Wales Bill

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Cormack

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I rise because I feel that there ought to be an examination of what the noble Lord has just said. I am very unhappy about this amendment although I agree with it in terms of the next increment. I just think that we are fumbling around in constitutional discussions without taking things in the round. It is all right talking about increments but there has been no constitutional incrementalism as far as England is concerned. That is our problem and we ought not to allow ourselves to continue with these bits—a bit here, a bit there—with no real consideration of the totality of the United Kingdom.

We are fumbling in the dark and I very much hope that my noble friend will not accept this amendment, not just because of the time but because I hope she will go back to the coalition Government and say that, although it may be tough, there comes a moment in a nation’s life when it has to consider what its constitution ought to be as a whole, not just in bits, and what happens to the other bits when you change some of them. We must face up to it. I know it is not going to be perfect and I know it is going to be very difficult but if the choice is between randomness and trying to work something out, I am in favour of rationality. I want people to think this through and try to discover what the balance ought to be.

As the son of a Welsh-speaking father I have some reason to congratulate the Welsh people on the way in which devolution has worked in the Principality. I am not speaking against this because I do not think that it should continue; I am merely saying that the United Kingdom matters too much for it to be left—

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

I am most grateful. I am very much in sympathy with what my noble friend is saying. Does he agree with me and others that a royal commission might well be the answer here?

[Lord Deben]

Well, it would seem the obvious answer, but the real question is that the United Kingdom matters too much for it to be the result of a series of random decisions about each bit of it. We ought to start the other way round.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Cormack

Monday 21st July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben]

Would it help the Government if we voted this clause down? They could then produce a clause that was satisfactory and would listen to what the Committee had said.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Why have a vote at all? We are in Committee and the Bill will then be on Report. At that stage, the Government can tell us what sensible amendments they wish to move. Some of us have been whipped to come this afternoon—and I always treat Whips with great discernment—but what is the point in voting this afternoon?

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Cormack

Friday 24th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

I would say to my noble friend, in answer to his perfectly reasonable question, that just as we are sitting beyond our normal hours today, it is entirely up to the House of Commons to sit beyond its normal hours on 28 February—and if there is a strong and passionate feeling that the Bill should become an Act and go on to the statute book, then it can have a very long Friday and do that. Of course, constraints are called for, and the more amendments that are passed, the more difficult it will become. I absolutely accept that. My reference was in particular to the amendments that have already been passed, which could be incorporated without any great difficulty.

[Lord Deben]

I hope my noble friend will agree that those who say that the House of Lords should not have debated this Bill and tried to improve it because somehow or other it was trying to destroy it, have got entirely the wrong end of the stick. We are trying to make this Bill passable: therefore, it is up to the House of Commons to accept a better Bill from us, which is what our job is, and then pass it. To say that we cannot deal with it because somehow or other we are being disloyal seems to me to be entirely wrong, and a media invention.

[Lord Cormack]

We are not going to redebate the Second Reading. I agree with much of what my noble friend Lord Deben has just said. At Second Reading I believed there was a case for giving this Bill, imperfect as it—I made it plain that I would not have started from here and that I did not like the Bill very much—a fair wind. I tried to make that case as effectively as I could but it was not accepted. I was merely pointing out that we are now in a different position. Amendments have been passed. It is indeed, as he and I have just said, up to the other place. The principle of the referendum remains. In spite of what my noble friend Lord Spicer said, these are not wrecking amendments. If the other place will give itself sufficient time on the last day of February, it will be perfectly possible for this Bill to become an Act of Parliament, suitably improved.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Cormack

Monday 20th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, having fought some of the battle with my noble friend and neighbour on this matter, I just wish to commend to your Lordships the constant pressure that my noble friend has brought to bear on this simple issue.

I draw just one thing to the attention of the Minister, who I understand is going to be extremely helpful: this is a symbol of trying to do the things that everybody wants done. The most frustrating thing in life is that there are many things which everybody wants done but which the Government always find impossible to do. I am afraid that the phrase “Better not, Minister” is one of the most dangerous that civil servants tend to use. Often, one should say, “Better to do things, Minister”. It is better to try and better to see whether we can solve this problem rather than have constant debates of this kind.

Therefore, if, as it appears, the Minister is going to be accommodating, I am sure that he will be accommodating quickly. That will show my noble friend Lord Marlesford that his pressure for sensible, moderate and reasonable changes in the law has again been successful, and I hope that your Lordships’ House will congratulate him on it.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, as one who spoke at the Second Reading of my noble friend’s admirable Bill, I want to say how much we appreciate his persistence in good causes. He did a very splendid job for five years as chairman of the CPRE and when he gave up that particular job he did not give up the interests that went with it: keeping a cleaner, tidier and more beautiful Britain. Having been a constituency MP, I know that when people indiscriminately chuck things out of the windows of their cars, some of the loveliest reaches of the countryside can be truly defaced.

My noble friend had a brief word with me before this debate and I am delighted to hear that the Minister has been—not at all surprisingly—both engaged and helpful in this cause. I hope that at the end of this debate we will have the confirmation in Hansard of that helpfulness and can go forward, make those people who despoil our country guilty of what they do and ensure that they are suitably reprimanded.

Care Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Cormack

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I support what my noble friend has just said. I have to say to the Minister that this amendment is rather necessary because there is a generalised belief that forces in our society are determined to marginalise that which has actually made our society and has had such an influence on the provision of healthcare for our people. The history of healthcare in Britain shows that it was fundamentally founded by those of faith. That does not say anything about anyone else, but it does say that if we want holistic medicine—I am not a great believer in anything other than orthodox medicine, so I am not encouraging all kinds of what I consider to be alternatives, which are best left alone—we have to understand that it is about the whole person, and for many people this is a most important part of the whole person. For this not to be in the Bill will be seen by many as another example of society specifically seeking to marginalise an important section of our community on whom we depend widely for many of our voluntary activities, and certainly on whom we have depended and do depend for our health services. I hope very much that the Minister will take this point seriously.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I would like very briefly to support what my two noble friends have just said. Surely this is not the Government conceding to a secular society and surely they recognise that for many sick people, the spiritual dimension is extremely important. It is not a question merely of healing physical ills and curing physical diseases, it is a question of recognising that many people, particularly as they near the end of their lives, have a great need to fall back upon their faith, and that should be recognised and encouraged. For the life of me, I cannot see what the Government are doing here and I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us a satisfactory answer. I am only sorry that the Bishops’ Benches appear to be empty this afternoon because one would have liked to have heard a contribution from them.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Cormack

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben]

I want to try to bring two sides together on this issue. I hope people will recognise that I am entirely in favour of this legislation and I am a practising Catholic, so I understand exactly what has been said. I have great sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Lester has said about how this might be approached by the Government. Let me say two things to the Minister. First, there is a history here of promises made and broken, as my noble friend made clear. So even if this is absolutely okay, there is a feeling that it might not be okay and we have to recognise that fear.

Secondly, there is also a history of campaigning people who seek all the time to push their point further than is reasonable. For example, campaigners have recently argued that we should withdraw aid from youth clubs run by organisations that take a strong view about homosexual practice. That is a campaign that people have suggested—that if you take that view you should not get any help from the state for your youth club. I say to my noble friend that I understand the fears that people have on this issue.

The position of the Catholic Church is particularly difficult because we have a very odd and rather noble system in Britain that has come out of our history: to ensure that it was no longer true that only Anglicans could marry, we extended it to other people via the mechanism of enabling approved persons to act as registrars. There may be an issue here and it may be that the fears that people have are correct. However, I also recognise what my noble friend Lord Lester has said: sometimes, when we try to correct this, those of us who are not lawyers—and I am proud not to be a lawyer—add things that make it worse. That is the danger here. If we are not careful we will have a sort of argument of the deaf, with one side saying, “We want to do what you want, but if we do it that way we will actually make it more difficult for you”, and the other side saying, “You may say that but we’re still worried about it”.

I ask my noble friend to recognise that even those of us who are not just marginally but very much in favour of this legislation are concerned that we should be very careful about the nature of toleration. Unfortunately, “toleration” has become a very curious word. People talk about toleration as if it means tolerating views that you happen to agree with. One of the things that we have to do is produce legislation that enables a tolerant society to accept that some people have very different views. That is not helped, if I may say so, by some of the language used by people opposed to the Bill. Some disgraceful statements have been made by people who have really not come to terms with the fact that we live in a society that should be inclusive and accepting. The churches have sometimes spoken intolerably and intolerantly. However, the truth is that there is intolerableness and intolerance on the other side as well. I will give way to my noble friend .

[Lord Cormack]

I agree very much with my noble friend, whom I thank for giving way, but I hope that he was not suggesting that there has been intolerance in the debates in this House. That is something that he would find very hard to prove.

[Lord Deben]

I listened to the whole debate almost without exception, and there were one or two sentences that I think ought to have been withdrawn by the people who made them because there was clearly a misunderstanding about the nature of what we are talking about. However, I do not in any way suggest that my noble friend spoke in that way. I am merely saying that there is a great need at this moment to make people relearn what toleration is. Toleration is accepting the views of people with whom you disagree fundamentally and totally. We need to do that in our society.

Let me be clear: I think the amendments are unnecessary, I do not see the legal basis for them and I am not worried about this issue. However, some people are worried about it. There is another word that I would like to bring into this: “courtesy”. There is a great need in our society for courteousness to other people, and there are people here who are legitimately worried. We need to ensure that there is no reason for them to be worried. I wonder if my noble friend might do the following, which is largely to follow what my noble friend Lord Lester said: not to argue this case because, frankly, a legal case of this sort across the Floor would be unhelpful for all of us, but to go back and produce a document that answers specifically the points that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has made, so that we know exactly where we are.

If there is a concern, the bit that seems to me to have had some truth about it is the nature of the official person—the point that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, was pursuing. I think he would agree that if the official person gets denominated in a particular way, what we all want in terms of a tolerant society could easily be overcast. I wonder if my noble friend might take it away in that way, instead of continuing the legal debate, and then come back with a document, which we might all peruse, and see whether we could not, at least on this, come to a common view across the House.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Cormack

Monday 22nd April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben]

I rise only because my noble friend, like my right honourable friend, has drawn into consultation the Quality of Life report, which I chaired. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Royal Town Planning Institute and an honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects. I think it important to rise simply because I would not like the House to believe that what is here in the amendment was what the Quality of Life report actually recommended. The reason for saying that is not because I wish to undermine what the Government have done but because the Government have been less radical than we suggested they should be. We said that in most of these cases it is not a matter of planning but of neighbours. It is a matter of sorting out what is fair dos, based on the principle that we believe in the rights of property. I ought to be able to do whatever I like with my property but I cannot do that in a world as closely knit as we are without taking into account what my neighbours feel about it. We said that it was ridiculous to tie up the planning system of the local authority to do this.

What should happen is that you would have a duty to tell your neighbours what you intended to do, with a plan and the rest of it. They would then have a month—28 days—to tell the local authority that they did not like it. The local authority would then have the right to do three things. First, it would have the right to say, “Well, this is a load of old rubbish and we’re not going to take any notice of it”. That seems perfectly reasonable, as you have to have a judgment in the first instance as to whether people are merely being difficult. We all know there are some people who can be difficult in any circumstances about anything, and anybody on a local authority knows that better than I do. The second thing that the local authority could do would be to say, “We think that this is a serious planning matter”—in other words, it was not a matter of neighbours, but something very fundamental, and it would therefore call it in, in effect, for a planning decision.

However, it would most likely say that this was a matter of neighbours and that they were going to appoint an arbitrator. Local authorities would have a panel of arbitrators, who would be very ordinary people, whose only job would be to go and see what the fair deal or reasonable thing would be in the case. Having decided that perhaps a slightly smaller extension would be fairer as far as the neighbour was concerned, they would say, “We will agree to this, if this change is made”. Alternatively, they would say, “We agree to it entirely”. They would start from the assumption that they would want to agree to the development; in other words, there would be an assumption in favour of development, because that seems to be reasonable given the nature of property.

The Government have taken this up. It is a huge improvement on the previous suggestion and a generous way of moving forward. I think my noble friend Lord True will probably feel that it is not quite what he wanted but we have gone a long way. However, there are three bits to it which I hope that my noble friend will think again about. In no spirit am I complaining about what she is doing—I am very pleased about this—but there are three things. First, I think that 28 days was probably a better period, simply for the reason that it is helpful for people over holidays and the like. Secondly, I wonder whether she could look again at enabling the local authority, even if it were not in the statute, to decide that this kind of thing was done by an arbitrator, not through the planning committee. I wanted to remove from the planning department questions such as, “Can I have a car port? Can I build a room in the already present roof of my garage? Can I put up a bit of an extension which seems quite sensible as my neighbour has exactly the same?”. All those things are really neighbours’ issues, and, frankly, when you consider the time spent and the shortage of planning officers, it is much more sensibly done by having a sensible man or woman looking and saying, “That seems perfectly reasonable”.

Thirdly, I hope that my noble friend will look at the one series of protections that we specifically put in, which is that this would not apply in an area which had been designated as a conservation area. In that area there should be a wider consultation than merely with one’s neighbours. I say to the Minister that I entirely support that it should be one’s contiguous neighbours because frankly, if we are going to go out to everybody who could possibly see the house, we are in real trouble. The idea that I could say that I ought to be able to complain because if I stood on the top of my house with a telescope I could see this house is just nonsensical.

We are trying to have a proper balance, and I think this amendment achieves that. I hope that the Minister will look at those three things, not least because I believe that our original proposition was an easier, simpler and ultimately more radical concept. However, I am pleased that we have had not merely half but three quarters of the cake and thank her very much for that.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I agree entirely with what my noble friend Lord Deben says about conservation areas. I would like to make one point and ask one question of my noble friend the Minister. Like others, I thank her for the movement that has been made. I enthusiastically supported the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord True, either on Report or Third Reading. It seems that the Government have moved between half and three-quarters of the way.

Does the Government’s movement, which we welcome, take into account the time that it takes to build an extension? We have talked about loss of views and all that sort of thing, which are the obvious points, but some extensions seem to take an unconscionable time to build and the disruption of neighbours’ lives during the building can be not just an aggravation, but in some cases a real health hazard. I would like my noble friend’s assurance that permission to extend does not extend indefinitely.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Cormack

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, you have only to go the Republic of Ireland to see that what the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has just said is absolutely right. I believe we are well served by our planning laws in this country. I do not want to detain the House for more than a few moments but I remember so often, as a constituency Member of Parliament, finding constituents particularly aggrieved by specific applications. However, there was a way of sorting them out. I also remember the great leylandii problem, when we had to bring in legislation to protect people from these overpowering hedges.

My noble friend Lord True and those who have supported him have laid out an extremely powerful case, backed by technical competence and knowledge from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. If ever there was a case for your Lordships’ House saying to another place, “Think again on this one; you have got it wrong”, this is it.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, my great difficulty with the amendment is that, in the terms in which it has been proposed, what I believe to be a heresy has been expounded, which is there is an equality of rights between ownership and the right to have a say. The fundamental right is that of ownership and the protection of property; that is essential. That is why, when the Quality of Life report looked at this issue, we came up with a way out of the problem with which your Lordships’ House is faced. We said that this kind of issue was a matter not of planning but of neighbourly relations. Why not take it out of the planning system and have a situation in which people could normally do what they wanted, but if neighbours objected the local authority had the right to decide that such an objection was important enough to appoint an arbitrator? It is not a matter of planning most of the time; it is a matter of arbitration between the interests of the owner and those of his neighbours. The arbitrator should work within a context in which the owner would normally be judged as having the right to do what he wanted with his own property, but that if the neighbour’s rights were so intruded upon the arbitrator could make the decision that in this case it could not be done.

My problem with this situation is that the amendment reinforces the concept that through the blooming local authority is the only way in which the locality can have its say. I am not sure I believe that about local authorities; indeed it seems to me to be one of the issues. Localism is not “local authorityism”—it is localism. I note that very often those who speak about these issues talk as though the only way in which the locality can express itself is through the local authority. Frankly, I have seen far too much of local authorities’ fiddling powers, as they try to tell people the best way to do their developments. I remember having an argument with a charming lady on the subject of what sort of window Teulon would have put in a house that Teulon had built. The difficulty was that she was from the authority and I knew about Teulon, which is a difficult situation to be in. I recognise that there are problems of this kind.

I say to the Minister that it is not possible to support this amendment because we are still in this difficult area. I share the assessment of my noble friend Lord True of the Minister’s ability and her heart in these circumstances, so I say this delicately. She has not been enabled to give the House the kind of way through that exists—a balanced way, given by the recommendations of the Quality of Life report. Can she explain why the Government seem not to have taken that moderate path but have moved to this one? On balance, this one is better than the amendment but it has the great difficulty that if there are many cases of the sort feared by my noble friend Lord True, we will be back here legislating to put the thing back. It is a worry. Can she explain why, on this occasion and, I am afraid, all too regularly, the Government have not sought to find a way that might ameliorate the problem and lead more of us more happily through their Lobby?

Sunday Trading (London Olympic and Paralympic Games) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Cormack

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

No Member of either House of Parliament can ever speak for anyone other than him or herself, but one can try very hard to reflect feelings and to acknowledge desires, ambitions and aspirations in the country. I believe that there was something very precious about a day of the week when the pace was slower. I opposed the relaxation of restrictions on Sunday trading because I felt that we would then finish up with a replica Saturday—a high-street Sunday. One has only to drive into London, as I did from King’s Cross on Sunday of this very week, to see what has happened. The streets are full of people out shopping, and the peace, the quiet and the opportunity to reflect has gone. I believe that we have lost something in that.

I am not so stupid as to suggest that all those who flock to the shops would be flocking to the churches if the shops were not there. Of course not, but I believe that a slackening of the tempo of life is good. When people come to this country to enjoy the countryside or to go round our great cities and small villages, I like them to be able to understand the tempo of English and British life. That is no longer possible in the way that it was and I regret that. I think it would be a good thing if those who came to watch the Olympic Games this year—and they will come in their thousands or perhaps millions—could have an opportunity to experience the tempo of life in this country as it was. I remember very well—

[Lord Deben]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack]

In a moment. I remember very well indeed the 1948 Olympics when this was a very different country. It was a country recovering from war; a country with a real pride in itself because of what it had gone through. It really shared in the triumph of the athletes who were competing for one reason above all others—in many cases, for one reason only—their love of sport and competition, not for a love of commerce. Of course, I will give way.

[Lord Deben]

I am finding it difficult as my noble friend is a member of a party that would not force anything on people. I do not understand why they should be forced to have a slow Sunday. I must say that I enjoy Sundays but I want to be able to buy things if I want to. I do not see why he should tell me what to do on Sundays. It is a peculiar kind of conservatism.

[Lord Cormack]

My noble friend has not heard very much of this debate; he came in only about a quarter of an hour ago. I am not trying to force him to do anything, or not to do anything. I am saying that we had in this country a certain pattern of life, just as France and other countries have a pattern of life. It is part of the very fabric of the civilisation of the country and we have discarded it to our cost—and a considerable cost at that.

I am worried by the legislation this evening, which of course will go through. There is not much point in tabling amendments, much as I would like to restrict the openings to the Olympic areas. What worries me is that it will be the thin end of the wedge. I do not for a moment doubt the honesty of my noble friends and my right honourable and honourable friends in government who say that it is for eight weeks only, but there will be increased pressure after the eight weeks to make it permanent. I really regret that.

I know that we cannot go back to the Olympics that were immortalised in “Chariots of Fire” where even some of the athletes would not train on Sundays. Of course, we cannot go back to that, but we can at least recognise that we may have lost something. I do not want to lose too much more, so I ask my noble friend, who will wind up, to please recognise that what he is doing is not necessarily for the common good. I believe that my noble friend made a mistake when he talked of the enormous retail opportunities as if that were something really tremendous. We have become so commercially focused and dominated in our daily lives that we have lost a great deal of what made this country great. This is an opportunity to make these points. The noble Lord, Lord Glasman, made similar ones. He and I spoke in the debate some months ago when we were trying to persuade the Government to make Remembrance Sunday a day when the cash tills did not ring. It is for reasons not dissimilar to those that make us have misgivings about the legislation that is currently before the House.

I ask my noble friend, when he is talking to colleagues in government who have given assurances, to tell them that there are many in all parts of this House who feel that it would be a retrograde step if this led to a general further relaxation of restrictions, not least because of the shop workers and not least—the point made by my noble friend Lady Berridge—because of the smaller shops. Somebody talked about Mary Portas. One of the things that she has frequently commented on has been the gradual extinction of the smaller shops in the high street at the expense of the big chain stores. That has meant that the individual identity of towns has been eroded in many cases, and totally destroyed in others. My home town where I was born many years ago used to have a wonderful Victorian centre but now all it has is a precinct with chain stores. We want to be able to protect our small and individual stores and this is not necessarily the right way of going about it.

I shall not oppose the Bill by seeking to cause a Division. That would be ridiculous. Nor shall I move any amendments on Thursday because the Bill will go through. I just want to share with the House, and in particular with my noble friend and those in Government, the fact that some of us have real worries and proper misgivings, which are honestly founded, sincerely held and are in no sense inimical to the conservatism which I believe in and which values traditions perhaps above all.