Arrangement of Business

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Friday 30th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I have two questions. Will the Chief Whip confirm that whether the Parliament Act is invoked is entirely a matter for the House of Commons? Does he agree that the reason that the Parliament Act is being discussed at the moment is because this is day 8 of Committee and we are still on Clause 1?

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I was not going to intervene, but the reason that we are here is, to be frank, that we have received no answers on any of the points raised by the proposers of the Bill. We have no idea what amendments might be laid. If the proposers of the Bill were to show themselves much more willing to listen to the problems we have, we might well be able to move faster. But I am a bit tired of the general campaign that suggests that this House, in doing its job, is somehow or other behaving badly.