House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

My third point is in a way a tribute to that made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. While we are here principally to scrutinise and check the Executive, we must recognise that the Executive have a vital role to play in this House. One of the good things that this Government have done is to appoint distinguished figures from outside, such as the noble Lords, Lord Timpson and Lord Vallance, to the Front Bench. Previous Governments appointed people such as my noble friends Lord Hill, Lord Nash and Lord Agnew to the Front Bench. Are we really saying that a future Prime Minister should not be able to appoint a distinguished individual from outside to a ministerial position until someone had gone? That is the logic of this legislation. It would mean that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, could not have been appointed Attorney-General until someone else had been fired from the ranks of Labour Members. I may disagree with the noble and learned Lord, but this House undoubtedly is enhanced by his presence. This legislation would, in effect, act as a turnstile, preventing him entering until someone else had departed.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. First, was Elizabeth I wrong when she faced a huge Privy Council and said, “It is too large for good governance”, and immediately reduced it to 30? The noble Lord says that numbers do not matter and that what matters is what we do here, but out there they are all saying that we are too large. Sometimes you do not need big bodies to do the job efficiently. Was Queen Elizabeth I right?

Secondly, nobody has said that the Prime Minister could not vote. It is not in this amendment. As I understood it, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, these promises and views that we have heard unfortunately have become promissory notes on tissue paper, put into a Trojan horse which also is made of tissue paper.

[Lord Gove (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord for his intervention, but I do not believe that if we reduce the size of the House to meet the criticisms of some, the fundamental opposition of many to the operation of the House would diminish. More importantly, the principal criticism that can be directed at any legislature is not about its size but its effectiveness and the willingness with which it operates to ensure that new laws that come there are properly scrutinised, and the more voices that are capable of being deployed in that debate and the more arguments that are effectively made, the better.

That takes me to my final point. I do not believe that there has ever been a recorded set of votes in this House where when you add a Division’s Contents and Not-Contents, they have been higher than the full composition of the other place. This House is flexible; our constitution is flexible. These attempts to impose external rigidities to meet some Charter 88 rationalist view of what we should be doing is an utterly mistaken course to go down, and I urge your Lordships to reject it.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, I have been waiting for the noble Lord, Lord Burns, to contribute to this debate. He has not done so, so perhaps I might, as a member of the Burns committee, set up by the former Lord Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler.

We brought before this House a report from the Burns committee with a suggestion of how we could limit the numbers and deal with retirements, but it was based purely on Prime Ministers of the day—and there have been quite a few of them since our report was debated by this House—making sure that they played their part in not sending so many people to the Chamber. As we know, it is only my noble friend Lady May who has kept that bargain and understood why that was important for it to work. Indeed, in subsequent Burns reports that have been available to the House, it was clear that the agreement on retirement was working. We had it within our grasp some years ago, agreed by this House that that was how we would proceed. Had we stuck to that—in particular, had former Prime Ministers stuck to their side of the bargain —I do not think we would be in this position today.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, noble Lords will remember that I intervened in a debate when we had been going on for hours and went on to actually address the issue in this small Bill. It is not a big Bill and its aims are very clear, but I think we lost the opportunity of concentrating on what the Bill is about. If noble Lords remember, there were many speeches about reforming and about age, and they went on and on. I remember intervening to say that those propositions would go nowhere, because the purpose of the Bill is well defined.

It was with deep regret that I sat in your Lordships’ House and listened to so many speeches, with a lot of hereditaries sitting around, addressing the future as if they were not present. That was the sort of experience I used to have in this country when we were talking about black people. I would be in a meeting where they were talking about black people, and suggesting what would be good for them, but the black people were not being asked what they thought was good for them.

We have got be clear on what the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is about. First, it seeks to abolish the system of by-elections for hereditary Peers. Secondly, it seeks to prevent hereditary Peers joining the House. Thirdly, it would allow

“those who are presently serving in the House to remain”,

but no new hereditary Peers would be made. The problem with this amendment is what the Government would do. They have already tabled a Bill, which we have discussed, and we know where it is going.

In the Select Committee that the Leader of the House intends to set up, will thought be given to what might be done with those of our number who go out under this Bill who wish, if the opportunity is granted, to continue to serve, no longer as hereditaries but as life Peers? Would that question be worth taking up? If it is taken up then the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has raised an issue which should have been raised, again and again, in those long debates.

Finally, on the question of memory and where we are going, the problem is that any society, church, community, organisation or Parliament that forgets its memory becomes senile. We know where we are going with this Bill but, to prevent senility, it would be quite good to know from the Leader of the House—who told us that she would set up a Select Committee—whether there will be a mechanism to allow those who wish to continue to serve in this place to do so, rather than this Bill being the end of their time here.

We can all change titles. I came into this House in 2005 as a right reverend Primate. That caused me some trouble: why was I a “primate”—I thought primates were certain animals? I came here as a primate, and maybe a vicious one, and when I retired I became a Cross-Bencher. We can all change in ways that do not disrupt the reality of the House.

I have had a fantastic time here. I love everybody here who has given us their wonderful words and thoughts. It will be a very sad day when I look around and see that those who feel that this is still a place where they can do their public service—not everybody will feel that way—cannot be changed from hereditary to life Peers. If it is to happen, there must be a way in which we say that, yes, this Bill triggered a change, and then those speeches which were made about change can be revisited in the future. We need to reflect. I hope that we will not have more and more debates, but will finish this tiny Bill very quickly.

Jimmy Lai

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely correct. I must correct something I said earlier by mistake. Jimmy Lai is a British citizen; he is not a Chinese citizen, which I alluded to, so I correct the record. The noble Lord is right that whenever we take action, if we take it collectively with our international allies, we have greater impact. We are working across the board with all international allies to ensure that this case is properly raised.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Albans. He has been wonderful on the gambling legislation and on issues such as this one, and on defending the rural economy and as Convenor of the Lords Spiritual. For that, we are very grateful.

I was held in one of Amin’s notorious prisons, and I was confined in a cell that was much shorter than me. I got out because the Chief Justice of Uganda confronted Idi Amin. Instead of words, which are seen as criticism, what real, definite action are the Government willing to take?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I repeat: do not underestimate the value of words, and I think the noble and right reverend Lord understands that. They do have an impact, particularly in the current geopolitical situation, where China’s reputation and trading issues are at stake. It is important that this case, in particular, has the highest profile. It will have an impact. We need to make sure that we do not forget Jimmy Lai and that we constantly raise his case at every opportunity.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lord Hannan, but we do have a problem with numbers. We are constantly being compared with the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. It is a silly jibe but it does us damage. It makes us seem stuffed like a goose. When did we last see 800 Peers in this Chamber—or 700 or 600? Yet the impression out there is that there are far too many of us who are here only because we are stuffed geese. There is widespread, if not universal, agreement that our numbers should come down. That is why I was very happy to join the noble Earl, Lord Devon, on his amendment, which will help to achieve that objective.

The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, talked about a part-time House. We all talk about the value of a part-time House. Do we want a full-time House? No, I do not think we do, but neither do we want a no-time house. A peerage is not a zero-hours contract.

It is strange that the Government set out their deckchairs in their manifesto—so far, so very clear about a number of different measures that would help bring down numbers—but for some reason they now seem content to sit on their principles and watch the boats sail by. It is baffling that they do not do what they said they would do, and why they aim their cannons simply at the hereditaries, rather than at, for instance, those who do not participate. A fellow might be forgiven for thinking that some in the Labour Party’s main interest is not so much reform as a bit of cynical old-fashioned class warfare—perish that thought.

I constantly bang on about the fundamental principle that inspires the relationship between individual Peers and our institution, which is that we are here to serve this House. This House does not exist to serve us. The institution, not the individual, must come first. It is not simply a numbers game. More fundamentally, it is about the need to refresh this House to ensure that its experience and advice are up to date and that this House remains relevant. Sometimes you need a fresh wind to blow away cobwebs. If numbers matter, and the Labour manifesto said that they do, I suggest that the amendments we are discussing today would help.

In a slightly wider context, we all know that the Government will get the Bill through, but why do it the hard way—the bitter way? Why strip away the desire to compromise? Why poison the well? Why not show a little willingness, allow a little wiggle room on the Bill? Is it really to be seen just as the use of naked power?

We have, of course, had different points of view expressed, even on this amendment. But I believe that a quick and honourable deal could be reached on the Bill and, indeed, on a wider reform package in line with Labour’s manifesto. That deal could be done this afternoon between the party leaders over a cup of tea, and even before that cup of tea has a chance to go cold.

It is important for the credibility of this Bill, this Government and this House that the Government should try, and be seen to be trying, to come to a broader agreement, than they have done so far. I hope that the Government will open their door and reach out for agreement. That would be so much more dignified and productive than simply being seen to reach out for our hereditaries’ throats.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I ask noble Lords to forgive me for echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said on Monday. I listened to some amazing speeches, but their delivery will be in the future, not with this Bill. This Bill is so small and its effect on hereditary Peers is absolutely terminal in the end. I am not a prophet, nor a prophet’s son, but I like to have a healthy check.

Syria

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I am very glad that His Majesty’s Government have already given £11 million towards humanitarian aid. That is such good news. Secondly, our watchword surely should be that old adage: loose lips sink ships. We have to be extremely careful what we say. The material at the moment is very delicate. I encourage the Minister not only to judge and watch what the new Government are doing but to find ways of communicating a slightly more positive view of engagement. Somehow, in a very clever way, we have to become participants.

Finally, we all are concerned about biological and chemical weapons. What steps are His Majesty’s Government taking, together with all our partners, to work hard with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the convention? If those weapons get into the wrong hands, or the new Government think, “We’d better keep them, in order that we may use them”, that would be pretty dangerous. What steps will the Government take to make sure this is handled delicately and quickly?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The best thing I can do is reflect the noble and right reverend Lord’s sentiments. We need to respond to the actions rather than simply what people have said before. We want to ensure that we focus all our diplomatic efforts in relation to all regional and other partners. We are working through the UN special envoy to ensure that we do so. Also, Minister Falconer is speaking to civil society actors within Syria. The security risks are very clear, but we need to ensure that we react with caution and sensitivity to focus on how we can support the genuine calls for an inclusive transfer. The last 13 years have shown the horrors of what a dictator can do. We now need to focus on supporting the Syrian people in determining their own future. The films that I have seen certainly reflect the jubilation of some people being released from those horrendous prisons. We should understand that.

UK Leadership on Sudan

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has been working on this too, in terms of Abdalla Hamdok’s activity and the Taqaddum coalition. That coalition is seeking to broaden its base and engage all parties. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned proliferation. There are groups proliferating from this, using all kinds of conflicts that have previously occurred and reigniting them between communities. That is why, when we sat down with Abdalla Hamdok, we focused on how he needs to have the most inclusive process possible—and our allies are also focusing on this. That is not easy in all the circumstances, but it is what we are doing.

My noble friend is right that we need to ensure that we have all those voices heard. That is the most important thing, as we heard on the radio this morning with Tom’s report—like my noble friend, I think that it is great that he was able to get into Sudan so early; it shows that he will be absolutely focused on making sure that the world hears from those survivors and from those women and children who gave their first-hand accounts. We need to focus on that, which is why I am also concerned to ensure that we build that coalition not just among Sudanese within Sudan but among the diaspora here so that we get an inclusive approach to a final solution which will help to return civilian rule.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, in the late 1970s, I was administering law in northern Uganda, and there were many refugees from south Sudan. Archbishop Luwum did a fantastic job in persuading the Uganda Government to provide places where refugees could go, allowing them to go to schools and universities. He did a fantastic job. If the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds was here, he would have told the story of how he put his life in danger by visiting Sudan regularly, because they are linked together. I think that one of his messages would have been to ask the Minister to ensure that he and many others—who have a lot of first-hand experience and know where the NGOs are—are part of a conversation, because he has been doing amazing work in terms of civil society.

Finally, I thank the Minister. His voice has been heard, and he should keep that voice. I have every confidence that with what he is doing in terms of partnership, particularly with the African Union, he will get a breakthrough, because he has been very consistent. He has also honoured people. He does not do things like a colonist does; he does things all on the same level.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his remarks. The approach of the Foreign Secretary and of the whole Government is to ensure that we raise this issue and put it higher up the global agenda. I have also spoken to the right reverend Prelate about this situation. The Church, particularly the Church of England, has close connections in Sudan. I am working with it to ensure that we can support its activity, building cross-community support for peace.

It is also important to recognise that we are supporting 700,000 people who have been affected in neighbouring countries such as Chad and South Sudan. We are working with UN and NGO partners to provide food and cash. We have organised cash-transfer systems to ensure that the local economies in those countries are not severely impacted, and we are also providing shelter and medical assistance. Those are important actions to ensure that this terrible conflict does not spread and undermine security in that part of Africa.

G20 and COP 29 Summits

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we would certainly wish to be in a position to do so. That has been the case in past Labour Government responses. We are disappointed by the financial situation that we inherited, with a—dare I say it?—£22 billion black hole, but the noble Lord will know from his experience that this is something to which the Government and the Prime Minister personally are committed. We will do all we can.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to follow the injunction of the Chief Whip by asking a question but, before I do so, perhaps I may join in the wonderful words that have been said about John Prescott. He was an MP in Hull, when Hull was facing terrible education. I remember him persuading us that Archbishop Thurstan School, which was a secondary school, should be renamed—believe it or not—Archbishop Sentamu Academy. He said, “The Government may lose the election, so make sure you get your £45 million ahead of this”, so we applied and we got it. Within a week, the coalition Government came into place and stopped all the school-building programmes that had been planned. The people of Hull want to say to John Prescott, “You have lifted us out of poverty and out of poor education”. For the first time, the Sentamu Academy has pupils leaving Hull to go to different universities and continue education.

In paying tribute to John Prescott’s work on COP, my question to the Leader of the House is: what more lessons could be learned from the way that he tackled poverty, particularly that of children?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his recollections. Many people have similar, personal recollections of John. One of his great strengths was his ability to negotiate. Many felt that he would play up to his gruff exterior at times, but anyone who had watched him in a room of people disagreeing find some way to get some kind of agreement would have understood the brilliance of the man in that regard. That plays into COPs, in that people go in with their own objectives and do not always get what they want, but the worst thing they can do is walk out of the room, leave and make no progress. The lesson I take from John’s life is never to give up.

Counsellors of State Bill [HL]

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I will make a more lawyerly point. I heard the wise intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on what is regular and the powers of the Lord Chancellor. I will not comment on either of those points. But I heard the noble Lord say, in moving the amendment, that his wish was to provide some clarity. I respectfully suggest that its wording actually does the precise opposite, because he has used the verb “excluded”—although, when he moved it, he used the word “removed”. In the context of this legislation, verbs are important. A Counsellor of State can be excepted if they are overseas, for example, which means that they cannot act but they do not lose their place in the pecking order. If they are disqualified, they lose their place in the pecking order, and the next person in line takes that place. It is not immediately clear to me whether “excluded” is “excepted” or “disqualified”. With the greatest respect, I suggest that it is this amendment that ought to be excluded.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I also apologise for not being here on Monday; I had to handle some serious matters in Berwick. Yes, the constitutional monarch has consulted, and this House considered this at Second Reading and agreed the terms as in the legislation. So there is no question of the supremacy of Parliament not being recognised. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is almost like rubbing it in—it is just one of those words we would not want to use. We should restrict the Bill to what was asked of us. This was considered, and therefore the wording is there.

Another thing is that we can never predict anyone’s future. I could be ill tomorrow, or I could be dead, and that would be the end of me. Anticipating what may or may not happen in legislation is always pretty difficult, so leave it well alone.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the thoughts behind this amendment, because the debate has shown that there is a certain amount of confusion about which members of the body of Counsellors of State will undertake royal duties, do undertake royal duties or might be asked to do so. In addition to the Duke of Sussex and the Duke of York, Princess Beatrice—although I might be wrong about this—is also not a working royal. That means that three members of this extraordinarily small body will never be asked to perform the function, which just seems strange.

An amendment of this sort would enable matters to be clarified. There are a number of deficiencies in its drafting, some of which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It also raises in my mind the question of what would happen if we were to exclude two or three Counsellors of State. Who would replace them? Would they be replaced and, if so, on what basis? There is ambiguity. In an ideal world, this ambiguity would be dealt with by consideration of these matters.

For example, it is up to the King to decide which members of his family he considers working members of it. He decides who acts as a working member of the Royal Family, so I think we could get round all that. However, as we debated on Monday, once you start down this route, it takes quite a lot of time and effort to deal satisfactorily with all the wrinkles. Given everything else that lies before us, I am not sure it is a priority. However, one idea is that the work could be done on this to the extent that, at some point in the future, there may need to be another Counsellors of State Bill to include an additional person. It would be a good thing if this could be cleared up at the same time.

CHOGM, G7 and NATO Summits

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[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—

Health and Care Bill

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

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

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I do not understand why it is a conscience vote if it is not about the substance or the subject but somehow about parliamentary process. That does not seem to me to be a matter of conscience.

The point is that people want better care at the end of their life. The amendment to this Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is a game-changer. I wonder how many noble Lords understand that something has changed during the passage of this Bill. For the very first time, people will now be eligible and able to have palliative and hospice care at the end of their lives commissioned by the NHS. It is the responsibility of all integrated care boards to commission proper, good palliative care so that the poor care and poor deaths that people in this House are afraid of will be a thing of the past.

This is the wrong time to talk about introducing lethal drugs as a last resort. We should be looking forward with optimism and hope about how things have changed. This is also relevant to my noble friend Lady Meacher’s Bill. Noble Lords have questioned the motives of Peers who have tried to amend that Bill. It needed to be amended and scrutinised. My amendments were all about palliative care—this was before the game-changer of universal palliative care—being available before people are offered the only option of lethal drugs. If lethal drugs are the answer, why was this not an amendment to introduce lethal drugs to enable people to be assisted in their own suicide? Palliative care will reduce the supposed demand for physician-assisted suicide.

I think the statistics have been misrepresented. Only 10 US states have legalised physician-assisted suicide, despite the supposed success in Oregon. Maybe they have recognised that palliative care decreases rather than increases when lethal drugs are available. Some 200 attempts to introduce physician-assisted suicide in the United States have been defeated.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I do not want to detain the House long. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, told us that this is not to open the debate in favour of or against assisted dying but, as the debate has gone on, there has been an opening up of that debate. We have to look very carefully at what was given to us by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on the constitutional question. This amendment is not saying that the Government must find time to debate this matter but instructing the Secretary of State.

This is a revising Chamber. It is made up of unelected people telling the Government in the elected place that they must produce a Bill and it must be given time. That is my worry. My views on assisted dying are very clear. I will debate it whenever the issue comes back again, but the issue for me now is to avoid what was happening towards the end of Theresa May’s Government, when the Back-Benchers were trying to take control of government business. That led us into a mess.

I am not against speaking in favour of any Government of any colour, because I have never been a member of any party, but I want to observe how the liberalisation of homosexuality actually happened. Michael Ramsey, as Archbishop of Canterbury, began a debate in your Lordships’ House because of what had happened to Turing and many other people. He just thought: is it natural justice that consenting adults should actually be prosecuted and have to go through horrendous treatment, some of them facing horrendous stuff? The debate happened here and what was the result? It was the Wolfenden report. That recommended that this should be debated and a Minister of the Government, and Mr Jenkins on behalf of the Labour Party, joined in the debate and what happened? The law was passed. Where did it start? It started in the elected Chamber.

I have a real concern that we, as a revising Chamber, are not even considering a Bill that has actually come from the Government but instructing the Secretary of State to produce a Bill within a year of this coming into being and saying that it must be debated. Does this respect our position and why we are here? This is not revising legislation, at which all your Lordships do a fantastic job. Without your Lordships, the Bills in this country would be horrendous. However, let us not overreach ourselves and think that we can instruct the Secretary of State to bring this in. Who is the Secretary of State in this case? is it the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care?

May I please ask that we get another amendment or another Statement to give the House a Private Member’s Bill that needs to be given sufficient time to be debated properly? Also, other people told your Lordships that on 21 September 2015, there was full a debate in the other place.

[A noble Lord]

A long time ago.

[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.