Arrangement of Business

Lord Moore of Etchingham Excerpts

Friday 30th January 2026 Lords Chamber

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

First, I love the House very much and I have been here for 16 years. I have been absolutely privileged to be here every day, both in opposition and in government. We all come here every day to work with the best intentions and in the best interests of the House. The House, over many years, has always assisted the other place in improving legislation, scrutinising it and making better Bills. We have all—in opposition or in government—done that. We should get that on the record first of all.

I thank the noble Lord for his question, and other noble Lords, particularly for coming to see me yesterday. I have had a chance to go away and look at some of this stuff, and I have a statement to read out to colleagues. If they let me get to the end of it, I hope that I may have found a way to assist colleagues.

I am not an expert on the Parliament Act 1949. Noble Lords will probably not be surprised if I say that it is complicated. I cannot and will not give a view on whether the Act can be applied to this Bill or any other Bill. If noble Lords are interested in the detail, I can refer them to paragraphs 30.49 to 30.56 of Erskine May, which sets a very helpful background, as does the note from the House of Commons Library published in February 2016.

Ultimately, decisions on the application of the Act are for the House of Commons. Erskine May makes it clear in paragraph 30.55 that any final decision must be endorsed by Mr Speaker. I do not want to misadvise the House on a complex procedure; to avoid that and to assist all noble Lords, my office has spoken to the Clerk Assistant, soon to be our new Clerk of the Parliaments, and I am pleased to announce to the House that the clerks will arrange a factual briefing on the details of the Parliament Act and its general application. The briefing will not be a discussion about this Bill or act as a forum to ask “what if”; it will tell us how the Parliament Act works and how it can be applied to legislation.

However, I can confirm for the record that the Parliament Act 1911, as amended by the Parliament Act 1949, applies to all public Bills—other than money Bills and Bills extending the maximum duration of a Parliament—so it can be applied to Private Members’ Bills. The Act provides that any Bill introduced originally in the House of Commons and passed by the Commons in two successive Sessions with at least one year between the first Commons Second Reading and the Commons Third Reading in the second Session can be presented for Royal Assent to the Commons. Many of the conditions underlying this are open for interpretation in what constitutes rejection by the House of Lords.

The Act has not been applied to a Private Member’s Bill to date; it has, however, been used for several Acts of Parliament. The 1911 Act was used for the Government of Ireland Act 1914, the Welsh Church Act 1914 and, interestingly, the Parliament Act 1949. Since 1949, it has been used for the War Crimes Act 1991, the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 and the Hunting Act 2004.

That is where we are. I will arrange for a proper factual brief so noble Lords will understand how the Act operates, and I will probably attend the briefing myself. To be clear, however, it is a matter for the other place and for Mr Speaker. It has never been used for a Private Member’s Bill to date.

[Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Chief Whip for his, as always, very kind and helpful explanations. I have a further point to raise, because I think it affects the proceedings of your Lordships’ House as we go on from today.

Of course, I would defend to the death the right of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to appear on the “Today” programme. I think what he said there, however, made it very difficult for the proceedings that are about to ensue, because he threatened us with the Parliament Act—though I do not think that is in his power—and said that what was going on in all these proceedings was just a filibuster. Not only is that quite untrue, as noble Lords will have witnessed through these many hours of detailed debate, which keep very carefully to specific points, but it seems to me that what the noble and learned Lord said on the “Today” programme prejudices what we are about to do in the next six or seven days. If he is saying that it is all a charade, what are his answers going to be in the coming debates? He has repeatedly given very helpful and full answers as we have had these debates, and he has never mentioned there is any problem here. He said at Second Reading that this House will do what we do best, which is to scrutinise. That is what we are doing, yet he said that it is all nonsense. What are we to make of the answers which he will now give over the intervening days to the many amendments that are put?

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, the Government Chief Whip in his opening statement said that he is not an expert on the Parliament Act; I think he is soon going to become one. Perhaps I may ask him a question to ensure that the briefing covers it, if it does not already. In the event that this Bill does not make progress in this House and therefore is reintroduced to the Commons next year, for the Parliament Act to be used, would it have to be introduced by a private Member or could the Government introduce it, allowing the Parliament Act then to take effect, without it being as a result of the Private Members’ ballot in the House of Commons?