Results 1-20 of 2,131 for (in the 'Commons debates' OR in the 'Westminster Hall debates' OR in the 'Lords debates' OR in the 'Northern Ireland Assembly debates') speaker:Michael Wills

Outlawries Bill: Debate on the Address — [1st Day] (18 Nov 2009)

Michael Wills: I have listened extremely patiently as the hon. Gentleman has made his case, but does he not recognise that every reputable commentator believes that this country would be in a far worse position if we had followed the economic policies advocated by those on the Opposition Front Bench?

Outlawries Bill: Debate on the Address — [1st Day] (18 Nov 2009)

Michael Wills: But will the hon. Gentleman tell the electorate in his constituency what he would have done with Northern Rock?

Outlawries Bill: Debate on the Address — [1st Day] (18 Nov 2009)

Michael Wills: I sense that the hon. Gentleman is about to sit down, and before he does so, I want to remind him that the purposes of that war have been set out very clearly. I also want to give him an opportunity to pay tribute to the armed forces who are serving so gallantly in that war.

Oral Answers to Questions — Justice: Supreme Court (Running Costs) (10 Nov 2009)

Michael Wills: My right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary will meet the president and chief executive of the Supreme Court on at least an annual basis to discuss both the resourcing and the work of the court. The next such meeting is due in spring 2010.

Oral Answers to Questions — Justice: Supreme Court (Running Costs) (10 Nov 2009)

Michael Wills: No, I do not agree, and I counsel the hon. Gentleman—and I suspect his colleagues who will follow on shortly—that they must be very careful to ensure that they compare like with like. If I may, I will give the hon. Gentleman a few figures. The figures he quotes are roughly right, but they do not include all the costs incurred in the running of the Appellate Committee of the House...

Oral Answers to Questions — Justice: Supreme Court (Running Costs) (10 Nov 2009)

Michael Wills: With all due respect, I think the hon. Lady is confusing the two functions of the House of Lords. Of course she is right to say that we muck around with the constitution at our peril, but we are not mucking around with the constitution, as she so inelegantly puts it. What we are doing is pursuing a fundamental principle of our constitutional arrangements, which go back centuries. That...

Oral Answers to Questions — Justice: Supreme Court (Running Costs) (10 Nov 2009)

Michael Wills: Of course I accept your strictures, Mr. Speaker, and I will try very hard not to be led astray by any hon. Member. In return, I ask the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) not to be led astray by inaccurate press reports. If he would like to take the trouble to ascertain the actual facts, he would be less worried than he appears to be. The actual facts are that...

Oral Answers to Questions — Justice: Supreme Court (Running Costs) (10 Nov 2009)

Michael Wills: Everyone can have a view about how effectively the money has been spent—we will all have our views on that. Everyone who has seen the building realises that it represents a masterpiece of renovation and is a precious asset to the architectural environment of these particular Houses of Parliament. Its costs, amortised over 30 years, are about £2 million to £3 million a year. My...

Oral Answers to Questions — Justice: Supreme Court (Running Costs) (10 Nov 2009)

Michael Wills: I will respect your strictures not to venture down those paths along which the hon. Gentleman has just tempted me, Mr. Speaker. I say to him again—we had an exchange about this last week on the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill—that he needs to compare the figures like for like. He still is not doing so. I refer him to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for...

Oral Answers to Questions — Prime Minister: New Clause 21 — Chief executive of the Supreme Court (4 Nov 2009) has video

Michael Wills: Again, we have had a very interesting debate. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) is an adornment to this House, and I hope that he will preserve that status by withdrawing this amendment. I shall set out my reasons. The hon. Gentleman quite rightly raises the point that all public institutions have to be efficient and cost-effective, and they do, but he has to be careful...

Oral Answers to Questions — Prime Minister: New Clause 21 — Chief executive of the Supreme Court (4 Nov 2009) has video

Michael Wills: When I say like for like, I know that the running costs are not exactly the same and that of course there will be savings in both cases. The Supreme Court is a new building and will almost certainly be far more energy-efficient than this building. Of course, capital costs go into that and they have to be amortised over a certain period of time. These calculations are highly complex but for a...

Oral Answers to Questions — Prime Minister: New Clause 21 — Chief executive of the Supreme Court (4 Nov 2009) has video

Michael Wills: Of course we must get value for money, which is exactly what I said. As I shall describe in a moment, that is one of the functions of the chief executive. The Supreme Court has been established in a proper and effective way, with the staff that it needs to discharge its essential function in our constitution. All the rest of the judicial system depends on it, as the hon. Member for North-West...

Oral Answers to Questions — Prime Minister: New Clause 21 — Chief executive of the Supreme Court (4 Nov 2009) has video

Michael Wills: No, as I want to come to the real burden of my remarks. We have spent quite a lot of time on what even the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk said was a modest proposal, so I would like to make the main points of my argument against it. If the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) still wants to intervene after I have made some progress, I will of course give way to him. The...

Oral Answers to Questions — Prime Minister: New Clause 21 — Chief executive of the Supreme Court (4 Nov 2009) has video

Michael Wills: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but is he absolutely confident that he is comparing like with like? I think it important for the Committee to know the answer to that question.