Arrangement of Business

Lord Empey Excerpts

Friday 23rd 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 a few remarks before Committee. I thank all noble Lords for the constructive discussions and kind words this week. I understand and empathise with the concerns that have been raised about the suggestion that the House would sit beyond 3 pm. I am striving to find an approach to minimise the impact on the House. I have looked seriously at all the options. It is very difficult. The options I was presented with last week were that the House should sit from 7 pm to 10 pm on a Thursday or earlier on a Friday. I discussed these suggestions with the usual channels and the Clerk Assistant. I am grateful for their advice and that of the noble Lords who put these suggestions forward.

I am also conscious that the House accepted a Motion from my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton that more time is needed to scrutinise the Bill. There is no easy solution or an option that is acceptable to the whole House. The Bill will remain a Private Member’s Bill. No government time will be allocated for the Bill. Therefore, it is right that it is considered on Fridays only. I know that some noble Lords would prefer to sit later on a Thursday, but I am mindful of the pressure the late night would put on the House and the staff, especially when we have another sitting Friday the following day. I do not think that is the right course of action.

I also spoke to the House authorities about sitting early on a Friday, but for many teams of staff this would increase the pressure to be here even earlier in the morning to ensure that the House is prepared to sit at 9 am. I do not think that sitting earlier than 10 am would ensure that we are in the best position to scrutinise the Bill.

As a result, and as I have set out previously, I will not seek to adjourn the House at 3 pm today but will seek to do so at around 6 pm. Of course, this is a matter for the House and not for me as Government Chief Whip and Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms. It remains in the hands of noble Lords and the House. Any noble Lord may seek an earlier adjournment by moving the Motion that the House be resumed.

My door remains open to all noble Lords to discuss matters concerning the Bill. I have also heard concerns about the pressure that longer days put on noble Lords who wish to debate most or all of the groups within the target, and I have been asked about a lunch break. I am happy to facilitate a break that would adjourn the House during pleasure for around 40 minutes at 1 pm. That might require breaking mid-group, although I hope it will not be the case.

I put on record my thanks to the staff of the House—those who are here today and those who have been working ahead to ensure that our debates take place today. At all times when we consider this Bill, we should have at the front of our minds kindness, courtesy and respect, the hallmark of our debates in this Chamber, especially when we are debating the Bill before us today. With that, I think we should turn to the substance of the Bill and make more progress on it.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, the noble Lord kindly allowed a number of us to make representations to him during the week, saying that his door was always open. Indeed it was, and I thank him for that. However, I raised the point last week that for those of us who do not live in London, running to 6 pm or thereabouts means that it is impossible for most of us to get home, requiring us to stay over until Saturday. Given that this is a Private Member’s Bill, given the pattern that has been adopted on Private Members’ Bills since I have been here and given that we are effectively discriminating against a group of people who do not live in the local area, as a matter of principle that is a mistake. If we allow it to happen on a regular basis, people who are not resident in the south-east of England are put at a disadvantage.

I understand the point about leaving early and not observing the normal courtesies, but if you table an amendment, the point is to hear the response of the Minister and the promoter of the Bill. It is not an ad hoc thing where you can drift off at a certain point in time. Without any doubt, this decision means that those who have to travel a significant distance from this House to get home every week are at a disadvantage. That is a precedent. It might be those of us who live further away today, but it could be a different group of people next time. I think that is a mistake.

I am not satisfied to leave this as it sits. I would not like to be in a situation where people were bouncing up and down to ask the House to resume as some ad hoc arrangement. It should be a situation that is agreed with the promoter of the Bill so that we do not have this business of people doing a count around the Chamber to see whether they can get the House resumed. We should have a more mature and professional way of doing business. I leave the point with the Chief Whip that this discriminates deliberately against people who do not reside in this area.

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

I have huge respect for the noble Lord and thank him very much for the kind way in which he dealt with our discussion this week. That is why I said last week that colleagues could leave earlier if they had to travel back home. I fully accept the noble Lord’s point that when someone moves their amendment, they want to hear the response. If noble Lords find that they have to leave because of travel arrangements and cannot hear the response from the Minister, I am very happy to arrange for them to have a meeting or briefing to go through that response, rather than them having to read it in Hansard. I am trying to find ways to square an almost impossible circle here, but I appreciate the noble Lord’s comments.