Retirement and Participation Committee Report

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Wednesday 16th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton and all members of the committee who took part in the deliberations and carefully considered the issues. Many doubted that, in the time that was allocated, they could come back to this House with a proposal and some consensus on a workable way forward. It is only through the diligent work they have undertaken that this report is before us today, and we should be grateful to them—I think all noble Lords, bar one, did thank them for their work. They listened to a broad range of views, as I have done tonight. The Government welcome the approach they have taken and the spirit in which their report was produced. We have seen past attempts at reform of this place, and consensus often feels quite elusive. We should recognise that this report has found a way through that, and that all members of the committee agreed with it.

I have been very interested to listen to all the contributions that have been made. This is, of course, a valuable revising and scrutinising Chamber filled with expertise and dedication to public service. However, the expectations of our Members are not just about their experience and expertise but about their judgment borne from their life experience—we do not ask Members with experience to take part only in debates on the area they know the most about; we have them here for their judgment.

I referenced our manifesto. I think the Labour manifesto at the last election was the first manifesto of which I am aware that explicitly recognised the good work of many Peers who improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, asked me about form following function. We are not dealing with the function of the House of Lords; we are happy with it. The criticism comes from how we are perceived and the way we are constituted. Looking at these issues over the years, we have produced and debated numerous reports—the Wakeham report, the Cunningham report, the Burns report, and now the Taylor report—and each has brought a different perspective to these issues. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, alluded to eloquently, then the frustration starts about how so little progress has been made. I have spoken before about the track record of stagnation and stalled attempts at reform. I have been clear that we want to work with the House to get a better outcome, and on how incremental change can make a difference.

The committee, and many Members who have spoken, often acknowledged that change is needed. There is general, but not universal, agreement that the House is too big and that we need certainty on how we can replace departing Members and bring in new expertise and experience—a point made by many of the Cross-Benchers. We are also clear that we want an active contribution from all Members of this House. That is not to say that all Members have to be full-time—that would not serve the purposes of what we seek to achieve—but we want them to value their membership and contribute during their membership. That is why we committed to a mandatory retirement age and a participation requirement.

Some of the arguments against taking any action on this report sounded very similar to those we have heard before when debating other changes. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said that these proposals would affect 46% of the House.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I did not say that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I cannot remember the exact percentage. These proposals would affect 100% of this House, because every current and future Member would be affected by them; they are completely non-discriminatory in that way. The other argument often used is that we should not make this reform until we have made lots of other reforms—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

They are discriminatory because the people here now came in thinking they were staying for life, and those who come in from now on will know that they finish at 80. That is the difference.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is implying that there is no notice. To give notice is the very reason for these proposals. It sounds like they are going to happen tomorrow, but these proposals do not come into force, or start to come into force, until 2029, when there will be a retirement age of 85 which will go down each year to 80 by 2033 or 2034. I just make the point that every time a change is suggested, there are those who say, “We want change, but not this change, in this way, and not now”. I think that to survive and do our best work, we often have to embrace some kind of change. The noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, and others asked why I set up this committee. I think he attributed motives which I would dispute.

On Lords reform issues, our manifesto looked at certain stages, and there are number of issues there. When we were debating at one of its early stages the Bill on hereditary Peers, there were more amendments, more pages of amendments and more pages of Hansard about retirement age and participation—and a number of noble Lords on the other side spoke far more about it—than about hereditary Peers: “Why aren’t we doing anything about this?” So, that is why I set up the committee. I promised this House that rather than just bringing forward legislation, we would give this House the opportunity to examine and look at the issues, to give it the opportunity, as noble Lords asked for, to take some responsibility. No good deed goes unpunished, does it? But there is an opportunity for us to look at this. That is the first point.

Also, I thought we would have learned a lesson from the hereditary Peers legislation. Time and again, my noble friend Lord Grocott brought to this House proposed legislation to say, “We’ll end the by-elections, which means no new hereditary Peers come in and those who are here remain”. That was rejected time and again by the party opposite when it was in government. That would have been a much smoother transition. If the noble Lord wants to intervene on me, please do.

Public Procurement: British Standard 95009

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Tuesday 5th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. As we put the Bill forward, we will look to ensure that when we have a situation like the recent pandemic, which I am sure the noble Lord is referring to, we have procurement arrangements that are suitable for that.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, having listened carefully to the Minister’s answers, I am slightly confused. She seems to be saying that rules for proper scrutiny of procurement are being worked on and new legislation—a new Bill—will come forward, yet the Government are spending £300 billion a year on procurement. If we look at some of the recent scandals around PPE, we see there is urgency about this. The British Standard that she referred to is not called “the trust standard” without a reason. It is to create trust in public procurement. Is it not time that the Government sought to do something urgently, perhaps adopting this standard for all major government contracts to be sure that there can be trust in public procurement? At the moment, it is sadly lacking.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I understand what the noble Baroness is saying, but I think it is important that we do this in a measured way. The procurement data will be published in a standard and open format which will make it easier for people to understand. There will be clearer requirements on the identification and management of conflicts of interest, which I am sure is in the noble Baroness’s mind as well, and there will be clear arrangements for how procurement can be conducted in situations where there is extreme urgency, which relates to the previous question. We need to do this in a measured way. We understand that we need to do more, and we will do more. This Bill will come forward shortly.

Government Business: Messaging Services

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Thursday 31st March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Members of Parliament get the appropriate guidance when they become MPs, but my noble friend’s idea that all political parties should start discussions about the relevant guidance with candidates before they become MPs is a good one and I shall take it back to the Cabinet Office.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we have seen the reports of what happens when those outside Parliament think they have a—let us say—different channel of access to Ministers. Paragraph 2.14 of the Ministerial Code, on “Security of Government business”, makes it quite clear how Ministers should behave. It would be helpful if the further information that the Minister referred to could be published and put in the public domain. However, it is not just about Ministers, is it? In the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers, there is no reference at all to the security of government business or the security of communications in public business. Many of those outside who wish to lobby Ministers, perhaps for contracts for certain equipment, would know that they could go to special advisers if they were not adhering to the same codes and there was nothing in their code of conduct about that. I ask the Minister to take this back and ensure that the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers is reviewed so that they are subject to the same requirements as Ministers.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. She is right that all Ministers and officials are aware of the guidance on the use of communications channels. As with all guidance, we keep that under regular review. Ministers still use a range of forms of communication for discussions, as has always been the case, in line with relevant guidance. However, I shall certainly take back the noble Baroness’s point about special advisers.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly, if only to remind your Lordships’ House that the Labour Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and I were not able to vote in 1974, but that is probably not a good reason for rising to the Dispatch Box at this time of night.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rooker for raising a number of issues that have concerned this House as a whole. I think it was my noble friend Lord Coaker who, during the debate on the police Bill last Monday, reminded the House that we were discussing measures to curtail protests that even Margaret Thatcher would not have contemplated during the worst times—as she would have seen it—of the miners’ strikes. We have moved a long way in what we think of as acceptable.

I point out that in 1838 the Chartists had six demands. All have been met, and we have gone beyond on some, such as the universal male suffrage that they wanted—we have improved on that—except for the one demand of theirs that has never been met, which is for annual elections. I am not making that case.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank noble Lords; I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Rooker, for tabling these amendments, which have initiated what has been an interesting short debate, if not necessarily always on the amendments. In 1974, I remember pushing a pushchair and delivering literature, though not necessarily for the Labour Party of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.

If noble Lords do not mind, I will stick to the amendments and not answer any further questions. The Bill makes express provision for Parliament to automatically dissolve five years after it has first met. This is the most straightforward way to calculate the five-year term. It also remains the case that your Lordships’ House has an absolute veto on legislation to extend the life of any Parliament.

I first turn to the question of the length of parliamentary terms. I have heard the argument for a four-year term, and I heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that he does not necessarily agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on this. However, the Government remain of the very strong view that five years is the right maximum length for any Parliament.

A maximum five-year term allows the Government time to undertake and implement their programme without having to start any electioneering. This is an important issue that I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, took into account as he did not mention it. Any Government have to deliver on the programme that is in their manifesto. Five years is a maximum period which I and the Government believe balances sensible, long-term government with ensuring that a Government and Parliament are accountable to the electorate in a timely manner.

In fact, we can that see parliamentary terms have developed their own effective and flexible rhythm. A strong Government seeking a fresh mandate might seek a Dissolution after four years. Anything less than four years is usually a sign of some political crisis or emergency. Often, Parliaments are dissolved for political necessity rather than choice, to put a policy or political question to the electorate or to resolve a political crisis. Moreover, shorter maximum terms invariably mean earlier speculation about whether a Parliament will see out its full term. This speculation does not serve Parliament, the public or businesses well. The former Cabinet Secretary noted in evidence at PACAC that longer-term Parliaments and longer-term tenures for both senior civil servants and Ministers would all be very good for Governments, who are increasingly having to face up to very long-term issues, as we have seen recently.

Finally, this question was reviewed by the Joint Committee, which did not question the starting premise that five years is the appropriate duration for parliamentary terms and the life cycle of a Parliament.

I will now address the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, on the timing of elections. The noble Lord has reflected on the experience of the electorate in December 2019 and observed that winter elections are not desirable. I hope your Lordships will allow me to relate Stanley Baldwin’s comments on the impossibility of finding a time for an election that suits everyone. On 23 October 1935, when seeking a Dissolution, Mr Baldwin observed on the timing of elections:

“Therefore I have long come to the conclusion that you must rule out the spring and summer months because of financial business. You must rule out August and September because of the holidays. You are left with the autumn, but in no circumstances must you run into any interference with the Christmas trade.”—[Official Report, Commons, 23/10/1935; col. 154.]


Those light-hearted remarks contain an important kernel of truth.

Certainly, outside times of political tumult when exceptional elections are necessary, it may well be the case that a Prime Minister would prefer not to call on the public to venture out to cast their vote in the depths of winter. I share the noble Lord’s sentiment that winter elections do not provide the most ideal conditions for queuing at a polling station or canvassing from door to door. The election in 2019 was, of course, exceptional and was called to bring an end to a period of extended parliamentary deadlock.

Nevertheless, the purpose of the Bill is to provide for a system that will serve successive Governments. As the 2011 Act has taught us, we should not draft our constitutional arrangements in response to one event. There is no guarantee that, in the future, an election will not again be required in December—or February, as in 1974, which we have heard about. So it would not be wise to legislate in the long term for an event that was an exception to the rule. Our arrangements need to be adaptable. That is the important point.

The challenge of the approach set out in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is that it prevents the flexibility necessary for a Government to respond to particular circumstances. As such, I suggest to the noble Lord that to subject the timing of elections to this particular constraint—even if Parliaments do not normally run their full term—would run counter to that objective.

The purpose of the Bill is to revive arrangements that have stood, and will continue to stand, the test of time. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Rooker, for stimulating this fascinating discussion but I hope that your Lordships’ Committee will agree with me that Clause 4, unamended, is the most suitable approach to achieve that aim. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.