China and Japan

Debate between Lord Garnier and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I cannot give details, but discussions are taking place. I think we all understand the threats of cyber security, and why we have to minimise them and not accept them from any part of the world against anyone in the UK or any UK institution. Those discussions are ongoing, and it is important that we have them. The present situation is not what we wish to see. That is why it was so important that, when the embassy got planning permission, we included the security implications in the decision-making process. My noble friend is more of an expert on cyber issues than I am, but I assure him that discussions are ongoing and will continue.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, the whole House respects both the Leader of the House and her noble friend the Foreign Office Minister, who is sitting alongside her. As I said the other day to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, the problem that we face in this House —those of us who are not Foreign Office Ministers—is that when Ministers in this House use expressions such as “challenge” or “robustly raise”, it sadly does not mean very much. They are delightful generalisations, and they breed a form of suspicion that all that is happening is that a formula is being adhered to.

Is the Leader of the House able to be a little more forthcoming? The noble Baroness the Minister of State at the Foreign Office was not in the room when the Chinese ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Office, so she was unable to tell me what exchanges took place, albeit she may later have had some form of readout. We need a little more detail. Nobody is suggesting that the Government are not being candid with us but perhaps they can be a little more open in the secrecy of this Chamber and let us know precisely what “challenge” and “raising robustly” mean. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lord True said, there are grounds for concern that “robust” and “challenge” have a different meaning in the Government from on the street?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Given that we have had an aircraft carrier in the area, I think that is fairly robust. I will get the precise details for the noble and learned Lord. He has been a Minister himself, and he is being a little cheeky. On the secrecy of the House of Lords, there are thousands watching our proceedings. Hansard is published.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

Millions.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord says millions. He may be more optimistic than I am, but we are hardly meeting in secret. The art of diplomacy is an ongoing process, not a moment. The House understands that. The noble and learned Lord has to accept that when the Prime Minister raises issues that have not been raised for a long time, he will do so to ensure that his voice and that of this country are heard. I do not recognise the noble and learned Lord’s characterisation. Most of us can understand the diplomatic language, perhaps, of “raising” and being “robust” on issues. No one can say that we have not been robust on Ukraine, the Uyghurs and Taiwan. The Prime Minister has not changed his view in any way. He has been quite clear on that. I am unable to give the noble and learned Lord the minutes of the meeting but I can give him the assurance that the Prime Minister raises issues in the way in which the House would expect him to.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Lord Garnier and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that, and perhaps I can offer a helpful way forward. This amendment is identical to one tabled in Committee, except that it seeks to permit Peers to retire by allowing a person holding a lasting power of attorney to sign the notice of retirement, which is then given to the Clerk of the Parliaments.

The debate we had in Committee was very useful. As I think the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said, it was an example of the House at its best, coming together to resolve an issue concerning the dignity of our Members that we all need to be resolved. There was cross-party support for addressing this issue, which has lingered unresolved for far too long, and which the House should have addressed a long time ago.

At the Dispatch Box last time, I made a commitment to report back to the House, and I am able to do so positively today. I will give some of the background of why this matters to me: I was concerned about it before I was Leader of the House, when I was Leader of the Opposition. I know that previous Leaders and Chief Whips were given the same advice as I was—that it was not possible for somebody to be retired by lasting power of attorney or by power of attorney.

I had a case with a colleague whose health was declining, the family wished that Member to retire, and when they approached the Clerk of the Parliaments they were told that the Member could not be retired but he could take a leave of absence. I found that completely and totally unacceptable, because we did not give that Member the opportunity to leave this House with dignity. I investigated further, and I was shocked to discover that they would not even accept a power of attorney. Given that the circumstances in which a power of attorney is accepted are significant, for this House not to accept it seemed rather strange, and I thought it was unacceptable. You can sell your family home, you can resign somebody as a director of a company, but you could not retire from the House.

I raised this matter with the Clerk of the Parliaments, but I also sought my own government legal advice. I have discussed the matter with noble and learned colleagues around the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments, and we reached an immediate practical solution. Members may or may not have seen the Procedure and Privileges Committee’s report. The Clerk of the Parliaments contacted me to say that, having reviewed the legal advice available to him and his predecessors, subject to safeguards—which I will come on to—he would be willing to accept the notice of resignation submitted to him on behalf of a Peer who has lost capacity, holding either a lasting power of attorney covering property and affairs, executed under Section 9(1) of the Mental Capacity Act, or an enduring power of attorney made prior to the 2005 Act coming into force. The safeguards were that the clerk would see the power of attorney, which is a standard procedure in all cases, and that if there was any doubt or any concern, he would raise that with the Whips.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I have a number of other points to make that might be helpful.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

I will be brief. What is the basis of the clerk’s—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

As to the noble and learned Lord’s impatience, I ask him to bear with me as I go through this.

The basis of that is the legal advice received on that. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about not sharing legal advice, even though that is a commonly held view in government, but I will come to that as I may have a way forward that will help him. I think he understands the risks of sharing legal advice and knows full well why the Government do not share it.

We have moved on, and it is now possible. There are families of noble Lords who presently are looking at this to ensure they can retire Members who are ill. That decision is based on a lasting power of attorney or an enduring power of attorney, so we are clear that we can accept both of those.

The noble Lord referred to the risk that the position may change again. The matter has already been considered and approved by the Procedure and Privileges Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord True, is also a member. The report that I showed was published on 24 June with details, and the relevant amendments have been made to the Companion. To state the obvious—I am sure that noble Lords understand this—to reverse that would require further consideration by the committee and then notification to the House. I am confident that the position is practical and sustainable and will not be reversed. The House has a clear view on this matter: Members should be able to retire with dignity through power of attorney. We should let that work through and ensure it takes full effect.

Having listened to the discussion that has taken place, I want to proceed further. I have long held the view, and have discussed it with noble Lords across the House, that this House should take some responsibility for managing its own affairs. The question is: does this have to be in statute in order to take effect? As I have said previously on issues such as retirement and participation, I want the House to step up to its own responsibilities.

I question whether we need primary legislation to resolve this, and I do not think we should pass legislation that is not needed, but I am also concerned that as drafted, the amendment could risk unintended consequences. Unlike the report of the Procedure and Privileges Committee, this amendment makes provision only for lasting power of attorney. This is part of a broader area of law that involves both enduring power of attorney, which is recognised in the Procedure and Privileges Committee report, and other forms of legal authority, such as the ordinary power of attorney, more regularly used when someone manages an individual’s affairs when they are temporarily abroad or unwell.

There are also the provisions that the noble Baroness referred to in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and legislation prior to that which was carefully developed and set out when a lasting power of attorney or an enduring power of attorney should or should not be relied upon. Those ensure that safeguards are in place. By singling out just the lasting power of attorney and making it so that a notice signed by a person holding one is effective in all circumstances, the amendment makes no provision for the wider context. This is a complex issue. I have to admit to noble Lords that when I first embarked on this, I thought it was a straightforward issue, and the more I have looked at it, the more complex it has become. I am wary of looking at simple legislative fixes for what are complicated issues.