Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Blencathra

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, because it allows us to debate a very important subject. It is important on two counts, as we heard in the debate: first, on the constitutional issue, and, secondly, on the merits or demerits of amalgam—and some powerful speeches were made pointing out how dangerous it can be. It has allowed us to hear an excellent opening address from the Minister.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, on two counts, the first being her assurance, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Weir, that we will finish by 7 pm. Of course, this being Northern Ireland business, I was betting on 6.55 pm. The second count is that Peers from Northern Ireland have raised the important constitutional question. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, that I do not find this tedious at all. I am afraid I share his view that, sooner or later, this is going to come to a crunch. We have yet another regulation before us here which will slowly drive a wedge between our United Kingdom and our Northern Ireland.

I had no idea about the poppies issue. I Google searched it after the noble Baroness mentioned it, and I was appalled to find that she is absolutely right—EU interference with selling poppies in Northern Ireland.

We on these Benches recognise the importance of reducing mercury use in line with the Minamata convention. We do not oppose the principle of this instrument. However, it is right that we probe the Government on how it has been implemented, particularly regarding dental amalgam and its replacement, as my noble friends have discussed.

Northern Ireland, as we know, has been granted a longer-term transition period, allowing the continued import and use of amalgam until 2034 to avoid disruption to dental services. Apart from my noble friend Lord Reay, most Members in the House seem to agree that the extension is sensible while we look for workable alternatives. What engagement has taken place with dental practitioners in Northern Ireland? How will the Government monitor the practical impacts of divergence between Northern Ireland and Great Britain? How will any future decision under the Minamata convention affect this timeline?

We note the British Dental Association’s concerns about cost and capacity. Amalgam, it says, is a widely used and affordable material, and replacing it too quickly, without proper support, could worsen access issues. My noble friend Lord Bourne also wanted reassurance on that point. On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Reay, in a very powerful speech, pointed out the severe dangers of mercury amalgam and that alternatives were available already—almost as cheap and better.

I simply do not know. I will not say that finding the answer is like pulling teeth—there is no time for silliness—but the Government ought to know. If the Government do not know now, hopefully in the next few years they will. Will we be able, before 2034, to find for the whole United Kingdom—not just Northern Ireland but the whole United Kingdom—a reasonably cheap alternative to dental amalgam?

We do not oppose this instrument, but we urge the Government to remain alert to its impact on front-line services to ensure that both patients and practitioners in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom are properly supported. I urge the Government, as soon as possible, to work with those developing alternatives to make sure that a replacement is available to Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as soon as practicable.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I was tempted to make a joke about filling the gap in the noble Lord’s information, given what we are talking about. Noble Lords are aware that I am passionate about Northern Ireland, and there are many issues that I thoroughly enjoy talking about with Members of your Lordships’ House. I did not realise that dental amalgam was going to be one of them, so noble Lords will have to bear with me.

I am very aware of people’s travel arrangements for this evening, so I will be short and sweet, but I will reflect on Hansard in case I have missed anyone’s comments. I also hope that my noble friend Lady Hayman is getting better, but I am not sure that watching your Lordships’ House is going to assist in that, so I hope she is having chicken soup and lying in bed.

Many points have been raised, and I will try to cover them all. There are some on which I would like to reassure noble Lords. On others, I think it might be helpful to Members of your Lordships’ House if I offered a meeting to discuss the constitutional aspects of this with regard to the Windsor Framework, because as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, highlighted, we have a constitutional issue here and we also have the SI at hand.

I will try to touch on many issues for reassurance, but noble Lords are aware that this is not the first, nor will it be the last, time that we talk about the effectiveness of the Windsor Framework and where some of the challenges are. I would very much welcome the opportunity to have further conversations on it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, touched on the fact that pressure was placed through discussions in Parliament and elsewhere to make sure that this issue was raised. In fact, the noble Baroness had the benefit of being the first person to table a Question of this Government on any issue, and it was on this issue on our first day out. I thought I was going to have my first outing as Northern Ireland spokesperson talking about this issue; it turns out I was not first, but I was not going to escape.

Turning to the specific concerns that were raised, I want to put noble Lords’ minds at rest about poppies. They are available to be bought, with additional materials, and are freely available in Northern Ireland. As noble Lords are aware, I would be horrified if people could not purchase them.

The EU Commission notice was touched on. The Government have considered all our obligations in developing this SI, including the nature of the notice. The arrangements are already in effect and have been since January this year. The SI strengthens the enforcement measures, and we are comfortable with where we are; the SI gives it further practicalities.

On enforcement, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency—an executive agency of DAERA—will keep accurate records of all regulatory and enforcement action undertaken, along with information provided by Northern Ireland’s Department of Health. This will enable assessment, over time, of the impact of the prohibitions and exemptions on Northern Ireland.

I also assure both the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the other Members of your Lordships’ House who raised this issue that there will be no guards on the border checking people’s teeth. I know that that was a concern, but I assure noble Lords that it will not be how enforcement of this is done.

Dental tourism and members of the republic using these services was raised by several noble Lords. Republic of Ireland patients will not be entitled to NHS dentistry, and residency needs to be proven. People will still be able to access their dentist in Northern Ireland in the same way as they did before non-amalgam fillings, as they can in the Republic of Ireland, but not via the NHS.

The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and several noble Lords asked about dental amalgam and what the Government are doing to improve dental services. State-funded healthcare is a devolved matter and responsibility of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments. I was pleased to see the Northern Ireland Government announce an extra £7 million for dentistry services this year, but we are working together on both the issues that dentists currently face and these issues.

On the proposed updates to mercury regulations in Great Britain and what action is being taken in the UK to reduce mercury use, the UK will be laying legislation this year to prohibit the import, export and manufacture in Great Britain of a number of products containing intentionally added mercury. These products will also be phased out in Northern Ireland by the EU mercury regulations. The legislation will prohibit several mercury-containing products.

I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, as I realise that some of her issues interlay with others. The health impacts of the continued use of dental amalgam were touched upon. Dental amalgam is a well-established, safe and effective dental filling material. There is no evidence that amalgam fillings cause any harm to the health of dental patients. However, mercury, when released into the environment in large volumes, can cause harm and this is carefully managed by the UK to reduce any environmental impact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. This is not a specific Northern Ireland point, but we heard a fairly powerful speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who said that Germany has introduced an alternative that it is only marginally more expensive than mercury amalgam. My noble friend, Lord Reay, made the point that mercury should be banned immediately because of this alternative. Will the Minister raise with the Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care that we want a statement on these alternatives? Is the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, right? Is my noble friend right? Do we have to wait 10 years before we have a replacement? We really could do with a statement from the Department of Health on the work that is currently happening on alternatives, such as that in Germany.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. I will raise that with my colleagues in the Department of Health. Some of these discussions are genuinely active as part of the negotiations at COP next week. We cannot withdraw dental amalgam without having cost-effective alternatives, as I would hope these alternatives are.

As ever, it is a privilege to spend time talking about the impact of legislation on Northern Ireland. I am grateful that everyone has stayed on a Thursday evening to discuss it with us, and I wish everyone safe travels.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Blencathra

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

To reassure noble Lords, the Government remain committed to strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced Members can be removed. Our position on this amendment has not changed, not least given that it is not a matter for the Bill.

It may be helpful to the House if I briefly set out the current arrangements regarding expulsion. There are two routes of suspension. At the moment, under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, a Member of the House ceases to be a Member if the Lord Speaker certifies that they are convicted of a serious offence—that is, they are convicted of a criminal offence and given a non-suspended prison sentence of more than a year.

Where a Member receives a prison sentence but not one long enough to engage the 2014 Act, the provisions of the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 and Standing Orders will be engaged. Under these, a Member who has received a prison sentence of any length is deemed to have breached the Code of Conduct and may be referred to the Conduct Committee, which in turn may recommend a sanction up to and including expulsion from the House. The current statutory framework is a tightly bound one, where only Peers who have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment can be subject to the sanction of suspension, either on an automatic basis or by engaging the 2015 Act and the provisions in Standing Orders.

The noble Lord’s amendment, in setting the threshold at indictment, would have the effect of bringing into scope a much wider array of offences with significantly varying degrees of seriousness and sentencing. I would question whether that is necessarily the appropriate threshold for expulsion and whether this sanction should not be reserved for the most serious of offences.

The Government are committed to ensuring that those who work in public life maintain high standards of ethics and propriety, not just in this House, but across all public servants and officeholders.

As the House will be aware, the Conduct Committee has only recently concluded its review of the Code of Conduct, which made several recommendations relating to the process following a Peer being convicted of a criminal offence. Therefore, it would be right for the House to allow these changes to bed in before considering what further changes may be needed. But we are open to the idea of pursuing this further in the Conduct Committee.

Given that the hour is late, I plan on finishing my comments there, but I am happy to continue discussions outside your Lordships’ House on this area. I therefore respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I do not think the Minister answered the question of my noble friend. What do the Government have in mind when they talk about strengthening the ways of getting rid of disgraced Members? What sort of offences would those be?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I am ever so sorry: I thought I had answered the question. We are working with the Conduct Committee to bed in what has just been changed and to see if further change is required after we have seen whether the most recent changes have worked.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her response. In view of what she has said, let us hope that the changes that the Conduct Committee has proposed are effective. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Blencathra

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I fear I have been set a challenge by my Leader to try to get Andrew Lloyd Webber’s lyrics into my speech, but with very little notice, so no one is going to cry for me today.

Before I start, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, a very happy birthday. I am sure he could think of no better way to spend his birthday than to be in a debate with your Lordships.

Since I joined in 2022, one of my favourite parts of being a Member of your Lordships’ House is the fact that every week I learn something. The calibre of debate in your Lordships’ Chamber is exceptional. When I am asked about it by my friends—who do not necessarily follow our debates as much as they should, although I believe my mother now watches every one—I suggest that, at least once a month, I have the privilege of listening to my own version of a Reith lecture. That is the quality of the debate that we have in this House, from those who the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, highlighted as high impact, and from noble Lords across your Lordships’ House. It is a privilege to be part of it, and I welcomed very much that part of the debate.

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. The debate on this topic has been valuable and insightful. I am aware that the next group of amendments looks at different ways of devising a framework for the changes that have been discussed, so I will try to keep my remarks brief and confined to the attendance requirements outlined.

From debates that we have had in the past, as well as the one we have had today, it is clear that there is broad agreement that Members should attend and participate in the core functions of this House. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, highlighted, that looks very different internally and externally when it comes to quality and the demands that we may make on each other.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for sharing his data with the Committee and the Government, particularly my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal. It has provided a structure for the conversations that we are having.

As noble Lords will be aware, there are existing measures to remove Peers who fail to attend the House once during a Session, and this Government have indicated their intention to go further in relation to requiring participation. Although this Bill is not the right vehicle to make such a change, this debate has been very helpful in examining the ways in which it might be achieved.

There is rightly a public expectation—and, having listened to the debate today, an expectation among your Lordships—about how Members should contribute. That is why we are developing a new participation requirement, a process which could include looking at the attendance of Peers. It is my hope that we can work together across your Lordships’ House to define what this new participation requirement should look like and how often Members should attend. There are genuine arguments about the quality of attendance and participation, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, highlighted. The range of amendments tabled on this topic and those in the next group, which considers other forms of participation, demonstrates that, although we are not at that point yet, we are focused on finding some agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, stated in his opening remarks, not even he has a firm view.

The amendments that we are debating in this group all identify attendance as the metric through which to judge a Member’s contributions to this place. As we will see when we come to debate the group of amendments concerned with participation, attendance is not the only way in which contributions could be measured. Is a simple requirement to attend the House for a certain amount of time, as proposed in the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Lucas, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, a reasonable measure of participation, or should we be more specific about the type of activities that need to be undertaken? I will refrain from pre-empting the later debate on this point, but this will be an important matter to consider when we look to clarify what is expected of Members of this House.

Before we consider the means by which we introduce a new participation requirement, I suggest that we should think not about the previous attendance records of the current membership, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has suggested in his amendments, but about a long-term solution that is fair to Members. A priority is to ensure clarity on what the right and expected level of participation is, whether it be attendance or some more specific contribution, and to ensure that this is adhered to in the future.

Briefly, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for the series of amendments that he has tabled to further shape the proposals for an enhanced attendance requirement. He has made a number of sensible suggestions that should be considered when addressing the matter of participation, such as whether a Member is on an agreed leave of absence. Any work on this area will need to include reasonable exceptions, such as those identified by the noble Viscount. There is a question about the implementation of any enhanced attendance requirement: should the requirement be comprehensively set out in legislation, or should the detail be left to this House to decide and subsequently set out in our Standing Orders, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas?

I will briefly address the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on the commencement of the Bill—Amendments 101E to 101G. I addressed these amendments during Monday’s debate. They would bring forward removal of the hereditary Peers to Royal Assent of this Bill, and make the noble Lord’s other amendments subject to a further resolution of the House, potentially delaying the measures indefinitely should both amendments be successful. The Government cannot support this change to the commencement of the Bill. The arrangements currently set out seek to balance the timely delivery of a manifesto commitment that promised an immediate reform, while not undermining the business of the House. As I have previously noted, they follow the approach set in the 1999 Act.

It is clear that the Committee wants to discuss this issue, and we welcome the suggestions that have been brought forward as part of that. There is positive momentum behind ensuring that there are clear expectations of Members, but this Bill is not the right vehicle to introduce this change. I therefore respectfully request that noble Lords do not press their amendments.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to every noble Lord who has taken part in this debate. Again, as with retirement ages on Monday, we might be seeing some consensus on the proposals from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, supported by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I will very briefly rocket through the comments of some of those who have spoken.

I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham on retrospectivity. Others made that point as well and I think it would be possibly better. Well, the House would never approve that in any case—any changes would be for the future. He also made the point that there is a danger that a threshold would cause Peers to come in to speak just to get past the threshold.

The noble Earl, Lord Devon, with his idea of 10% of sitting days in the future, may be on to a winner. Of course, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, again supported that. It was a very good point about the Writ of Summons. It is not something that occurred to me—that the Writ of Summons would suggest that we should attend more frequently than some noble Lords do. I think my noble friend Lord Dundee also said no retrospectivity, and he also supported the 10% agreement in future.

My noble friend Lord Astor said there is a danger that it would encourage people just to turn up. And what about those brilliant young men and women, the executives, who could not afford to do 15 days per annum? I say to my noble friend that a threshold of 15 days per annum is not too high for brilliant whizz-kid young executives. If they boast about doing 18 hours a day in the City, I am sure they could manage to turn up here for 15 days per annum.

Oh—I am sorry. I should say, first and most importantly, a happy birthday to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, was highly supportive of a minimum threshold level, but I suspect that his strong support from the Lib Dems will not enamour him to my noble friends behind and around me. Nevertheless, he did say that we would need future legislation on this. I say to the noble Lord and other noble Lords: look at my Amendment 32, coming up later, because there I see that, in order to avoid future legislation, we can take a special delegated power, a regulation, to make any amendments the House decides in future without further Acts.

My noble friend Lord Strathclyde also said no retrospectivity, and I think he supported 10% as well. My noble friend Lord Trenchard suggested about 15%, so long as the House does not change its sitting hours, and that is a valid point. My noble friend Lord Hannan made a brilliant speech as usual—tremendous rhetoric—and I agree entirely with him. Having 850 Peers on the books is not a real problem, and it is not a problem if only 450 turn up regularly and the others do not come. They are not claiming any money and there is no cost to the system. But the reason we are here, I say again, is that the Government say it is a problem. The Government say there are far too many Peers. The Government want rid of Peers and their solution is to get rid of 88 hereditaries, 70 of whom do turn up. I suggest it is better, if we want to reduce the numbers, to do it through the measure I propose here.

My noble friend Lord Dobbs supports the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and says that the Government should reach out across the House to try to reach agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Sentamu, criticised having these amendments to the Bill—but, as I said at the start, it is perfectly legitimate to amend any Bill. The Government have drafted it very narrowly. They do not have to draft it narrowly; it is legitimate to amend it.

My noble friend Lord Bellingham again supported the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. He liked the idea of excluding those who do not turn up for six months at a time, following the Local Government Bill. It is an idea to be explored. My noble friend Lord Bethell said that parliamentarians need to appreciate—he thanked me kindly for raising this concept—that it is right that Peers do turn up.

My noble friend Lady Lawlor said that the Government should seek consensus across the House. I am grateful that my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay said he found the Excel spreadsheets useful. He made a brilliant and witty speech. But I am not quite sure what percentage he would recommend to the House. If I missed that, I am sure I will be corrected later on. He played a very careful sitting-on-the-fence game, which is an important political skill.

As for the Minister, I like her generally warm welcome for the concept of a threshold, and I think she was being very honest and sensible in saying that. Of course, she says it is not for this Bill. Again, I refer her and noble Lords to my Amendment 32, which may solve that problem.

So I am pleased to have tabled these amendments and I take credit for two things. I think my amendments have provoked and prompted better amendments from some other noble Peers, and of course the Excel spreadsheets have given us all something of substance to talk and argue about. Without those spreadsheets, we would be talking in vague generalities.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Blencathra

Committee stage
Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I was just going to touch on that point. As the noble Lord mentioned during his contribution, as always, the content of our Standing Orders is a matter for your Lordships’ House.

Bearing all this in mind, I respectfully ask that noble Lords do not press their amendments.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, we always say, “This has been an interesting debate”, and when I put down these amendments I expected it to be a fascinating debate, which it was. The Government always complain that this is a narrowly focused Bill, so why on earth are we talking about these other issues? It is because it was in the Labour Party manifesto. It is a narrowly drawn Bill only because, politically, they decided to make it a narrowly drawn Bill. It does not have to be that narrowly drawn.

My noble friend Lord Hailsham, in supporting my amendment that colleagues should retire at 85, made the valid point that we experience decay and that we are now getting a bit out of date on the things that we were expert in a few years ago. I like the idea from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, of retirement at 80 years old or after 10 years of service, whichever is the later. That is an interesting idea and it would permit Peers aged over 70 to get a 10-year term in here. My noble friend Lord Dundee supported an age of 90. He made a good case, but I am afraid we would not convince those on the outside that it was a serious measure to retire at 90.

My noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay made an intriguing point about reducing the age to 16, to match the age at which people may become MPs. God help us if we have MPs aged 16. I am glad I will not be in the House of Commons if that ever happens.

My noble friend Lord Dobbs supported the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I liked his “full stop” quote; will I have to pay him royalties if I ever use it again, him being a great novelist? The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in supporting the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said that 80 is still very high for most organisations and that people retired a lot earlier than that, but I liked the point he made about transitional arrangements and allowing new Members to come in.

My noble friend Lord Attlee said that what matters is having active Peers, and that many over the age of 85 are highly active. I agree. I am privileged to serve on the Council of Europe. While I was in Georgia observing its elections a few months ago in my wheelchair, and going through a mob who were trying to ruffle us up and sabotage our vehicle, I felt quite active for a 72 year-old, as I did on a committee where the noble Lords, Lord Griffiths and Lord Foulkes, were considerably older than me—I believe they are in their 80s. They are also highly active Members. I accept that you can be over the age of 80, 85 or 90 and still be active here.

The noble Lord, Lord Burns, made an intriguing point that if we had a retirement age of 85 it would reduce numbers considerably in the first fell swoop, but it would have a diminishing effect afterwards. That will be the case if we continue stuffing in new Peers. He suggested that we could lower the age at a future time. I suggest he looks at my Amendment 32, which we will come to later, which makes that case. It sets up a procedure whereby if we decide that the age is wrong, we can tweak it with a statutory instrument rather than further primary legislation.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Hannan that it is the quality that matters, not the age, but the Government want to reduce the size of the Lords and they have chosen to throw out the hereditaries. I merely suggest in my amendments that a better way to do that would be to have a retirement age. I agree with my noble friend Lord Goschen that Peers of all ages make a valuable contribution. He asked the legitimate question, which my noble and learned friend Lord Keen also asked: will the Government explain why they have adopted this age of 80 as retirement?

I too will wish the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, well if he is here on Wednesday. I am not sure whether he drinks, but I will happily buy him a glass of champagne to celebrate a marvellous birthday. But the noble Lord, Lord Newby, made a good point that it might be in the interest of some Members to retire. Occasionally we see colleagues come into this House and I always say, “I hope my Chief Whip will tell me to get out at once if I get that far gone and poor”.

My noble and learned friend Lord Keen made the valid point that the age of 90 is a bit too late. It is a public confidence thing. Yes, some colleagues perform well in their 90s, but it is not credible to the outside public that we have people making legislation which affect their daily lives at that age.

The Minister said that more discussion is necessary before action. When will we get that action? When will we get the consultation paper on reducing the age limit to 80 or 85? We need it, but we get the feeling it has been kicked into the long grass.

I end as I began. The Government say that this is a very narrowly focused Bill, but it does not have to be. They are trying to reject the amendments that we have suggested, and the others to come, because they do not fit into the mode of getting rid of hereditary Peers. The Bill could easily be extended in a few little areas to include the issues we have discussed in Committee.

Before Report, I hope we can get some traction on two issues: retirement at 85, which some of us have suggested; and the suggestions by the noble Earls, Lord Devon and Lord Kinnoull, for transitional arrangements of about 80 and a 10-year time limit for new Lords coming in, and the suggestions by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, that we can tweak the age down, perhaps starting at 85 and a few years later lowering it to 80—I think there could be traction in that.

I hope that noble Lords will get together with better brains than mine and decide what we want to run with on Report to try to get something that may get the support of a majority of Members in this House. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 16.