Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion

Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Thursday 12th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness. She is absolutely right. The reality is that we need to make sure that any process of getting to the point of legislation on something that is so important to Members of your Lordships’ House is done through consultation and engagement with the appropriate bodies, and that conversations are had in the usual channels. We want to work at pace to make sure that future legislation is in front of your Lordships as quickly as possible, but we want to make sure we get it right, as the Lord Privy Seal said on Tuesday. We will definitely see it after the Recess; I just do not know when in terms of the specific dates. I look forward to working with the usual channels to make sure that the consultation is as broad as possible and that noble Lords see the legislation as soon as it is ready.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that legislation to do with bringing the House into disrepute will not cut across differences of opinion, differences of political views, and the absolute principles of freedom of speech and parliamentary privilege?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I absolutely will. The noble Lord and I may not always agree on certain issues; I do not believe we did when we were in the other place either. However, that is what this debating Chamber is for. That is the principle of Parliament. It is so that we can argue with each other to make sure that legislation is better. That is the role of your Lordships’ House. I do not think that anybody would ever suggest that we should limit our own freedom of speech or expression, nor would I expect any such suggestions ever to be in legislation that would pass your Lordships’ House.

Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I fail to understand the logic of both the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Barker, in setting their face against collecting more data. The fact is, we are not certain. We are still not certain as to the veracity and accuracy of any of this data. To give an example, the Royal College of Gynaecologists has issued “Making Abortion Safe” guidelines to providers for the safe use of medical abortion after 20 to 22 weeks. These guidelines recommend the use of feticide to avoid the foetus being born with signs of life, which can cause distress for women and their care providers. In the same guidelines, the RCOG states that there will be a

“need for further intervention to complete the procedure”

in 13% of cases. That is more than twice the highest rate reported by the—

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

Order. My Lords, I am ever so sorry, but an intervention, according to the Companion, should be short, brief and specific to the point. So, if the noble Lord could actually make his point, I would be grateful.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Standing Order 29 does not apply, and I am entitled to speak more than once in—

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

Absolutely, but this is an intervention.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I have not finished yet. Standing Order 29 does not apply in respect of the ability for a Member individually—

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, the hour is late, and I appreciate that this has been a very difficult debate. What I am saying is that the rules on an intervention are clear. The noble Lord is absolutely right that he can speak repeatedly, but he said

“Before the noble Baroness sits down”,


so we believed this to be an intervention.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

The Government Chief Whip is very flexible when it comes to that side of the Chamber segueing between speeches and interventions, and she does not intervene. It is only on this side that she intervenes, to throw off this side. The points she has made are not in line with what the Standing Orders and the Companion say, which is that a mover of an amendment and others are entitled to speak more than once.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Lord has just promoted me, and I thank him for that. However, we have a very good Government Chief Whip, who I am privileged to serve under. The noble Lord will appreciate that, through my whipping, I have been trying to manage this in such a way that everybody has been able to be heard. Regardless of position, I do not think anyone here knows my personal views. On the current topic, it is the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that is still on the annunciator, and the noble Lord indicated that he wanted clarification on a point before the noble Baroness sat down. That is what I was saying. We all believed it to be an intervention. If it is not, we can move on and revert back to the noble Lord for his second speech.