House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Third Reading

My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, has consented to place his prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Amendment 1

1: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause— “ResignationIn section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (resignation), after subsection (4) insert—“(5) Where a notice under this section is given and signed by a person on behalf of a peer who lacks capacity to give or sign the notice, the notice must be given and signed in accordance with Standing Orders of the House.””Member’s explanatory statement This amendment inserts a new clause which makes clear that a notice under section 1(1) of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 may be given and signed on behalf of a peer who lacks capacity; and which provides that such a notice must be given and signed in accordance with Standing Orders of the House.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 1 to 4 and 6. In Committee and on Report, the House considered amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, regarding the sensitive matter of allowing Peers who lack capacity to be able to retire through a power of attorney. On Report, the noble Lord agreed to withdraw his amendment so that we could consider and discuss the issue further ahead of the debate today.

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Ashton of Hyde and Lord Pannick, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Garnier and Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, for meeting me after Report to discuss this issue. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, who has engaged with me on this issue, which many of us have personal experience of and feel passionately about. As I have said throughout, I think we are all trying to get to the same place on this matter and there is agreement across the House on the position that Members who lose capacity should be able to retire from your Lordships’ House with the dignity they deserve.

As I noted in previous debates, after becoming Leader I formally raised this matter with the Clerk of the Parliaments and sought my own legal advice. I had discussed this already with a number of noble Lords, the usual channels and the Clerk of the Parliaments. Following the debate in Committee, where I was grateful for the support across the House, I committed to continue to pursue this and, as a result, a solution was agreed by the Procedure and Privileges Committee. The Clerk of the Parliaments confirmed that he would accept a notice of resignation or retirement submitted to him by a person acting on behalf of a Peer who had lost capacity where that person holds either a lasting power of attorney covering property and affairs, executed under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, or an enduring power of attorney made prior to the 2005 Act.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for coming up with and discussing this elegant solution, and for moving Amendment 1 and speaking to the consequential amendments, all of which I fully endorse. They will be much more comprehensive than my original amendment as soon as the detail has been addressed in the Standing Orders, and there will be a resolution to the problem that faced all parties and groups in the House. In her speech, she acknowledged and took into account the views of the House. By using Standing Orders to supply those details, the House will be given a chance to take a view on their merits, and they can be changed relatively easily if necessary—for example, if the power of attorney regime changes in the future.

I also thank the noble and learned Lords, Lord Garnier and Lord Keen, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for their assistance and advice. In thanking the Leader, I note, as I am sure has not escaped her notice, that the only Back-Bench amendment to the historic House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill subsequently adopted by the Government was initiated by a hereditary Peer—not an important fact, I admit, but perhaps a footnote to a footnote in history.

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 1 because it provides the best solution to a sensitive problem. There is, at present, uncertainty as to whether noble Lords who lack capacity can resign from the House. A legislative provision is required to remove this uncertainty, but the risk with legislation on this complex topic is that it may fail to capture all the relevant criteria and would then be very difficult to amend. The neat solution adopted by Amendment 1 is to provide statutory authority for Standing Orders of this House to regulate the matter. The complexity of the issue remains, but it can be addressed in detail in the drafting of the Standing Orders and with the assistance of the expertise in this House—you can never have too many lawyers. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for responding speedily and effectively, with the considerable assistance of the Bill team, on this important issue raised at earlier stages, as he has said, by the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde.

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for all the work that she and those in her office have been doing over many months to find a solution to this problem on behalf of the families of Peers who lack capacity. I know that it is the families that she has particularly in mind, and they certainly deserve our careful thought. The solution which has been adopted is an agile one, as has been said, which means that the House has ownership of the drafting of the Standing Orders and the mechanisms that are necessary. As it happens, it is exactly the kind of solution that the Supreme Court found for itself in 2009. It was provided with a set of rules which could be altered only by statutory instrument, and it decided instead to resort to practice directions of its own devising, which are flexible and can be changed as circumstances require. So, the mechanism is ideal and very much to be welcomed.

I particularly welcome Amendment 3, which characterises the thoughtfulness of the noble Baroness. It means that the measure will come into force on the passing of this Bill and we will not have to wait until the end of the Session, which is surely absolutely right. Our thanks go particularly to the noble Baroness for the work she did long before the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, brought forward his amendment.

My Lords, in endorsing what the noble and learned Lord has just said, I think it would be remiss to allow my noble friend Lord Ashton to hide behind his natural diffidence. Without him, this would not have happened; we owe him a great debt, as do the families of those Peers who may wish to make use of this provision in future. Of course, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader for her assistance in this matter. It is regrettable that this looks as though it is the only amendment to this Bill which will survive to Royal Assent. However, at least it is a good amendment that we can all celebrate.

My Lords, I put my name to this amendment. I underline the thanks that have been expressed to all the various people mentioned, including the lawyers, who have played a very important part.

As has been said, the noble Baroness the Leader tried very hard over a long period to find an appropriate and successful solution to this. Many people, including my noble friend Lord Ashton of Hyde, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others, felt it was safer to have a legislative underpinning. She has accepted that and put a very constructive amendment to the House. I thank her for that. I also thank her for the firm and clear assurance she gave on Amendment 3. Since I may not have another occasion—I have not had much engagement with them—I also thank the Bill team for their work; some of their faces are quite familiar to me, and I know they will have given great service to the Government.

It would have been good to see other minor incremental changes made to the Bill, and there were some ideas floated. Let us hope that we can find some other occasion to take those things forward. In the interim, I am very happy to have associated my name with this amendment, which carries the support of your Lordships on this side of the House.

My Lords, the other amendment in this group, Amendment 5, is in my name. It is a small change, consequential to the amendment your Lordships made during our first day on Report. Since the Bill now seeks to abolish the system of hereditary by-elections and to let those who currently sit in the House leave in the same manner as the rest of us—by one of the routes set out in the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, or by some far higher authority—Amendment 5 changes the requirement in Clause 6(4) for their Writ of Summons to expire at the end of the Session, as originally proposed.

I am very grateful to noble Lords—temporal and spiritual—from all corners of the House who supported this change to the Bill. I believe it is consistent with the Government’s manifesto commitment. As well as being kinder and less abrupt, it is consistent with the ways that we have treated other groups of noble Lords who have had their time in this House brought to an end: the Irish Peers in the 1920s and the Law Lords after 2009.

I thank the Leader for her support and echo the comments made about the amendment on power of attorney. It is often awkward for those of us in this House to debate the composition of our House or to confront the consequences it has for our Members, but she has been clear throughout in her praise for the public service given by our hereditary colleagues over many years. I thank her for saying that throughout and for the consensus she has achieved on the amendments she has brought today. It is a very good thing that an amendment is going to the other place bearing not just her name but those of my noble friend Lord True and the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Pannick. I hope we might be able to find some further areas of consensus still, but I am grateful for this one.

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken. It is good we have found an elegant solution—I have rarely been accused of being elegant, but I am happy to take it on this occasion—to a problem we all recognise. It is better in statute, as the noble Lord said. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that I did not realise there had been an awkwardness in the House about discussing measures in this Bill. It did not feel awkward at the time, but I think I know what he means. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have supported my amendments—particularly the Leader of the Opposition, who has added his name, and others. In that spirit, I beg to move.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Clause 6: Extent and commencement

Amendments 2 to 4

2: Clause 6, page 3, line 2, after “section 1” insert “, (Resignation)” Member's explanatory statement This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting a new clause after clause 3.

3: Clause 6, page 3, line 5, at end insert— “(2A) Section (Resignation), this section and section 7 come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment provides that the new clause inserted by the amendment in my name inserting a new clause after clause 3, as well as the clauses dealing with extent and commencement and the short title come into force on the day on which the Bill is passed.