House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Ashton of Hyde Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

69: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Retirement from the House of LordsIn section 1(2)(b) of the House of Lords Act 2014, after “peer”, insert “or a person holding a lasting power of attorney for that peer”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment allows for a person holding a lasting power of attorney for a peer to sign on their behalf when notifying the Clerk of the Parliaments of the peer’s retirement.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in 1934, Percy Shaw patented the cat’s eye, the ubiquitous reflective road stud that we all recognise. It is one of the most perfect inventions and recognised as one of the top 10 British design icons, along with, among other things, the Spitfire, the telephone box and the world wide web. It is simple, effective, self-cleaning and, most importantly, was wholly beneficial to everyone. It had no downsides.

I am not claiming that my Amendment 69 is quite in the same league, but it is non-political and non-partisan; it applies to all noble Lords, whether elected hereditaries or life Peers; and—the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will like this—it helps address the view of the Labour manifesto that

“the second chamber of Parliament has become too big”.

The problem it addresses is to do with the composition of the House, which is why it is relevant to this Bill, and one that faces all party leaders, Chief Whips and the Convener of the Cross Benches. They often have conversations with Peers about retirement, and sometimes those conversations are quite difficult. That is understandable, because it is a sensitive subject, and particularly so when it occurs because the Peer feels that he or she might be losing the mental capacity required to be a Member of the legislature. It is, as I say, a sensitive subject, and I pay tribute to those Peers who have made the difficult and brave decision to retire for that reason. But mental capacity is not a cut and dried issue, and it can vary from day to day or week to week, and it can often reduce over time. When you are over the hill, as they say, you begin to pick up speed.

The House of Lords Reform Act 2014 allows a Peer to retire if he or she signs a letter which is witnessed and addressed to the Clerk of the Parliaments. The Catch-22 situation is that the Peer has to have, in the opinion of the Clerk of the Parliaments, the mental capacity to be able legitimately to sign the retirement letter. Even if there is a lasting power of attorney in place, the attorney cannot sign a retirement letter on behalf of a Peer who has lost mental capacity. So we have the perverse situation that an attorney can sell a Peer’s house or use his or her money to pay for long-term care, but has to leave that same Peer able to vote and speak in Parliament, even if their mental capacity continues to reduce steadily. I think everyone would agree that this is not good for the reputation of the House and potentially unkind to the Peer who may still attend the House when, frankly, they should not.

Not all Peers will have a lasting power of attorney, even though we should all at least consider it. However, if they have thought it through and decided to establish a lasting power of attorney while they still have mental capacity, this amendment would remove all doubt and allow the Clerk of the Parliaments to accept the attorney’s signature on the resignation letter. I beg to move.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, what feels like many years ago when we had the first day in Committee on this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord True, moved a completely unnecessary amendment to restate the purpose of the Bill as already expressed in the short title. That focused on the content of the Bill, which is about hereditary Peers.

The problem with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, which has a great deal to be said for it in terms of substance, is that it is not relevant to the Bill. It focuses on another matter, a matter which needs to be resolved—for the future of this House and for the reputation of this House—but it is not a matter for this discussion in this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, for raising this issue, as he knows from the brief conversation we had about it. We have heard from two former Chief Whips and two former Leaders of the House how serious an issue this is. For me, it is a matter of the dignity of the Member. Where Members are not able to participate in the role of this House, particularly Members who have—I hesitate to say “career”—given distinguished service to your Lordships’ House, they should be able to leave with dignity.

I am slightly ahead of noble Lords. One of the first things I did as Leader of the House, knowing there had been problems in the past, was to seek further legal advice on this matter. I am still seeking advice, and I think there is a way forward, but there is not much more I can say at this stage. It is an issue that needs careful consideration.

I am sorry that the debate has been a little “It must be in the Bill”; I think that the best way forward is to give effect to it quickly, and I do not really care what the vehicle is. We may be able do it more quickly or we may have to wait to pass legislation, but what I can say is that it is more legally complex. It may be that a change in the law is not the best way and is not what is required; it may be that we can do it from the House itself. Those are issues that I am looking at at the moment. I am happy to talk to the noble Lord about it, but I am looking at ways to give effect to this.

I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment and give him the assurance that we will return to this issue. As the noble Lord, Lord True, said about our conversations, it is one of the first things that I raised with him very early on, soon after I became Leader, as I feel that it has been around for far too long and it needs resolution as quickly as possible. This engages a number of issues, but I assure your Lordships that I will take this away and bring something back to your Lordships’ House in one form or another. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, but I give him my assurance that this is not something I will let drop: I have already been working to get a resolution as quickly as possible.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, who added their names to this amendment. I particularly thank the Leader of the House for her encouraging words.

I was a bit disappointed by the point from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, which was, to a certain extent, a political point—that there should be no amendments to the Bill and that, even if we have a perfect vehicle to achieve the solution to a problem, we should not use it. The Leader of the House has said that there may be other ways and that the most important thing is to address the problem, which we all agree exists. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who explained better than I can why the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was in error, but he may not agree.

On the basis of what the noble Baroness said, for which I am grateful, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I think we can address this before Report and deal with it then.

Amendment 69 withdrawn.

UK Strategy Towards the Arctic (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)

Lord Ashton of Hyde Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

That this House takes note of the Report from the International Relations and Defence Committee Our friends in the North: UK strategy towards the Arctic (1st Report, Session 2023–24, HL Paper 8).

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to introduce this debate on the report of the International Relations and Defence Committee, Our Friends in the North: UK Strategy towards the Arctic. I had the very enjoyable privilege of chairing the committee for this inquiry, and I start by thanking the members of the committee for their tolerance, the current chair, my noble friend Lord De Mauley, for allowing me to introduce this debate, and the staff of the committee for their excellent work, especially the clerk, Jennifer Martin-Kohlmorgen, together with Alex Nice and Rob Jones. We also received great help from FCDO officials for our visit to Norway and Finland, for which we are very grateful.

Way back in 2023—and it seems a long time ago—the committee set out to hold an inquiry into the Arctic, given the unprecedented geopolitical and environmental changes impacting the region. Some people might ask why it matters to us. The answer is that the Arctic may be remote, but what happens there has a direct impact on us in the UK. We heard time and again that what happens in the Arctic does not stay in Arctic. As the Arctic’s closest neighbour—and let us not forget that parts of Scotland are closer to the Arctic than they are to London—developments in the region have a significant impact on our national, environmental and energy security, and implications for our foreign and defence policy. Our report is just over a year old, but its conclusions are still—if not more—relevant today, and it is a good thing that we are able to highlight them. I am grateful to the Government Chief Whip to allowing us time to debate the report today.

As we all know, the Arctic is undergoing a profound transformation. Climate change is accelerating at an unprecedented rate, with parts of the region warming four times faster than the global average. That has far-reaching consequences, from the melting of the sea ice and permafrost to the impacts on indigenous communities and global climate patterns. Despite their importance, we did not investigate the science of Arctic climate change or ecological pressures on the flora and fauna, including endangered species—although I must say, as an endangered species myself in your Lordships’ House, I feel even more sympathy for them now than I did during the inquiry. Our inquiry revealed that the Arctic is not only a region of ecological importance but an area of growing economic and geopolitical significance—and that is what we concentrated on.

Melting sea ice is opening up new shipping routes, and the region’s vast natural resources, including oil, gas, minerals, rare earth metals and fish stocks, are going to become only more accessible. This has sparked a new era of competition that includes both Arctic and non-Arctic states, with Russia and the US leading the charge but China and others vying for influence and control.

As we might expect, China is taking a long-term approach to the region. Its strategy for the Arctic is to make it international, in which it, as a leading world power, can influence the rules on how the resources I just mentioned should be distributed. While its footprint is currently limited, this is likely to change. For example, China is easily the largest consumer of fish in the world and has the largest distance water fishing fleet. If the central Arctic Ocean, which is part of the high seas and therefore accessible to all, becomes ice-free for considerable periods, this could lead to overfishing and the depletion of local fish stocks. The UK has a direct interest in the sustainable management of fish stocks, not least because around 10% of the fish that make it to our fish and chip shops comes from the Arctic.

For now, China has subscribed to a fishing moratorium via the Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement, but we heard that it could allow that to lapse in 2037 when the moratorium is up for renewal and as the protective ice caps start to recede. To enable us to continue to advocate effectively for the prevention of unregulated fishing in the central Arctic Ocean, we need to rejoin the agreement on the prevention of unregulated fishing in the central Arctic Ocean that we had to leave because of Brexit. What steps are the new Government taking to rejoin the agreement? Until then, will we announce that we will voluntarily abide by its provisions?

As Russia, weakened by the war in Ukraine and Western sanctions, turns eastward, this could provide China with an opportunity to increase its influence. Since we published our report, China’s coastguard entered the waters of the Arctic Ocean for the first time, in a joint patrol with Russia, and last summer, the Chinese air force conducted a joint air patrol with Russia off the coast of Alaska. In themselves, these are not hugely significant developments, but they point to a deepening co-operation with Russia. The Government will therefore need to pay very close attention to Chinese ambitions in the Arctic and the developing Sino-Russian relationship. Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine has been a major catalyst for change in the region. Not only is it drawing China and Russia closer together but it led to the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO. These two nations bring a wealth of expertise and experience to the alliance, including their ability to operate in cold weather conditions and a long experience in managing Russian pressure.

NATO enlargement provides an opportunity for the UK to deepen its already extensive defensive co-operation with the Nordic countries. Finland’s accession also doubled NATO’s border with Russia, and the UK has an important role to play in supporting deterrence in the High North. I am pleased to note that our Armed Forces have increased the scale and frequency of cold weather training and exercises in the region. The establishment of a new Arctic operations base in Camp Viking in northern Norway is a welcome development, and the Royal Marines are experienced and well placed to operate in the region. We are one of the few non-Arctic states that has the military capability to operate in the High North and we are valued, in particular, for our role in antisubmarine and air policing. However, our report also raised concerns about the limits of our capacity to operate in the Arctic. Our fleet of P-8A maritime surveillance and patrol aircraft is small and our single dedicated ice patrol ship, HMS “Protector”, is stretched impossibly thin, covering both polar regions.

The Arctic is a priority for the UK, where it can add real value, but as a mid-sized power with global ambitions, the UK’s Armed Forces face a perennial risk of overstretch. The UK needs to do more to articulate clearly its priorities and the hard choices that are required in the face of competing pressures on resources. The strategic defence review, led by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who was a member of the committee throughout our inquiry, provides an opportunity to do so, and we trust that the Minister will take the lessons of our and his report into consideration.

Fears that NATO enlargement could result in an increase in Russian hybrid activity appear to be materialising. The commander of the Finnish armed forces raised the alarm about GPS jamming and other disruptive activities last May. Here, we heard from the director-general of MI5 that agents of Russia’s military intelligence agency are conducting arson attacks, sabotage and other dangerous actions with increasing recklessness. As recently as Christmas Day—just over two weeks ago—the Estlink 2 power cable between Finland and Estonia was cut and four telecoms cables were damaged. We must therefore work to bolster our national preparedness and resilience to such attacks through a whole-of-society approach. Our report sets out that we can learn from the Nordic concept of total defence, which integrates civilians into national security efforts.

The Arctic Council is the region’s premier governance body. Russia’s actions in Ukraine have put it under significant strain and led to a steep drop in co-operation between Russia, on the one hand, and all the other seven Arctic states on the other. Cautious re-engagement with Russia at official level is taking place to attempt to ensure that vital scientific co-operation can resume. This kind of low-level co-operation is not universally welcomed. But we considered it desirable, not only for scientific purposes, but also as a bridge to foster mutual understanding and, crucially, to reduce the risk of escalation in the event of a crisis. The probability of an incident or mishap swiftly turning into a major crisis is greatly increased by the growth in maritime activity in the Arctic and Russia’s remilitarisation of the area. While the Arctic Council does not formally deal with security matters, we think it is important that the channels that could be used for deconfliction purposes are retained.

The UK’s existing Arctic strategy addresses many of the points raised, but the committee was concerned that the Arctic is not receiving in the ministerial attention it deserves outside the security sphere. Recent UK Ministers have rarely attended multilateral fora on Arctic affairs. This sends the wrong message about the importance of the Arctic to the UK. We also recommended the appointment of an Arctic ambassador, in line with many other non-Arctic states. This recommendation was rebuffed by the previous Government. Could the Minister confirm whether this is something that the new Government will consider and whether ministerial involvement will increase? Are there any areas where their strategy towards the Arctic may differ from that of the previous Government?

The Arctic is not a distant concern but a region of immediate and profound strategic importance to the UK. Although we are not an Arctic country, we can exert influence, not just through military means but through soft power. During our visit to Norway and Finland, everyone we spoke to was full of praise for the UK’s contributions to polar research. Our world-class scientific research provides a strong platform for legitimising our involvement and exerting soft power in the region. Our overall strategy towards the Arctic must be at once nuanced and comprehensive, balancing diplomatic engagement with strategic preparedness. I hope the Government will take our report’s findings into consideration and ensure that the UK stands ready to support our friends in the north in the years to come. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will be brief because I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser—and every other noble Lord, I expect—is anxious to go home in this appropriately Arctic weather. It is not my role to defend the Government but, in fairness, I should acknowledge that we refused an earlier date because it was in the Moses Room.

I also must own up and accept that we failed to predict President Trump’s views on Greenland 14 months in advance and before he was re-elected. That was obviously a failure, so, tomorrow, I will try to learn: I will search Hansard over the past year to read all the warnings of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on this subject.

I thank the Minister for his detailed reply and all noble Lords who contributed to this excellent debate. What the contributions have in common is demonstrating the many reasons why the Arctic and High North are so important, directly affect the UK and require sustained government attention. We all look forward to the SDR from our former colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson; military resources have been referred to by many noble Lords this evening. They are obviously vital, but this debate has shown that the Government need to consider and prioritise many other things, such as polar research, indigenous people, fish stocks, ecotourism, search and rescue, space, and so on. I promised to be brief, and I thank again all the contributors to this debate.

Motion agreed.

CHOGM, G7 and NATO Summits

Lord Ashton of Hyde Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, knows what I am going to say. I think that it is only right that, when a noble Lord arrives five and a half minutes after the start, he should not really speak. But I do accept that there are not many people here. I think it would be good if the noble Lord allowed people who were here at the beginning of the debate to speak, and if there is time afterwards then he might be allowed to speak.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the Statement, which has a lot of hope and a lot of challenges in it. I chair the board of Christian Aid, which has been working hard in Ukraine ensuring that incubators are provided, because two hospitals were destroyed, and there have been a lot of miscarriages and premature births taking place. We thank the Government for the disaster aid that has raised a lot of money, and through your offices, again, we have been able to help out.

On defence, during our debate on the humble Address I brought up the issue—as everybody is wanting to look at more lethal weapons—of the whole growth of unregulated, autonomous robots. These are very good at not being controlled by a person but have been set within themselves, and their destruction is unbelievable. What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to create a treaty which will limit the way that these weapons are developed?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I thank the—

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

It is the noble and right reverend Lord.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his comments—I apologise: it is a new one on me and I did not want to make a mistake. He is absolutely right that we all need to work internationally to tackle the many problems, a number of which he alluded to, to ensure that we have a safer and more peaceful world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, we are already in a very fraught situation and I do not think that speculating on such things helps at this point. What we want to do is work with our allies to support the Ukrainians and continue to point out the fallacy and wrongness of what President Putin is currently doing.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, as we have had a question from my noble friend Lord Howell, we should allow the noble Lord, Lord Browne, eventually to come in. I withdraw my comments, with the leave of the House.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise too for being late for the beginning of the Statement. I had expected it to be later in the evening and my office is in Millbank House. Anyway, I can assure the noble Baroness—to whom I apologise profusely—that I have read the Statement, because I have a very specific question and wanted to see whether there was any reference to it in the Statement, but there is not. As part of the US increasing its military presence across Europe, two more squadrons of F-35 stealth jets will be stationed at RAF Lakenheath, which is leased to the US air force. Can the noble Baroness reassure me that these will not be the dual-capable variant of the stealth aircraft, and that we will not, some time in the future, face the challenge of the United States wanting to base nuclear weapons in the UK once again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

I was here when the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was speaking.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

No, sorry.

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

But everyone else who was late was allowed to speak.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

Some Members were late by a minute or five minutes, but the noble Lord missed the whole Statement and the remarks of the party leaders.

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

I did not miss their remarks.

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

I did not miss them; I heard the noble Lord, Lord Newby.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

I think that proves the point that the noble Lord was not here for the Leader of the Opposition.

House adjourned at 7.36 pm.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Ashton of Hyde Excerpts

Lords Hansard _ Part 1 & Report stage
Wednesday 16th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

Noble Lords might say that it was a long time ago, but it was debated. It is not as if this has never been debated properly. It went through all the processes and unfortunately the Bill was lost. Is this another example of once something is lost, you bring it back again and again? I do not want to be like a particular German Chancellor who lost an election and said, “This is really wrong, we must change the people.” Friends, we are a revising Chamber. We need a bit of humility about our position, and should not think that we can instruct the Secretary of State to bring in a particular Bill because time has been lost.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, I detect a sense that the House would like to hear from the Front Benches, but I know that all noble Lords have a right to speak and that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is very keen to say something. I am sure she will understand that the House wants to hear the Front Benches and that, if my noble friend wants to bring this to a vote, we should get on with it.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I have spoken numerous times about my opposition to assisted suicide for many different reasons. It is not, for me, about the sanctity of life. Not everybody who believes that the law should not be changed has strong faith. However, we are continually being asked to vote through the principle and think about the detail later. The devil is in the detail.

Detailed scrutiny is our role as a revising Chamber. The Commons has so many of its amendments guillotined. However, we have to take an issue such as this, which is about ending people’s lives, very seriously and we have to debate some of the detail. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, feels strongly about this and I wish she had pressed much harder and much earlier for a Committee stage for her Bill. In an issue such as this, when we are talking about ending people’s lives, there should be hundreds of amendments, because it has to be debated properly.

I would like to briefly go on the record to thank the hundreds of people who have written in. We are really lucky right now that we live in a democracy and that people are able to freely express their opinions, whether we agree with them or not. Our role in the House of Lords is to deal with those people who write in. Lots of people from both sides have written to me. However, we must also be really careful in our language and not scare people into thinking that assisted suicide is the only option for them.



As a disabled person who sits in this Chamber with a red stripy badge, I have a huge amount of privilege. Many, many thousands—tens of thousands or more—of disabled people do not have privilege in respect of protection. This amendment and what it seeks to do will fundamentally change the political and societal landscape for disabled people. If people have not read it, they should look at the article by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, this weekend about how disabled people are encouraged to think that they would be better off dead than live with an impairment. Even in this Chamber, we hear about things such as incapacity and incontinence and all the things that people fear. I push back on that, and I push back on the view that public opinion is overwhelmingly in support of this. On the Dignity in Dying website, 284,881 people have signed the public petition. On the Commons website, asking for a change in the law, 46,483 people have done so. That is not overwhelming public opinion.

I know the frustration of people who want to change the law. I can feel it; we hear it, and I admire the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, says that we are a democratic Chamber. There are plenty on the outside who would not agree with that in terms of the way that we operate. This, however, is a constitutional matter. For all those arguing in favour of this tonight, I really look forward to them supporting my Private Member’s Bills asking for things such as good education, work, social care and access to trains, which are the things for which disabled people are arguing. This is not it: this is not the right time and not the right place. I do not support this amendment.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Ashton of Hyde Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 4th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Relevant documents: 15th, 16th and 19th Reports from the Delegated Committee, 9th Report from the Constitution Committee

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, before we commence proceedings on the Bill, I will outline the plan for today. We will shortly begin the eighth day in Committee on the Bill. There is no other business, but we will take a short break around 2 pm. We will sit until 7 pm. At the outset, I thank the staff of the House for supporting this additional lengthy Friday sitting, both those here in the Chamber and those who do the enormous amount of work that goes on behind the scenes to get the House up and running.

I fear that noble Lords know what I will say next. I do not want to deny the House the fullest chance to scrutinise this Bill. As over 40 hours have been devoted to that end, not even my fiercest critics could say that time for debate has been curtailed. However, we still have a lot of amendments to get through. I know, based on the experience of last Wednesday, that good progress can be made. I know that the Front Benches will work to ensure that their contributions are concise and to the point and I hope that all noble Lords will do the same.

We should perhaps bear in mind the late, great Nicholas Parsons and make our speeches without repetition, hesitation or deviation and perhaps for just a minute. This is a self-governing House, so all I can do is ask and implore noble Lords to respect the conventions and courtesies of the House to ensure effective and efficient scrutiny of this legislation.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, before calling the first amendment, I indicate that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be taking part remotely.

Clause 141: Provision of social care services: financial assistance

Amendment 237

Sue Gray Report

Lord Ashton of Hyde Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

It is actually Labour’s turn.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, setting aside the issue of criminality which is, of course, very important in this matter, can the noble Baroness ever imagine these types of events having occurred during the premierships of Margaret Thatcher, John Major, David Cameron or Theresa May? I certainly know that, from my experience, nothing like this happened under Tony Blair. Is there not something fundamentally wrong about the culture of this Prime Minister’s leadership?

Covid-19

Lord Ashton of Hyde Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords—

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, we have not had anyone from the non-affiliated Benches yet.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

They are all non-affiliated.

Parliamentary Partnership Assembly

Lord Ashton of Hyde Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

To resolve that this House:

(1) takes note of the provision in Article 11 of the UK–EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement for the establishment of a Parliamentary Partnership Assembly (PPA) consisting of Members of the European Parliament and of Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which:

(a) may request relevant information regarding the implementation of that agreement and any supplementing agreement from the EU–UK Partnership Council established by Article 7 of that agreement, which shall then supply the EU–UK PPA with the requested information;

(b) shall be informed of the decisions and recommendations of the EU–UK Partnership Council; and

(c) may make recommendations to the EU–UK Partnership Council;

(2) agrees that a delegation from the UK Parliament consisting of 35 members drawn from both Houses should participate in such an Assembly; and

(3) takes note of the first report from the House of Lords Commission, EU–UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly (1st Report, HL Paper 114) and confirms that the procedures currently applying to the nomination, support and funding of delegations to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly should apply to the delegation to the EU–UK PPA.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, before I speak to the Motion, I extend my condolences to the family and friends of my late noble friend Lord Denham who, as the Lord Speaker announced earlier, died at the weekend. Lord Denham served this House with great distinction for more than 70 years, including as Government Chief Whip for 12 years.

The Motion standing in the Leader’s name invites the House to agree in principle to its participation in the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, or PPA. The House of Commons agreed a Motion in the same terms on Monday this week, and the European Parliament decided its intention to participate on 5 October. The House of Lords Commission discussed the participation of this House at its meeting on 16 November and in its first report of this Session set out some background to help inform the House’s decision today. That report was published on 25 November.

The Motion is the culmination of many months of careful and patient dialogue between the two Houses and with the European Parliament, much of which has been carried out on behalf of this House by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I would like to put on record my thanks for the work that he and his team have done to help get the PPA off the ground. I beg to move.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Would it not be very appropriate if, on this occasion, those Members from this House and the other were elected by their colleagues?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, this is not a Committee of the House. This is the way that all parliamentary delegations are appointed, and we see no reason why this should be different from the NATO Parliamentary Assembly or the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

Motion agreed.

Tributes: Sir David Amess MP

Lord Ashton of Hyde Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, it is almost 40 years since the first meeting David and I attended on our respective roads to Westminster, entering Parliament for marginal constituencies in 1983. Here was a man who was constructive, committed, amusing and always willing to go the extra mile for you, or indeed for anyone he felt he could help. We stayed close for many decades.

Last week, at his request, I was with him on a delegation to Qatar, where his charm and mischievous sense of humour, deployed in a way only David could get away with in front of the most elevated in society, was put to wonderful effect. It was so good to be with him. On asking the Father Emir how many children he had, and receiving the reply “24”, he promptly reached for a small House of Lords picture frame as a gift and challenged him to fit all 24 into the frame. When he told the Emir, who had just received a copy of David’s book, that he could “throw it in the wastepaper basket”, that led to more laughter and marked him out as being wonderfully self-deprecating. We flew out sitting together and flew back chatting away. The mission had been one of the most successful we had been on.

His sensitivity and determination to help rehouse the 13 unaccompanied Afghan children with British family connections; his strong Catholic faith; his work as a strong supporter of Israel, yet always welcomed and respected in so many Arab countries; his ability to bring together and unite members of many a parliamentary delegation; and the quips and asides that always raised a smile, were there for all to see.

As co-founders and co-chairs of the All-Party Group for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, we were planning a celebration for our Olympic and Paralympic medallists here in the Lords, an event he was much anticipating. It was no surprise, then, to receive the following tribute from the president of the International Olympic Committee, Thomas Bach, who yesterday wrote:

“Sir David fought keenly for sport and for all it could do. He understood that the Olympic Games are the only event this can bring the entire world together in peaceful competition … He worked tirelessly to keep the games free of politics and dispute.”


David was a true friend. He proved that politics was more than the collective DNA of ministerial ambition. It is, as has been said many times, not least in this House, about public service, about challenging and changing the lives of constituents, even in the smallest possible way; and to make a difference to your constituents and the causes you felt passionately about was everything that David stood for. He was a decent, uplifting, unstintingly hard-working, kind man with a mischievous sense of humour; an outstanding parliamentarian and constituency MP; devoted husband to Julia and loving father to their children; and such a loyal friend and colleague to so many of us. At the end, he was doing what he loved best and what he was brilliant at: helping his constituents, and not least realising his long-standing ambition that Southend, for which he long campaigned, should be a city, both on earth and, God willing, in heaven.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, as I explained earlier, we have to end now because the House is going to join the House of Commons and process at 5.30 pm behind the Lord Speaker to St Margaret’s. However, I am of course aware that many other noble Lords would have liked to pay tribute to Sir David today. Those Members who have not had a chance to speak may email their speeches to Hansard by noon on Friday. Those speeches will be included in a special collection of tributes published by Hansard which will be sent to Sir David’s family. I shall now adjourn the House so we can join the procession starting at 5.30 pm from the Chamber.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, Members who wish to take part in the procession to the service in St Margaret’s should wait in the Chamber as we prepare to leave in the next few minutes.

Business of the House

Lord Ashton of Hyde Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

That, in the event of the Health and Social Care Levy Bill having been brought from the House of Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Monday 11 October to allow the Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.

Motion agreed.