Retirement and Participation Committee Report

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, in previous debates on the future of this House, the phrase “form should follow function” has been used on many an occasion. In the clear introduction from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, she stressed the committee’s remit, in that it was allowed to deal with only a small segment of the role and make-up of the Lords. However, in ignoring input, the proposals cannot ensure long-term expertise to undertake our fundamental functions of scrutiny and holding the Government of the day to account.

I was in the first cohort of the 15 so-called people’s Peers selected by the Appointments Commission. There are only six of us left now; eight died and one retired. The indomitable Countess of Mar was the one female hereditary Peer selected to remain in her time and was an exemplar in how to conduct effective scrutiny, as well as a mentor to several of us and a guardian extraordinaire of the rules and conventions of the House. She retired at 80 and is still missed. Now, with the hereditary principle gone, prime ministerial patronage is supreme, able to drive the input of Peers with few brakes on the process. Surely entry and exit must be considered and balanced.

Our function requires expertise in the widest range of topics—a breadth that requires carefully vetted appointments to the Cross Benches—yet, as we have heard, the Cross Benches will lose the greatest number of Peers in the plan laid out in the report. Professor Meg Russell’s briefing has already been referred to, and my noble friend Lord Patel explained superbly the mathematics involved. The independent House of Lords Appointments Commission must be put on a statutory footing and urgently allowed to appoint if any of this goes forward. To borrow a phrase from my noble friend Lord Sedwill used on the “Today” programme today, the question for each of us is: what can I do for my country?

The report recognises the need for leave of absence for those in major roles at home and abroad, but they have a duty to come back to share their in-depth knowledge or to leave. As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, asked, will the emeritus Peers regain the vote? As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, pointed out so clearly, one aspect glossed over in the report—

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

I am sorry to interrupt, but it might be helpful to the House to say that there is a retirement booklet that I arranged to be published which clearly states that, when Members leave this House, they will regain their vote.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

That is most helpful and I apologise for not having read that properly. It was raised earlier in the week as well. I thank the noble Baroness for the clarification.

One aspect glossed over in the report is that some become less able to contribute well before the age of 80; infirmity is not the preserve of older people. There was no reference to an occupational health service, to which those who appear to have dwindling faculties, no insight or other problems could be referred for in-depth assessment. Some of us have been seeking that for some time. Standard appraisal processes would not work effectively, because those who attend rarely would not be adequately known to colleagues and staff. However, the staff here know only too well who should be seen by an occupational health service.

As for wider reform, no one should think that the widely varied and independent Cross-Bench Peers could be elected. They could not be elected if they do not have the funding, know-how or support to run an electoral campaign, and that lack will exclude many.

The report is sensible as far as it goes, but it will not solve all the difficulties of infirmity or simply being “out of touch”. Unless prime ministerial patronage is curbed or ceases, until HOLAC is the route through which all potential Peers are assessed, and until we recognise that younger appointees will be in the House of Lords for decades and they may also fail, our functions may not be enhanced. However, we should heed this thoughtful report, which the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, presented very well. The danger is that it could be consigned to the shelves unless we are brave enough to embrace it and end prime ministerial patronage as it stands today.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

I will just say that it was not whipped by then Government; it was not the party opposite, it was individual Peers. It was a Private Member’s Bill, and Members had authority to challenge the proposal of the legislation. I disagreed with them; I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who is a friend of mine and sitting opposite, was right on this issue. I felt he was right, but it was not a party thing. We are not dealing with this as a party; we are dealing—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I have heard the point the noble Lord has made.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

I hope the noble Baroness will respond to it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, if the Minister will allow me, she seems to be referring to the special pleading made by the Cross-Benchers, to which I am sympathetic. However, I raised the point about the almost complete eradication of our colleagues from Northern Ireland. Will she address that point too?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord was only talking about the DUP, because we have Members on our Benches from Northern Ireland as well. One of the things we need to look at, and we are bringing forward further proposals on this, is that the House as a whole has to better represent the whole of the UK. That has been recognised. Part of the issue is possibly allowances; people talked about the financial cost of travelling further distances and having to stay overnight. We are bringing further proposals; I totally agree that we have to have a House that is more representative on all kinds of levels, but certainly geographically, which is very important.

I turn to some of the other issues that were in the report. The comments about leave of absence from the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, were interesting, in that they think the point on conduct should apply to all, whether they are on leave of absence or Members of this House.

I cannot remember which noble Lord referred to this, but the comments about a retirement association—whether it is called emeritus or not is irrelevant; I do not mind what it is called—were really important. It is one of the things that I suggested some time ago, when we were debating the hereditary Peers Bill. Noble Lords may not be aware of the booklet, but one thing that has always concerned me about this House is that often, as Members age, they come in a bit less and we see a bit less of them. Then they get ill and we do not see them for a long time. They may come in occasionally, and they just disappear and fade away. We do not show them the respect and the value that we put on them by ever saying “Thank you” or recognising their work. They just fade away and we do not see them again.

I want Members to know what is available to them when they retire from the House. They can vote in a general election, as the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Dubs, asked me. That is in the booklet, and I recommend it. It is a way of saying to Members who retire from this House: “We value your service. These are the kinds of facilities that are still available to you, and you remain our friends and colleagues and can come to the House”. It is important that we do that.

I was rather taken aback by the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord True, at the beginning—I know he is generally a bit snippy and he is cross about this anyway—when he talked about the issue of capacity, because he knows that one of the first things I did when I became Leader of the House was talk to the Administration about this. We also had a meeting through the usual channels to talk about this issue. I see a number of noble Lords who have been at these meetings acknowledging that. We have progressed that work, as he well knows; the work is under way. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has said this. My noble friend the Chief Whip has held a series of meetings, following on from the initial meetings we had, with the usual channels, the Clerk of the Parliaments and other House officials, which have been productive. They form the basis of an agreement on a way forward to deal with the issue of capacity.

This is a sensitive issue, and I think we all want to treat our friends, colleagues and other noble Lords with respect and kindness. That has been uppermost in the Chief Whip’s mind as he has been dealing with it. For the next steps, the respective Chief Whips and the Convenor will lead this work to take it forward and will bring a report forward to be agreed in the usual channels and presented to the Procedure Committee. That work is very important and is ongoing.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry if I appear snippy. Sometimes, the Opposition are permitted to criticise proposals or to probe them. On the point I am making about capacity, I am aware of the welcome action we agreed on power of attorney, and we have had these discussions. My point is one that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and many others made: this is an ageist and discriminatory measure, in using age as a blunderbuss to take a lot of people out of the House, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, as a proxy for capacity. Why do we not focus on capacity and let the capable aged stay?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, if this was a proxy for capacity, we would not be bringing it forward, and we would not do both at the same time. I think the noble Lord misunderstands the reasons why the retirement age has been proposed. I was perfectly willing to accept that our manifesto was rather crude in its approach: it said Members would retire at the end of the Parliament in which they were 80. The proposal brought forward by the committee is much more sophisticated and thoughtful for Members of the House. But the noble Lord seems to think that no Member of the House should ever retire unless they want to. If we constantly do that, the House will continue to grow in size and we will not bring in Members with new experience and expertise to understand what is happening. This is not in any way to disrespect Members who have given many years’ service—a lifetime of service in some cases—to the House or those who thought they would be here until they chose not to be. It is about how we can have an effective House, do our best work as the House of Lords and best contribute to the role we have.

The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, who probably now has a different title that I cannot remember, made a comment about donors, and I entirely agree with him. If the only reason somebody is being made a Member of this House is because they have made large donations to a political party, that is entirely inappropriate and wrong. He also talked about the size of the House and ensuring that, as people left, it was not a case of just creating a vacancy. He is absolutely right, and I agree with him on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, was particularly concerned that the House could be packed and flooded with Members to keep a Government in power for a long time. In a sense, that could have happened at any time in our history; we had an unlawful Prorogation under a previous Prime Minister, which the courts were able to deal with. This House has the right to say how Members are introduced. It is not sharing a secret, because I spoke to a number of noble Lords opposite about this at the time, but shortly after I became shadow Leader, Jacob Rees-Mogg said that he would introduce a thousand new Peers to force Brexit through in exactly the way that the Government wanted. A number of us felt that, if he tried that one on, we would introduce one Peer a week, and it might have taken him some time. There are ways of addressing that through our constitutional arrangements at the moment as well.

We have already taken some action on the Appointments Commission. We have strengthened the transparency in appointments and worked with the House of Lords Appointments Commission to update its vetting forms. The vetting has to be stronger, and we are looking at that. We have looked at my own party’s vetting processes as well.

I reiterate my thanks to the committee. It was given an almost impossible task, and it did it with great aplomb and sensitivity. I value the work of this House, but if we say that we will never change, always do things in exactly the same way and leave others to make the change and take no responsibility ourselves, we do not get the change that we want. This is an opportunity for the House to show that we can manage our own affairs. We do not need things to be done to us, and we can show that we have a responsibility for the work that we do. I was struck by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and I think that is the point to end on: if it is not led by us, it will be led by those who know less and care less. We have a responsibility.