(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberI am not going to speculate on what might happen. The point I would make is one that was made by the noble Earl, Lord Courtown. We are in a fragile situation. We have a ceasefire, which we have been demanding for many months, and now that we have it we need to ensure that, during this fragile process, we build confidence for the future. That means taking a step-by-step approach, with all parties, and not looking backwards at the horrors of the past but to the future, with hope for prosperity.
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the United Society Partners in the Gospel, one of the oldest Anglican global mission agencies. One of our key partners is the al-Ahli hospital in northern Gaza, a hospital that the people of that area rely on pretty well entirely now for any healthcare they can get. Most of the hospital has been destroyed—both the library and the historic church are now in use as wards. What assurances can the Minister give us about how we can get aid into the hospital, so that the people of northern Gaza, no matter how long the ceasefire lasts —I hope it will become permanent, but for the time being—will be able to get the medical help they need? Over 1,000 emergency patients are being admitted every day.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate. As I said in response to the Oral Question, we are very much focused on getting medical aid and support in, particularly to northern Gaza. I mentioned the £5.5 million in funding for UK-Med to run field hospitals in Gaza. We focus on all the areas where there is most need, but I agree with the right reverend Prelate that we need to do more to ensure that those who need medical treatment get it speedily.
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I support Amendments 37 and 43 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Many noble Lords have already commented on the Bill’s skeletal nature—I will not repeat their comments here. Amendment 43 would insert an invaluable safeguard, removing overreaching Secretary of State powers to amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation through secondary legislation. Liberty writes that, as it stands, Clause 3 is a “broad Henry VIII power”—we have heard that monarch referred to several times today; I fear I may refer to him again in a moment. It is also a prospective power that allows the Government to amend and revoke legislation not yet passed.
The delegated powers memorandum seeks to justify this power as a prudent provision to deal with any necessary consequential amendments identified in the Bill’s preparation. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, reminded us, this means that the Government are taking this exceptional power either because they are not sure what they want to achieve or because they do not know how to get there. I do not believe either of those to be an adequate justification, and I am delighted to hear that Jacob Rees-Mogg may be of a similar opinion.
I enjoyed the remark of a noble and learned Lord earlier today that this is “Henry VIII on stilts”. It left me wondering whether I should be imagining the young Henry, fit and active, or the monarch in his latter—shall we say rather less athletic?—years. The older Henry would have crashed off his stilts to huge personal injury and embarrassment. I fear that the Bill, if enacted in its present form, without adequate parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of these Henrician powers, will be an equally damaging and embarrassing moment in our nation’s governance.
Will the Minister please reflect on these probing amendments and come back to this House on Report with something more fit for the role and responsibilities of this kingdom’s Parliament in the reign of Charles III?
I will talk to our Amendments 42, 44 and 45; I also support Amendments 37 and 43. My noble friend Lord Prentis mentioned the debate we had on the reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Delegated Powers Committee, Democracy Denied? and Government by Diktat. The two chairs of the committees at the time led the debate and reflected opinion across the House. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said that this is a trend: these are not just technical statutory instruments but impinge on people’s fundamental freedoms. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, reminded us, and it has been repeated many times, that these are fundamental policy positions that can be debated and considered but not amended or revised. They cannot reflect all the things we have been talking about, particularly consultation.