I have huge respect for the noble Lord and other colleagues who serve in this House from all parts of our United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland and Scotland. I accept his points about the inconvenience caused to colleagues. My door remains open, and I will happily meet the noble Lord next week to discuss what we do in future.
I do not come here to annoy and aggravate Members of the House, but I feel that at the moment I am doing just that. That is not my intention. I love the House and I want it to work well. I remain open to any ideas and suggestions that noble Lords might have. People want to use government time but, while I am the Government’s business manager and we have to get the Government’s business through, I am also conscious of party debates and Select Committee reports. I know how important Thursdays are to colleagues, so it is very difficult. But my door is always open to any colleague to come and discuss any further ideas about how we can move this forward. I am very sorry for the inconvenience to noble Lords today.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I seek clarity from the Chief Whip on when we should adjourn discussion of a group and carry it forward to the next designated day after we have reached the official knocking-off time, shall we say? He will know that on Tuesday last, when we were due to finish at 11 pm, at 10.58 pm the Whip on duty suggested that we should adjourn the debate and continue the next day, even though there was only one Peer left to speak. We resolved that matter with the Chief Whip’s help, continued the discussion and finished at 11.08 pm. Contrast that with last Friday when, at 2.30 pm, with four Peers waiting to speak, the Whip on duty decided that we needed to hear from the Front Bench because the whole group had to be concluded by 3 pm. I do not think that is in accordance with our procedures. I would like some clarity from the Chief Whip on whether we should be able to carry forward the remaining discussion on a group if we have not completed it by the official stopping time.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who is obviously an experienced Member of this House. Ideally, when we are discussing any legislation, it is better to conclude a group of amendments on the day than not doing so—that is just better for the management of the House’s business—but sometimes that is not possible and, when that is the case, I fully accept that we should adjourn mid-group and then come back to it the next day. If that happens today at any point, I will ensure that happens.
(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberI am conscious that we agreed 11 pm with the House staff. If it is going to be quick, then that is fine. But we do not want to be sitting here later, because it is not fair on the House staff. We agreed 11 pm.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I have about four minutes, if that is acceptable. I do not think there are many other speakers in this crowded House tonight who wish to speak on it. I am in complete agreement with the list of memorials to be added to Schedule 12. They should be protected. All we are seeking to do here is add that there are some important ones missing. It is not a technicality; it is a matter of national memory, public safety and simple consistency in the law.
These additions matter because memorials named in the amendments are at the heart of our civic life. They stand in Whitehall, Trafalgar Square, Victoria Embankment and Parliament Square. That is where the nation gathers. That is where tourists and schoolchildren come to learn. That is where the machinery of Government operates. They are not just isolated pieces of stone and bronze; they are focal points for our national life and public ritual. They commemorate the service, sacrifice and leadership of men and women whose actions shaped our history and whose memory we owe to future generations.