Arrangement of Business

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Harris of Haringey

Thursday 18th July 2024 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I will make a statement about upcoming recess dates, sitting Fridays, Oral Questions and today’s business. I will save noble Lords’ time in rushing to write these dates down, as a notice setting them out will shortly go out from me to all Peers; there will also be copies in the Royal Gallery and the Printed Paper Office.

Before I do that I should say, as noble Lords are aware, that I served as the Opposition Chief Whip for three years in the previous Parliament and, in that role, as part of the usual channels. I pay tribute to everyone I worked with during that period including our much-loved and much-missed dear friend Lord Judge. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, took over his role as Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers and it has been a pleasure to work with him. I have always had an excellent working relationship with the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip.

As Government Chief Whip, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, had the important job, among many others, of getting the Government’s business through the House. She did this with great skill, respect and courtesy, in the best traditions of the House and as the House expects relations between different parties and groups to be conducted. I thank her very much for that, as I thank everybody who has been part of our discussions, including officials, both Civil Service and political, who supported us all in the usual channels.

As part of the usual channels in my new role, I hope to continue as I have in my previous 14 years’ membership of this House, with respect, courtesy, a smile and a willingness to engage with all Members.

On recess dates, I want to be as helpful to the House as possible, which is why I intend to cover dates until we return in the new year and all sitting Fridays until the end of the year. I will announce as many other dates as I can when we return in the autumn or no later than when we come back after the Conference Recess.

The recess dates until January, subject to the progress of business, will be as follows. We will rise for the Summer Recess at the end of business on Tuesday 30 July. We will return on Monday 2 September. We expect to break for the Conference Recess at the end of business on Friday 13 September and return, after party conferences, on Monday 7 October. There will be the usual long weekend in November, with a short adjournment from the end of business on Wednesday 6 November and the House returning on Monday 11 November. I expect the Christmas Recess to start at the end of business on Thursday 19 December; the House will return in the new year on Monday 6 January.

We are sitting on Monday 29 and Tuesday 30 July. The Table Office will now open a ballot for Oral Questions on those days. Members will be able to enter it after this announcement. The ballot will be conducted tomorrow at 1 pm.

On sitting Fridays, it is my intention to enable as much debate as possible on issues of importance to the House, including Private Members’ Bills. We therefore intend to sit on the following Fridays: 19 July for the debate on the humble Address; 26 July for debates on Select Committee reports; 6 and 13 September to progress Private Members’ Bills; 18 October and 15 November also to progress Private Members’ Bills; 6 December for the annual debate led by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury; and 13 December for Private Members’ Bills. I will update the House as early as possible on any future dates.

On today’s proceedings, I remind the House that the Motions on the recent report of the Conduct Committee to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, are not debatable.

Finally, I highlight that there is a nine-minute advisory speaking time for Back-Bench contributions to today’s debate on the humble Address. That means that, when noble Lords reach eight minutes, they should start winding up. When they have reached nine minutes, time is up. The Government Whips on the Front Bench will, if necessary, ask Members to bring their remarks to a close. On subsequent days, the speaking time is likely to be shorter, reflecting the relative size of the speakers’ lists. I ask all Members to respect those advisory times to ensure fairness across the debate and that the House can rise at an orderly time.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

In the timetable that my noble friend the Government Chief Whip has just set out, would it be possible for the House to have a proper day’s debate on the Covid inquiry report, which is due to be published in about half an hour? This is clearly of exceptional importance and the whole nation should take it extremely seriously.

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

I thank my noble friend for that question. I am sure we can find time to debate those important issues, but I cannot give him a time at the moment, from the Dispatch Box.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Harris of Haringey

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I sometimes wonder about the priorities of this House and of government in considering these sorts of issues. I think most of those who know me recognise that I am fairly hawkish on counterterrorism, but the number of people in this country who have died as a consequence of terrorist acts since 2005 is less than the number of people who die in a single year because of drunk-driving between the limits that are currently against the law and those proposed by the noble Baroness.

Let us go back over all the legislation since the current limit was introduced—the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, took us back to what it was like in those times when we were all much younger—and consider how many pieces of legislation, full Bills, have been brought forward by the Home Office to deal with the threat from terrorism. It is usually about one a year, sometimes more—full Bills containing lots of new offences. Yet there is clear evidence that these new limits would reduce the number of deaths, they are fairly straightforward to administer and yet we keep waiting and putting off the decision. That seems to me an issue that we should all address, and we should be conscious that sometimes we have double standards. I will continue to argue for stronger counterterrorism, but it is rather striking that we do not resolve something like this, which would make a real difference, and would stop the wrecking not only of the lives of the families of those who have died but also of the lives of those who cause the deaths.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 214C, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, reduces the legal alcohol limits in England and Wales to match the limits introduced by the Scottish Government on 5 December 2014.

My noble friend Lord Harris made a particularly powerful point in respect of deaths caused through drink-driving. I am very supportive of this amendment, as I think we need tough laws on drinking and driving that are effectively enforced.

I also think that it would be quite good to have the same limit across the whole of Great Britain, and ideally the whole of the United Kingdom. This would make it much easier to understand for everyone concerned. I am also not against having a lower limit for commercial drivers and novices.

There is clear evidence that a reduction in the drink-drive limits would save lives. No one has said that is not the case. We have the highest limits in Europe. Only Malta has the same drink-drive limit we have in this country. The limit introduced by the Scottish Government is the same one that is in force in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Switzerland. So the case is powerful. In none of these countries is there a problem with the limit being effective.

The second amendment in the group, again in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and my noble friend Lord Brooke, seeks to create a lower limit for novice and professional drivers. Again, I think that this is something we should consider. Many countries have this. That is certainly the case in many of the countries I read out, including Ireland and North Ireland. I think that it is important, if you are a professional or a novice driver, to have a lower limit.

I passed my driving test 36 years ago. I remember getting my first car—you are let loose and you are in there on your own. If you think about it, you are not very experienced at that point. Therefore it would be a good to enforce a lower limit. The fact is that our limits are comparatively high. I hope the Minister will respond to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. It is very good, and I hope that we will get a positive response from the Government. If not, I hope that the noble Baroness will bring it back on Report. I assure her that if she wants to test the opinion of the House at that point, we will support her.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Harris of Haringey

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

As ever, it was a quest for information. I also have a quest for information. It seems to me unduly restrictive to apply the clause simply to musical events. What about theatrical or other events which draw large crowds? The danger of either panic or direct harm from fireworks or similar things in such large, crowded places seems quite high. There is this careful definition of,

“sleeping or other facilities for those attending”,

a musical event. Surely concerns about someone possessing a pyrotechnic article in a general campsite or some other facility are just as great.

It would therefore be helpful to understand. The purpose is clear and valuable in terms of musical events and festivals but I wonder why similar consideration has not been given to other events where there will be large gatherings of people.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this new clause is in general most welcome and I am happy to support it from these Benches. It seeks to ban the possession of fireworks, smoke bombs and flares by those attending live musical events. As we have heard, these are extremely dangerous and can burn at more than 2,000 degrees, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, outlined. There have been a number of injuries, and perhaps we may hear more about that when she responds.

I was surprised to learn that while these items are banned at football matches, it is not the case at musical events. A valid point has been made about widening the ban to other events. That should be considered, too, rather than just picking one area of a problem that may be more widespread. If I am correct, the amendment does not stop the organisers of the event using these articles but just protects the people attending, and prevents people putting them in their bags and setting them off recklessly in the crowd.

The other amendments are consequential. I am generally supportive of them but the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made valid points that require a response from the Government.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Harris of Haringey

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I am slightly surprised in fact that it is necessary for the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, to move this particular amendment, but the fact that she has moved it means, I assume, that it is necessary. It should be—in the same way as it is incumbent on other professionals—that when the police see an issue that requires the safeguarding and protection of a child, they should take the appropriate action, which, in this particular case, would mean the sort of referral envisaged by this amendment. So on this occasion I wholeheartedly support the noble Baroness.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 195, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and also in the name of my noble friend Lord Rosser and others, would ensure that child victims of sexual abuse receive the mental health support that they need and would address the fundamental problem that, as things stand, victims too often have poor access to the support that they need. The Bill makes welcome provisions in the area of mental health—including by ending the detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 of young people in police cells—but it could go further, in particular, in recognising the mental health needs of children who have been victims of child sexual exploitation.

NSPCC research shows that children who have been abused are more likely to experience depression, anxiety and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder as well as self-harming and suicide. The cases of 30 children supported by the Children’s Society were analysed in its report Old Enough to Know Better?—a third of the cases noted that the young people needed mental health services because of concerns about their well-being, including self-harming episodes, suicide attempts or even episodes of psychosis that required in-patient admissions. The remaining cases also referred to the young people feeling low, depressed, anxious, fearful, or having flashbacks of their abuse. I think that the Government should accept this amendment from the noble Baroness this evening.

Amendment 221 in this group is in the name of my noble friend Lord Rosser. It would place in the Bill a duty for police forces to disclose information about children who are victims of sexual exploitation or other forms of abuse to the relevant health service commissioners. This is an important requirement to ensure that victims of exploitation can have access to the health services that they need.