Arrangement of Business

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Friday 30th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, the Government Chief Whip in his opening statement said that he is not an expert on the Parliament Act; I think he is soon going to become one. Perhaps I may ask him a question to ensure that the briefing covers it, if it does not already. In the event that this Bill does not make progress in this House and therefore is reintroduced to the Commons next year, for the Parliament Act to be used, would it have to be introduced by a private Member or could the Government introduce it, allowing the Parliament Act then to take effect, without it being as a result of the Private Members’ ballot in the House of Commons?

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, very briefly, I would like to put on record my thanks to the Chief Whip for being so helpful to all sides in this whole procedure. Following on from the point from the noble Lord, Lord Moore, in the various public events that I have done in the last week, I have been told by members of the public, “Oh, we see that the Parliament Act is going to be invoked for the Bill, so what’s the point?”. Some of them have been supporters of the Bill, while some have been worried about it, but everybody seems to think that that is happening. It has been done by media briefings, and it is quite demoralising to be in a situation where you are told that you are, in effect, wasting your time.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in preparing for today and worrying about getting the wording right on the amendments I want to speak on, I have read this Bill a number of times—which is an understatement—and try to take seriously the role that we are given in terms of scrutiny. Where I have not known anything about a matter, I have just not said anything; I have, as has been suggested, listened. However, this is not about an imagined Bill; it is about the Bill we have before us and gaps in it that some of us are worried about: what is not said and what will happen if those gaps are not filled.

It is very important, whatever side we are on, to treat one another as though we are acting in good faith, because we are. What is discrediting to the House is a media briefing suggesting that there is some cynical plot of outside forces and that, somehow, we are all influenced by hidden religious views—I think that was one phrase used. This Bill requires us to be deeply moral and ethical, whatever side we are on, because we are talking about life and death issues, a change in the constitution of the NHS and so on. However, we have to assume that we are acting in good faith, because we are acting in good faith. It is nerve-wracking enough taking on an issue like this without being told by the media, as I was last night on “Newsnight” in the gap, “Oh well, you lot are just being manipulated by forces”.

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

My Lords, can I just finish? I think this is supposed to be questions to me, not debating the Bill. If there are any questions, I will do my best to answer them.