Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Tunnicliffe

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 17th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support the view that what we need is a devolved Government in Northern Ireland. Paying attention to items that separate us is very detrimental to making progress. On the items that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has cited, perhaps reliable legislation is not quite so important as the others, but all the others are vital for day-to-day life in Northern Ireland. I sincerely hope that the Northern Irish parties, all elected to the Assembly with the responsibility that they have, can come together on such items to get things done. Otherwise, if we have a progress report on implementation, what is it going to tell us? That nothing has happened. That is absolutely useless.

What we really need is to do our level best to get the Executive into action. I understand that there are some matters that divide the principal parties in Northern Ireland. In fact, there are things that divide people continually, but having a Government who can carry out the essential matters referred to in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, is an urgent matter, and the responsibility primarily lies with those who have been elected to the Assembly. I hope that the Government will do the best they can on these items, but surely the main message is that those responsible, elected by the people to serve in the Assembly, should come together and form an Executive to carry these things out.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for bringing forward these amendments. There seems to be a consensus in the House on the importance of forming an Executive as soon as possible. The noble Lord serves that cause by illustrating the serious issues that have not been processed. We are 100% behind the re-forming of the Executive, and we hope that the people and the politicians of Northern Ireland see the wisdom of that. The amendments are interesting and useful, and I hope that the Government will be saying appropriate warm words.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Tunnicliffe

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

That is the question.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

Surely the judgment given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, makes that absolutely clear. The issue of the operational decisions in combat could not, in the view of the Supreme Court, be prayed in aid of negligence. The issue is those decisions not taken in a combat environment.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I entirely agree. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made that as clear as he could. However, as Lord Mance pointed out, the problem is that, while that is the principle, it is quite difficult to apply in practice. If you are trying to sue the ministry, the question may be whether what happened on the ground followed what from the ministry had done. The Snatch case is the easiest one, in a way. I used the case of the noble Lord, Lord West, only because he mentioned it himself, but the Snatch case is perhaps the best example of where it is possible to say that the ministry provided the right equipment but the right vehicle was not picked. There are three vehicles waiting and you pick one. It is not the right one; the other two are somewhat different. I am not suggesting for a minute that the people who made the choice could be sued for negligence, but the question of whether or not the claim against the higher authority is made out may depend on the investigation of these things. That is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, was talking about.

As I said, I never intended to press this amendment at a later stage; I simply tabled it to raise the issues and to see what can be done. My approach would be that we should see what we want the final situation to be. We should forget what the human rights convention has to say. We should look at what we want and consider legislation. We should believe that if it is suitable legislation it will be covered by the margin of appreciation and that the human rights convention, which of course we cannot alter ourselves, will not be affected in any way. With great respect, as a result of all this debate, that is the approach that I would commend.

I am sorry that we have gone beyond the time when we were supposed to finish, but I regard myself as not completely responsible for that because things depend on what went before. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment and I do not propose to raise it on Report.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Tunnicliffe

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

The intentions in China are possibly as human as intentions here. If people produce a substance in China, it is bound to be possible to say why they are doing it. I agree that the more remote they are, the more difficult it is to bring to bear our criminal system but the system has to work when the drug is brought into operation in this country. The people who bring it in will have a purpose. They will no doubt have some kind of relationship with those who produce it, in China or elsewhere. I do not think that they are normally bringing it in as a charity but for some commercial purpose.

As far as I can see, the type of approach that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has suggested may be capable of being rephrased to bear on the purpose for which the drug is produced. If that were possible, it would be a much more feasible and workable solution than is contained in Amendment 2 at the moment. I am very sceptical about anything I could say about a definition of this kind that is supported by no less a person than the noble Lord, Lord Rees of Ludlow. However, this has legal implications as well, which is why I have been encouraged to say what I have thought about it up to now.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, hit on the essence of the Bill at the beginning of his contribution. It takes a different approach from the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, because of the speed with which these new products are coming into our society. We all at least agree that their impact is one of tremendous and peculiar harm. The Labour Front Bench supports the Bill and the essential concept behind it. We had a manifesto commitment to address legal highs and we approve of the device used, which is a wide definition with exceptions. That is the difference between the two sides in this debate. We therefore, as a generality, oppose the narrowing of definitions, as that would go to the essence of how the Bill is designed to work.

Amendment 1 would narrow the definition to “synthetic”, which would potentially exclude a large group of naturally occurring substances. Amendments 2, 5, 6, 8 and 9 all seem to be about the same concept, with the same words used over and over again, as in Amendment 2, to limit the definition to,

“any drug which is, or appears to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to be, misused and of which the misuse is having, or appears to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs”—

here we get to the key words—

“to be capable of having, harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem”.

Those ideas would drive right through the concept of the Bill and reverse its essence, meaning the psychoactive substance would first have to be proved harmful. The Bill is poised the other way round: if the substance is psychoactive, it is presumed to cause harm and is illegal under the Bill unless exempted.

The wording and framing of those amendments seems also to leave out the concept of self-harm, which the Bill seeks to address. It certainly takes out the more complex issues of harm such as dosage, volume, et cetera. We therefore cannot support those amendments.