House of Lords Retirement and Participation Committee: Report and proposals

Approximate read time: 18 minutes

On 16 September 2026, the House of Lords is scheduled to debate the report from the House of Lords Retirement and Participation Committee (15 July 2026, HL Paper 32 of session 2026–27).

1.  Key points

• Labour’s 2024 general election manifesto pledged to introduce a retirement age and a participation requirement for the House of Lords. At the government’s suggestion, a select committee was established to look at options for taking this forward, with or without primary legislation.
• The committee has proposed a maximum retirement age of 80 could be phased in from July 2029, to avoid a “cliff edge” of a large group of members retiring at once. It recommended introducing this through a resolution of the House, rather than legislation, to give the House more control over the process. However, it said implementing this would depend on the cooperation of individual members and party groups.
• The committee recommended members should be required to attend at least 20% of sitting days averaged over two sessions. Members who failed to meet the requirement should cease to be members of the House (with a process to create an exemption in exceptional cases). The committee said this could be implemented without new legislation.
• The government said it would consider the committee’s proposals carefully, but has not yet responded to them in any detail.

2.  Why was the committee appointed?

Labour’s manifesto for the 2024 general election contained commitments to end the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords, to introduce a mandatory retirement age and a participation requirement, to tighten rules for removing “disgraced members”, to reform the appointments process, to improve national and regional representation, and to consult on proposals to replace the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber.^[1]

The government introduced legislation to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords in September 2024, which received royal assent in March 2026.^[2] While this bill was going through Parliament, members raised issues with Baroness Smith of Basildon, leader of the House of Lords, about the other reform proposals that were mentioned in the manifesto but not included in the bill.^[3] Baroness Smith said members were “seeking reassurance that the plans for the next stage of reforms will not flounder”.^[4] She proposed that a dedicated select committee would be the best way forward on retirement and participation, issues where she said members had “indicated that they are keen to make progress”.^[5]

The House of Lords appointed a Retirement and Participation Committee in December 2025.^[6] The committee was set up with a remit to consider:

• the impact of a retirement age on the House, and in particular its size and functioning
• the impact of a participation requirement on the House, and in particular its membership and functioning
• options for the implementation of a retirement age and participation requirement, including without primary legislation, and transitional measures where appropriate^[7]

3.  What did the committee recommend?

The committee published its report on 15 July 2026, having issued a public call for evidence, conducted a confidential consultation with members and received advice from senior officials of the House.^[8]

The committee made recommendations on both retirement and participation—examined further below—which it said were “a practical solution that we believe respects the government’s manifesto commitment, while ensuring the continued effective functioning of the House”.^[9] The committee said that in the spirit of taking the lead on matters that directly affect the House it had worked to bring forward proposals “likely to gain the support of the House as a whole”.^[10] It argued that the House faced a choice between “acting now and implementing changes ourselves” or waiting for the government to bring in legislation.

In making its recommendations, the committee emphasised that it was bound by its remit, which did not include looking at reform of the House as a whole, the size of the House or how appointments are made.^[11] However, the committee noted it was “not working in a vacuum” and “the size of the House has been the subject of considerable debate for some time”.^[12] It pointed out that “increasing departures—whether through a retirement age or a participation requirement—will not reduce the size of the House if used simply as a means to make additional appointments”.

3.1 Retirement

Phasing in a retirement age of 80

The committee said its consultation had shown there were “strong opinions both for and against a retirement age”, but it was “mindful of the fact that a manifesto commitment remains the backdrop” to its work.^[13]

The committee said that “in the interests of fairness, we recommend that any requirement to retire should be applied to all existing members equitably, without exemptions, irrespective of expertise or position”.^[14]

For existing members, it recommended that any requirement for members to retire by the age of 80 should be phased in over a period of five years from 8 July 2029.^[15] Members over the age of 85 would retire first, with the maximum threshold for retirement lowering each year until it reached 80 in July 2034.^[16] Members would be expected to retire no later than their relevant birthday. This means that during the transition period from 2029 to 2034, some members would be expected to retire on their birthday when they reached the age threshold that currently applied and others in July when the age threshold reduced to meet their current age.^[17]

The committee chose 8 July 2029 as the start date to begin phasing in a retirement age as it is the last possible sitting day of the current parliament.^[18] It recommended using this date regardless of when the next general election is held to give both the House and individual members certainty and the ability to plan.^[19]

The committee’s proposal differs from the original commitment set out in Labour’s manifesto: that all members would have to retire at the end of the parliament in which they reached the age of 80.^[20] However, Baroness Smith of Basildon had later acknowledged this “would create a cliff edge at the end of a parliament, where lots of noble Lords would leave at the same time”.^[21] She indicated the government was willing to consider “variations” on the manifesto and suggested a retirement “cliff edge” was one issue the committee could look at.^[22] The committee believed the transitional measures it proposed were appropriate to avoid such a “cliff edge” where “the loss of a large group of members on a single day could affect the capacity of the House to continue to fulfil its functions”.^[23]

Figure 1 below illustrates the potential different patterns of retirements produced by the committee’s proposal and the manifesto pledge (subject to certain caveats explained below).

Figure 1: Total number of retirements over time under the committee and manifesto schemes, 2029 to 2034

Notes:

• The graph is based on the current membership as at 3 September 2026. It includes life peers only, not bishops.
• It assumes the current parliament will end on 8 July 2029 and the next one on 8 July 2034, but there is no certainty over these dates.
• It does not take account of current members leaving the House for reasons other than reaching the retirement age (for example, choosing to retire earlier, dying, or ceasing to be a member through non-attendance).
• It does not account for any new life peers being appointed who may reach retirement age between July 2029 and July 2034.

Implementation

The committee concluded that there are two options for implementing a retirement age: either the government could bring forward legislation or the House could agree a resolution setting out its opinion that members should retire no later than a specified age.^[24] The committee proposed that, with the agreement of the House, such a resolution could be reflected in the ‘Companion to the standing orders and guide to the proceedings of the House of Lords’, setting “a clear expectation that members would retire by a specified age”.

The committee explained why its recommendation for a resolution would be framed in terms expressing the House’s opinion members should retire by a certain age, rather than a requirement they must do so. The committee had received advice from senior House of Lords officials that “standing orders and resolutions of the House do not have any legal force if they contradict existing legal rights without statutory authority”.^[25] This meant that a standing order or resolution setting out that members must retire by a certain age “would have no effect on a member’s statutory right to continue to receive a writ of summons at the start of each parliament”. This statutory right is set out in the Life Peerages Act 1958, which entitles the recipient of a life peerage to receive writs of summons and to attend, sit and vote in the House of Lords unless they are disqualified from doing so by law. If the House agreed a standing order or resolution setting out a requirement that members must retire by a certain age, the committee suggested it “would arguably constitute a challenge to the rule of law”. In contrast, if the House expressed an opinion that members should retire by a certain age, the committee said it “would not present a challenge to the rule of law because it would not purport to be binding”.^[26] The committee noted using the non-legislative route to implement a retirement age would “depend on the cooperation of individual members as well as party groups”.

The committee proposed that sanctions for non-compliance could be applied to new life peers who join the House in future. It recommended that anyone nominated for a peerage should be required to sign a written undertaking, prior to conferral of the peerage, that they would retire no later than their 80th birthday. If the member failed to abide by this, the committee suggested it should be regarded as misconduct and they should be subject to sanction under the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015.^[27] This recommendation was based on advice from senior House of Lords officials that the standing orders could provide for the House to expel a member who breached such an undertaking. Under the 2015 act, the standing orders can make provision for the House to resolve to expel or suspend a member for reasons relating to their conduct.^[28]

Of the two routes for bringing in a retirement age, the committee concluded the House would “have control over the process” if it agreed its own resolution.^[29] This would mean it would be able to take forward the transitional measures in the committee’s retirement proposal. The committee said the House “could have far less influence” if the government brought in legislation.^[30] The committee therefore recommended the House should be invited to agree a resolution setting out its opinion that a member should retire from the House no later than the age of 80, with transitional arrangements in place for existing members for the first five years.^[31]

3.2 Participation

Introducing a 20% attendance requirement

The Labour manifesto made a commitment to “introduce a new participation requirement” for the House of Lords, but it did not set out any details on how participation should be measured or what a sufficient level of participation might be.^[32]

The committee concluded that measuring participation was “challenging as much of the work of members takes place away from the chamber”.^[33] It cautioned against “comparing the value of this unseen work with more visible contributions in the House” or “imposing a participation requirement [that] risks incentivising performance activity at the expense of effective contribution”. The committee therefore concluded that attendance was “the most practical metric by which to set a tangible requirement”.

Current requirements and expectations around attendance are set out in legislation and in the standing orders. Under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, any peer who does not attend the House during a parliamentary session lasting six months or longer ceases to be a member at the start of the next session, subject to certain exceptions.^[34] By the start of the 2026–27 session, 18 members had left the House under these rules.^[35] The House of Lords standing orders also state that members “are to attend the sittings of the House” and if there are temporary circumstances that mean they cannot do so, they should obtain leave of absence.^[36] A member who has no reasonable expectation of returning as an active member at some point in the future is expected to retire.^[37]

The committee said it was necessary to strengthen the existing attendance provisions in the House of Lords Reform Act 2014.^[38] It argued there needed to be a balance between “enabling members to remain actively engaged in their professional careers—thereby keeping their expertise current—and ensuring that they contribute meaningfully to the work of the House”.

The committee recommended the minimum attendance threshold should be set at 20% of sitting days, averaged over two sessions.^[39] Members who failed to meet this requirement should cease to be members of the House of Lords. The committee recommended that attendance at select committee meetings within or outside Westminster, and meetings of analogous bodies, should be counted towards the new threshold.^[40] The committee also said a process should be established by the House for examining the merits of exceptional cases where an exemption to the threshold could be agreed.^[41]

Most members would have met this threshold when looking at attendance rates over the last two complete sessions. Figure 2 shows member attendance over the 2023–24 and 2024–26 sessions—attendance is shown as a percentage of the total number of sitting days over the two sessions combined.^[42]

Figure 2: House of Lords member attendance rates over the 2023–24 and 2024–26 sessions

Note: These calculations include only those members who were eligible to attend both sessions in full (including former members). Figure 2 is intended to be indicative only. Past attendance does not necessarily predict future attendance rates, and the introduction of a new attendance requirement could result in changes in future attendance patterns.

Implementation

The committee recommended that its proposed attendance requirement should be implemented through standing orders, drawing on the sanctioning powers in the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015.^[43] This was based on advice from senior officials that the House has the power to set a higher minimum participation requirement than the one in the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 and that a failure to comply with such a requirement could give rise to sanctions.^[44] The committee recommended that the new requirement should not apply to members on leave of absence.^[45]

The committee also considered the best way of ensuring that attendance data was reliable and accurate.^[46] It said consideration should be given to using members’ parliamentary passes for this. It invited the House of Lords Commission to consider how best to implement such a system and keep members updated on their attendance record.

4.  What is the government’s position?

The government has not yet commented on the committee’s proposals. On the day the report was published, a spokesperson said the government would “carefully consider the committee’s recommendations ahead of the government’s response later this year”.^[47] The spokesperson reiterated that introducing a retirement age and participation requirement were manifesto commitments.

Baroness Smith of Basildon, leader of the House of Lords, has previously suggested the government is open to various possible ways of implementing such changes. During debates on the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, she said that “if we can do things without legislation or prior to legislation then we should move to do so quickly”.^[48] She said that if the House could come to a consensus on issues around participation, attendance and retirement, it would “certainly make it much easier to take legislation forward, because we will have an agreed view”.^[49]

More recently, Baroness Smith said that when the committee brought forward its proposals it would give the House the opportunity to “take action and show that we can lead reforms rather than resist them”.^[50] At other points, she has emphasised that the government has a manifesto commitment to introducing a retirement and participation requirement and was “determined to press ahead on these two issues”.^[51]

In terms of wider questions of Lords reform, the Starmer government said in the May 2026 King’s Speech that it would introduce a bill to create a mechanism for removing peerages from disgraced peers.^[52] No such bill has been introduced to date.

Prior to becoming prime minister, Andy Burnham said he believed the House of Lords should be replaced with a senate of the nations and regions, as part of wider changes to the Westminster system, including introducing proportional representation for elections to the House of Commons.^[53] During the Makerfield by-election campaign, Mr Burnham suggested he “wouldn’t rule out quite an early change, and possibly the 2029 general election or beyond” for introducing indirect elections to the House of Lords and cutting its size.^[54] Labour’s 2024 general election manifesto had pledged to “seek to improve the national and regional balance of the second chamber”.^[55] It said Labour was “committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions” and would consult on proposals.

5.  Read more

• BBC, ‘Peers face new attendance rules under proposed House of Lords changes’, 15 July 2026
• Politico, ‘Peers told to attend House of Lords more often—or get fired’, 14 July 2026
• Hansard Society, ‘How do we protect politicians in a dangerous age?’, Parliament Matters podcast, 17 July 2026 (podcast episode including discussion of the committee report from 00:42:00)

---

Image © House of Lords 2026