Arrangement of Business

Debate between Baroness Falkner of Margravine and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Friday 16th January 2026 Lords Chamber

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

I thank the noble Lord for his point. I genuinely understand that; I am very conscious of that. I do not wish to cause any Member who is Jewish, or of any other faith, distress, inconvenience or problems in their faith by sitting beyond 3 pm. It is why I suggested that people could leave without hearing the debates, but that may not be acceptable to some colleagues. I am aware of that. I will discuss what else we can do, but I apologise. It is not my intention to cause noble Lords who are Jewish distress or problems with their faith.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I would like a point of clarification from the noble Lord. Before I express that, I think I speak for the whole House when I say that we understand what a difficult position the noble Lord finds himself in, and how fair he is trying to be to all sides in attempting to resolve this. I am certainly extremely grateful to him for the consistent fairness he has displayed to the House.

My point is about the procedures of the House. When we had that unusual Motion last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, a former Leader of the House, raised an important point at the end: does this affect precedent and future procedure on Private Members’ Bills? I do not think she got an adequate response.

While I appreciate the noble Lord’s flexibility in allowing noble Lords to leave before the end of the debate on a particular amendment—I completely endorse all the comments made by colleagues who live further away from the House about the troubles they would encounter—when we change the procedures of the House and more or less drive a coach and horses through the Companion, are we not expected to have a debate and make it clear that we are not setting precedent? Should we not be having a vote on that?

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her very kind comments, which are much appreciated. We are a self-regulating House. We have a Companion; we do not have fixed rules, but we have conventions, and we all try to work around those. That enables the House to work in the unique way it does. In some ways it is not like the House of Commons. I know colleagues who come from the House of Commons say how strange they find it when they first arrive here, but it does work.

Although the Companion advises us to rise at around 3 pm on Fridays, I checked and since 2021 we have sat beyond 3 pm on PMBs 24 times. We have already sat beyond 3 pm on the two days of Second Reading for this Bill. Although it is advisory and it is the convention, it is not a hard and fast rule. We do not have those sorts of hard and fast rules.

On the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, because we are self-regulating, I do not think it sets a precedent. At the end of the day, this House can decide what it wants. As I said earlier, if noble Lords want to adjourn at 3 pm and carry a Motion on it, then we will adjourn at 3 pm. However, I accept that this is a very important Bill and there are strongly held views on both sides. People want to give it scrutiny and we have to have the flexibility to ensure that is what happens.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Debate between Baroness Falkner of Margravine and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I fully support Amendment 21, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, replies to this short debate, he can signal his support. If not, I hope he can reassure us that the measures in the proposed new clause will be undertaken in other ways. I will be most disappointed if all he says is that they are not necessary. I echo the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, in this respect.

As we know, the Bill is about enabling the UK to deliver on a major infrastructure project. As was said earlier, broadband has to be seen as an essential utility in the same way as gas, electricity, water and the postal service, to which my noble friend Lord Adonis referred. We must ensure that we have a world-beating service. We should remember what happened to the Pony Express.

One of the barriers to delivering gigabit capability is easy access to multi-dwelling buildings such as blocks of flats: a tenant wants the capacity but the owner does not respond to requests for access rights. So, I support the Government in delivering this and dealing with a real barrier to the target they have set—but is it enough? This new clause would enable us to decide and, if they are found wanting, to take action. It requires the Government to lay before Parliament a review of the Act’s impact within six months. Importantly, the review must make a recommendation to the Government on whether they should bring forward further legislation to achieve their stated aim, which we all support in the light of the findings of the review they conducted.

Finally, the new clause provides for further reviews every 12 months after the initial review. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, it seeks to inject some adrenalin into the Bill. Broadband connectivity and faster broadband speeds are vital to our country and to our economy. This new clause would enable Parliament and the Government to confirm that work is on track and where it is not, for that to be highlighted and appropriate action to be taken.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in opposition to the amendment. I can see why the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, tabled it, because targets are quite important to ensure that the Government do what they set out to do. However, the narrow timeframes given in the amendment are not practicable and will not tell us any more than we will know through other means.

I go straight to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about the Prime Minister commissioning the National Cyber Security Centre to review new US laws that will impact on Huawei’s ability to use US technology. We know that the Prime Minister is looking again at this matter through this review. I am delighted to hear that, as the Committee would expect me to be given what I said earlier on my own amendments. It is quite right: it is better to change your mind and to get better information later, rather than too late to be able to effect the changes you might need to put in place.

However, the amendment is redundant for another reason: six months’ time is way too narrow because it takes us to the end of this year, when we know that the bandwidth of Parliament and government will be intensely focused on Covid-19 and its impacts. Distracting additional pieces of legislation or reports would probably not garner the bandwidth they need for us to see whether the Government are achieving what they set out to achieve. Six months is way too short.

As for annual reviews, the correct place to know whether the Government are reaching their objectives is Ofcom’s annual reporting on this matter. Anyone who saw Ofcom’s last report of December 2019 got a very clear picture of where there has been success for fibre broadband, some limited success for ultrafast broadband and great open holes in rural coverage. We all know from what the regulator is telling us is that there are real issues about rural coverage that have their own particular hurdles, such as masts, local communities, planning permissions and all those things. All that information is readily available through the regulator. I cannot see why we would wish to put another layer of reporting on top of what the regulator is already doing.

I again emphasise that I am very much in favour of the Government’s objectives. I have my other concerns, which I might well come back to on Report, but for the moment the amendment is redundant in a very fast-moving situation.