Members know when they are likely to retire and address how we can bring in new Members.
On the comments from the Cross-Benchers, the 20% has never been formally recognised but I think it is a fair size for the Cross Benches. I would certainly support it, and I will talk to the convenor and others about it. I think nobody in this House would want to see the Cross-Benchers fall behind that kind of level, but certainty would help in trying to address the kind of skill set needed.
On the numbers of HOLAC Peers, I checked this earlier today and I was quite shocked. Two HOLAC Peers came in last year. The party opposite suggested that there must be more HOLAC-appointed Peers, so it is rather a surprise to find that in 2014, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020 and 2023 there were no HOLAC-appointed Peers. It is a matter for the Prime Minister, but clearly there has to be a much better allocation. The only reason I hesitate over 20% is, as I said before, the imbalance around the House. The House works better, as noted, if the party of government and the Opposition are roughly the same size. That is perfectly doable with a Cross Bench of around 20%, but it needs to be worked out with the Cross-Benchers and looking at the skills needed.