House Of Lords Thrown Into 'Chaos' As Democracy Protesters Bring Debate To A Halt
The House of Lords was thrown into 'chaos' after democracy campaigners started chanting and throwing leaflets into the debating chamber.
Stunned peers looked on as the protesters shouted 'Lords out, people in' during a debate on the 80th anniversary of the end of World War 2.
Proceedings had to be abandoned for several minutes until the campaigners, from the group Assemble, were removed.
An official could be heard saying: 'The house will adjourn for five minutes while this chaos calms down.'
Labour whip Baroness Twycross was speaking when the protest began.
On one side, the protesters' leaflets said: 'Never mind the Lords here's the House of People.'
On the other side it stated: 'Aristocrats and oligarchs: Out.
'Posties, mums, nurses and neighbours: In.
'Replace the House of Lords to save the UK.'
One of the protesters, Lucy Porter, 50, a primary school teacher from Leeds, told the PA news agency she was 'campaigning for a house of the people'.
On the Lords, she said: 'It's a symbol of everything that's outdated.
'We don't have a functioning democracy in this country.'
Another protester, who wished to be known only as Christina, said: 'We did this action on behalf of Assemble and the ask is that, instead of a House of Lords, which is a house of unelected wealthy elites, we have a house of the people.
'So, we have citizens' assemblies where people can participate in real democracy, instead of having everything handed to them from up high.'
🚨🎥 WATCH: Protestors throw leaflets and shout 'Lords out, people in' in the House of Lords pic.twitter.com/f06N0IzG0L
— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) March 20, 2025
House Of Lords 'Abolition' Petition Highlights Growing Support For Change
The House of Lords Is Bigger Than Lord Sewell - Which Is Why It Shouldn't Be Abolished
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Labour faces embarrassing defeat over foreign state ownership of newspapers
The House of Lords is preparing to inflict an embarrassing defeat on Labour over its 'deeply problematic' plans to let foreign powers become part-owners of British newspapers. Peers including a former chancellor, a former director of public prosecutions and the current chairman of the press regulator are in open revolt over proposals by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, to relax an outright ban on foreign state shareholdings to allow passive stakes of up to 15pc. The basic principle was expected to be reluctantly accepted by Parliament, in part to end the destabilising uncertainty at The Telegraph caused by a blocked takeover bid bankrolled by the United Arab Emirates. However, a loophole that it is feared could allow foreign powers to team up to gain sway over Britain's free press has stoked a rebellion capable of defeating the Government. As proposed, the legislation would enable foreign states to own up to 15pc if they are not cooperating with each other. Lord Young, the journalist and founder of the Free Speech Union campaign group, has spearheaded an open letter to Ms Nandy demanding she tighten the proposed laws. It has dozens of signatures from Conservative peers of all stripes, including former Cabinet ministers Lord Lamont, Lord Baker and Lord Lilley, as well as crossbenchers including Lord Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions. The letter to Ms Nandy said her proposals to allow multiple foreign powers to own shares in a single newspaper were 'deeply problematic'. It added: 'It has to be assumed that if different state actors are intent on exerting influence through their shareholding, then some may be prepared to do so covertly and in collusion with other states. 'To guard against this risk, the draft regulations should ensure that the cap in the percentage of shares that can be owned in a British newspaper enterprise is a total cap.' The letter was also signed by Lord Faulks, the chairman of the press regulator Ipso; Baroness Fleet, the former editor of The Evening Standard; and Lord Goodman, the former editor of the Conservative Home website. Other prominent backers included Lord Brady, the former chairman of the 1922 committee of Conservative backbenchers; Baroness Deech, the chairman of the House of Lords appointments commission; Lord Swire, the former Foreign Office minister; and Baroness Spielman, the former head of Ofsted. Lord Roberts, the Churchill biographer, has also signed and has written in The Telegraph that the legislation 'must be done in a way that entrenches the traditional freedoms of our press'. The letter marks a significant escalation of opposition to the legislation in the Lords. Baroness Stowell, who last year played a critical role in forcing the Government to block the UAE bid for The Telegraph, was among the first to raise concerns over multiple state shareholdings in a letter to Ms Nandy last week. She did not sign Lord Young's letter, but warned the Government it faced defeat if it pressed ahead, even though the Conservative leadership in the Commons had signalled it did not oppose the proposed laws. The Liberal Democrats have tabled a rare 'fatal motion' to veto the statutory instrument which may become the focus of the Lords rebellion. Lady Stowell said: 'I really hope the Government reconsiders these proposals quickly. 'It would not be acceptable for multiple foreign states to own stakes of up to 15pc in the same newspaper, yet for reasons unclear, that is a scenario Lisa Nandy wants to allow. 'Unless she closes this obvious loophole, I can see peers swinging behind a fatal motion to block this legislation. It would be a rare step to take, but I know colleagues feel very strongly about this crucial matter of press independence.' The Conservatives are the biggest group in the Lords. Alongside the Liberal Democrats and some crossbenchers they could readily defeat the Government and spark a battle with the Commons. Lady Stowell is among the parliamentarians to have said she would accept a limit of 15pc with reservations, were it not for the risk of cumulative shareholdings. The figure is three times the limit proposed last year by Rishi Sunak's government. Ms Nandy decided to lift it following lobbying on behalf of Rupert Murdoch and Lord Rothermere, the owner of the Daily Mail. Both media moguls have sought sovereign wealth investment in the past. Lord Rothermere previously considered a takeover bid for The Telegraph with financial backing from the Gulf. Mr Murdoch relied on the support of a Saudi royal shareholder to fight off the investor rebellion sparked by the phone-hacking scandal. Lobbyists for Lord Rothermere and Mr Murdoch argued that a 5pc cap on foreign state investment would cut news publishers off from a significant source of potential investment in digital growth at a time of upheaval as print newspapers decline. The row over cumulative shareholdings threatens to further delay a conclusion to the two-year saga over ownership of The Telegraph. RedBird Capital, the US private equity firm that was the minority investor in the blocked UAE takeover, has agreed in principle to become controlling shareholder in a £500m deal. IMI, the media investment vehicle owned by UAE royal Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan is expected to retain up to 15pc. However, the deal has not been finalised and is likely to require a settled legal position before it can face regulatory scrutiny. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport declined to comment. Lord Biggar Baroness Meyer Lord Moylan Lord Jackson of Peterborough Baroness Eaton Lord Brady Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell Baroness Finn Baroness Fleet Baroness Noakes Baroness Bray of Coln Lord Strathcarron Baroness Lea of Lymm The Earl of Leicester Lord Borwick Lord Roberts of Belgravia Baroness Deech Lord Sherbourne Lord Mackinlay Lord Ashcombe Baroness Coffey Baroness Foster of Oxton Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Lord Evans of Rainow Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Baroness Buscombe Lord Sharpe of Epsom Lord Mancroft Lord Robathan Baroness Nicholson Lord Wrottesley Baroness Cash Lord Goodman Lord Shinkwin Baroness Altmann CBE Edward Faulks KC Lord Swire Baroness Fox of Buckley Baroness Spielman Lord Lamont Lord MacDonald of River Glaven Lord McInnes of Kilwinning Lord Hamilton of Epsom Lord Reay Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Lilley Lord Baker of Dorking Lord McLoughlin Baroness Morrissey Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Labour faces embarrassing defeat over foreign state ownership of newspapers
The House of Lords is preparing to inflict an embarrassing defeat on Labour over its 'deeply problematic' plans to let foreign powers become part-owners of British newspapers. Peers including a former chancellor, a former director of public prosecutions and the current chairman of the press regulator are in open revolt over proposals by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, to relax an outright ban on foreign state shareholdings to allow passive stakes of up to 15pc. The basic principle was expected to be reluctantly accepted by Parliament, in part to end the destabilising uncertainty at The Telegraph caused by a blocked takeover bid bankrolled by the United Arab Emirates. However, a loophole that it is feared could allow foreign powers to team up to gain sway over Britain's free press has stoked a rebellion capable of defeating the Government. As proposed, the legislation would enable foreign states to own up to 15pc if they are not cooperating with each other. Lord Young, the journalist and founder of the Free Speech Union campaign group, has spearheaded an open letter to Ms Nandy demanding she tighten the proposed laws. It has dozens of signatures from Conservative peers of all stripes, including former Cabinet ministers Lord Lamont, Lord Baker and Lord Lilley, as well as crossbenchers including Lord Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions. The letter to Ms Nandy said her proposals to allow multiple foreign powers to own shares in a single newspaper were 'deeply problematic'. It added: 'It has to be assumed that if different state actors are intent on exerting influence through their shareholding, then some may be prepared to do so covertly and in collusion with other states. 'To guard against this risk, the draft regulations should ensure that the cap in the percentage of shares that can be owned in a British newspaper enterprise is a total cap.' The letter was also signed by Lord Faulks, the chairman of the press regulator Ipso; Baroness Fleet, the former editor of The Evening Standard; and Lord Goodman, the former editor of the Conservative Home website. Other prominent backers included Lord Brady, the former chairman of the 1922 committee of Conservative backbenchers; Baroness Deech, the chairman of the House of Lords appointments commission; Lord Swire, the former Foreign Office minister; and Baroness Spielman, the former head of Ofsted. Lord Roberts, the Churchill biographer, has also signed and has written in The Telegraph that the legislation 'must be done in a way that entrenches the traditional freedoms of our press'. The letter marks a significant escalation of opposition to the legislation in the Lords. Baroness Stowell, who last year played a critical role in forcing the Government to block the UAE bid for The Telegraph, was among the first to raise concerns over multiple state shareholdings in a letter to Ms Nandy last week. She did not sign Lord Young's letter, but warned the Government it faced defeat if it pressed ahead, even though the Conservative leadership in the Commons had signalled it did not oppose the proposed laws. The Liberal Democrats have tabled a rare 'fatal motion' to veto the statutory instrument which may become the focus of the Lords rebellion. Lady Stowell said: 'I really hope the Government reconsiders these proposals quickly. 'It would not be acceptable for multiple foreign states to own stakes of up to 15pc in the same newspaper, yet for reasons unclear, that is a scenario Lisa Nandy wants to allow. 'Unless she closes this obvious loophole, I can see peers swinging behind a fatal motion to block this legislation. It would be a rare step to take, but I know colleagues feel very strongly about this crucial matter of press independence.' The Conservatives are the biggest group in the Lords. Alongside the Liberal Democrats and some crossbenchers they could readily defeat the Government and spark a battle with the Commons. Lady Stowell is among the parliamentarians to have said she would accept a limit of 15pc with reservations, were it not for the risk of cumulative shareholdings. The figure is three times the limit proposed last year by Rishi Sunak's government. Ms Nandy decided to lift it following lobbying on behalf of Rupert Murdoch and Lord Rothermere, the owner of the Daily Mail. Both media moguls have sought sovereign wealth investment in the past. Lord Rothermere previously considered a takeover bid for The Telegraph with financial backing from the Gulf. Mr Murdoch relied on the support of a Saudi royal shareholder to fight off the investor rebellion sparked by the phone-hacking scandal. Lobbyists for Lord Rothermere and Mr Murdoch argued that a 5pc cap on foreign state investment would cut news publishers off from a significant source of potential investment in digital growth at a time of upheaval as print newspapers decline. The row over cumulative shareholdings threatens to further delay a conclusion to the two-year saga over ownership of The Telegraph. RedBird Capital, the US private equity firm that was the minority investor in the blocked UAE takeover, has agreed in principle to become controlling shareholder in a £500m deal. IMI, the media investment vehicle owned by UAE royal Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan is expected to retain up to 15pc. However, the deal has not been finalised and is likely to require a settled legal position before it can face regulatory scrutiny. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport declined to comment. Lord Biggar Baroness Meyer Lord Moylan Lord Jackson of Peterborough Baroness Eaton Lord Brady Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell Baroness Finn Baroness Fleet Baroness Noakes Baroness Bray of Coln Lord Strathcarron Baroness Lea of Lymm The Earl of Leicester Lord Borwick Lord Roberts of Belgravia Baroness Deech Lord Sherbourne Lord Mackinlay Lord Ashcombe Baroness Coffey Baroness Foster of Oxton Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Lord Evans of Rainow Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Baroness Buscombe Lord Sharpe of Epsom Lord Mancroft Lord Robathan Baroness Nicholson Lord Wrottesley Baroness Cash Lord Goodman Lord Shinkwin Baroness Altmann CBE Edward Faulks KC Lord Swire Baroness Fox of Buckley Baroness Spielman Lord Lamont Lord MacDonald of River Glaven Lord McInnes of Kilwinning Lord Hamilton of Epsom Lord Reay Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Lilley Lord Baker of Dorking Lord McLoughlin Baroness Morrissey
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
I don't want to leave ECHR, said peer reviewing Tory support for convention
Britain should remain in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the peer leading the Tories' review has previously said. Lord Wolfson, the shadow attorney general, told the Lords in 2023 that he supported the UK 'being in the convention' even though he disagreed with some decisions from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Speaking in a debate on Tory plans to enact their Rwanda deportation plans, he also warned that Parliament should not legislate in breach of its international law obligations unless there were 'absolutely compelling reasons' to do so. His past comments have emerged as Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, appointed him to head a review into whether the UK should leave the ECHR and how to prevent lawyers 'subverting' government policy. Mrs Badenoch is setting up a commission to investigate how a Tory government could prevent lawyers using human rights and other legislation to block government policy, not only on immigration but also in environmental and equality legislation. Lord Wolfson, a former justice minister, made his comments in a debate on Rishi Sunak's illegal migration bill which included new powers for ministers to ignore ECtHR injunctions, one of which blocked the first deportation flight to Rwanda. His past comments on ECHR membership have raised eyebrows among Tories. One commented: 'He is a brilliant lawyer but you wonder if Kemi should have chosen someone who was a bit more open-minded.' In the Lords debate, Lord Wolfson said: 'I support our membership of the European Convention on Human Rights. I do not always agree with the decisions of the court – I do not always agree with the decisions of our domestic courts either – but that is a separate matter. I support us being in the convention.' He also said that the UK ought to abide by international law obligations. 'I would expect Parliament not to legislate contrary to a treaty obligation unless there were absolutely compelling reasons to do so and, in those circumstances, to make that very clear. Otherwise, we should always be legislating consistently with our international law obligations,' he told the Lords. It is understood Lord Wolfson believes the debate has moved on since 2023. The Telegraph understands that irrespective of his views, his role as head of the review is to provide dispassionate advice on the impact of the ECHR on government policy, the legal consequences of leaving and how it could be done. It will be for the leadership to then decide whether to leave or not. A Tory source said: 'He is conducting a review of the legal impact of membership of the ECHR on government policy and providing to the leader and shadow cabinet a legal analysis of what being a member of the ECHR means and what would be the effect of leaving the ECHR in a legal sense. 'The political question of whether we should stay or leave is not for him or the commission. That's a question for the leader and shadow cabinet. They are the clients in this context, and he is their lawyer. They have asked him a series of questions that he is going to answer with his legal hat on. They can decide what they then do.' Interviewed earlier this week about what the Tories' position was on the ECHR, Lord Wolfson told Joshua Rozenberg's podcast A Lawyer Talks: 'I can only say watch this space. But it's no secret to say that within the Conservative Party, there will be people who take different views on this issue. 'Within the Labour Party, there are people who take very different positions on this issue.' However, he indicated that ministers should not comply with treaty obligations if that would mean ignoring laws made by Parliament. He said ministers would always seek to comply with international law if they were able to do so. But he added: 'A minister has to abide by an act of Parliament and it would be constitutionally improper, I would suggest, for the minister to say, 'I'm going to ignore what an act of Parliament says in order to comply with a treaty obligation'.' Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, told The Telegraph: 'The man leading this review into Britain's membership of the ECHR does not actually want to leave it. 'This tells us everything we need to know about how serious the Conservatives are about deporting illegal migrants and stopping the boats. 'They haven't changed one bit since their time in office.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
