Arrangement of Business

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Friday 30th January 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I will make my usual statement before we start proceedings today. I will keep it short to enable the debate to start as soon as possible. I thank noble Lords again for their kind words and constructive discussions during the past week. I continue to do my best to strive to find ways to assist the House in its scrutiny, balancing some difficult and often opposing positions.

As I set out last week, following the House’s clear indication that it wants more time to consider the Bill, I will seek to adjourn the House not at 3 pm but at around 6 pm. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear me say that, ultimately, it remains in the hands of the House, and noble Lords may seek to adjourn earlier by moving the Motion that the House be resumed. As we did last week, we will adjourn the Committee at a convenient point around 1 pm for a 40-minute break, to give those participating a chance to eat.

I hope that noble Lords will make more progress than on previous days. I trust that they will continue to debate with respect for each other’s and different views, remembering that opposing views are just as sincerely held as theirs. We do not take interventions on interventions, and all interventions are opportunities to ask a short question, not to give another speech; I have asked the Whips to intervene if that it happens.

Finally, on behalf of the whole House, I place on record our thanks to the staff of the House for their usual courtesy and professionalism and the excellent service that they provide to Members, not only today but every day. With that, I think we should move to the substance of the Bill and continue our debates.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Chief Whip for the time he gave me yesterday. I would like to make three very brief points. There has been much speculation and discussion outside your Lordships’ Chamber on the procedure, principles and workings of this House.

On procedure, this week there has regrettably been much discussion about the use of the Parliament Act when it comes to the workings of the Bill. I ask the Chief Whip, who I know holds the House in great esteem and fights its cause, to clarify the fact that, in the case of the Private Member’s Bill before us, it would be unprecedented for the Parliament Act to be used. As all noble Lords know, the last time it was utilised was in 2004, with what became the Hunting Act, which was a government Bill. So we would be setting a very different precedent if that was to happen.

My second point is on procedure. If the Bill did not pass and the Parliament Act was invoked, it would not be for the Bill’s supporters to make that call. My understanding is that that would be a matter for Mr Speaker, after careful consideration. Equally, my reading of the two Acts is that it is very clear that the House of Lords would still have a role. Let us not forget that, if this was presented again in the next Session, there would still be the small issue of the ballot for Private Members’ Bills in the other place. I again ask the Chief Whip to clarify the issues of procedure to allow for effective debate in your Lordships’ House.

My third point is about the House of Lords itself: who and what we are. As many noble Lords will know, I was on the receiving end for a very long time, with 12 years in Government across communities, the Home Office, transport and the Foreign Office, dealing with the SAMLA legislation and discussions around the EU and Brexit. Everything was done in a reasoned way, as the Chief Whip has said, and we listened. I say that to the proposer of this Bill, the noble and learned Lord, whom I respect greatly. As he and I joked recently, I have certainly played my part in listening during Committee—I have been here for a large part of it—but I am yet to intervene and I warned the noble and learned Lord that that does not mean that I will not.

That said, I recall, I hope correctly, something that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said about the value of your Lordships’ House. I pay tribute to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Grey-Thompson, among others. Having listened to the debates, most, if not many, of the amendments being proposed are to ensure that, if this legislation became law—I respect that, as the Minister and my noble friends on the Front Bench have said repeatedly, this is a matter on which both His Majesty’s Government and His Majesty’s Official Opposition are neutral—the duty of care that the Government have for the protection and security of our citizens would be paramount. Therefore, I invoke the good offices of the Chief Whip and of the Lord Privy Seal and urge them to continue to protect the traditions, conventions and procedures of your Lordships’ House in any discussions that take place.

Lithuania: Balloon Incursions

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Thursday 18th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords—

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

We have plenty of time. We will hear from the Lib Dem Benches next.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Committee stage
Friday 14th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I suppose it would be apt for me to complete the Holy Trinity of faith. We have started with the Christian faith, we have heard a Jewish dimension and we have heard about equality and opportunity. As a member of the Islamic faith and as a practising Muslim, I say that, while I fully respect the House and I am grateful to the Chief Whip and the Leader, it is important that we reflect all traditions.

One of the main challenges that I have with this Bill is the lack of consultations with different communities. As many noble Lords will be aware, Friday is also a sacred day for Muslims, particularly in the middle of the day with the Jummah prayer. I just flag that point. I of course respect the organisation and the business of the House, but ask that there is time for those who practise the faith and choose to offer prayer by congregation in the middle of the day. Following on in support of my noble friends Lord Shinkwin and Lord Polak, I think that the diversity of our country, the diversity of the House and the respect of all traditions and faiths is something that should be borne in mind.

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

My Lords, I will first say, as a Catholic, that I have great respect for the three noble Lords who have spoken: the noble Lords, Lord Shinkwin, Lord Polak and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon. I like all three noble Lords very much, as they know, and I am sympathetic to the points they raised. It is why I made a statement to the House yesterday, after Questions, which I then sent to every noble Lord’s parliamentary email account. My statement and email sought to help colleagues with reasonable planning assumptions, in line with the usual conventions.

The Government would never seek, on a Private Member’s Bill, to force the House to do anything it did not want to do. My plan today is, if necessary, to return to this Dispatch Box at a convenient point around 2.30 pm to again give advice to the House on how we achieve a rising time of around 3 pm—it could be before or slightly after. At the end of the day, the decision is the matter for the House, not for me as Government Chief Whip. This is not a government Bill. The Government are neutral on the Bill. At this point, though, I think we need to move on from procedure and start debating and scrutinising the Bill and the more than 900 amendments before us, line by line, with respect and courtesy for each other and for the different opinions genuinely and sincerely held across the House.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

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

I want to say quickly that we are taking questions, and I want to get as many noble Lords in as possible.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the Statement and all noble Lords who have spoken. There is one important fact which I hope the noble Baroness can focus on. When the attack on Israel happened, there was a majority of Jews who were tragically killed by the abhorrent organisation that is Hamas—and now what we also see from Hezbollah. But let us be clear, as one Muslim leader said to me on my first visit to Israel after 7 October, that there were 26 young Muslim attendees at that very festival. Israel has a rich diversity; places such as Haifa and Jerusalem reflect the three great Abrahamic faiths.

My question is specific to the role of Qatar; I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, is sitting next to the noble Baroness. Qatar is investing a lot, and, as my noble friend Lord Howard has said, plays a crucial role in the release of hostages. Can the noble Baroness update us on the specifics of the peace agreements to bring about a ceasefire in Gaza? We were nearly there, just before the Lebanon escalation, and the United States was also very bullish in what are extremely challenging circumstances.