My Lords, the Government are committed to improving the appointments process. There are two key areas here: one is to ensure that those who are appointed to your Lordships’ House are committed to the work of this House and are willing and able to play their part; and, secondly, we need to look at the national and regional balance of your Lordships’ House. We are actively reconsidering how best this might be achieved, and I would be grateful for the views of colleagues. The Government are grateful for the work of HOLAC in vetting life peerage nominations and in nominating Cross-Benchers, and we look forward to working with the commission.
I thank the Leader for her helpful reply. There seems to be general agreement that the House is too large. Does she agree that one of the problems is two different perceptions of what a peerage is? Some see it as merely an honour—one above a knighthood—and therefore do not expect to have to attend this House; others of us see it as a job to be done, an appointment to the second Chamber of the legislature, and therefore we should attend regularly and vote. Is there some way of separating or disentangling these? Working Peers should be the only ones who are able to attend, to vote and to participate in the work of this House.
My Lords, we have heard from the response from across the House how seriously those who are here in your Lordships’ House take their responsibilities. It is an honour to be appointed a Peer, and that brings with it responsibilities to the work that we do. I listened to the noble Lord’s comments on the King’s Speech about this, and I will look at and consider the issue. The House is large, and I think we have to ensure that we focus on the active contributions. Going forward, we will look at colleagues’ participation and the range of participation that Members are involved in—from voting in the Lobbies to taking part in committees to engaging in debates. I will take his views away and will take soundings from other colleagues across the House.
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the prerogative power of the Prime Minister to appoint to this House remains absolute, as we saw under Boris Johnson? As a prerogative power remaining from the Middle Ages, the Prime Minister could announce that from now on the Prime Minister would not make appointments to this House without consultations with ACOBA and various bodies. Is that part of what is under consideration? Is there not a consensus now that it may be time for us to consider separating the honour of a peerage from the duty to attend the upper House?
My Lords, that is exactly the same point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, about having two separate categories of peerage. I come back to the point that for all noble Lords it is an honour to be appointed to your Lordships’ House, but that brings with it responsibilities. I know noble Lords from across the House are very disappointed if colleagues are appointed and we do not see them, so I will take that back. Those who are appointed to this House at present do have a responsibility. I do not mean that everybody has to be here all day every day and be a full-time Peer, but we do have expectations that Members will be committed to the work of this House and play a part in it.
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former member of HOLAC. May I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House whether, in discussion with the Prime Minister and others, there would be a complete discussion about the position of the Prime Minister in this role? HOLAC looks at the individual nominee from the point of view of propriety; it does not have the power to assess suitability, as that rests with the Prime Minister when sending the list forward in the first place. May I say to her that, if HOLAC suggests that, on the grounds of propriety, a person is not suitable for this House, the Prime Minister must accept that recommendation in future?
My Lords, there is a duty, an obligation and a responsibility on all party leaders who put forward nominees that they should be suitable for the work of this House. The points that the noble Baroness makes are ones that we are considering.
My Lords, does my noble friend consider that there should be a minimum participation by Peers in order to enable the House to benefit from their expertise and experience?
There is, but defining what that is is not easy. I entirely agree, and this is one of the things we are grappling with at the moment. All of us have been disappointed when we have seen colleagues come in, take the oath and leave, and we do not see them again till they next take the oath; that is not playing a part in this House. But neither do I want to deter colleagues who come in occasionally to speak on their area of expertise, which the House benefits from. That is why I do want to take soundings from across the House on how we can best deal with this. We want all colleagues who are Members of your Lordships’ House to understand the responsibility that the honour brings with it and play a full role.
My Lords, does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House accept that, welcome though her answers are on a long-term strategy of separating the honour from the responsibility of membership of your Lordships’ House, if we are to have a short-term reduction in the size of the House that will be sustainable and defensible in the long-term, we need a cap on the overall size of the House and a cap on the prerogative powers of the Prime Minister to appoint as many Peers as he wishes?
My Lords, in terms of my comments on my noble friend Lord Foulkes’s Question, I have made a commitment to consider that, not to do it. It is interesting that, for many years, this House remained at a similar size, and it is only in recent years—partly from so many prime ministerial resignation lists—that the House has expanded. When Labour left office, after 12 years, in 2010, we had about 24 more Peers than the Conservative Party, when they became the Government. At the end of their term of office, there are over 100 more Conservative Peers than Labour Peers. I know Members of the House opposite agree with me that the House is better when the numbers are better balanced. That may be one way of achieving it. I am on record as saying—and this is not an invitation to have lots of appointments on the Labour side—that, when the government and opposition parties are better balanced, we do our work as a House much better.
My Lords, one of the benefits of this Chamber is the enormous breadth of experience and the generations that are represented here. Could the noble Baroness consider whether, in the consultation on having a retirement age of 80, the Appointments Commission could be involved in some way, so there is a process to retain, on an exceptional basis perhaps, a number of Members who are over the age of 80? Looking around the Chamber, I see the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and others who have made such a contribution beyond the age of 80.
My Lords, one of the things about a retirement age is that everybody thinks it should be five years older than they are. I remember the days of thinking that, when I got to 65, it would be wonderful, I would be old and I could retire; as I told my doctor last week, I have just taken on a new job. These are important things to factor in. Do bear in mind that we are not talking about a hard stop at the age 80; it is the end of the Parliament in which someone turns 80, so we are talking about a retirement age between 80 and 85. I am happy to receive any considerations that noble Lords want to make on this issue.
My Lords, the Government are to be congratulated on the experience, knowledge and expertise of some recent appointments to the House of Lords. This House prides itself as an expert Chamber. Would the Government be able to ensure that, in areas of expertise that are certainly very much needed, future appointments could be adjusted according to the needs of this expert House?