Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Baroness Blackstone and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we will hear from the Labour Benches, then the Conservative Benches and then the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, thank you very much for letting me get in. My noble friend the Minister is very robust but, from listening to this debate, I find it a bit difficult to imagine the kind of cross-party discussions and sensible debate that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked for. I begin with what the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said: he started by accusing the Government of doing a U-turn. I think there have been two U-turns on this: the first was from the President of the United States, who is volatile as always—we have heard just how far the negotiations had already gone between the State Department and the FCDO—and the second was from the Conservative Party. It was absolutely clear that the previous Conservative Government, as my noble friend the Minister said, spent 11 rounds of debate on this, and they produced a proposal for a treaty that is full of all the things that were in the treaty that this Government came up with. I think that there is a bit of a U-turn on the noble Lord’s side. Does my noble friend agree, given what has happened, that it is somewhat hypocritical to hear the Conservative Front Benches making the sort of criticisms they have made when they have been through all this themselves?

Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Baroness Blackstone and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

Let me just finish, I am just about to complete what I was going to say. I am happy to take the question.

The evidence is clear that telemedicine has reduced waiting times; enabled earlier treatment, which is a huge advantage; maintained high safety and effectiveness rates; improved privacy, which is something that most women in these circumstances really appreciate; and increased safeguarding disclosures. It expands choice and keeps women within a regulated clinical framework. That in itself is exceedingly important too.

To weaken or remove telemedical abortion would not improve safety; it would instead reduce access, delay care and create barriers for the most vulnerable women. The system works. It is safe, effective and must be maintained.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, views on both sides of the debate are sincerely held. We should all respect each other for that. We had a long debate in Committee. This is Report. Members should make their points. Repeated interventions do not help us at this stage. We need to take the temperature down. The House can make its decision known in the Division Lobbies later on.

Arrangement of Business

Debate between Baroness Blackstone and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Friday 30th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

As the noble Baroness knows, this issue has been raised over a number of weeks now, and I have met several noble Lords to discuss it. As I have said before, it is up to any noble Lord to move at any time that the House do now resume if they wish to do so. I said that I would not come back until 6 pm, but the point is that we set a target every day for Members to get to. If we get to the target, we can go home. If we get to it much earlier, we can leave earlier. The 6 pm time is a maximum—we do not have to go until 6 pm. We could get to our target and go home much earlier if we wanted to. In my discussions with colleagues, I have tried to put in place procedures to help people who need to leave for reasons such as disability or religion.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Chief Whip has rightly pointed to the lack of progress we are making on this Bill. Part of the problem is not how much time we spend on each amendment, but the number of amendments that have been put down, which is unprecedented. I hope that those who are opposed to the Bill will accept that many of us who are in favour of it understand completely the good faith of those who are querying some aspects of it. What we are worried about is that we are not going to be able properly to consider the Bill because of the time being taken on many amendments—quite often rather absurd ones, and some of which completely repeat what has already been brought forward.

Lastly, in defence of my noble and learned friend the Bill’s sponsor, he has responded in these debates with courtesy and consideration and has taken seriously what has been said. It is very unfair to criticise him. He has also responded in a letter, as has already been stated, setting out which amendments he intends to take further and come up with a response to on Report.