House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

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

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

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.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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.

Following discussions with noble Lords and the debate on Report, it became clear that the view of the House was that it would be preferable to find a solution in statute that would put it beyond doubt that Peers who lack capacity are able to retire via power of attorney. Any solution would also need to ensure that the current position of the clerk could not be reversed in the future.

I as Leader, and we as a House, have a duty to get this right. On Report I committed to engage in further discussions on the issue, and I believe that the amendments tabled in my name now present a solution that will satisfy the concerns raised in previous debates.

I will briefly outline the position for the House. Amendment 1 in my name makes clear that a notice under Section 1(1) of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 may be “given and signed” by a person acting on behalf of a Peer who lacks capacity, and it provides that such a notice

“must be given and signed in accordance with Standing Orders of the House”.

It would then be for the Standing Orders and any associated guidance in the Companion, both of which will be subject to the approval of the Procedure Committee and then the House, to set out how these arrangements are to operate in practice. That of course will be subject to further work and discussions that I hope will start over the Summer Recess so that the Standing Orders and the guidance are in place as soon as possible. I would expect them to include the details of sorts of instruments under which the clerk would accept a notice of resignation on behalf of a Peer, the requirements on a person when submitting a notice of resignation on behalf of a Peer and the steps to be taken when that notice is received. I will of course consult noble Lords who expressed interest in the area, including those who signed the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, and the usual channels.

I am very grateful for the support across the House for these amendments. I think these are the only amendments to the Bill to have attracted the support of all the usual channels, and I am grateful for that. This approach aims to provide the certainty that noble Lords have sought on this issue, but it also reduces the risk of wider ramifications for the existing legal framework on capacity and powers of attorney. To return to a subject I have raised before, it also gives the House ownership of the details of these arrangements, allowing us to make modifications as and when required. This is so that the House can remain agile and responsive to ensure that they remain workable, particularly in the event of any future changes.

In resolving this issue and providing legal clarity, I have decided to table amendments to make alterations to the commencement provisions in the Bill. This is to ensure that the families of Peers who wish to avail themselves of these new arrangements do not have to wait until the end of the parliamentary Session. As a result, as we have seen from Amendment 3, I now intend for the Bill to come into force on Royal Assent, specifically and only in relation to the amendments I have tabled on power of attorney. The other substantive provisions of the Bill will commence as planned at the end of the parliamentary Session in which it receives Royal Assent.

I thank noble Lords again for working constructively on this issue. I have listened to the House’s views on this important issue at every point to seek to find a solution. In Committee, I listened, acted and brought forward a solution and, on Report, I listened again. I feel that this amendment provides the certainty and durability that the House was seeking. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

6: Title, line 2, after “Lords;” insert “to make provision about resignation from the House of Lords;”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, which amends the long title, is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting a new clause after clause 3.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the other place admitted the Bill to this House for our scrutiny in December of last year. Since then, we have spent eight days—nine including today—considering the legislation, which is a total of over 51 hours of scrutiny. A total of 146 amendments were tabled in Committee, with 124 debated and a further 36 tabled on Report. The Government, including myself, are grateful for the debates we had on the Bill. I particularly thank the usual channels for the collaborative effort on the amendments relating to resignation, which we have just had, and regarding the power of attorney, as well as a number of other Members—too many to go through by name—who contributed to the wider debate on reform of this House.

With regard to progressing further reform of your Lordships’ House, I have already spoken about my intention to establish a dedicated Select Committee on the issues of retirement age and participation, and the impact that would obviously have on the size of the House. I look forward to progressing those issues following the passage of this Bill.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, I have been ably assisted by a first-rate Bill team and other officials behind the scenes. I thank them for their hard work in helping me, my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, and my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, who stood at this Dispatch Box. I am also grateful to the number of noble Lords who, over several months—even before the Bill came to your Lordships’ House—met me both privately and in small groups to discuss issues about which they had particular concerns or suggestions they had for the Bill.

A number of noble Lords have followed the journey of this Bill from the beginning, and it has been quite a journey. It will now go to the other place with amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, and will no doubt return to our House for further review. It is my hope that we will deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitments on this Bill and see legislation on the statute book as soon as possible. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal for her emollient words. I hope very much that in the time that elapses between now and our return in September careful thought will be given by the Government and the other place to the merits of the amendments and debates in your Lordships’ House. I hope the Government will think positively, even if not in the context of this Bill, about proposals from your Lordships that all Ministers in your Lordships’ House be paid and that we reaffirm the right of the monarch to create peerages that do not require the holder to sit in this place; those ideas are worth taking forward.

For my own part and, I venture to suggest, in the hopes of many other noble Lords, I would like to think that the joint amendment on power of attorney could be the symbol of other accords that might be reached as this reform goes forward. I remain committed to the principles I set out at the beginning of Committee, which include—along with a more reasonable attitude to those of our colleagues who have long sat among us—a voluntary understanding to address the perceived issue of numbers, and a reinforcement of the conventions on the conduct of this House and its relations with the other place. That would liberate this House from the unnecessary late nights that no one here enjoys. I hope that will still be possible, for without the fullest trust, respect and good will between the Government of the day and His Majesty’s Opposition—and I value the candour and friendship of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House—this House cannot function. The brutal reality is that the full exclusion of over 80 Peers does not evidence full respect and cannot be the basis of full good will.

Be that as it may, in asking my colleagues to agree that the Bill do now pass—which I know many on this side in their hearts regret—I invite the whole House to assent to the principle that no person should again enter this House to any degree by right of heredity. That has long been the professed wish of Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches.

My only regret now is that it has not been accompanied, as was promised in honour in 1999, by properly worked-out proposals for reform. The British people have never been asked to assent to an all-appointed House in perpetuity. This Bill, as presented, would have left, along with a sprinkling of Bishops, a House of life Peers created by a statute passed as recently as 1958—an all-appointed House, which is almost unique in the world. No other liberal democracy would long tolerate that a Prime Minister of whatever party—even one such as that of Mr Farage, which is not yet represented here—should have full control of the numbers and people sent here. Add to that the untrammelled power to purge and throw out Members of the sitting legislature. Such a constitutional settlement could not, and should not, long endure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

My Lords, when I made a short intervention at an earlier stage in the Bill, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, in reply, questioned—not seriously, I hope—whether or not I still liked her. The answer is that of course I do. I hold the noble Baroness in the greatest respect and indeed affection, as does the whole House, and that respect and affection is unaltered by the passage of the Bill. We on this side of the House do not bear personal grudges against political opponents merely because they are enacting decisions with which we may disagree. I accept, as do my noble friends, that the Government are fully entitled to get their business through and pass their manifesto legislation, even if I do not like it. The Bill removes the process by which new Peers can join the House by further by-elections. We accept that, albeit reluctantly.

But nowhere in the Labour manifesto did it state that currently sitting Members of the House would be summarily removed, which is an additional measure and sets a bad and, in my view, dangerous precedent whereby the Executive can simply remove Members of the second Chamber by dint of their majority in the first—an unheard-of provision that exists in no other modern democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that it would be absurd to suggest that this precedent would ever be repeated, but I suspect he is wrong, as he and his noble friends may well find out to their discomfort and cost in the not-too-distant future.

As this Bill enters its final stages, I ask the noble Baroness the Leader in turn whether she still likes me, or whether there something I have done that so deeply offends her that I and my noble friends should be thrown out of this House like discarded rubbish? We often talk of the dignity of the House, but I cannot think of anything less dignified for the House than what the Government are now doing in this Bill.

I would like to think that I have done my duty over the past almost 40 years. I certainly believe we have stuck to our side of the deal that we made 25 years ago with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, on behalf of the Labour Party—not a deal that tied the hands of a future Government, as has been claimed, but on which, to their shame, this Government are now reneging.

The House is currently wrestling with the provisions of the Employment Rights Bill. The Government are concerned with the rights of those on short-term contracts but at the same time apparently care little for those of us who have worked here with no formal contract. Although none of us in this House is technically employed to serve as Members of the House, it would be difficult to argue that this is not a place of work, or even part-time work. I suppose one could argue that our Letters Patent and Writs of Summons, taken together, constitute at least some form of agreement. Either way, we are now to be treated in a way that no one else in employment or in any workplace in Britain can be treated. It is rightly illegal to sack anyone on the basis of their birth, except here in the upper House of this Mother of Parliaments.

Before I go, I would be very grateful if the noble Baroness the Leader could tell me exactly what it is that we have done that is so wrong as to deserve being treated in this way. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has repeatedly gone out of his way to say that this is not personal, but he is wrong, because it is very personal to each and every one of us to be treated like this by those we considered our friends and colleagues. It is also deeply offensive. I would simply like to know why. Is that really too much to ask?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I had not intended to respond at length, and I will not, given that this debate on Third Reading has been quite a long one. I was reminded earlier that yesterday was the anniversary of the moon landing. Apollo 11 took eight days, three hours, 18 minutes and 35 seconds to complete its mission. I think that is just slightly short of the time we have spent debating this Bill throughout its passage.

A number of issues were raised. Yes, I still have a soft spot for the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and of course this feels personal to those departing hereditary Peers. It felt very personal to me when I lost my seat as a Member of Parliament, with far less notice. He said that this Bill was not in the Labour Party manifesto. It was. He may recall that, when we debated the Grocott Bill, I said, and I wrote in the House magazine, that we should accept it and that we would help to get it through, otherwise we would be in a position where all hereditary Peers would be removed under a Labour Government. So, he was given some notice of that; he may not have listened to me or read anything that I wrote, but it was said and it was in the Labour Party manifesto.

Nothing about the legislation says that we do not value the work of hereditary Peers, or that of any other Member of your Lordships’ House. That has always been the case, but we were quite clear that the hereditary route is not the route into your Lordships’ House that the country or the Labour Party expects.

I will look again at what the noble Lord, Lord True, said, but I think he said that, if we were not to proceed with the Bill in the way it has been drafted, it would unleash a spirit of good will. I hope that was not an indication that carrying out a Bill that is in our manifesto would unleash a spirit of something opposite to good will. I hope that is not what he intended, but that is certainly how it came across.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was concerned that this Bill opens the gates to further reform or change. I have also heard from other noble Lords that, if we finish with this Bill, nothing will ever happen again. Both cannot be true, but I think this House should take more responsibility for what we can do. If we had taken responsibility for the Grocott Bill and managed to get it through, we probably would not be here today.

On the issue about Select Committees, I know the noble Lord would like to go further and faster. I am a great believer in bite-sized chunks and the House taking responsibility. If we can make progress on those two issues and, by implication, the impact on the size of the House, I think good progress can be made. If we show we can take responsibility for the work of our House as a House, cross-party, we can do so again in the future. So I do understand the views that have been expressed. This is a matter of principle. It was flagged for some time. It was a clear manifesto commitment.