The House of Lords Retirement and Participation Committee
has today published its
report, setting out a practical solution for introducing a
retirement age and a participation requirement for members of the
House of Lords. The Committee's report respects the Government's
manifesto commitment, while also ensuring the continued effective
functioning of the House examining and recommending changes to
legislation, holding the government to account and raising issues
for debate.
The Committee suggests a maximum retirement age of 80 could be
phased in over five years to avoid a cliff edge loss of
experienced members on a single day, and that all members should
be required to attend at least 20 percent of sittings of the
House, averaged over two sessions.
Retirement age
The Committee recommends that any maximum retirement age should
apply to all members without exception, and that any requirement
to retire by the age of 80 should be phased in for all existing
members over a period of five years, beginning on 8 July
2029. The effective maximum retirement age on 8
July 2029 would be 85, with the threshold lowering annually by
one year, until it reaches 80 in July 2034.
8 July 2029 was chosen as the start date because it is the last
possible sitting day of the current Parliament since the repeal
of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011 there is no certainty
about the length of a Parliament other than the maximum limit of
five years.
The recommendation to phase in retirement over a period of five
years would avoid a significant loss of experience in the House
on a single day that might occur if all members over the age of
80 were required to retire immediately.
The Committee says that this could be agreed by a resolution of
the House as an alternative to legislation. New members joining
the House would be required to give a written undertaking that
they will retire no later than their 80th birthday.
Participation requirement
The Committee says that any system for measuring participation
might prove overly complex and difficult to implement. However,
there is one issue that should be addressed. The current minimum
attendance requirement of once per session is too low and reform
is necessary.
The Committee recommends that members should be required to
attend a minimum of 20 percent of sitting days averaged over two
sessions of Parliament. Any member who fails to meet this
threshold should cease to be a member of the House.
Setting a requirement at 20 percent of sittings strikes a balance
between enabling members to remain actively engaged in their
professional careers thereby keeping their expertise current
which benefits the House while ensuring that they contribute
meaningfully to the work of the House.
The Committee recognises that short-term absences may arise
without notice in cases of emergency or on compassionate grounds.
Such circumstances should be taken into account to ensure that
members are not inappropriately penalised for failing to meet the
attendance threshold.
Commenting Baroness , Chair of the Retirement
and Participation Committee, said:
The Government's manifesto contained a commitment to introduce a
retirement age and a participation requirement for members of the
House of Lords. Our job was to consider the impacts of a
retirement age and a participation requirement and assess how
they could be implemented in a way that supports the House in its
core functions of examining legislation, holding the government
of the day to account and raising issues for debate.
We are suggesting a practical solution which respects the
Government's manifesto commitment, while also ensuring the
continued effective functioning of the House.
To avoid the loss of a large group of experienced members on a
single day we recommend that any requirement to retire by 80
should be phased in over five years - starting with those aged
85, and reducing each year until it reaches 80. This would allow
the House to manage changes to its membership, avoiding a
cliff-edge of departures which could affect the capacity of the
House to fulfil its functions.
We think the requirement for members to attend at least 20
percent of sittings strikes the right balance. It means members
can continue to keep their expertise current by actively engaging
in their outside careers, and in turn use their expertise to make
a meaningful contribution to the business of the House and raise
the quality of debate.
