Older People: Their Place and Contribution in Society

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Friday 14th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to take part in this debate. We have heard some extraordinary speeches that have been profound and moving, and they include the one just delivered. But if we want a cheerful antidote to Dorian Gray, I would commend to noble Lords over Christmas F Anstey’s wonderful book, Vice Versa, where Mr Paul Bultitude takes a magic potion and turns into a schoolboy. That will cheer many a Christmas evening. We are all here in common admiration of the most reverend Primate for his gentle leadership over a very difficult decade. It is typical of him that he should have chosen this subject, one that is profound, complex and difficult, as his—temporary, I trust—swansong in your Lordships’ House. In that context, I am at one with the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and in this at least I believe fervently in reincarnation.

One thinks of the privilege that we all enjoy and which has been referred to several times in the debate. We are able to combine longevity with activity. As one who is three years beyond the allotted span and certainly not in the upper echelons of your Lordships’ House, I find it both a privilege and a challenge to be here. One recognises that we who are fortunate enough to be active have a real duty not to compartmentalise our society. It is the one reason that I have real reservations about any move towards a Minister or a commissioner for older people—it would tend to compartmentalise our society.

I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment, but in a moving speech the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, talked about balance in society, a point echoed just now by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland. The only truly balanced society is one in which those of all ages are able to play a constructive part and we all treat each other as human beings. If there is one thing I deplore about modern society, it is the way in which we speak patronisingly of the old, particularly when they are frail and ill. I shall never forget visiting a dear friend about 18 months ago, a clergyman of the Church of England, who was dying in hospital. He was a man steeped in learning, but he was being robbed of his dignity by being identified merely through an ill-written Christian name fixed above his bed. When as a constituency Member I used to visit old people’s homes, which I did regularly, I found the way of addressing old people by their Christian names—their first names, as we are supposed to say today—patronising. It does nothing either for the dignity of the person being addressed or for the professionalism of the one doing the addressing. Perhaps we can take an example from Dickens as his bicentenary year comes to an end. Many of us know and love Great Expectations. One of my favourite characters is Wemmick and his Aged P. If we could have that sort of attitude endemic in our society, it would do a lot to elevate it.

I want to make three points. First, the church can give a lead. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, talked about how Justices of the Supreme Court are obliged to retire at 70. What utter nonsense to bring the age down from 75. The most reverend Primate is going on to other things, and may the Cambridge years be full of richness and happiness. He will contribute to the national life from another place and I trust from this place as well. It is very wrong to oblige people to retire at a particular age. The most reverend Primate has chosen to move on at the age of 62, although he could have remained until he was 70 but not beyond. Why is that? All over the country there are clergymen in parishes who are obliged to retire at 70 although they could continue giving long beyond that age. It is true that the Church of England depends, to a large degree, on retired clergy filling in, but how much better it would be if they could carry on rather than merely fill in. As a parting legacy and gift to the church that he has led with such quiet authority over the past 10 years, can he—and I call him my noble friend in this context—not say to those who come after and those who are presently his colleagues on the Bench of Bishops that they should look again at this issue of retirement and the clergy? As the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, said, three score years and ten is no longer the common mark. As people are vigorous through their seventies and into their eighties, as we so often see, and even their nineties, as we saw this morning in this very Chamber, should they not have the opportunity to continue to serve? I make that plea.

Experience and wisdom is very useful in many places. Why should ambassadors have to retire at 60? What a pity, when the leaders of our three political parties are all able, vigorous, young men that they do not perhaps occasionally take a little advice from those who are a bit older. I remind the holder of the highest office that a predecessor as Prime Minister said:

“Every Prime Minister needs a Willie”.

She was of course referring to the late, great Lord Whitelaw. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, depended very much on the advice, wisdom and experience of Lord Whitelaw. Perhaps there could be an active role for a consultative council of elders talking to Prime Ministers and others. This House, to some degree, fulfils that role but they could perhaps do something within the parties as well.

Secondly, we are moving towards the great Christian festival of Christmas, a time when families come together. We have been reminded that many will be lonely, something that we should all bear in mind. However, those of us who have the privilege of being members of families should take this as an opportunity to recognise the respective roles that the different generations can play and that, without a proper recognition of the position of the elders within the family, childhood itself is at risk. One of the most disturbing features of modern society is the erosion of childhood innocence, and one of the reasons for that is that far too many children have been deprived of the opportunity of grandparental influence. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, spoke movingly of the role of the grandparent.

Finally, I make a small but important point. In my constituency work, I came across so many people in their seventies and, indeed, in their eighties who were real lodestars in the local community. Can we not do something about recognising them? Yes, of course, the odd one gets an MBE or, perhaps now, a BEM. However, what people appreciate most of all is being recognised by their own community. I would like the church to play a role in identifying local heroes—I call them that—who have done so much for their local communities. I used to give some of them what I called the “Westminster Medal”. We used to be able to buy, in the House of Commons, a medal with the Palace of Westminster on it, and one would give it to them. It was much appreciated, and I would like to see that sort of thing rolled out in a much bigger and more national way that helps to bring communities together and show that the leadership, experience, wisdom and reliability of those elders are truly recognised and appreciated. What could be a better way of ending this Jubilee year, when we all look to a Queen who, as she goes through her ninth decade with a husband who is in his 10th decade, continues to give unparalleled, superb service to her nation?

Ugandan Asians

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure once again to follow the noble Lord, Lord Singh. I did so a few weeks ago. I speak in this debate for two reasons. The first is that towards the end of March last year, I sat by my noble friend Lord Popat shortly before he made his maiden speech. There was an exchange on the Floor of the House on prayers. I shall never forget it because he said to me, “I can’t say anything because I haven’t made my maiden speech”—and, of course, he could not—“Could you let it be known that those of us who are not Christians but are of other faiths attach great importance to the established church in this country and to the ritual of daily prayers in this Chamber?”. I was very moved by that, and I did indeed quote my noble friend and make those points on the Floor of this House. I was moved by it because it was indicative, in a few sentences, of what the noble Lord, Lord Singh, has just said: the way in which this community has become part of Britain in every possible sense. My noble friend, in his admirable opening speech, made that very plain.

My second reason for wanting to say a few words in this debate is that I was elected to the House of Commons in 1970. I was one of the Conservatives who helped to create the majority for Edward Heath by defeating the late Lady Lee—Jennie Lee, as she then was—in the Cannock constituency. I represented a seat that was adjacent to Wolverhampton. I am proud to say that I was until his dying day a great friend of Enoch Powell. Indeed, I had the privilege of giving the address at his funeral. He was not right on everything but then, nor is anyone else.

I was proud to be in the House of Commons when the Conservative Prime Minister said, “This is our duty. There can be no equivocation. These are British subjects with British passports. They are being expelled from their country which in many cases is the land of their birth. They are entitled to come here and they will be welcome here”. I was one of those Conservative Members who was proud to support a Prime Minister who was doing what was right. Although it was not desperately convenient and there was very understandable concern at the numbers of immigrants coming into this country, here was a special category—a group who did not deserve to suffer from that 1968 Bill of which my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood spoke so movingly a few moments ago.

They came here and we all know what has happened since. They integrated into our country. They infused a new life into the economy in many parts of the land. They worked. They prospered. They learnt how to adapt to and adopt British ways. They are a remarkable example to which only one other community can perhaps be compared. They have already been referred to—the Jews who came here, not necessarily expelled, but forced to flee the tyranny of Nazi Germany before the war.

As a very young Member of Parliament I was already aware of what it was like to live in a country where, because of your colour or your religion, you were persecuted. In this context I am delighted that I am to be followed in this debate by my friend—and I use the word very advisedly—the noble Lord, Lord Janner of Braunstone. He and I in 1970—another founder member, the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, is also here—helped to found the Campaign for the Release of Soviet Jewry. They were people in Soviet Russia who were not allowed to worship or to live normal lives but for whom there was an opportunity, if they could get a visa, to get out of the country. The noble Lords, Lord Janner and Lord Dykes, and I and others—I think of our friend Sir Ivan Lawrence who was a Member of Parliament at that time and was part of our group—worked very hard to draw attention to their plight.

That was the underlying reason why, in many ways, I felt that it would be utterly inconsistent and totally wrong, working as we were on that front, to do anything other than give the most unequivocal support to Edward Heath in the difficult but principled stand he took when it came to the Ugandan Asians. Although he is far too modest to say this, my noble friend Lord Popat is a living example of the rightness of that decision. He came to this country, put much into it, prospered as a result—I am delighted to say—and is a valued Member of your Lordships’ House. What greater example can there be of progress from exile—a member of a repudiated and expelled community obtaining a position of leadership and influence in his adopted country, of which he is rightly and so movingly proud?

Over the years, all of us in politics make many, many mistakes. We are all guilty of missing opportunities but in this case the British Government of the day held fast to that which was good. They did not render evil for evil but said “Welcome” and, as a result, they have been richly rewarded. I should like to conclude by echoing the words of my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood. It is very splendid that my noble friend Lord Popat has said thank you to this country but we owe a big thank you to him and to his community for all they have done.

EU: UK Balance of Trade

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Wednesday 14th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, they took the right decision.

[Lord Cormack]

Will my noble friend, who has given us a bravura performance, put it on record that the man who deserves most credit for keeping us out of the euro is John Major?

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, I agree with that comment as well.

Iran: Capital Punishment

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The discussions with Iran are going on continuously at this moment in Baghdad. They have not yet stopped; they were due to do so yesterday but the Iranian team, as I understand it, is still in Baghdad this morning. Those discussions are, of course, focused on Iran’s nuclear programme and its weaponisation ambitions, but behind them is the obvious point that the EU sanctions—and particularly the oil embargo—clearly concern the Iranians. They keep raising the issue, which is a good sign that they are worried. As to the other items to which the noble Lord referred, these will come in at the right opportunity. I cannot assure him at the moment on everything that he referred to—I am not sure whether his full list is included—but he can be sure that, within the present climate of trying to get Tehran to make some sensible concessions and to comply with the IAEA, these issues will all come up.

[Lord Cormack]

The figure for the executions that my noble friend gave the House is positively horrific. When did we last initiate a United Nations resolution on this subject? Could we perhaps initiate another one very soon?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

There have been successive UN resolutions. We are limited by the fact that not every member of the UN Security Council is agreed on how far we should go in these affairs. I cannot answer my noble friend precisely on when the last resolution came through—I do not have it in front of me—but I shall certainly write to him giving the details that he wants.

European Parliament

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

That is certainly a viewpoint. My query would be whether it is the system that produces the low turnout or the cause. One could make an argument either way. The noble Lord has his views on matters of voting procedure and no doubt we will have many opportunities in future to debate them.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, is not the splendid point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, more than a viewpoint? Did not the British people emphatically reject PR last year, and is it not absurd that either House of the British Parliament should consider continuing this in Europe or, worse still, introducing it for any elections to a second Chamber?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The difficulty with that is that in 2002 there was no rejection of the closed-list system that was introduced. There was agreement by the Government of this country and many other countries in the European Union—in fact, all of them—to go for a PR system of some kind. How that will work in future in relation to this place is quite another debate, one on which obviously there will be strong feelings all round. As far as concerns the STV system in Northern Ireland, or the closed-list system for Europe, they were adopted and signed up to by this country, and if we want to unsign and change the system we will have to have a lively debate about it—as I suspect we will.

EU: Recent Developments

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Thursday 16th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, at the end of such a long debate, the last speaker can only take some consolation, especially as a right reverend Prelate is here, from the parable of the labourers in the vineyard. We have had a number of extremely distinguished speeches and many indistinguishable ones. I will not usurp the Minister’s role by seeking to answer the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, save to say that by his very presence in this House he goes a long way to justifying its existence.

I have listened to almost all the speeches during this debate—I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that I dashed out to take some sustenance and missed their contributions— and there seem to have been three questions hanging in the air: who are we, what do we want and where are we going?

When I try to answer the question, “Who am I?”, I say that my identity is English because I have spent virtually all my life in England, although my family comes from Scotland. I say emphatically that my nationality is British, and I do not want anything ever to take that away. However, I say with equal emphasis that the culture and civilisation of which I am a tiny part is European, and Christian European at that. I was very glad that that point came out in the admirable speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford.

Over the past 40 or more years since I first entered the other place I have been a passionate believer in a Europe of nation states. I voted in 1971 for us to enter what was then the European Common Market. I campaigned alongside Labour colleagues—the late Sir Geoffrey de Freitas and David Marquand—in my constituency during the referendum campaign of 1975 when, as we were reminded earlier in this debate, the country voted emphatically for our remaining in Europe.

Of course, whether we like it or not, we are an integral part of Europe. I have been worried, over recent years in particular, that some in my party have behaved and spoken as if those across the Channel are aliens called “Europeans”, and have seemed to believe that the other nations of the European Union were foes rather than friends. I deplore that. The Prime Minister was entirely justified in the decision that he took in December last year which many have criticised today, although I think that the noble Lord who said that he probably took this decision because he felt isolated was very close to the mark. I will say a bit more about that in a second or two.

However, although I believe that the Prime Minister was justified and that, in the building of the European Union, some hasty and wrong decisions have been made, that does not invalidate the whole system. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, in a very interesting speech, talked about people in this country feeling that it is all very remote. I spoke and voted against direct elections to the European Parliament in 1979. I thought that it was too soon, and that we ought to continue with the delegated assembly for a few more years so that there was a closer connection between the parliaments of the nation states and the assembly—I deliberately call it that—in Brussels and Strasbourg. It was a terrible mistake to go forward with the single currency, as was the way in which it was done.

I remind your Lordships of a distinguished former Member of this House, whom I was privileged to call a close friend: the late Lord Dahrendorf. There was no finer European anywhere within the continent of Europe. He was strongly opposed to our joining the single currency. He was very sceptical about the whole concept, believing that you could not really have it unless you had a degree of political union, which he himself did not warm to. He felt that it would be, in any event, far too premature to do anything along those lines. If people had listened a little more to Lord Dahrendorf, the European Union might be a better and saner institution than it is.

We must now look at what is, specifically, our role. Where are we going? In his very interesting speech, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, talked about the isolation that he felt that the Prime Minister had been under. He talked, although not specifically in these terms, of the importance of bilateral relationships. It is essential, as we have stepped aside from that treaty, that we do all that we can to build strong bilateral relationships within the European Union.

Many countries within the European Union look to this country not only with great affection—my noble friend Lord Bates talked movingly about that—but for leadership. I remember taking a group from the all-party heritage group to Greece way back in 1993. It was not, I hasten to say to your Lordships, a freebie; we all paid our own way. We had a wonderful tour of Greece and were marvellously received. It was clear that there was a palpable affection wherever we went. Therefore, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said about our being sympathetic to Greece in its hour of need.

I agree with those who think that there is probably only one solution for Greece: to exit the eurozone. Nevertheless, if that is the painful solution—it will be painful for us all—the Greeks merit and deserve the friendship of the nation of Byron more than they have ever merited and deserved it since the days of Byron. I very much hope that we will all, individually as well as collectively, show Greece that we have sympathy with the perhaps slightly ill tempered remarks of the President yesterday. He was, in effect, asserting Greece’s right to be a nation state and not to be dictated to.

It is crucial that in the difficult days ahead—there will be many of them—we spend great time on and devote infinite patience to developing our bilateral relations with the other nations of the European Union. Bearing in mind the extremely thoughtful, sobering speech of my noble friend Lord Tugendhat, we should have particular regard for the position of Germany. I do not believe that Germany has demonstrated the leadership—albeit reluctant leadership, as he said—that it perhaps could have done over the past couple of years. However, we have to remember that the Germany that we now talk of is a new nation, following reunification. Many were against reunification but it has worked. There has been great courage. Remember, the Chancellor herself comes from eastern Germany. One must have regard to all those facts and factors in seeking to understand why Germany is as it is at the moment.

Therefore, behind the scenes and behind the photographs of the embraces of leaders, we have to do all we can to build trust between the nations of Europe. In a world that will be increasingly dominated by power blocs, and where it is by no means certain that the United States will not become more isolationist, we in Europe—here is a part-answer to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch—must work closely with our neighbours and friends, not only for our peace and prosperity but for the mutual peace and prosperity of the wider world.

Iran

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I give a most emphatic yes to both those propositions. Indeed, in relation to the second one, it is very important that we work very closely with Turkey, which has indicated very clearly that the idea of Iran becoming a fully weaponised nuclear power is extremely unwelcome to it and that it will combine with the necessary actions and strategies to prevent that. At present, the main strategy is pressure through sanctions, but there are other tracks of diplomacy to develop as well. One can pursue more than one track in these matters, but this is the one that we are now engaged on, which we hope will bring results.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I endorse very strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Luce, said. Looking at the practicalities of the immediate threat, can my noble friend assure the House that there are adequate minesweeping capacities should the Strait of Hormuz be blocked by the Iranians?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend asks for assurances. I can give him assurances that all the necessary deployments and efforts will be made to achieve that. We are advised that it can be assured that any mines that are planted, for instance, by night or surreptitiously, will be very swiftly removed. There is the conviction that there can be no sustained blocking of the Strait of Hormuz and that any attempt to do so will be defeated. That is what I can tell my noble friend. To go beyond that to say that everything is perfect, nothing will be challenged and that there will be no difficulties would, of course, sound incredible, and I do not intend to give that assurance.

Christians in the Middle East

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Friday 9th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this debate. I agree very strongly with my noble friend Lord Selsdon that we have had some exceptionally moving and powerful speeches. I am so glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, is still here because no one who heard his speech will ever forget it, nor the sentiments which prompted it. We are all very much in his debt, just as we are in the debt of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for introducing this debate, and for doing so, if I may say so without sounding a little patronising, in a beautifully balanced and moderated speech which was an exemplar of its kind.

It is difficult in a debate like this, when one comes late in the batting order, not to say things that have already been said. However, as I have listened to every word that has been uttered, it struck me that I would like to share with your Lordships' House one or two memories which encapsulate much of what we have been talking about today. First, I go back to a scene in 1973 in Vienna, which I visited with the noble Lord, Lord Janner of Braunstone, then Greville Janner—a dear friend in the House of Commons; we had both been elected in 1970—and a group from the Campaign for the Release of Soviet Jewry, which the noble Lord and I founded together in 1971 when we were brand new Members of Parliament. There we received some of those who had been granted their exit visas from the then Soviet Union. I shall never forget one incident in particular when we met a young lady from Estonia who spoke the most impeccable and flawless English. I said to her that she must have passed out the top of her class. She laughed and replied, “I did until my parents were granted their exit visas, when the rector of the University of Tartu summoned me to his office and said that there had been a mistake and I had failed every examination”. That is a small vignette but it illustrates so much.

In 1990, the Soviet Union had changed beyond recognition. I served on a small international human rights committee that had contacts at high level in the Kremlin. We were the first group to be allowed to stay in the Hotel Octoberskya, which had previously been reserved for leaders of the Soviet bloc. It was a very solid, stolid place, but the thing I most remember about it is celebrating Epiphany in 1990—the feast of the manifestation of Christ to the Gentiles. In an upper room in that hotel, Father Ted Hesburgh, who had formerly been President Kennedy’s director of human rights, Rosalynn Carter, wife of the former president, Madame Giscard d’Estaing and I took part in a most moving ecumenical celebration of the Holy Communion. I was privileged to read from the Book of Common Prayer and the Gospel, and we shared the sacrament in a place where it had been forbidden. After the service, Andrei Grachev, a principal aide to Mikhail Gorbachev—to whom we all owe a great deal—received from us a symbolic bible, which was to mark the accepted gift of 1 million bibles into the Soviet Union. What a change from that day in 1973.

Of course, it is not all progress. Five years later, campaigning for Bosnia and its oppressed Muslim minority, I worked closely with the late Prince Saddrudin Aga Khan on the council for peace in the Balkans, where we were struggling to ensure that the freedom that had now come to Christians—and, indeed, to Jews—in what had been the Soviet Union would come to Muslims who had had it taken away from them by Serbian aggression in Bosnia. We can go on to consider some of the Serbs who suffered in Kosovo.

This is a many-faceted story. The most reverend Primate was right to highlight for us today the plight of Christians in the Middle East, but I mention those three examples to illustrate that we are really talking about oppressed minorities in all parts of the world. The freedom to worship openly without fear of intimidation or reprisal is, as has been said by others, the most fundamental of all human rights. It is the hallmark of a civilised society. No country has the right to call itself civilised if its people cannot worship in freedom and in peace.

We come to what we, both as a nation and through our Government, can do about this. There are many things we cannot do. We cannot withhold recognition from regimes that we find corrupt, offensive or repressive. We can consider withholding aid and assistance from regimes which persecute minorities. There has been much talk in recent days of credit ratings. Would it be a bad thing if we had some rating of those countries that are oppressing religious minorities—ratings in what I would call aid-worthiness? I am not being naive and suggesting that we can withhold aid everywhere, but it should be a test of a country to which we are giving aid whether it is honouring its civilised obligations to all its citizens, regardless of their belief.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, and others, have talked about an annual assessment. As I have listened to this debate today, and been both amazed and moved by the degree of expertise exemplified in the speeches, it struck me that it would be a good thing for there to be a consultative committee of your Lordships' House embracing the most reverend Primate, the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, my noble friend Lord Ahmad, and others, who could advise the Government on the aid-worthiness of countries to which we give assistance.

Would it not be an excellent idea, following the example of the most reverend Primate, if every year we had upon this feast a debate on the subject, when we could assess the progress made? The Minister could report to us on what had been done by government and what note had been taken of the advice given. This House is truly unique. Noble Lords know that I believe fundamentally in its very being and I want it to continue. It has an assembly of expertise and experience that is replicated nowhere in the world, so we should use it.

I finish, as we approach our Christmas season, on a small personal matter. I carry in my pocket a little cross carved from olive wood. It was made in the Middle East and sent to me some years ago. We all want the day when all Christians in the Middle East can not only carry a cross if they wish to but wear it openly and be proud of it, knowing that they will not be persecuted for it.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Ashdown on his constant concern, backed by his huge expertise and familiarity with this issue, which as we all recognise is a serious one and trending in the wrong direction. Will I give that assurance? Yes, I certainly will. We will, if necessary, argue for the European Union to deploy fully all incentives and deterrents at its disposal and we will use all the pressures available to us against what looks like a blatant and clear attempt to contravene the Dayton agreement by Republika Srpska and its leader. These are bad developments, which we are determined to see resisted. We do not want the territorial integrity and structure of the Bosnian state undermined, as it would be if these kinds of proposals are pursued.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, is my noble friend convinced that the Republic of Serbia is doing everything possible to exert pressure on Republika Srpska?

Saudi Arabia: Human Rights

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Corston]

My Lords—

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords—

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

My Lords—