Skip to main content

1-20 of 225 results for member:"Lord Neill of Bladen"

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

More

Subject

More

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

I wonder if—

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
11 July 2012
Reference
738 c1161
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I have one comment to make on the text of the amendment. Just to have a report for one year seems such a limited objective. If it is worth doing at all, I do not understand why there is no language allowing for continuity. It was said that...

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 July 2012
Reference
738 c1080
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I should like to make a few observations about the amendment. We are at Committee stage of the Bill. While it is passing through your Lordships’ House there has been an enormous scandal about the fixing corruptly of the LIBOR rate by Barclays over, I understand, a period...

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
3 July 2012
Reference
738 cc608-9
House
House of Lords

Will the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, say that his amendment is essential in relation to the directive? In other words, if his amendment were forgotten about or did not exist, would the Bill contain provisions that have the same effect, or are his provisions critical to the UK’s...

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 June 2012
Reference
737 c1580
House
House of Lords

My Lords, we should take this opportunity, which follows the vote on a previous occasion when the House by a majority voted in favour of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. We now have a revised and better version of his amendment. But it has...

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 April 2012
Reference
736 c1722-3
House
House of Lords

Someone said that the question, or part of the question, might be, ““Do you consider the referendum to be legal?””. That would be a fatal question to put. It is an extraordinarily difficult legal question, and there is no reason why the ordinary voter should have a view that is...

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
21 March 2012
Reference
736 c972
House
House of Lords

An obvious difficulty arises once you get into consulting constituents of other countries—England, Wales and Northern Ireland—which is: in what order do you take the referendum? What effect will it have if, we assume, in Scotland the referendum is passed with acclaim but other countries, such as England and Wales,...

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
21 March 2012
Reference
736 c984
House
House of Lords

Is the noble Lord, Lord Empey, contemplating circumstances where there would be referenda in other countries than Scotland? He said Parliaments, their representatives and the people would have to make up their own minds in their own countries. That was English people, the Welsh Assembly and so on. Supposing that...

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
21 March 2012
Reference
736 c984
House
House of Lords

My Lords, perhaps I may add a word to what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said. It seemed to me that he put his finger absolutely on the point. We are faced with a decision on whether the rule of law is being complied with in the proceedings on this...

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 March 2012
Reference
735 c1806-7
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I would have wanted to vote for the noble Lord’s first amendment, but I can see that there are difficulties and that maybe more time for thought is required. It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, that a report has been produced that emphasises...

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 February 2012
Reference
735 c21-2
House
House of Lords

Another sanction would be that if a settlement has been made, the money is irrecoverable. Under a void agreement, insurers might get their money back again, but you could have a provision expressly about ““money paid by way of settlement””, because a claimant may not find out until later that...

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
1 February 2012
Reference
734 c1604
House
House of Lords

I support this amendment. The practice that it outlaws seems to be absolutely disgraceful, with an insurance company being paid by its own side—by the defendant—and then approaching the plaintiff to try to do a cheap deal with him for the benefit of the defendant. It seems to me that...

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
1 February 2012
Reference
734 c1600-1
House
House of Lords

I refer to the letter from the Scottish judges asking for additional clauses to be put into the Scotland Bill. Where does that fit into the Minister’s programme? How do we handle that?

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 January 2012
Reference
734 c927
House
House of Lords

On Paragraph 19(6), the Minister said that the word deliberate would not cover negligence. What is a deliberate act intended to cover? Most people, when they do things, do them deliberately. Is that what it means, or anything beyond that?

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 January 2012
Reference
734 c631
House
House of Lords

I make one comment on the amendments, which also goes to the Government’s fundamental philosophy, with which we all agree, that patients should be told about their condition and kept fully informed. My experience in recent years has been visiting hospitals and wards with elderly people in them. You cannot...

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
28 November 2011
Reference
733 c60
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I wish to add my view. I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, moved by way of an amendment. I fully support that and I also support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The basic question is one...

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2011
Reference
731 c307
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I am number 82 in the list of speakers in the debate and I agree with my predecessor who has just spoken that everything that has to be said has already been said. I should like to summarise my views by saying that I agree with what the...

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
22 June 2011
Reference
728 c1328-9
House
House of Lords

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, expressed the view that there should be an opportunity for parliamentary review when the Minister has decided that the situation is one in which he wants to make an order. Imagine the situation; there has already been consultation with whoever are the proper...

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
4 April 2011
Reference
726 c1570-1
House
House of Lords

No, my Lords. The word ““must”” is already in Clause 11(2), and attention has been drawn to that fact. There is no ““must”” in line 3 on that page, which is where there ought to be a requirement. That is what the amendment is dealing with.

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
4 April 2011
Reference
726 c1571
House
House of Lords
My Lords, will the Minister comment on the position of the Supreme Court? So far he has talked about government action, but the Supreme Court said in 2009, in a case called Horncastle, that it can decide not to follow a decision of the court in rare cases where that court has failed to ““appreciate or accommodate”” particular aspects of our domestic process. In such a case the Supreme Court can refuse to follow it, giving reasons, in the hope that that will then be picked up in a subsequent judgment by the court in Strasbourg. Do the Government have a position on whether that is a satisfactory arrangement?
Asked by
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
24 March 2011
Reference
726 c845-6
House
House of Lords