3 Lord Wright of Richmond debates involving the Ministry of Justice

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Wright of Richmond Excerpts
Monday 14th December 2015

(9 years ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Portrait Lord Hannay of Chiswick
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I shall continue, but I say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that I have agreed with him. I have already stated that if this matter had come back to this House in the normal legislative procedure, without the invocation of financial privilege, I would have supported the Government, so I think I have been very clear on that point.

Financial privilege has been brought into the matter. I regret it very deeply. Frankly, the arguments, as just read out to us, amount to the Red Queen’s argument in Through the Looking-Glass: “It’s so, because I say it’s so”.

What I think is arising in this debate is a kind of reductio ad absurdum of the use of financial privilege. We have to realise that by that £6 million yardstick, pretty well every piece of legislation that comes to this House could be ruled as being covered by financial privilege. There really are not many pieces of legislation, although I am sure that someone will provide me with chapter and verse if there are, that do not involve a cost as modest as that. That makes it difficult for us because it sets a precedent with far-reaching and damaging implications for the future work and role of this House. That is where I concur entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I do not yield to him in any way in his love of this House and his desire that we should be able to do our work properly but, with the best will in the world, and for the reason that I have given about financial privilege, I am afraid that I will not be willing, in these circumstances and for that reason alone, to support the Government if a Division is called.

Lord Wright of Richmond Portrait Lord Wright of Richmond (CB)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I am sure that I am not alone in thinking that I have now heard sufficient argument so that, if the noble Baroness decides to test the opinion of the House, I am ready to vote.

Lord Faulks Portrait Lord Faulks
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, that was a short but valuable contribution to the debate. I am very grateful to the noble Lord.

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Lord Wright of Richmond Excerpts
Tuesday 17th January 2012

(12 years, 11 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wright of Richmond Portrait Lord Wright of Richmond
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend on initiating this debate. However, I should like to draw attention, as others have, to rather a different problem—namely, the extent to which the Freedom of Information Act in its present form and application, and the Government’s existing transparency agenda, may affect the readiness of public servants at home and diplomats abroad to record their frank advice to Ministers, even though there are exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act designed to cover confidential advice to Ministers and damage to international relations.

Does the Minister agree that there is a real potential constraint on officials if they believe that their confidential advice is liable to be open to early public access in spite of these exemptions, as illustrated by the recent decision to stop valedictory dispatches by departing heads of mission? I personally deplore this, having benefited three times from the experience and assessments of my ambassadorial predecessors. I regard the problem as being not so much the availability of government records, but whether important advice to Ministers is failing to be recorded for eventual inclusion in the National Archives. There is also a potential problem for future historians, unrelated to the Freedom of Information Act, in the failure to register many of the constant official exchanges by e-mail.

It is, I hope, an exaggeration—although I have heard it said—that the application of the Freedom of Information Act has led to a climate of fear in Whitehall, and to a marked reluctance by officials to put their frank and confidential advice in writing, whether by minute, letter, dispatch or valedictories. The Minister knows well, from our service together in 10 Downing Street many years ago, the importance that we both attach to a relationship of mutual trust between Ministers and their advisers. Does he accept that there is a real danger of that mutual trust being eroded by the excessive application of the Freedom of Information Act?

Elections: Fraud

Lord Wright of Richmond Excerpts
Monday 1st November 2010

(14 years, 1 month ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally Portrait Lord McNally
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I agree with that, but after a general election, when there are close fights—we have all been through this—comments are made. What is important is that all parties co-operate in ensuring that the machinery we put in place works. Let us see what the Electoral Commission recommends, and then, if further action is needed, further action will be taken.

Lord Wright of Richmond Portrait Lord Wright of Richmond
- Hansard - -

I note that the Minister referred to himself as an elector. Does the coalition have plans to allow Members of the House of Lords to vote?

Lord McNally Portrait Lord McNally
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I regularly vote in local elections and I am particularly looking forward to voting in the AV election in May next year.