House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Lord Keen of Elie and Earl of Erroll

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I join with others to support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Ashton. The constitutional role of this House is to review and improve legislation, and this is a clear case of improving legislation. I make only two points. First, to repeat the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, we have never seen the second set of legal advice that has now been provided by the Government Legal Department. There is absolutely no convincing reason why confidentially should not be waived in respect of that legal advice. It is impossible for us to make any judgment without that happening. It is equally clear that there remains real doubt as to the advice received. The Clerk of the Parliaments has talked about being willing to take a risk. There is only a risk where there is uncertainty.

The second point I wish to underline is that mental incapacity does not necessarily proceed in a linear fashion. I take the simple example of George III: periods of pronounced mental incapacity may be followed by clear and lengthy periods of lucidity. Indeed, in the case of George III that led to constitutional problems, because when lucid he went on to question some of the steps taken in the regency. Here, you also have the case of someone who suffers a massive nervous breakdown and fully recovers, only to discover that they have been resigned from this House—an irretrievable step. They cannot go back, so what do they do? They seek to challenge and review the decision on the grounds that it was unlawful, and they may well succeed.

What happens if, after one or two years in court, it is determined that that person was entitled to continue as a Member of this House, and they then say, “Well, I would have acted in the following way with regard to primary or secondary legislation that passed through this House during the period when I was unlawfully prevented from contributing to proceedings”? It seems to me that it just leads to a constitutional problem, one that is simply resolved by a very straightforward amendment to the 2014 Act.

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I have seen two of these instances happen before. On legal advice given to a Minister not being revealed to this House, I can remember a huge row about it, and the House adjourned for 10 or 20 minutes while everyone recovered their composure because the row got so bad. It has been longstanding legal advice, and whether it is a good or a bad thing, this is probably not the place to break it, unfortunately. I do agree that it would have been very helpful to the House on the other occasion if the Minister had been able to say what that advice was. It is a good question whether we should do it, but I do not think this is necessarily the place or time, although there is long precedence for that.

On the question of powers of attorney or legal capacity, I have met this too to do with a will and things like that. The answer, very simply, is that you get advice on the question of legal capacity. If you want to push it far enough, it can end up in the courts or the Court of Protection; probably, the power of attorney would end up in front of the Court of Protection, if someone wants to push it that far, and it would be very unfortunate. If, in the George III case, the person recovered somewhat and two years’ later said, “No, I wish I had not been chucked out”, I am afraid he would not have been sitting for two years, so he would be disbarred from the House by reason of non-attendance. So that might just solve the problem.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Lord Keen of Elie and Earl of Erroll

Monday 5th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Clearly, I am not in a position to comment on a particular case. However, in the context of what is said at paragraph 5.42, one has to remember that there is the further issue of whether it would have been in the public interest to make disclosure. That necessary test would have had to be met before there would have been disclosure, however serious the original breach.

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I have been listening to the debate and realised that of course people are concerned because they do not know what information is held. Sometimes people get into trouble because something is held on file and they do not know what it is. Only the subject knows what affects them and what does not. To take the example just given, where data may have been gathered by someone who is subsequently fired, that information may have been quite sensitive if revealed to someone in another organisation, and only the individual who was the subject of those unauthorised requests would know that. Therefore, this area bears examination. I am not sure how we should deal with that, but to rely just on the commissioner to know exactly how this would affect everyone would be difficult as well. It is worth thinking about this further.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, on the example my noble friend mentioned, it is hard to think that it would not be in the public interest for somebody who has been the subject of,

“a number of unauthorised searches for related communications data”,

to be notified. Of course I thank the noble and learned Lord for his detailed reply, although I am not sure whether he responded to my amendment on the code of practice.

I do not disagree about the national interest but it does not answer my point about reversing the burden so that the default position would be that there is notification unless it is not in the public interest—or, to put it another way, notification rather than notification only if it is in the public interest that somebody is informed.

On telecommunications operators and the report to the ICO, as the Bill seeks to do throughout, I sought to join up some of the dots in this landscape. Importantly, on the Human Rights Act, the noble and learned Lord says that the considerations in Clause 2 are not relevant; we may have another go at this on Report with a slightly different approach. However, he also said—I know that this was simply a turn of phrase—that Clause 207(3) does not weaken Clause 2, “I suggest”. I hope that he will be able to say that that amounts to an assurance to the Committee. Perhaps I may invite him to do that, otherwise we will certainly come back to this for an assurance.