Retirement and Participation Committee Report

Lord Bishop of Hereford Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Hereford]

My Lords, I am grateful to the committee for its report and for the serious and thoughtful way in which it has approached the difficult question of the future size and composition of this House.

My right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester, the Convenor of the Lords Spiritual, made a written submission to the committee on behalf of these Benches, but is unfortunately unable to be in his place today. The Lords spiritual have long supported reforms that strengthen the effectiveness and credibility of this House while safeguarding its distinctiveness from the other place in its expertise and culture. We therefore welcome the opportunity to consider proposals that seek to create a smaller and more sustainable House.

However, I know that he would wish me to highlight several concerns, particularly in relation to the recommendation of a mandatory retirement age. The report itself acknowledges one of the principal concerns raised in evidence: the potential loss of the experience, expertise and institutional memory of Members who continue to make valuable contributions well beyond the age of 80.

One notable example of the expertise on which the House relies is that of senior judges. I am not persuaded by the committee’s conclusion that, because committees in the other place function without senior judges, committees in this House can and therefore should do likewise. We should be cautious about assuming that arrangements appropriate to one House must automatically apply to the other. One of the principal strengths of the House of Lords is that it complements rather than mirrors the House of Commons, drawing on forms of experience and expertise that enrich parliamentary scrutiny, such as independent chairmanship and experience in interpreting the law. The contribution of senior judges to committee work exemplifies that distinction. Their role is not simply a matter of who occupies the chair; it reflects the independence, judgment and habits of scrutiny acquired through judicial office.

The Ecclesiastical Committee, for example, benefits from the specialist expertise of judicial leadership, and that contribution helps to shape both the character and the quality of the committee’s deliberations. Indeed, the Ecclesiastical Committee has benefited from senior judicial chairs since its formation in 1919. Our current chair, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, offers invaluable expertise on the interpretation of Church law and the measures passed by General Synod, along with her understanding of Church processes and structures. I know that these Benches and the committee are most grateful for her diligent contributions.

Introducing a mandatory retirement age within the House may significantly reduce the number of Members able to undertake such responsibilities. Their loss would therefore represent more than a procedural change; it would alter the nature of the scrutiny that such committees can provide. More broadly, if a significant cohort of Members were required to retire within a relatively short period, we would risk creating clusters of departures and arrivals that could alter the balance of expertise. Institutional memory could be lost more rapidly than it could be replenished.

It is worth acknowledging that Bishops retire earlier than any other Members of the House, perhaps explaining something of our youthful vigour. Members may have noticed that we have not benefited from a steady turnover of Bishops in recent months; rather, my right reverend friends have retired in batches. The loss of their experience and wisdom is acutely felt on these Benches and, I know, across the House. For these reasons, any reform must be introduced gradually and with great care. A phased approach is essential if continuity is to be maintained and the House’s scrutiny functions safeguarded. Equally, I wonder whether greater attention might first be given to encouraging the retirement of Members who rarely participate or attend, before measures are introduced that remove highly active and valuable contributors solely on the grounds of age.

This report also welcomes the consideration of how new Members of this House are appointed. Do they directly replace the expertise of their retired counterparts? We must be careful, in the interpretation of this report, not to ring-fence seats on this basis; the House must remain agile to respond to developing policy areas.

While I welcome the support and the debate that the report has initiated, I am not yet convinced that we have fully considered the implications for the functioning of the House, the operation of its committees or the preservation of the expertise on which Parliament depends.

Tributes: Lord Laming

Lord Bishop of Hereford Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow three such wonderful speeches that have so captured the man who is so dear to my colleagues on the Cross Bench here. Herbert Laming was born in 1936. He left school at 15, and in 1954 he was called up for national service. He chose the Royal Navy and was placed in a detachment that was being prepared for service east of Suez. You can imagine their excitement at the prospect of travel to exotic climes. On parade one morning, however, the chief petty officer asked for four volunteers and, being the man we knew, Ordinary Seaman Laming put his hand up, only to find that, far from being sent east of Suez, he was being posted to serve as stoker on the last remaining coal-fired ship in the Royal Navy. This was also in the Home Fleet, not overseas.

In 1955, however, having been awarded some leave, he was coming back to Liverpool, where his ship was docked, when the train broke down. In the carriage, Herbert worried that he was going to let his captain down by being late, and he got talking to a senior magistrate, who told him how difficult the delay was for him too. They spoke for some hours until the train was finally retrieved, but the net result was that Herbert was enrolled on a correspondence course and, latterly, evening courses that would allow him to go to university. The senior magistrate, Herbert’s captain and others all conspired to make sure that Herbert was able to take the necessary papers. Indeed, when Herbert’s ship called at port, he would usually find a batch of papers waiting for him. Herbert graduated from Durham University in 1960.

In 1962 Herbert married Aileen, who was his wife for 48 years until her untimely death in 2010. They together were on the adventure that was Herbert’s great career. They bought their wonderful home in 1971 when Herbert moved to Hertfordshire; it is in Tewin, the designation of his title.

Your Lordships have heard in the eloquent speeches from the Leader of the House and the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Purvis, of Herbert’s outstanding career in public services. I can add nothing further on his UK record of public services, but I will record his influence in other countries. Foster care did not exist in China 30 years ago but now does, through Herbert’s patient work with an enterprising charity, Care for Children. The model it developed started just in Shanghai but is now in many parts of China and several other Asian countries, all benefiting from British expertise and Herbert Laming’s magic in this most difficult area.

A year after the death of his beloved Aileen, Herbert became our convenor. He was immensely popular and finished in mid-2015, thinking that at 70 years old his years of service were over. Lord Sewel, however, unexpectedly stood back from his duties, and Herbert, a rare Chairman of Committees not from a major party, took over during the 2015 Summer Recess. When asked what sort of handover he would like, Herbert said that he would prefer it to be limited to activities in this House. I am sorry for those noble Lords who were not there then.

His retirement from the front line was further delayed by his stint as Chair of the Services Committee between 2016 and 2021. In this role he worked with many members of the House administration staff. It has been very touching to me how many of them have come forward since his death to tell me of his kindness towards them and his caring attitude.

Herbert felt unwell for the first time around March this year and was supported fully by his great friend, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who is in his place today. Herbert’s successor as convener, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, was also very much a supporter in his final illness and is in his place today. There was much care, love and support from his family, and especially from Katarina and Sarah. To his family I add our condolences from these Benches.

In closing, I take your Lordships back to that parade in 1954 and the young sailors who were off to the Far East. I leave the final word to Herbert, reflecting on his good fortune in life. He said, “If someone asks you to volunteer, put your hand up”.

[The Lord Bishop of Hereford]

My Lords, it is with great sadness that the Lords spiritual join all noble Lords in marking the passing of Lord Laming, a great friend to so many of my colleagues, a man whose life of public service spanned many decades and whose influence was felt far beyond the institutions in which he formally served. Throughout a distinguished career in social work, public administration and Parliament, he brought wisdom, integrity and an unwavering commitment to the protection of the vulnerable.

We remember him with particular gratitude for the values that animated his work—values that resonate deeply with the mission of the Church, which he loved. He was always someone who looked out for others, who was prepared to stop and speak to staff and check how they were. He had an extraordinary memory for names and the details of people’s lives. He was genuinely interested to hear how people and their families were doing, always cheerful, smiling and with something positive to say, demonstrating his great skill of pastoral ministry, even to bishops. He was a trailblazer in his field and, long before safeguarding became the central concern that it rightly is today, Lord Laming understood that the measure of a society is found in the way it treats those who are most vulnerable and least able to speak for themselves.

As we have heard, the inquiry into the tragic death of Victoria Climbié became a watershed moment for child protection in this country, helping to transform attitudes, practice and accountability across public services. Across the Church, like many institutions, we have learned much from the culture of vigilance, responsibility and care that he consistently advocated.

His work served as a reminder that safeguarding is not merely a matter of procedure but a moral obligation rooted in respect for the dignity of every human person. In that sense, his legacy has made a lasting contribution to the life and witness of the Church, as well as to the wider public realm.

In this House, Lord Laming was widely respected for his independence of mind, his courtesy and his ability to command trust across differences. As Convenor of the Cross Benches and later as Chairman of Committees, he exemplified public service of the highest order. He allowed the Bishops to attend the regular Cross-Bench meeting as what he called “honorary members”. His steady, forensic mind helped hold the Church to account during his time as a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee. Yet perhaps his greatest legacy lies not in the offices he held but in the countless lives made safer because he refused to look away from difficult truths. His determination that vulnerable children should be seen, heard and protected reflected a profound belief in human worth, one that Christians recognise as flowing from the conviction that every person is created in the image of God.

We give thanks for his life, for his faithfulness to public duty, for his compassion and for his enduring contribution to the welfare of children and families. Our prayers are with his family and friends and with all those whose lives were touched by his kindness, wisdom and service. May he rest in peace and rise in glory.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, Lord Laming fulfilled his role as Chairman of Committees with considerable distinction. He was dedicated to the service of your Lordships’ House, and indeed, as we have heard, his appointment steadied the ship. He would be a hard act to follow, and his support for his successors as Chairman of Committees and Senior Deputy Speaker was absolute. I shall for ever remember his wisdom and innate kindness. It was a privilege to work with him on the many committees that the Senior Deputy Speaker chairs, often turning to him first to open the consideration; his sound judgment set the tone.

He spoke to everyone in that gentle and clear manner, but let us not forget his determination and tenacity when needed. There was no side to the noble Lord; he was utterly consistent in his decency and resolve. His humanity meant that he dealt with us all with good humour and grace. The noble Lord worked tirelessly for your Lordships, so often unknown to many. It is with profound sadness, and yet with gratitude, that I add these all too inadequate words to recognise such a public servant. Lord Laming was an exemplar that good does, in the end, prevail.