European Council

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 12th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, only the noble Lord could come out with that particular quip. Of course we feared the dangers to our national interests or we would not have said what we did. It takes two to agree but it also takes two to disagree. The other 26 could have wholly accepted that we had a deep concern about our national interest and agreed with us. Then there would have been a treaty of the 27.

[Lord McNally]

I am trying to keep count here. We will have the Liberal Democrats and then the Cross-Benchers.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Strathclyde

Thursday 24th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

That the debates on the Motions in the names of Lord Sugar and Baroness Pitkeathley set down for today shall each be limited to 2½ hours.

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

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on the Order Paper.

Draft Financial Services Bill

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Strathclyde

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

That, notwithstanding the Resolution of this House of 21 June, it be an instruction to the Joint Committee on the Draft Financial Services Bill that it should report on the draft Bill by 16 December 2011.

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

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 24th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, as we begin another week almost entirely dedicated to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, I shall update the House on its progress. I do so very much in the spirit of Leader of the whole House in order to inform the House.

The House is a self-regulating Chamber. Most noble Lords see that as fundamental to the way in which this House works. Over the centuries we have devised ways of working based on freedom and flexibility of debate. These freedoms underpin the reputation of the House as a place of responsible and serious scrutiny and all of us value these freedoms. Part of our way of working is through the usual channels. One of their key functions is to arrange business in the Chamber so that the House makes best use of the time available to scrutinise legislation and hold a Government to account. As many noble Lords are aware, the usual channels routinely discuss an overall timescale for each Bill and come to an agreed estimate of the likely number of days required to complete Committee. The usual channels sometimes get this estimate wrong, but they operate in a way that ensures that there is flexibility if a little more, or even less, time is required.

On this Bill, the usual channels have been unable to agree an estimate of the length of time required for Committee. This is unprecedented and worrying. Even on some of the more controversial Bills that this House has considered in the past 50 years, the usual channels have agreed the approximate amount of time to allow the House to exercise its scrutiny function fully and effectively. An agreement through the usual channels provides a framework that allows both government and opposition to conduct their business efficiently while not infringing upon the House’s right to regulate itself. Such agreements are the cornerstone of the work that we do here.

The Opposition asked for more time for greater scrutiny on this Bill. The Bill has received more time, but it is not good for this House, or for the legislative process across Parliament as a whole, to assign an infinite amount of time to the passage of a particular Bill. Other Bills need to pass through this House, and there is other business that many noble Lords wish to consider. Let me set out a few facts about the position that we find ourselves in today.

Today will be the 12th day in Committee on the Bill. The other place took five full days on the Floor to complete Committee. The Clerks have not been able to find another example of a Bill that has taken more than 11 days in Committee on the Floor in recent years. We have now spent nearly 80 hours in Committee on the Bill. The other place completed Committee in 25 hours. On day one in Committee, we started with 47 groups of amendments for debate. Those groups were agreed by all those who had tabled amendments, yet we start day 12 with a further 54 groups of amendments remaining.

I have spent some considerable time in recent weeks considering how, if the usual channels cannot function in the normal way, the House could exercise its core function as a self-regulating Chamber. It is not a question that I have ever had to consider before. I have discussed this with others, but we have not yet found a clear answer. If we are unable to make reasonable progress towards completing Committee proceedings, I believe that it will be right to take soundings from all quarters of the House, including from the Opposition, as to the best way forward. Clearly, any solution needs to be acceptable to the House.

There is now a real risk of the Bill not becoming law in time for the people to have their say in a referendum on 5 May. I do not believe that that is what the House intends and it will raise questions about our ability to revise if we do not present the Bill in time. The Government wish to listen to what the House has to say. Concessions were made during proceedings in the other place. We are considering, as we always do in Committee, further concessions to put to this House. The Government have already lost two divisions, with every possibility of losing more. We are open to changes to the Bill, but not to changes that would undermine the fundamental purpose of the Bill agreed at Second Reading, which I believe have majority support both in this House and across Parliament as a whole.

European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Republic of Indonesia) Order 2010

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Strathclyde

Thursday 9th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the orders be referred to a Grand Committee.

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

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, and with the leave of the House, I beg to move the next four Motions standing in his name on the Order Paper.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Strathclyde

Thursday 9th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the debates on the motions in the names of Lord Pendry and Baroness Thornton set down for today shall each be limited to two and a half hours.

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

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde I beg to move the first Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, it is considerably later than we had intended to start the main business of the day, but I now beg to move that the Bill be read a second time. This Bill is a core part of the coalition Government’s programme. It is a simple measure that provides for three things: a referendum on the voting system for the other place; a modest reduction in the number of MPs; and fairer, more equal constituencies. It would not have existed in its present form without the creation of the coalition. Speaking for my party as well as for the Government, I say clearly that we are completely committed to honour the coalition agreement. That is why, as Leader of this House, I open for the Government on the Bill.

Of course, I would have liked 20 more Conservative seats at the general election, but that was not the people’s choice. They did not deliver a majority for a single-party Government. They asked us to work together —and that, I believe, is our duty.

This Government have started on the giant task of restoring this country from the economic, diplomatic and social wreckage of the past 13 years.

Political and Constitutional Reform

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 5th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

It is a period of transition—I nearly said “ambition”. Once the radical reforms for this place are through, this House, too, will come down in size.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I know that this subject interests all parts of the House, but we have now spent 20 minutes on it. Normally, we would go on to the next Statement, which is on education. However, since it has not yet started in another place, we will continue with the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, is the next person on the list of speakers. It has been drawn to my attention that he has now arrived, which is very good news for the whole House and no doubt for the nation, which will be waiting to hear what he has to say.