Retirement and Participation Committee Report

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, my goodness, what an education we have had tonight, across such a broad range of topics and ages. My remarks may fall short in that regard, but during the thankfully now concluded debates on the hereditary presence in this House, I tabled an amendment that, in line with the Government’s wider manifesto commitments, proposed that a group be established shortly after the passing of the Bill to address ongoing membership criteria, in particular the issue of participation, and this was widely supported. I was therefore very grateful when the committee that produced this excellent report was promptly brought into being. I congratulate, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, who, like a modern Odysseus, has had to navigate a very difficult course between the whirlpools of controversy, the sirens of special pleading and the ever-present danger of mutiny, as whatever course they took would impact friends and colleagues in this House.

As the committee highlighted, if these issues are not addressed by this House, something less understanding of the role and workings of this place might be imposed on it by the House of Commons. That remains a real risk if the report’s proposals are not now acted on.

On the age cap, if I may comment as a mere stripling, while perhaps most of us surely accept, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, in her speech, that we are not completely irreplaceable, we all know Members who are valuable contributors with a depth of long-term experience and wisdom that the House would be sad to lose on the basis of age alone. I suggested in my evidence to the committee that age should not be the issue but rather capacity—perhaps on a medically tested basis. But I have subsequently come to accept that the graduated progress towards an age cap recommended by the report would be less personally intrusive, give Members more clarity and thereby manage expectations. I also suggest that it is a privilege not just to come into this House but, at the age of 80, to have served well beyond the retirement age for almost any other role.

On the negative side, which has been touched on widely, this will have an unbalancing numerical impact on party groups, in particular the Cross Benches. Perhaps the Leader of the House will comment further when winding up on what proposals the Government have in mind to bring forward on this. One suggestion might be that everybody on the Cross Benches gets three votes—just an idea.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Settle down, please.

On participation, I initially felt that a more detailed approach could be taken, with a weighted metric across all the diverse forms of participation. We might come back to that in the future, because the participation request is, I am afraid, in practice an attendance amount. I now accept the committee’s view that this would make things overcomplex at this stage. I cannot resist, however, being intrigued by the earlier reference to me by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, and his suggestion for a solution. I thank him for the prior notice he very courteously gave that he was going to be rude about me, but I will correct his understanding: I was defeated a number of times in by-elections before the one in which I was successful. Perhaps I was too shy to tell him about that.

These changes are, as the report points out, just two elements of possible reform. Prominent among the rest, as many have mentioned, is the ability of Prime Ministers and party leaders to treat peerages as a tool of patronage, something that has been exacerbated recently by a rapid turnover in Prime Ministers. Rather as in The Lord of the Rings, the ring of power, once obtained and wielded, becomes very precious and very hard to give up. I believe that, at least for those who accept the existence of an appointed rather than elected House, this wielding of patronage is the greatest single issue for reform, and that is reflected in many comments we have heard tonight. Its continuance is in part due to the difficulty in creating an alternative that addresses the “who appoints the appointers” test. While I still hope that the House will grip this, I am straying from the subject of the debate.

As regards next steps, we have a track record in commissioning reviews, notably the Burns report, and then simply shelving them. I really hope that we can do better this time. We should not let perfect be the enemy of good. Implementing this report’s findings will represent definite progress in line with manifesto commitments. In short, I congratulate the committee on the report, I repeat my hope that we can get it implemented and I look forward to hearing the winding-up comments from the Leader of the House.