Arrangement of Business

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Friday 30th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I will make my usual statement before we start proceedings today. I will keep it short to enable the debate to start as soon as possible. I thank noble Lords again for their kind words and constructive discussions during the past week. I continue to do my best to strive to find ways to assist the House in its scrutiny, balancing some difficult and often opposing positions.

As I set out last week, following the House’s clear indication that it wants more time to consider the Bill, I will seek to adjourn the House not at 3 pm but at around 6 pm. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear me say that, ultimately, it remains in the hands of the House, and noble Lords may seek to adjourn earlier by moving the Motion that the House be resumed. As we did last week, we will adjourn the Committee at a convenient point around 1 pm for a 40-minute break, to give those participating a chance to eat.

I hope that noble Lords will make more progress than on previous days. I trust that they will continue to debate with respect for each other’s and different views, remembering that opposing views are just as sincerely held as theirs. We do not take interventions on interventions, and all interventions are opportunities to ask a short question, not to give another speech; I have asked the Whips to intervene if that it happens.

Finally, on behalf of the whole House, I place on record our thanks to the staff of the House for their usual courtesy and professionalism and the excellent service that they provide to Members, not only today but every day. With that, I think we should move to the substance of the Bill and continue our debates.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Chief Whip for the time he gave me yesterday. I would like to make three very brief points. There has been much speculation and discussion outside your Lordships’ Chamber on the procedure, principles and workings of this House.

On procedure, this week there has regrettably been much discussion about the use of the Parliament Act when it comes to the workings of the Bill. I ask the Chief Whip, who I know holds the House in great esteem and fights its cause, to clarify the fact that, in the case of the Private Member’s Bill before us, it would be unprecedented for the Parliament Act to be used. As all noble Lords know, the last time it was utilised was in 2004, with what became the Hunting Act, which was a government Bill. So we would be setting a very different precedent if that was to happen.

My second point is on procedure. If the Bill did not pass and the Parliament Act was invoked, it would not be for the Bill’s supporters to make that call. My understanding is that that would be a matter for Mr Speaker, after careful consideration. Equally, my reading of the two Acts is that it is very clear that the House of Lords would still have a role. Let us not forget that, if this was presented again in the next Session, there would still be the small issue of the ballot for Private Members’ Bills in the other place. I again ask the Chief Whip to clarify the issues of procedure to allow for effective debate in your Lordships’ House.

My third point is about the House of Lords itself: who and what we are. As many noble Lords will know, I was on the receiving end for a very long time, with 12 years in Government across communities, the Home Office, transport and the Foreign Office, dealing with the SAMLA legislation and discussions around the EU and Brexit. Everything was done in a reasoned way, as the Chief Whip has said, and we listened. I say that to the proposer of this Bill, the noble and learned Lord, whom I respect greatly. As he and I joked recently, I have certainly played my part in listening during Committee—I have been here for a large part of it—but I am yet to intervene and I warned the noble and learned Lord that that does not mean that I will not.

That said, I recall, I hope correctly, something that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said about the value of your Lordships’ House. I pay tribute to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Grey-Thompson, among others. Having listened to the debates, most, if not many, of the amendments being proposed are to ensure that, if this legislation became law—I respect that, as the Minister and my noble friends on the Front Bench have said repeatedly, this is a matter on which both His Majesty’s Government and His Majesty’s Official Opposition are neutral—the duty of care that the Government have for the protection and security of our citizens would be paramount. Therefore, I invoke the good offices of the Chief Whip and of the Lord Privy Seal and urge them to continue to protect the traditions, conventions and procedures of your Lordships’ House in any discussions that take place.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I have two questions. Will the Chief Whip confirm that whether the Parliament Act is invoked is entirely a matter for the House of Commons? Does he agree that the reason that the Parliament Act is being discussed at the moment is because this is day 8 of Committee and we are still on Clause 1?