House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Ashton of Hyde Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

16: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Retirement from the House of LordsIn section 1(2)(b) of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, after “peer” insert “or a person holding a lasting power of attorney for that peer”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows for a person holding a lasting power of attorney for a peer to sign on their behalf when notifying the Clerk of the Parliaments of the peer’s retirement.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in Committee, it was pretty much acknowledged that this amendment addressed a genuine problem and that the House as a whole would benefit from a solution. That problem, in a nutshell, is that the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 clearly states that a notice of resignation

“must … be signed by the peer and by a witness”.

Therefore, if a Peer has lost mental capacity and the Clerk of the Parliaments does not feel able to accept an attorney’s signature, there could be the perverse situation where a Peer’s attorney could arrange medical care or sell a Peer’s house but could not submit a notice of resignation on their behalf, thus leaving that Peer free to speak or vote in the House when they really should not. This is undignified for the Peer and bad for the reputation of the House.

Amendment 16 would amend the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 to allow a person holding a lasting power of attorney to sign a letter of resignation on a Peer’s behalf. Following the debate in Committee, I do not think the intention is controversial and I will not spend more time on it.

I thank the Leader of the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments separately for spending time with me to discuss this amendment. The Leader has done what she said she would do in Committee and has, together with the Clerk of the Parliaments, come up with a solution—the issue is whether it is the best one. In the decade or so since the passing of the 2014 Act, the Clerk of the Parliaments and his predecessors have accepted legal advice that it would not be lawful to accept a notice of resignation by a Peer’s agent or attorney. The Leader recently commissioned further advice from the Government Legal Department, which I am informed admits that there are good arguments on both sides but now advises that an attorney may submit a notice of resignation on behalf of a Peer.

Armed with the new government lawyers’ advice but conscious of the good arguments on both sides, the Clerk of the Parliaments has changed his mind and said that he is now prepared to accept the legal risk of accepting a resignation from an attorney, subject to certain safeguards. I emphasise that the unfortunate Clerk of the Parliaments is only implementing a system that we have created but is forced to take the legal risk by accepting the new advice instead of the previous advice. He may later be found to be correct in accepting the advice or he may not.

What would happen if a successor Clerk of the Parliaments disagreed with his interpretation of the advice? What would happen if a court found that the advice was incorrect? Why should we leave the Clerk of the Parliaments to bear the risk that we have created? Surely it would be better if we made the situation clear by amending the 2014 Act in the way the amendment suggests. The Government are already amending that Act in Clause 3(4).

As we all know, legislative time is at a premium, so adopting the amendment is a perfect opportunity for this House to do its duty to revise legislation and remove doubt. In the words of the Leader of the House when she was Leader of the Opposition,

“there is an obligation on us to do what we can to improve legislation. That is our role”.—[Official Report, 31/1/23; col. 636.]

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

Before my noble friend sits down, I fully understand why he is suggesting this and I have a lot of sympathy with it, but, for clarity, I would like to know about a detail in his discussions with the Clerk of the Parliaments. For the attorney to exercise an attorney’s power, they would have to make sure that the person they were representing had lost capacity. What steps have been included to assess that capacity? I served on the Mental Capacity Act committee for many years, and under the Act there is a procedure to assess someone’s capacity. Particularly in respect of very elderly people, sometimes people are deemed to have lost capacity when in fact they are suffering from things like urinary tract infections. For that power to be exercised legally, what has my noble friend agreed will be the way in which capacity is legally assessed?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)]

As far as I understand it, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 says that an attorney established under a lasting power of attorney must think about the code of practice within that Bill when they make decisions on the other person’s behalf, so they are under a duty to abide by the code of practice that is contained within that Bill.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

Forgive me, but within that code of practice is a clear code of conduct for how capacity is assessed and by whom. There should be an assumption of capacity before that process starts.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)]

Exactly. The attorney under a lasting power of attorney has duties. If he or she was exercising that duty within the realm of the Act, they would be acting lawfully, and they would establish capacity using the advice that is contained in the code of practice. I beg to move.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I will be brief because I cosigned and spoke to this amendment in Committee. The amendment seems to me to be bathed in common sense and one that this House should accept without question. It is a timely amendment that is also based in humanity. As I explained last time, there are two types of powers of attorney, but Section 1 of the 2014 Act does not seem to come within either of them. Therefore, to avoid the confusion that currently seems to be abroad, we should make that confusion go away by agreeing to my noble friend’s amendment.

We have heard something of what the Clerk of the Parliaments may or may not think, but, with the greatest respect to him, what he thinks is neither here nor there. This is a government Bill, and presumably the Government’s policy is not to permit this amendment. They must justify their refusal to accept the noble Lord’s amendment, and they cannot hide behind their lawyer or our clerk.

The simple point is: are we to be humane? Are we to allow those who have lost their capacity to be released from the burdens of membership of this House of Lords, or are we to leave them to hang on in some undignified way? My noble friend’s amendment is sensible, humane and timely, and I support it with great vigour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord is right and I am grateful to him for the discussions we have had on this point. In the legislative solution, there would have to be reference to Scotland as well. That is why I am confident that our current position, for the Procedure and Privileges Committee, is the right one and works.

However, I accept the views of noble Lords who want to put this matter beyond risk. If it is possible to do that through discussions then, as I have said to the noble Lord, I am happy to delay Third Reading to enable those discussions to take place. That is a way forward on this. I hope it is available to the noble Lord, because we want to get this right. None of us wants to be in a position in which a noble Lord whose family think it is appropriate for them to retire is in legislative limbo and cannot do so. If we pass this today, we would be in that position. I am very happy to have discussions with government lawyers between now and Third Reading to resolve the matter. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who spoke in this debate, including my co-signatories—a formidable legal team. I repeat my thanks to the Leader of the House, who spent a lot of time discussing this with me. I am very grateful for her offer to work further on this matter over the coming weeks, and I am willing to accept that. However, I am afraid I do not think the commitment she has made, though generous, is enough, and I noted that it quite understandably included the ominous phrase “if agreement can be reached”.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am sorry to intervene on the noble Lord. To be clear, if he puts his amendment to the vote, we cannot support him in that amendment and therefore we cannot have discussions on it between now and Third Reading, because it will be part of the Bill. We would have to wait until ping- pong and have discussions then, which is why this is a better route forward. I am sorry if noble Lords do not quite understand the procedure around how we would have to manage this, which is why I suggest we have discussions. We are even prepared to delay Third Reading to allow for those discussions to take place, so that we can reach a solution that satisfies the whole House. It is a perfectly reasonable way forward.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)]

It is a shame that it is take it or leave it, as far as discussions are concerned.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord is a former Chief Whip and he will understand the procedures of the House. If he puts his amendment to the vote today and it is not agreed, the vote we had in Committee stands and the clerk has accepted it. If his amendment is agreed, it is therefore part of the Bill and we cannot address that until it has been to the House of Commons. It is not that we are saying take it or leave it; we are saying that we are unable to do so within our procedures. The way that the House can have the discussion is at Third Reading. It is in the noble Lord’s hands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)]

I do not agree with that exactly. It would be perfectly possible to have discussions, even if it was in the Bill. Even if there are particular problems, once it is in the Bill it can be brought back at Third Reading.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, to assist the House, paragraph 8.153 in the Companion says that:

“An issue which has been fully debated and voted on or negatived at a previous stage of a bill may not be reopened by an amendment on third reading”.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)]

There is still ping-pong. However, I accept what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has said.

I am quite surprised there is such controversy about what I thought was a fairly common-sense amendment. We would like to get a solution that everyone could agree on. There is a principle here that errors or problems with legislation should be addressed by legislation. If we have something that we all agree is wrong in a Bill then it should be corrected in the Bill. I have accepted what the noble Baroness has said about having discussions before Third Reading and that the Third Reading could be delayed to enable those discussions. I am sure that we will come to an agreement if we discuss this sensibly. I am therefore prepared to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.