Procedure and Privileges Committee

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Blunkett

Wednesday 1st December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I have never been in the House of Commons, but I have had quite a long time watching it. I am conscious that sometimes in the past, the way in which the ultimate questioner was selected was not the best, but I think that what today we are asked to do by the report is to go back to the way we had before. I am perfectly happy if later on, once we come back to what we have done, we consider whether anything more needs to be changed, but I certainly think that it is not an appropriate time to make a change of this sort when we are just coming back to the old system for the first time.

Another matter that has occurred to me is that we have all been through a very serious experience as a result of the pandemic. Who knows, that may have affected the so-called shouting crowd. I hope we will all learn to stop the shouting and extend courtesy. I believe in the very good advice,

“in honour preferring one another.”

If that system operated, we would not need anybody to pick their number.

I have to say something about the practical issue. With a House of 800 and more, it is quite difficult for anyone, even one with the skill of the present Lord Speaker, to know everybody. This business of the people who want to shout getting going is urgent, and unless you know everybody who is here, you cannot select who is the fair one to call. My strong view is that we should not change anything, except go back to where we were before, until we have had a chance to see whether the shouting mob, if that is what we call them, have changed their behaviour and been chastened by the experience we have had.

I venture to think that many of us will not wish to be involved in the shouting mechanism. I have never taken part in that—shouting is not, on the whole, my way of life—but I think there is a very good chance that people will realise that we have got back, wonderfully, to what we were before and that now we will show it to be the best possible way.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, but I cannot help but reflect for a moment on the self-regulation of the Liberal Democrats, which is obviously the firm smack that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. By the way, you have to have gone to the right school to really appreciate the firm smack. I just wish the Liberal Democrats would carry it a little further into how long their Members speak, particularly when asking questions.

I say to my noble friend Lord Grocott that I really appreciated his anecdote about the early days of the Lord Speakership and the ceremonial of moving to the Woolsack and having very little else to do. It reminded me of one or two Permanent Secretaries who hoped that their Ministers would adhere to the same strictures, and too often they did. On this really serious issue, of course there is a fine line concerning the dynamic that existed under the old system. By the way, when we came back we voted on retaining the list and people putting their names in shortly in advance—not that long in advance, but shortly in advance—of the Question being taken. We voted on that, and what we are being asked to do this afternoon is to reverse something, not necessarily to go back immediately to something that already existed.

We need to reflect carefully on why the dynamic is not there. Why are not so many questions being put? It is partly because fewer people are participating in this House. The number voting is a good indication of those who are on the premises, and it has dropped quite dramatically since we came back to fully sitting sessions. The idea that, simply by going back to a free-for- all—for that is what it is, a managed free-for-all—we will suddenly have an influx of noble Members coming back to the House is delusional. We need to address issues for the future, not for the past. Is it sensible to have some rational order in which the Lord Speaker plays a significant and important part in ensuring that the world outside sees us as we wish to be seen?

I have never had any problem getting in. It is partly that I have a loud voice and partly that people are extremely thoughtful, because they realise that I do not understand who I am upsetting when I intervene, including on my own Benches. It is also partly that Members opposite appreciate just how much I understand the dilemmas of their Ministers in having to answer for government policy; that sympathy remains. Even if I could see, from this juncture or place in the House would I be able to see whether others around are seeking to get in and would I have the sensitivity to deal with that? What is so good about barging your way in, having a loud voice and intervening on the spur of the moment because somebody has upset you, rather than putting your name in because you have a serious interest in a Question? We are not dealing with that now, because it is being ruled out by the committee.

The amendment from my noble friend Lady Quin is a rational, temporary compromise to see how it would work, and I think we should give it a go. It is a compromise between a return to a complete free-for-all and continuing with the system we voted for a few months ago. Let us try not always to revert to whichever part of the past we favour, but to move forward to the future.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Blunkett

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 1st February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group; I put my name to the ones that I thought were more appropriate for me but I agree with them all. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has said, it is of course true that these amendments are supported by the Magistrates Association. My reason for supporting them, apart from the fact that I am convinced that they are right, is that they come from the Magistrates Association, of which I had the honour to be president for almost 10 years. However, that experience is rather elderly and I am therefore very happy that these amendments are supported by an active, front-line, authoritative magistrate today.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, we are doing very well this afternoon so I will try not to delay your Lordships’ House very long. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, one of the great advantages of being on the front line as a magistrate at the moment, as in the case of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, is that you literally have current hands-on experience. One of the burdens you carry as a former Home Secretary—including one who had what is now the justice ministry under that umbrella—is that you ask yourself, “What would I do if I were the Home Secretary today?”

My response would be something like this. The amendments are logical, rational, humane and very difficult to argue with, but the one relating to a five-day timeframe is in the present circumstances unrealistic. We currently have a backlog of 64,000 outstanding cases, including many people on remand. We have a justice system that has been described in this House over recent days as being “justice delayed, justice denied”. I do not think it is realistic to specify five days, although there should be a timeframe within which the response is required in court with the person present.

That leads me to the second element. I want to come back and speak on Amendment 81 but, for now, I will just reflect. When I had responsibility for drugs policy, I was very clear that you needed the consent and commitment of the individual if they were to be offered treatment as opposed to punishment. However, when you offer people a positive road forward and require their genuine commitment to taking that up, you also need a fallback position when they do not do so. I hope that the Minister, when she responds, will be able to reflect on how we might meet the genuine rights of individuals in this case, with the imperative not to be taken for a ride.