Arrangement of Business

Debate between Lord Empey and Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Friday 16th January 2026

(1 week ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Kennedy of Southwark Portrait Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, before we start further consideration in Committee of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, I wish to make a short statement. I emailed all Peers on Wednesday afternoon to set out my position in light of the agreement to the Motion from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, which was agreed last Thursday in this House. I will briefly set out the headlines again to assist the House.

Noble Lords clearly accepted the proposition last week that more time was needed to scrutinise the Bill. I have taken time to consider all the options and discuss them with the noble and learned Lord, other noble Lords, the usual channels and the House administration. In coming to my recommended position, careful consideration has been given to the impact that additional time would have on the House staff, Members and government legislation.

We have always been clear that the Government are neutral, and that will not change. I also confirmed last week that additional time for the Bill will not be provided in time used for government legislation or other important House matters. Fridays therefore remain the only opportunity to scrutinise the Bill, which is a Private Member’s Bill.

Rather than seeking to adjourn the House at 3 pm today, as I have in previous weeks, in light of the Motion I will seek to adjourn the House at around 5.30 pm today and at 6 pm on subsequent Fridays that have already been allocated. I understand that some noble Lords are very disappointed by this fact, but the House spoke clearly last week and this is the only option I can see to fulfil the will of the House.

Ultimately, though, when we rise remains in the hands of noble Lords here. I remind noble Lords that, should they wish to rise earlier, any noble Lord can seek to adjourn the House at any point before 5.30 pm by moving the Motion that the House be now resumed. If that Motion is moved and carried, I will then adjourn the House.

We have previously discussed the particular concerns of different faith groups and accessibility considerations regarding the consequences of rising beyond 3 pm, and I remain very sympathetic to those points. That is why, as discussed in the usual channels, I will provide flexibility on the requirement to stay to the end of the debate, so that if colleagues need or want to leave early, without waiting to hear the contributions from the Front Benches in the debate that they have spoken to, they can. All I ask is that they let their Whip, the Government Whips’ Office or the convenor know that they are leaving.

I will not go over previous statements or emails about the usual courtesy in debates, in order to save time and to allow us to move on to the substance of the Bill, but I trust that noble Lords will move forward in line with the guidance on how the Committee should proceed in the spirit of good self-governance and self-regulation, with respect to all colleagues.

Lord Empey Portrait Lord Empey (UUP)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, the Chief Whip will know that I and others have contacted him about this proposal. I accept that the House made its declaration last Thursday—one has to take that seriously and into account. However, the proposal before us now ensures that those of us who cannot go outside the front door, get into our car and drive home will be effectively excluded from a large part of this debate. It is not good enough, if I may say so, to say that we can be excused from the normal courtesies of staying to the end. The purpose of tabling amendments is to hear the response from the proposer of the Bill and the Minister. I know that we can get up at any point and move an adjournment or the resumption of the House, but I do not think we want to get into a situation where we are bouncing around and looking around to see whether we can win a vote for an adjournment.

We need an agreed situation, and certainly I, with others, will be giving consideration to that over the weekend and perhaps returning to the noble Lord at the beginning of the week with some suggestions that accept and acknowledge the will of the House expressed last Thursday but, at the same time, do not mean that those of us who have to travel a distance are effectively faced with the situation of having to stay over for the weekend, or at least until Saturday. If we are leaving here at or around 6 pm, it is impossible for us to get home, and therefore we would have to stay over.

Northern Ireland (Elections) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2015

Debate between Lord Empey and Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Monday 23rd November 2015

(10 years, 2 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Empey Portrait Lord Empey (UUP)
- Hansard - -

Before the noble Lord sits down, he mentioned some comments that I made. Actually I would have no difficulty if the proposal were to remove the 82,000, but the difference is that the people on the register in Northern Ireland are not ghosts. They had to have their national insurance numbers and so on verified at the time. So there is a significant difference in that these people clearly did and do exist. We have a continuous process of registration going on and other sources are found to verify their existence.

The noble Lord, Lord Bew, said that the parties wanted the extension to 2015 for the election. Two parties did. My party did not, and neither did others; it was a decision between the DUP, Sinn Fein and the Government. When the people went to the polls in 2011, they thought that they were voting candidates in for four years. Although Scotland and Wales had been told that their Administrations would be there for five years, it did not apply in Northern Ireland. I regret that. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, made is also very valid.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Portrait Lord Kennedy of Southwark
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank the noble Lord for that. I would say that the inconsistency here is staggering. IER has been in place in Northern Ireland since 2002, while we have had only two years in Great Britain. At the same time as we are giving an extra year to Northern Ireland, we are taking a year away from the rest of the United Kingdom. It is staggering.