And so it goes on
May. 14th, 2008 10:36 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
webofevil[They’re on the Trisbon again. NB: Lord Pearson used to be a Tory peer but last year changed his allegiance, along with the similarly Eurosceptic Lord Willoughby de Broke, to UKIP. Lord Pearson’s favourite rhetorical device is to liken the European Union to a “corrupt octopus”. He has also on more than one occasion talked of the “jackboots” of the EU, although he has not yet specified whether the octopus is wearing them.]
10.05pm
Lord Kingsland (Con): I rise to move Amendment No. 53 and to speak to the remaining amendments in that line and to Amendments Nos. 57 and 59 to 61 in the next line. Under Maastricht—and some of your Lordships may be experiencing a certain nostalgia for the comparative clarity of that treaty—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP): I am sorry to interrupt but, according to my list of groupings, we have missed out the whole group of amendments starting with Amendment No. 46, which is on borders and asylum. I am surprised.
A noble Lord: Wake up.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: It is not a question of waking up. I have woken up and I have drawn the matter to the attention of the Committee. I did not agree to this.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Ashton of Upholland) (Lab): It is not a question of agreeing; it is for the mover to decide whether amendments should be moved. The noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Hunt, in responding to the question from the Chairman of Committees, said that they were not moved. The Committee allowed that to happen and we are now on Amendment No. 53. As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland implied, we will go through to Amendment No. 61 and take two groups together.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: It is possible for other noble Lords to move amendments but I do not intend to do so on this occasion. I am surprised, however, because I thought that we were all consulting one another on the process of these debates and keeping in touch. There is no point in involving the Liberal Democrats because they have no amendments. However, the rest of us are keeping in touch on timing and the order in which we take these matters, but no one informed me that we were going to leave out today the whole question of borders and asylum. I trust that we may come back to it on Report. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is urging me to move these amendments; he is, of course, free to do so himself. This slightly alters the understandings that we have tried to come to in order to finish by 11 o’clock tonight at the end of Amendment No. 53 or Amendment No. 57—I hope that we get there—and it may change the way that some of us behave in future.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The noble Lord should not look at me. What happened—as I shall explain to the noble Lord if he sits down—is that, when the amendments were called by the Chairman of Committees, the words “not moved” were said on the Front Bench opposite. At that point it was absolutely in order for the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, to leap to his feet and seek to move them. He did not do so. I was merely saying, by way of explanation, where I thought that we had got to. It was not a case of discussions going on; it was simply a case of where we had got to. The noble Lord can, of course, retable the amendments on Report. But that is what happened. I am merely giving him a factual explanation, nothing more.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: This particular frog leapt with such speed that I was caught on the wrong leg and was not able to move the amendment in time. I merely put it down as a marker. I do not want to delay the Committee any longer, but if erstwhile noble friends on the Conservative Front Bench—or, indeed, the government Bench—are going to play this kind of trick in future, the rest of us would like to be informed. The Liberals are irrelevant because they have no amendments. I have nothing more to say on the group of amendments that have not been moved.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LibDem): The Government have no amendments. I did not know that the Government were irrelevant to these Committee proceedings.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I should point out to the Liberal Front Bench that the Government are in charge of the business.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con): I did not know the Liberals were part of the Government.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I did not suggest that they were part of the Government. I merely said that the main parts of the Committee are trying to get the Committee stage through in an expeditious manner so that we can cover all the areas in a time that suits the Government’s wider programme and so on. The leaving out of a whole group of amendments on no less a subject than borders and asylum came as a surprise.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Let me be very clear: the Government do not control the business in that sense. The noble Lord is correct in saying that the Opposition have put down amendments. However, they have chosen not to move them and to regroup; it is their choice. I am sorry if the noble Lord was not involved; I was just informed of that. It is a completely reasonable choice to make. The noble Lord is equally at liberty to choose what he wishes to do with his own amendments. He is quite correct: we operate in a spirit of harmony in an attempt to make this work appropriately. But, in the end, it is for those who are moving the amendments to make the best judgment based on what they think will work most effectively and, indeed, on the lateness of the hour. I have nothing but support for the opposition Front Bench for trying to do that as expeditiously as possible.
Lord Tomlinson: I warn my noble friend on the Front Bench that, if she goes out of her way to placate the noble Lord opposite for being so dozy that he does not hear what is going on when six amendments are not moved, she will be alienating me again. [Hansard]
Etc, etc.
10.05pm
Lord Kingsland (Con): I rise to move Amendment No. 53 and to speak to the remaining amendments in that line and to Amendments Nos. 57 and 59 to 61 in the next line. Under Maastricht—and some of your Lordships may be experiencing a certain nostalgia for the comparative clarity of that treaty—Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP): I am sorry to interrupt but, according to my list of groupings, we have missed out the whole group of amendments starting with Amendment No. 46, which is on borders and asylum. I am surprised.A noble Lord: Wake up.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: It is not a question of waking up. I have woken up and I have drawn the matter to the attention of the Committee. I did not agree to this.The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Ashton of Upholland) (Lab): It is not a question of agreeing; it is for the mover to decide whether amendments should be moved. The noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Hunt, in responding to the question from the Chairman of Committees, said that they were not moved. The Committee allowed that to happen and we are now on Amendment No. 53. As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland implied, we will go through to Amendment No. 61 and take two groups together.Lord Pearson of Rannoch: It is possible for other noble Lords to move amendments but I do not intend to do so on this occasion. I am surprised, however, because I thought that we were all consulting one another on the process of these debates and keeping in touch. There is no point in involving the Liberal Democrats because they have no amendments. However, the rest of us are keeping in touch on timing and the order in which we take these matters, but no one informed me that we were going to leave out today the whole question of borders and asylum. I trust that we may come back to it on Report. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is urging me to move these amendments; he is, of course, free to do so himself. This slightly alters the understandings that we have tried to come to in order to finish by 11 o’clock tonight at the end of Amendment No. 53 or Amendment No. 57—I hope that we get there—and it may change the way that some of us behave in future.Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The noble Lord should not look at me. What happened—as I shall explain to the noble Lord if he sits down—is that, when the amendments were called by the Chairman of Committees, the words “not moved” were said on the Front Bench opposite. At that point it was absolutely in order for the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, to leap to his feet and seek to move them. He did not do so. I was merely saying, by way of explanation, where I thought that we had got to. It was not a case of discussions going on; it was simply a case of where we had got to. The noble Lord can, of course, retable the amendments on Report. But that is what happened. I am merely giving him a factual explanation, nothing more.Lord Pearson of Rannoch: This particular frog leapt with such speed that I was caught on the wrong leg and was not able to move the amendment in time. I merely put it down as a marker. I do not want to delay the Committee any longer, but if erstwhile noble friends on the Conservative Front Bench—or, indeed, the government Bench—are going to play this kind of trick in future, the rest of us would like to be informed. The Liberals are irrelevant because they have no amendments. I have nothing more to say on the group of amendments that have not been moved.Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LibDem): The Government have no amendments. I did not know that the Government were irrelevant to these Committee proceedings.Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I should point out to the Liberal Front Bench that the Government are in charge of the business.Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con): I did not know the Liberals were part of the Government.Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I did not suggest that they were part of the Government. I merely said that the main parts of the Committee are trying to get the Committee stage through in an expeditious manner so that we can cover all the areas in a time that suits the Government’s wider programme and so on. The leaving out of a whole group of amendments on no less a subject than borders and asylum came as a surprise.Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Let me be very clear: the Government do not control the business in that sense. The noble Lord is correct in saying that the Opposition have put down amendments. However, they have chosen not to move them and to regroup; it is their choice. I am sorry if the noble Lord was not involved; I was just informed of that. It is a completely reasonable choice to make. The noble Lord is equally at liberty to choose what he wishes to do with his own amendments. He is quite correct: we operate in a spirit of harmony in an attempt to make this work appropriately. But, in the end, it is for those who are moving the amendments to make the best judgment based on what they think will work most effectively and, indeed, on the lateness of the hour. I have nothing but support for the opposition Front Bench for trying to do that as expeditiously as possible.Lord Tomlinson: I warn my noble friend on the Front Bench that, if she goes out of her way to placate the noble Lord opposite for being so dozy that he does not hear what is going on when six amendments are not moved, she will be alienating me again. [Hansard]Etc, etc.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-05-14 10:00 am (UTC)Not Moved
Date: 2008-05-14 10:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-14 10:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-14 10:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-14 11:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-14 11:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-14 01:22 pm (UTC)noble friend = someone from your own party
noble and learned Lord / noble and learned friend, etc = someone who has held a Cabinet post while a peer (Lord Chancellor, Attorney-General)
noble and gallant Lord = someone who has held a senior military post, although the specifics of what exactly qualifies them to be "noble and gallant" seem to be a bit of a mystery, not least to most of the peers who say it
no subject
Date: 2008-05-14 12:14 pm (UTC)"It has just been drawn to my attention by noble friends on the Front Bench that Amendment No. 55 has not yet been called; and if the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, glances at his text, he will see that it partially covers the area of immigration. So the noble Lord’s opportunity to dilate on this matter tonight, should he so wish, is not wholly undermined."
It's all just like a long-running soap opera.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-14 12:52 pm (UTC)