Scotland: Referendum

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Cormack

Wednesday 10th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally]

I am afraid that we are at time.

House of Lords: Reform

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Cormack

Thursday 21st June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords—

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

I think that we will hear from my noble friend Lord Tyler—and noble Lords should have a look at the third Question that we are coming to.

House of Lords: Reform

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Cormack

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I have no intention of going down the road to a written constitution. This country has probably for 300 years been extremely successful in adjusting its constitution to the age in which it is there to serve the people. Now, in the 21st century, the time has come for the House of Lords to make a similar adjustment.

[Lord Cormack]

Has my noble friend had a chance to read the alternative, unanimous report produced by 12 members of a committee of 25? Will he ensure that all Ministers see it, read it, mark it, learn and inwardly digest it, because it offers a sensible way forward?

[Lord McNally]

I have not yet read that report. Yesterday I was fully engaged in the fruitful debates on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. However, I can assure my noble friend that I have a box by the side of my desk marked “weekend reading” which has in it that report and the main report. I look forward to reading both over the weekend. I cannot compel other Ministers as to their reading but I hope that all Members will take this issue forward with a sense of responsibility and a sense of the dignity of this House.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Cormack

Monday 23rd April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I will leave it to the Opposition to explain fully the introductions that they made to timetabling,

[Lord Cormack]

Will my noble friend give way?

[Lord McNally]

No. Well, I will take one more from him. Carry on.

[Lord Cormack]

I am most grateful for that flattering giving way. I point out to my noble friend that it was indeed a Labour Government who brought in automatic timetabling, but before the coalition Government were elected Sir George Young and others gave an assurance that any Conservative Government—or presumably any Government led by Conservatives—would not have timetabling. We still have it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

I do not think that exceptional funding has ever been a specific amount of money and that therefore the amendment releases more of the exceptional funding pot to others. The exceptional funding is there to meet cases that fulfil the requirements for exceptional funding. I will not follow my noble friend because he leads me down a dangerous road. The exceptional funding is and will be there on the merits of the case. That is why we have confidence that the combination of the amendments that we have made, the CFAs, which, as was pointed out, some 82 per cent are already using, and a robust exceptional funding scheme will meet the needs in the cases that are covered by the amendment that we are opposing. Again, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and to support the Commons.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I felt very sad as I listened to a Minister, for whom I have both affection and respect, fail to answer this brief debate.

I am grateful to all those who have taken part. It has been brief, but that does not mean that the issue is unimportant. I apologise, incidentally, to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for the missing indefinite article, but we are talking about a definite proposition. That definite proposition is this: we often talk about rights and responsibilities, and certain people have particular rights and to them we have particular responsibilities. We are talking about children—those under the age of 16: children who are damaged as a result of clinical negligence within the National Health Service that the country provides for them and in which they and their parents place their trust. To limit the help, in a very small timeframe, to those who suffer brain damage is frankly not the hallmark of a civilised health service or a civilised society.

I know not whether the figure of £1.6 million given by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is right, but it is certainly around that figure. Indeed, the state would be the beneficiary in the long term. It would certainly be the beneficiary in the moral sense. We should concern ourselves about that. Of course the Government have problems. Of course they have great responsibilities for the economy. We are not, however, talking this evening about something that can in any way damage the financial strategy. What it can do is damage our reputation. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Cormack

Thursday 15th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I am interested in this question about the risk register. Risk registers are protected under the Freedom of Information Act, and the relevant clauses were enthusiastically used by the previous Government. Their enthusiasm for moving away from the protections of the Act seems to have occurred only after May 2010. They may like to tweet that that is true.

On the other matter, I know that there are strong opinions and great expertise in this House on freedom of information. I regret that there was no Joint Committee but, under the rules and arrangements between the two Houses, Sir Alan’s committee had first pick and chose to do it alone. However, I urge all noble Lords to write to the committee with their opinions and to offer to appear before it if Sir Alan so deems.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, has my noble friend drawn to Sir Alan’s attention the excellent debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, some weeks ago and some of the very real concerns and important points raised during that debate?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, yes, I have. It was an extremely useful debate and a number of former public servants expressed their point of view on how the Freedom of Information Act works in their experience. As I said at the time, I do not share all their fears. I am extremely proud that we, as a party, supported the Freedom of Information Act. It has made our system of government much healthier. Frankly, when politicians, the press and the police have all shown that they have something to hide, this is not the time to start pulling down the shutters of secrecy again.

Magna Carta

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Cormack

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

What excellent ideas. It is strange how the same thoughts go through our minds. Just as the noble Lord was speaking, I was looking at the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and thinking what a perfect hostage he would make in the circumstances. Not long ago, I went to a ceremony at Runnymede and pointed out something that may surprise some Members of this House in view of my views about reform—that at Runnymede, the Barons did very well.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, does my noble friend think that the Barons who look down upon us daily from their plinths above this Chamber would be best pleased if, a month after the next general election, they looked down upon a hybrid Assembly with a group of senators in it?

Justice: Pre-trial Publicity

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Cormack

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned former Attorney-General. At the City University lecture to which I referred, the Attorney-General said that it appeared to him that,

“the press had lost any sense of internal constraint and felt able, indeed entitled, to print what they wished, shielded by the right of ‘freedom of expression’ without any of the concomitant responsibilities”.

We are indeed making it clear to newspapers that the law exists in this area. As he has already demonstrated, the Attorney-General is willing to follow the example of his predecessor and take action under that law.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, it is not only the press which is to blame here; the police made no secret of the fact that they had arrested Mr Jefferies on suspicion of murder. Should there not be a prohibition on the police announcing that sort of arrest until someone is actually charged with an offence?

[Lord McNally]

Again, that is very sensible. One of the things that has come out of recent revelations is a perhaps unhealthy linkage between the press and the police in high-profile cases. The police themselves should be very concerned to observe all proprieties when dealing with such serious matters.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Cormack

Thursday 24th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I am reliably advised that the debate is included in the forthcoming business and will be held on 1 December.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, will the debate be held on the Floor of the House or in the Moses Room? Most of us feel that it should be on the former.

[Lord McNally]

By agreement with the usual channels, it will be held in the Moses Room.

Supreme Court: President

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Cormack

Wednesday 16th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I think that is what I indicated in my earlier reply.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, is it not comforting that one of the latest appointments to the Supreme Court has written a definitive history of the Hundred Years’ War?

[Lord McNally]

Indeed. I always go along with the dictum of Denis Healey—the noble Lord, Lord Healey—that you should look for people with hinterland.

Legislation

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Cormack

Thursday 10th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally]

I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe.

Public Disorder

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Cormack

Thursday 11th August 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, there is a great deal of collective wisdom around this House, but we are not going to hear all of it if we do not keep to what was agreed at the beginning: short inventions and short questions. That is no disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Dear, who brings particular expertise, but I appeal for future interventions to be brief. I think it is time for the Conservative Benches.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, is there not a case for considering in the long term some form of compulsory national community service? Is there not also a case for considering whether young people at the age of 16 or 18 should go through the same sort of citizenship ceremony which those getting British nationality go through? Finally, is there not an overwhelming case for the inquiry to be conducted not merely by the Home Affairs Committee of another place but by a Joint Committee of both Houses, bearing in mind the experience that resides in this House, an example of which we heard a few moments ago?

House of Lords: Reform

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Cormack

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords—

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, I think that seniority gives it to my noble friend Lord Tyler.

House of Lords: Reform

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Cormack

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

You have to be patient. You are behaving as you used to do in the House of Commons. That is why wind-up speeches in the House of Commons take so long. This has been a long debate. I am not going to answer every question in 100 speeches, partly because, as I have already pointed out, this is the start of a process of consideration. I think many of the questions that were raised quite rightly should be addressed by the committee to be chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and I will make further points on that. However, I must remind this House—this unelected House—that all three parties fought the last election advocating direct elections as part of their plan for reform of the House of Lords. Those policies presumably went through a decision-making process in all three parties. I wonder how many of the speeches made from the Labour Benches would go down at a Labour Party conference, or how some of the speeches made from my own Benches would go down at a Liberal Democrat conference.

My party leader and my party took a great deal of criticism when they appeared to go back on a manifesto commitment concerning tuition fees. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made great hay of that during his contribution. However, this is a threefold commitment that the government proposals reflect. As far as I am aware, no one has put proposals to continue with an unelected House before a party conference or put them into an election manifesto. As the noble Lord, Lord True, suggested—

[Lord Cormack]

I am most grateful to my noble friend, but what does he say to the statement made earlier today that no party won the general election and that the one that came closest to doing so—the Conservatives—had the most lukewarm sentence in its manifesto?

[Lord McNally]

All three parties had it in. I have to say that that is a kind of car salesman’s excuse. Let me make it clear that I am not anticipating changing many minds during this speech. However, I am also very well aware—more than this House seems to be aware—that this is not a perfect reflection of opinion in the country. That should be the warning to this House.

Elections: Alternative Vote System

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Cormack

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, whether it is inevitable in the end I simply do not know. As to the other information that the noble Lord imparted to the House, I am sure that it will, as ever, be accurate.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, is not the Minister correct and the noble Lord opposite also correct? There are no current plans but it is inevitable.

[Lord McNally]

Nothing is inevitable, including the outcome of the AV referendum.