(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed really regrets that he cannot be here for these tributes, as he has been unavoidably detained in Scotland.
Much has been said already about Lord Mackay of Clashfern’s professional endeavours and immense achievements. A sense of him as a human being has also come through. He was universally admired, respected and held in deep affection, and I know from others that he was immensely kind to everyone in this place, no matter their experience. Sometimes it is those small gestures that are the most telling. My noble friend Lady Hamwee recounts such an incident when, as a fairly new Peer, she was sitting near the Throne, as we did then, and Lord Mackay was on the Woolsack. He noticed that she had a glass of water on the floor, vulnerable to passing feet, and he asked that the table he was using for his water be moved so that both could use it—a small gesture but an important one, especially to a new Member of this House.
We on these Benches salute Lord Mackay’s life and record our thanks for his long and very distinguished service to our country. We offer our condolences to his family and friends, and trust that the tributes paid provide them with some comfort.
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow three such speeches. The cries of dismay that greeted the Lord Speaker’s sad news of the death of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, were as loud on our Benches as anywhere else in the House, having, as we do, so many of his friends and colleagues from the legal world, Whitehall, Scotland and the House in general. On his ennoblement in 1979, he chose as his motto “manu justi”: by the hand of a just man. We have heard much of the relevance of this choice so far, and I will return to it.
I want to reflect on Lord Mackay’s 15 years as Lord Clerk Register, the oldest remaining great office of state in Scotland. This was originally a post connected with Scotland’s records, and he was therefore one of the four commissioners of the regalia of Scotland. On behalf of the Crown, they were responsible for looking after, among other things, the Stone of Scone. The stone was originally taken from Scone Palace, which is by Perth, in 1296. In 1996, thanks to the efforts of the Lord Speaker, who was then Secretary of State for Scotland, it made it back as far as Edinburgh Castle.
Around the time of Covid, the commissioners of the regalia had to consider whether the stone would be moved from Edinburgh to Perth. I was the chairman of the relevant museum in Perth. The four commissioners consisted of three judges and Nicola Sturgeon, and they were in receipt of a tremendous amount of incredibly technical advice concerning security, conditions of light and humidity, historical context and so on—the fog of a difficult case. James stopped me one evening in the House and asked a simple question: how much would it cost to see the stone in Perth? I said it would be free. “It’s rather expensive in Edinburgh at the moment at £17”, he remarked. He had no other questions; he had cleared the fog and, shortly after, the commissioners, under his gentle and persuasive skills, reached their decision.
About a year after the stone had arrived at the new museum in Perth, I saw James at an event in Scotland and went to say hello. He immediately asked me what had happened to the stone in its first year. I told him that more than 250,000 people had come: a high multiple over the previous Edinburgh numbers. His eyes naturally sparkled and his smile broadened—an example of “manu justi”.
I was going to add one other anecdote from this House, but unfortunately it has already been given. I remember sitting next to a Conservative Minister at the Long Table and him telling me that the most scary part of being a Minister in the Chamber was not the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, getting up—he is not in his place now—or the Lord Speaker getting up in days of yore. It was the gnarled hand coming over the Bench when you knew that you had no satisfactory answer to whatever the question would be—that hand, of course, being the hand of the just man, the “manu justi”.
I end with one very simple other thing. When Mrs Thatcher offered James the role of Lord Chancellor, he told her that he was not a Conservative and it would not be appropriate. She replied, “Don’t be silly”.
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I will make two very brief points: one specifically aimed at the noble Lord, Lord True, and the other a more general point about the House and its procedures.
The point for the noble Lord, Lord True, concerns the wording of his amendment, which says that,
“the House should continue normally to sit at the customary times”.
That is a long-winded way of saying it should continue in the future as it always has done in the past with no revision whatsoever. I am sure the noble Lord has not forgotten, but I remind some Members of the House, and maybe inform some new Members, that it is not so long ago since the customary times for meeting in this House involved Wednesdays for Private Members’ Bills and Thursdays for government Bills starting at 3 pm. This is a House with people, we hope, coming from all parts of the country. We did not start the business of the day until 3 pm. It was a struggle to get that change through, but we got it through. I am not aware of anyone —please stand up if I am wrong—on these Benches or any others who thinks we should revert to what was then the customary times of sitting.
The other point is about the procedures of the House. The fundamental function of this House is to scrutinise legislation. That is what we do. If anyone suggests to me that we scrutinise more effectively at 1 am than at 1 pm, I would ask them to reconsider their position. I watch day after day the attendance in this House—we know the figures; we can look them up; we can check the voting figures. When the House is sitting even at 9.30 pm, there is many a time when there are only about eight, nine or 10 people in the House: two on the Government Front Bench, a couple on the Opposition Front Bench, someone in the Chair, a couple of Cross-Benchers and maybe one or two with a particular interest in the Bill. That does not compare—
I am sorry; I apologise to the Lib Dems. It is an error I have made frequently in life.
It is not uncommon at all to have such numbers of people in the House scrutinising. It is beyond argument that, if we are looking at the detail of a Bill at a sensible time, at midday or 1 pm, more people will be in the House, more people will be taking part in the scrutiny of it and, if there are any votes, more people will take part in them. It is a very simple, straightforward proposal from my noble friend the Leader, and I really hope the House has the sense and the common sense to pass it.
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I understood that different schemes were in place, but I will take that back, look into it and come back to my noble friend with a response.
My Lords, thousands of leaseholders and tenants are still living in blocks that are unsafe. I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for the commitment she has given to speeding up remediation works. However, some leaseholders are not included in the current scheme, as non-qualifying leaseholders of various sorts. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the qualification of leaseholders for the scheme to get the cladding on their homes removed? They are, as are others, living in places where they fear fire every day.
My Lords, nothing is more important than feeling safe and secure in your own home. My noble friend Lady Taylor, who is sitting with me, is well aware of this as a former council leader. The department is aware of the issue and is looking into it.