Rehabilitation of Offenders (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Bach Excerpts

Friday 21st January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on achieving this Second Reading. I greatly admire his persistence in championing this Bill. He has shown huge patience, enormous restraint and, above all, a formidable strength of will to keep going with this legislation, which will for ever have his name marked on it. His reputation in this field goes before him. His work for NACRO and his work in this House on this important subject are widely known. For that and other reasons, the House is absolutely delighted that he recently received the honour of entering the Privy Council. This side of the House congratulates him very warmly on that achievement.

We have heard three wonderful maiden speeches, which formed an extremely impressive trio. I do not know whether three maiden speakers have ever sat side by side in the Chamber. They make an extraordinarily formidable combination. I do not wish to go into great detail but I was impressed by the fact that all three maiden speakers in their different ways demonstrated a huge passion for rehabilitation and breaking the offending cycle, and that they have all, in their separate ways, done a great deal in this field, not just spoken about it. The House enjoyed all the speeches very much indeed and looks forward greatly to their further contributions not just on this subject but on others, too.

However, we should not forget the more experienced speakers who have spoken in this debate who have shown their experience and expertise in this subject. It is a subject in which this House is particularly interested—I say that in the broadest sense. Sometimes that can be slightly uncomfortable for a Minister, to put it mildly, although perhaps not today. However, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, indicates that that is the case today as well. Speaking from personal experience, I can say that a Minister can feel uncomfortable in these debates. However, that does not take away from the fact that this House is extremely knowledgeable and takes this subject extremely seriously.

On this side, we welcome the fact that the noble Lord is reintroducing this Bill, and are, of course, happy to support its Second Reading. At a later stage—I think that that the noble Lord will thank us for this, rather than criticise us—there may be technical details that we will want to look into, as obviously the House will want to, to get the Bill right. One matter that was referred to the last time there was a Second Reading on this was the position with regard to Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, will remember that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is a devolved issue. However, I am sure that, like us, he believes that it is desirable to have similar schemes on both sides of the border. I look forward to hearing, perhaps not today, about the work the noble Lord has done on having a dialogue with Scotland on this issue.

I can be fairly brief. The rehabilitation of offenders is a subject of immense importance for our society. We were rightly warned by my noble friend Lord Judd that rehabilitation properly done is very expensive indeed. That has to be appreciated by Governments. It is not enough for them to say they are in favour of rehabilitation; they actually have to be prepared to put the money aside in order to see it through.

In our time in government, we did much to encourage rehabilitation in a number of ways. However, we also placed, as do the present Government, great emphasis on victims of crime. I want to comment on the linking of these two. For a long time, not enough had been done for victims of crime, and we make no apologies for the concentration that we placed on them. Part of protecting victims and potential victims is reducing the rate of crime, a reduction which I am delighted to say, from figures published yesterday, seems to be continuing. Secondly, it is of course important to stop people committing their first offence. Thirdly—this is where we come to the Bill—it is also particularly important that people who have committed previous offences have an opportunity of rehabilitating themselves without any more difficulty than the mere fact that they have had a custodial sentence or serious conviction. We believe that if you can successfully rehabilitate offenders, you are protecting potential victims of crime. That is how these two issues are linked.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. I promise him that there will not be a whole catalogue of questions for him to answer. The main question that the House really wants answered is: what do the Government intend to do with the Bill? Will they take it over and produce a government Bill, or make it part of a government Bill? Or will they give time to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in order that the Bill can complete its stages in this House and then pass on to another place? The other question is this: the debate has rightly been very much centred on young offenders, and stress has been placed on what we can do about them. How can the proposed abolition of the Youth Justice Board possibly fit in with the Government’s clearly stated concern about rehabilitating young offenders and keeping them away from offending? The House deserves an answer. The Minister will know that there is a lot of concern around the House about the proposed abolition of the Youth Justice Board.

In conclusion, from this side of the House, we support the Bill in principle. We will do our very best to improve it, if it needs improvement. I congratulate the noble Lord once again. He can tell that there is widespread support for his Bill in this House and we thank him for moving the Second Reading.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

Not exactly, because one has to realise that, as noble Lords will know, the other place has still to take a view on the amendments that we pass. It may well be that all the amendments that have been threatened or made may succeed. Believe me, if I am not convinced by the eloquence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, or the command of figures by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, I certainly have a tingle between my shoulder blades when my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay announces that he is about to abandon ship.

By the way, it has just occurred to me that of course I would not, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, pointed out, make any comment about what was happening below the Bar, but it crossed my mind that government Whips in the other place might be shipping younger Members down here to take a look at us to stiffen their vote when we come to reform of the House of Lords.

[Lord Bach]

Or, indeed, where they might come when there are 600 constituencies and theirs disappears.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I have one question for the noble Lord, Lord McNally. Would it be possible through secondary legislation to put an enabling power in the Bill whereby this section of the Bill could be amended in the event that the wider law on the right of prisoners to vote was to come into being?

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I shall be brief. I thank my noble friends for raising the issue. Of course, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, gave the Committee a proper warning about the issue. The announcement was made through the Cabinet Office. We regret that it was not made in Parliament, because it is important. The point that my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon made about the intention of the Government to legislate in time for the 2015 general election under redrawn boundaries, and perhaps on an alternative vote electoral system, is relevant today. We would like to know the Government’s thinking on these matters. When do they intend to legislate and how will they deal with some of the issues raised by the decision that they have made?

One issue that particularly fascinates me is that of prisoners who have their voting rights denied by sentencing judges. Will they have the right to appeal against the judge's decision? Under the proposals, the judge will have discretion in certain cases. That does not strike me as sensible, or something that judges would want. The amendment asks some questions that the House—

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

It strikes me that it might also be useful if we could have any information that you may have on the amount of research that has been undertaken in this area on the number who are registered. It seems that the problem may not be on quite the scale that some people think, given that earlier we were debating the problems relating to 3.5 million people who are denied votes—I do not want to go over the issue—because they are not registered. If there is any information that could be supplied in this area, it would help us all.

[Lord Bach]

I am grateful to my noble friend. He is quite right. There are a number of questions the Minister can bring us up to date with when he responds on this important amendment. This is a matter that has concentrated the minds of this House a great deal over a long period of time. I think the Committee would like to be brought up to date with how the Government see the relationship between this Bill and giving prisoners the right to vote and how that would be legislated for.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting debate. Whether it is within the scope of the Bill is very debatable indeed. Nevertheless, a number of very valuable contributions have been made, not the least the fact that the noble Lords, Lord Corbett and Lord Knight, disagree about whether prisoners should have the vote. That is part of the dilemma that we have in Parliament. When I have answered Questions at this Dispatch Box as a Ministry of Justice Minister, it has been very clear that there are strong opinions on both sides. I have never concealed my view that, like the noble Baroness, I believe that giving certain prisoners the vote would be a very useful part of rehabilitation. The prospect of being—did the noble Baroness not say that? Sorry, I thought she had. For some prisoners who have perhaps never participated in any aspect of what my noble friend Lord Phillips referred to as civic life, it might be the thing that gets them thinking about their role in society when they leave prison. I have never found the concept of prisoner voting so horrific.

Although my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay sits where a PPS usually sits, he is not my Parliamentary Private Secretary although, my God, I wish he was because he comes in with a number of interventions that are genuinely to the benefit of the whole House, if occasionally to the discomfort of the Minister at the Dispatch Box at the time.

To take the last intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, the numbers we are dealing with will be small. If you gave every prisoner the vote, you would be talking about 85,000, so you would be talking about a much smaller number spread across the whole of the country because, to clarify, the Government have already indicated that when they bring forward their proposals they will be on the basis of prisoners being able to vote in their home constituency. The issues that were raised about proxy and postal voting and the other matters relating to this could, with great value, be looked at by the Electoral Commission. I know that it is looking very closely—

Prisoners: Diet

Lord Bach Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

There is a halal option for all prisoners, and Muslim prisoners take advantage of that option.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I was delighted to hear the Minister say that the Government support victims in just the same way as the previous Government did. However, why is the victims panel being abolished? What is going to happen to the Victims Commission? Will he tell the House about the Government’s plans for funding for the Victim Support scheme? My understanding is that they are cutting back severely on funding for victims. How does that work if they are still in favour of victims, as we were?

[Lord McNally]

A number of these issues will be discussed in the Public Bodies Bill that is going through this House. I am hoping, at some stage during that Bill, to be at this Dispatch Box explaining our policies on these matters. The issue of victims is not simply about victim support groups; it is central to getting at the basic causes of crime and of reoffending. We have a system where 50 per cent of our prisoners reoffend. If we can cut into that, we are cutting down the numbers of prisoners and the victims of crime.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for bringing forward this amendment. I agree entirely with the last point that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made that the pattern of using referendums since the 1970s has been to learn, modify and improve. That will probably go on.

The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, gave a very good example of an injunction being brought against an election broadcast. I am always fascinated by the difference between English and Scottish law. When I ask, “What is the difference?”, the answer that I get in the Ministry of Justice is often, “They do it much better in Scotland”. That is just a passing observation. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, still does not trust the Liberals. I really thought that we were beginning to bond. I will have to do more work on my charm offensive.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, was quite right: this clause was brought in as a specific amendment suggested by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee to address the guidelines for broadcasters. There is a principle to consider. Would it be right for party election broadcasts for the local and devolved Assembly elections, which will take place on 5 May, to refer to the referendum and/or make any comment on different voting systems? There is an argument that, as a final strap line, a broadcast could say, “Use both your votes on Thursday”, or whatever. We recognise that there is an issue to be discussed. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, the Electoral Commission has made some comments on this as well.

I am advised that there are defects in Amendment 39AA that would bring in ambiguity. We could perhaps test that. On the second amendment, I suggest again that the noble and learned Lord does not press it and that we have further discussions to see whether it can be improved and clarified. Before the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, breaks open the champagne, I should add that my speaking notes contain lines that I have not heard since “Beyond the Fringe”. They say: “What I am saying does not mean that I agree with his amendment, but nor should it be assumed that I disagree with the amendment”.

[Lord Bach]

I am sorry that the noble Lord has not seen that since “Beyond the Fringe”; I saw it many, many times.

[Lord McNally]

We all know that the final line of the “Beyond the Fringe” sketch was, “But neither should this be taken as an abstention”. I suggest to the House, quite genuinely, that—as the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, reminded us—getting this wrong could cause all kinds of trouble with the best of intentions.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bach]

40: Clause 7, page 5, line 27, leave out “the Lord President of the Council or”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bach]

I can make this point fairly briefly, but it is a point of some significance and I should be grateful for the Minister’s response. The amendment looks, rather unusually, at the interpretation clause of the Bill. Clause 7(1) says that,

‘“the Minister’ means the Lord President of the Council or the Secretary of State”.

I have been lucky or unlucky enough to take a number of pieces of legislation through your Lordships' House, and to hear many others taken through it. Bills with interpretation clauses have, as a standard, defined “the Minister” as “the Secretary of State”. That seems pretty sensible and uncontroversial and has the advantage of having been used traditionally. In this case, it would be whoever is Secretary of State for Justice at the relevant time, although, as I understand it, strictly speaking it could be any Secretary of State who would be entitled to take the orders through, which is why “Minister” appears in the Bill. But to say,

“the Lord President of the Council”,

in this Bill is, it seems to us at least, to personalise the position. I shall explain why.

The role of the Lord President of the Council, whoever that may be at a particular time, is set out on the website of the Privy Council and defined as follows. It says that that person:

“Presides at Privy Council meetings, including any Emergency Privy Councils … Considers for approval a number of Statutory Orders concerning Health Care, Veterinary, and Scottish Higher Education matters … As a member of the Privy Council Committee for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey, reviews Laws and Orders relating to the Islands, and makes recommendations to Her Majesty concerning their approval … Deals with Ministerial correspondence and Parliamentary Questions relating to Privy Council Business, such as the appointment of High Sheriffs … Determines cases, where the Lord President acts as University Visitor, in a private capacity”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

I think I am now 2-1 up in the interventions of my noble friend Lord Newton; I am very pleased about that. It is an interesting thought. I am surprised that the other side should leap on this to assume that it was the Secretary of State for Justice. As I explained, I am here in my capacity as Deputy Leader of the House of Lords, and covering Cabinet Office business. When I studied my constitutional stuff at university, I learned that “Secretary of State” was a portmanteau term in government, not specific to any one person.

The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, talks of scope for mischief-making. For half this Committee, we have constantly been told that this project has been driven through by Nick Clegg and Nick Clegg alone. If we go through the various Hansards, we will find that Nick Clegg has been named more often by the Opposition than any other single person. The Government have put into the Bill who has the responsibility for this legislation. It applies to something that will be carried out next May, when we will be celebrating the first of the five years of Nick Clegg being Lord President of the Council, but nevertheless it is relevant to this Bill. It is simply a matter of common sense to have him named. I agree with my noble friend, Lord Newton. In the past, there have been people who have carried the dual title of Lord President and Secretary of State because of that curious anomaly of what Secretaries of State can do. As I remember it, it used to be only the Minister of Agriculture who was not a Secretary of State. All the rest were. I am sure it is not mischief-making.

The arrangements in the Bill make sense. They allow the Deputy Prime Minister to take key decisions with nationwide effect, but also enable decisions with a specific territorial flavour to be made by the territorial Ministers. For this reason, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I shall of course withdraw the amendment but this is an interesting point because, as far as I know, it has never been done before. If the Minister has some precedent for it, I will be proved wrong. What most upsets me about the whole debate is having stirred up the noble Lord, Lord Newton. I do not enjoy doing that at all, although he does not seem much stirred up to me.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

Only in the nicest possible way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bach]

Then I feel much better for that. I still do not see why both positions are there. If the Minister is right in his argument, why are the words “Secretary of State” included at all? Why is it not just the Lord President of the Council or, if the Government want to put other Ministers in, why not say the Prime Minister, too, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I do not see why both names are there when the precedent is that it is the Secretary of State, but perhaps—

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Could the answer be that there is some concern among those involved in the “pro” campaign that the Lord President of the Council might be identified with Mr Clegg, who himself will be identified with the most derogatory remarks about the electoral system that is being promoted?

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I was trying to be as polite as I possibly could be. One of the dangers of personalising it in this way, as I think my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours is hinting, is that Mr Clegg may be either so popular that his name, as it were, in making the orders means that what he wants will occur or, heaven forbid, so unpopular that whatever he does or suggests means that what he wants will not happen. To that extent, I agree with my noble friend.

[Lord McNally]

On the point about Secretaries of State, I think the intention is that those in mind are the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales.

[Lord Bach]

So, for England, is it the Lord President of the Council?

[Lord McNally]

If there was to be anything specifically territorial, the Secretary of State could take responsibility there. That is my interpretation of it, but there is no great mystery about it. It is simply that, as I said at the very beginning, the Lord President is steering this Bill. He steered it very successfully through the House of Commons and we are doing the same.

[Lord Bach]

The Minister is being unfair to himself. The Lord President of the Council was hardly seen in the House of Commons while the Bill went through it. I think that he moved the Second Reading and did not appear again until Report. But we are seeing a great deal of the noble Lord, which is of course always a huge pleasure.

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

I am a bit confused about something that the Minister said about the territorial responsibilities of the Lord President. Having been a Secretary of State for Scotland, I am not absolutely clear that that is the position. It might be helpful if the Minister could seek greater clarity from his inestimable advisers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott]

This is a Bill of 300 pages—and I do not apologise for repeating this—which plans to change the constitution of our country. I hope the noble Lord is not arguing that to spend five days—I am speaking from memory now, but I am pretty certain that I am right—on the Committee stage in the House of Commons and two days on Report is an inordinate or generous amount of time. I hope he is not suggesting in any way, shape or form, that the time that we have spent in this House on the scrutiny of crucial groups of amendments is any more than they properly deserve. If he does think that, I would appeal to him to let us know which group of amendments should not have been discussed or were addressing anything other than very serious matters about our constitution. He gives the impression that he is very irritated—perhaps I am wrong, perhaps we are over-sensitive on this side—at every criticism of the Bill, and at any suggestion for any amendment. If that is the way he responds, I suggest he talks to his noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who has the capacity most of the time, at the other end of the scale, for making us think that what we are saying is important—what he privately thinks I do not have the faintest idea but I will give him the credit for giving that appearance—and at the same time being amused, not being tetchy and not being irritable. We could have moved on a great deal more quickly with this amendment. The noble Lord has wasted time.

While I am on my feet, the next amendments after mine are six government amendments. I hope that the noble Lord will not do anything other than a proper courtesy to the House in explaining these amendments in proper detail. I absolutely assure him that neither I nor any of my colleagues, and I suspect any on his side of the House, will accuse him of time-wasting.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I am surprised that my little amendment has developed into the excitement that we have enjoyed in Committee for the past few minutes. I have one serious point to make. I ask the Minister to reconsider his attack—maybe he did not mean the words, I do not know—on a particular individual at the other end who is a colleague of mine in the opposition justice team. It is an unwarranted attack on an individual. If the noble Lord wants to attack tactics, that is fine, but do not attack an individual, a Member of Parliament, for doing what most of us would consider to be his duty—and indeed what the noble Lord did so well when he was sitting on the Opposition Benches just a few months ago. Before I withdraw the amendment, I ask the Minister to consider—

[Lord Rooker]

I do not want to prolong this, but this is the result of this place not having a Speaker. In the other place, if anybody down there had said about somebody up here what was said by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, the Speaker would have ruled it out of order. You are not allowed to criticise named Members of this place down in the other place. There is no benefit to it, because we do not get anywhere doing it. We have no Speaker here to stop that kind of immature comment and we ought to have.

[Lord Bach]

I give the noble Lord the chance, please, if he will do that—

[Lord McNally]

If the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, wants to call me immature, that is part of the rough and tumble of politics. I am not going to say sorry. For goodness’ sake, again, I really hope that people outside read Hansard and then they can make a judgment about the handling of this Bill. I am willing to go into the details of this and argue it. We have had everything from the Mongolian elections to the sensitivities of—the Member for the Rhondda Valley, was it? I cannot remember which one it was.

[Lord Bach]

I am extremely disappointed that the Minister, who is normally a parliamentarian of the highest order, should on this occasion not think it right to withdraw what he said about an individual Member of Parliament. I very much regret that. It tempts me very much to call a Division on this amendment, but it is a temptation that I will resist, because I think it would be a mistake—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Spoilsport!

[Lord Bach]

Yes, spoilsport I may be, but on the basis of the debate that we had about the issue itself, the proper thing is to withdraw my amendment which I intend to do. However, I give the noble Lord just one last chance. Why not just say he is sorry for what he said about an individual Member of Parliament? His criticism has been heard. Why not withdraw it now? I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 40 withdrawn.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I can be very brief, mainly because I have not so far taken any part in the issue which has been urged for so long and so very effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. However, I have listened to the debate this afternoon, and it seems to me that by supporting the amendment we will be taking at least a step in complying with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights which has been outstanding for so long. It may not be the best solution—I do not know whether it is or not—but, on the principle of half a loaf being better than no bread, I lend my support to the amendment.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, for many years the law in this country has decreed that if you lose your liberty, you lose your right to vote. However, as we have heard, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that this blanket ban on prisoners voting must be ended. My noble friend Lord Anderson is right: a large number of people in the United Kingdom do not agree with that ruling, which makes the issue a difficult one for politicians of all shapes and sizes. Nevertheless, when Labour were in government—I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in his place as he and I used to agree on this subject just a few months ago—we accepted that we had a legal obligation to comply with the European court ruling, and that compliance would ultimately mean giving some prisoners the vote. Mindful of the need to take account of public opinion—that is a real issue here—in responding to the European court judgment, we undertook a consultation process aimed at identifying an acceptable solution to a difficult problem.

I praise the Liberal Democrats who were always keen, when in opposition, that the Labour Government should act more speedily on this issue than was the case. However, I recall that throughout our discussion on this issue—we debated it for some time in the previous Parliament—the Conservative Party urged us to stay as we were and not to get on with it. Indeed, the right honourable and learned gentleman who is now the Attorney-General said, when in opposition, that it would be “ludicrous” if prisoners got the vote. When I used to sit where the noble Lord, Lord McNally, does today, I was always relieved to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, when he was on the opposition Front Bench, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, among others, against the proposal that prisoners should have the vote. Therefore, let us not have any criticism of us, as I am afraid the Lord Chancellor has been prone to do in the past week or so, saying that we should have legislated on this some time ago. I do not believe that the Conservative Party manifesto stated that prisoners should vote in the previous general election, but I am, of course, conscious that the other half or third, or whatever it is, of the coalition will respond today, and no doubt he will speak, as always, on behalf of the Government.

However, more seriously, it must be acknowledged on all sides of the House that there is a strong sense among the public—I think this is what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was getting at—that a decision may be being forced on the country against the will of the people. Indeed, reading what the Prime Minister has said about this issue, one feels that he thinks that, too. Clearly, this issue has some potential to undermine yet again public faith and participation in the political process. For that reason the Government have to respond to the European Court ruling in a way that is mindful of the views of the public and reassures them that their representatives are not simply rubber-stamping decisions made elsewhere. I hope that all noble Lords agree that it must be done in a way that is sensitive to British values and respects the position of this sovereign Parliament.

To be fair, the European Court itself recognises that fact, which is why it agreed to give the Government a degree of flexibility in how they respond to the ruling that a blanket ban on prisoners’ voting is unlawful. I believe that the concept is called a “margin of appreciation”, which has also been known to apply in other fields, but is particularly important here. In short, therefore, we would argue that the Government are not compelled by the margin of appreciation to give all prisoners the vote, but are required to enfranchise some. It is clearly up to the Government to decide who they believe should have the right to vote and to put that decision to Parliament.

It is rumoured on the grapevine that there will be an announcement before Christmas; I think that that grapevine is called the Lord Chancellor. In reply to the debate last week on the sentencing Green Paper, I think he made an announcement that there would be a parliamentary Statement around this subject before the Christmas Recess, and we look forward to hearing what it has to say.

The amendment of my noble friend proposes to give the vote to all prisoners sentenced for up to four years in jail. That seems to be going too far. While it may be possible to persuade people to accept a change, whereby prisoners convicted of comparatively low-level crimes are allowed to vote, we do not believe that the law-abiding public would easily accept a solution that ends up with people guilty of really serious offences—including violence, sexual assault or crimes against children—having a say in who represents them while they are in custody. That could be the consequence of the amendment, which would set the threshold to as high as four years.

We find deeply unattractive the idea that that a judge should have a say as to whether an individual whom he is sentencing should have the vote. The first reason why it is unattractive is because, frankly, I do not think that there is any judge in existence who would want that power. Secondly, the idea’s unattractiveness is demonstrated, for example, by the prospect of a prisoner not being allowed to vote because a judge has used his discretion in a particular way, and whether that prisoner should have a right of appeal about that aspect of the sentence.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, does the noble Lord remember that when we debated this issue on the Floor of the House when he was a Minister, he mentioned that the decision would actually come from the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which would guide the judges in this matter, and would remove the unlikelihood of inconsistencies between judges on different types of sentence?

[Lord Bach]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am not likely to forget our frequent discussions about this subject. However, can the noble Lord help me? Would he, under his proposal, give the defendant, who the judge has told, “No, you cannot vote”, a right of appeal in the normal way against a decision such as that?

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, yes, I believe so.

[Lord Bach]

I have to say that the possibility of that kind of appeal clogging up an already busy system is not one that we would support, particularly at this stage.

We cannot support the amendment, although we are grateful to my noble friend for raising this subject—as, I am sure, the Committee is—because the issue has exercised this House a great deal over the past few years. We very much look forward to the Government coming up with their proposals in the next few weeks.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

The noble Lord says that he cannot support four years as being just too long from the point of view of public opinion. What period would he support?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bach]

I find that question more difficult, but the period would be less than four years, rather than more.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson; I have known the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, even longer than he has. Where I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is that the noble Lord is a master of fertile invention—particularly when he is on the opposition Benches. What we have had today is a good debate about a matter that has yet to come before Parliament.

The amendment seeks to amend Clause 2, which sets out the franchise for voting in the referendum on the parliamentary voting system. Under Clause 2, anyone who is entitled to vote in Westminster parliamentary elections would be entitled to vote in the referendum. Members of this House entitled to vote in local and European elections will also be able to vote in the referendum, a matter we debated last Thursday.

Sentenced prisoners are currently barred from voting by Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. This bar, which has been supported by successive British Governments, has its origins in the Forfeiture Act 1870. However, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, in 2005 the European Court of Human Rights found that the United Kingdom’s prohibition on all sentenced prisoners voting breached Article 3 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights—the right to free and fair elections. I was pleased by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, because it is important to remind people when we are debating our responses to decisions of the European court what its origins were.

I was recently at a meeting where the daughter of Sir David Maxwell Fyfe was present. It was worthwhile for the noble Lord, Lord Browne, to remind us of the major contribution that Sir David and other British lawyers made to a convention that was seen as a response to the horrors and excesses of the untrammelled tyranny that Europe had just experienced. Of course it is important that we look at the decisions of the court in the light of our own experiences and customs, but I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for his reminder.

As Mr Mark Harper, the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, made clear in the other place on 2 November, the Government accept that there is a need to change the law. Ministers are currently considering how to implement the judgment and, when the Government have made a decision, their proposals will be announced to Parliament in the usual way. There will then no doubt be a full debate on the issues, giving Parliament the opportunity to discuss the issues reflected in this debate.

[Lord Bach]

As I understand it—I may be wrong—the Lord Chancellor, the right honourable Secretary of State for Justice, said last week in answer to questions on the sentencing Green Paper, when this topic came up, that a decision would be made by the Government and announced publicly by the Christmas Recess. Can the Minister confirm that?

[Lord McNally]

I cannot confirm it because I do not know. If the Lord Chancellor said that he must know about the timetable. However, I am not in a position today to confirm or otherwise whether such a decision is imminent. When it is, it will be announced to Parliament and I am sure that the usual channels in both Houses will find time for a debate, which will be, I suspect, very much along the lines of today’s debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

I have absolutely no idea. I cannot, in the Committee stage of one Bill, start committing the Government to parliamentary time for another Bill. One would almost think that the Benches opposite were trying desperately to get past four o’clock, whereas I know that they are probing me and they continue to do so.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally]

I withdraw that remark as I can see how upset the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is about my aspersion.

[Lord Bach]

My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer is never upset. We have agreed that, whatever time the debate on this amendment ends, the Statement will follow straightaway, so I promise the noble Lord that there really is no attempt to go on beyond four o’clock.

Rehabilitation and Sentencing

Lord Bach Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement of his right honourable friend. In its four-year plan, the Ministry of Justice states:

“We will provide a clear sentencing framework. It will punish those who break the law, and help reduce re-offending”.

We do not disagree with that. It is a reasonable vision for sentencing policy, entirely in keeping with the emphasis on punishment and reform that we followed in government, which helped to cut crime by 43 per cent between 1997 and 2010, in times both of growth and recession. We were the only Administration since the Second World War who could boast such an enviable record. I will first ask the Minister to confirm that the crime rate significantly declined under the Labour Administration.

On the core principles we are in agreement. Where the Government propose sensible measures to punish and reform offenders, we will support them. However, the Statement that we have just heard gives rise to a number of questions and concerns. The Minister is probably quietly pleased that the entirety of the Conservative Party's manifesto on law and order at the last election has been abandoned. Some of the people who were persuaded to vote Conservative on that basis may be less pleased. Perhaps manifesto commitments do not matter much when the noble Lord's party is prepared to tear up personal pledges. Both on knife crime and increasing prison capacity, the Conservatives have dumped their previous policies.

Like so many heavily trailed announcements in the past six months, the sentencing review could be a wasted opportunity. Sentencing policy should be about dealing with offenders in the right way, in order to protect the public and, in particular, the victims of crime. However, this review has been about trying to reduce the prison population in order to cut costs. The Lord Chancellor outlined his principal aim in the comprehensive spending review, which was to reduce the total daily prison population by 3,000 by 2014. It is about 85,000 today, so that would mean it would be 82,000 in four years’ time. However, in practice, because many people serve less than a year in prison, meeting the target would mean sending 10,000 fewer offenders to jail each year than we do now. Unfortunately, this is what the sentencing review is all about: not protecting the public or victims, but saving money. Will the Minister confirm that his department will publish the detailed assumptions that his officials and the Home Office have made about crime trends to justify the target of 82,000?

We do not subscribe to the view that there is a direct link between prison and crime, but we do not share the Government’s view that there is no link at all. Of course there is a link; it is entirely irrational to think otherwise. During the past couple of years of the previous Conservative Government and under the Labour Government, more serious and persistent criminals went to prison for longer, and—guess what—crime fell. The relationship between those two things may not have been simple or straightforward; other factors were at play, including of course—something that the Government may want to take notice of—an increase in police numbers, but there was a relationship. To justify the view that there is no link, the Government say that crime rates also declined internationally in that time but that prison rates in many countries went down. That view is wrong. The figures for OECD countries show that prison populations rose almost everywhere.

We accept, of course, that prison is not always the best place for offenders and that community sentences can be a better alternative in cutting reoffending. Does the Minister accept that, as a result of changes that we introduced following the Corston report, the number of women in custody has gone down? Furthermore, does he accept that reoffending rates for women, young men and first-time offenders have gone down too in recent years?

Of course, further action on drug addiction is clearly to be welcomed, and I do welcome it. The steps outlined to deal more effectively with offenders with mental health problems are also to be welcomed. That is one of our society’s most pressing issues and it is a vindication of the decision to set up and begin to implement the important Bradley review. However, what assurances can the Minister give the House that those with mental health problems who are liable to commit offences—particularly violent offences—will be treated in secure establishments?

In our view, the Justice Secretary’s eagerness to please the Treasury by cutting the Ministry of Justice’s budget by 23 per cent is going to make it both difficult and risky to turn these fine aspirations into reality. In particular, I ask the Minister to explain to the House what assessments are being made of the likelihood that prisoners on indeterminate sentences, whom the Justice Secretary wants to release, will no longer be a risk to the public. What procedures will be put in place to monitor such people in the community? We would also like the Minister to confirm whether it is intended to relax the rules on the recall of offenders. If that is the intention, I ask why, and how will he ensure that it will not result in higher rates of reoffending?

Our probation service does a good job. Cutting the service so deeply, as the Government intend to do, seems like a massive gamble. Why are the Government doing this if they truly believe in rehabilitation? Every time the Justice Secretary is asked about resources, he falls back on the payment-by-results model being piloted in Peterborough and started by the previous Government in March this year. It is an interesting model, which we agree should be expanded.

Finally, the Justice Secretary was recently asked on “Newsnight” how he would judge the success of his penal policy. His first response was that he “hadn’t the first idea”. That really is not good enough. Let us offer him a better idea for judging the success of his policy: will it make communities up and down the country more or less safe, and will it result in crime going up or down? That is what matters to people who live in the real world.

Legal Aid

Lord Bach Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Bach]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the future of legal aid in the area of social welfare law.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, on 15 November 2010 the Government published proposals for reform of legal aid, including social welfare law. We propose that legal aid be retained in the highest priority cases—in debt and housing when someone’s home is at immediate risk, for homelessness, and in cases involving serious disrepair. We will retain legal aid in community care cases. Under these proposals legal aid would no longer be routinely available in other social welfare law matters.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. I accept that savings have to be made in the legal aid budget, but why, in the Green Paper, are the Government so ruthlessly targeting social welfare law, particularly during a recession? There is to be no legal aid for welfare benefit advice, none for education advice, none for employment advice, and precious little for housing and debt advice. Sixty-eight per cent of the legal help scheme is to be cut. Does the Minister not understand that appropriate legal advice, given early, can and does help solve multiple problems, changes lives, and prevents huge social costs later on? If the noble Lord’s party were in opposition today, it would, and he knows it, oppose these proposals with all its might. Why will it not do the same today?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord gives the clue to his question. As he said very honestly in his response to the original Statement a couple of weeks ago, when in government, the Opposition were planning cuts in legal aid. Whenever one makes cuts, one has to draw the line somewhere, and the Opposition are rightly leaping to the defence of people on the wrong side of that line. We have made a decision in terms of making savings in the legal aid budget and we have done so in a way that we believe targets help to the most vulnerable.

Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Lord Bach Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, Section 51 of the Coroners and Justice Act, supported by the noble Lord when in opposition and indeed strongly encouraged on those Benches by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is not now to be implemented. The section broadened the scope for legal aid so that bereaved service families would get legal aid for an inquest. If it is not implemented, some service families will receive legal aid only if they pass an exceptionality test. Will the noble Lord who speaks for the Government make a firm promise, indeed a guarantee, to the House that legal aid will be given in every inquest where service families ask for it?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right. We are not taking forward Section 51 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. On military inquests, exceptional funding is almost invariably provided on the basis of a recommendation by the Legal Services Commission. I do not think that there is any question of such funding not being available.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Graham of Edmonton]

My Lords, I will make a brief contribution. The noble Lords, Lord Lyell and Lord Rennard, are here as gatekeepers for their parties. It shows the interest that those on the Benches opposite have in the issue. The relative numbers on both sides are representative of the contributions to the debate. I begin by saying how much I enjoyed the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter, Lady Nye and Lady McDonagh. They paid a great deal of attention to the detail of the Bill. I will not do that; my concern is process, especially the process through which major change is taking place against a background of the democratic right of an affected community to complain at a public inquiry not being allowed.

I have not had a lot of experience, but when I was leader of Enfield Council, the London Government Act 1963 came in. I attended the public inquiry and made a contribution on behalf of the council. We were represented by Ashley Bramall, who was well known to London politics. His brother was a Member of this House.

[Lord Bach]

He is a Member.

[Lord Graham of Edmonton]

Yes, he is a Member. It gave me a dramatic feeling of being involved in a major piece of legislation. For the life of me, what we have had, more than once, on this Bill and on others, is a tight timetable. The timetable has been fixed not by Parliament but by the political machinations of the coalition. It ought to be honest enough to say to the public that it is cutting corners because it wants to get the legislation through by a certain date, to benefit not the public but the programme and the timetable that it has set for itself. The public are rumbling the coalition and I hope it will get it its comeuppance.

I have no axe to grind on the alternative vote issue. I fought a number of elections: won some, lost some. The first parliamentary election that I fought was for Enfield West. My opponent was Iain Macleod, whose name is well known in this House. I remember saying to someone at a function, in Iain's presence, “Of course, I fought Iain at the last election”. He said, “Well, Ted, you may have done, but you never laid a finger on me”, which I did not because it was my unwinnable seat. The House has been invited to connive with the machinations on the other side. The noble Lord, Lord Maples, who is in his place, commented earlier on political gerrymandering. The Labour Party was upset because some benefits that we had were going to be taken away. The noble Lord is naive if he thinks that people on this side of the Chamber do not believe that people on his side of the Chamber are as guilty as we are in seeking an advantage.

Of course, all parties try to present their case as benignly as possible, but let us be realistic. In my view, the public are well aware of what politics is about, and at the moment it is about the credibility of the coalition parties. If they do not stand together, they will fall. So far as I am concerned, the legislation before us tonight is not in the best interests of the country or Parliament, and when the public realise what is being foisted upon them in the name of democracy, they will have second thoughts. I simply say that there is still time for the Government to reflect on the pace at which they are bringing about change.

Very little in the arguments is new. What we are talking about now is the substance of the legislation. The arguments are pretty well understood. Some people on this side of the House have said that they are in favour of one thing, whereas others have said that they are against it, and the same thing will happen on the other side. The Minister, as a person, has my respect and I know that he will be fair when he winds up the debate. However, I think he ought to take back to his masters the fact that democracy in this country is being ill served by this legislation and that it should be altered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, from the Opposition Front Bench, I thank all those who have spoken during Second Reading. Of course, a large number have been from my side, and I am very grateful to them, but there have been very worthwhile contributions from all sides of the House which have also been illuminating. As my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham just said, one cannot help being struck by the lack of support for the Government's position. From all sides of the House, there has been pretty outright opposition. Occasionally, a Peer has had a good word to say for the Bill; and, very occasionally, one or two have even shown signs of enthusiasm for it.

Indeed, the only noble Lord who showed great enthusiasm for the Bill—I am so sorry that he is not in his place, but I am sure that he will be in a moment—was the noble Lord the Leader of the House. He seemed in favour of his Bill—and quite right too—but I am not even sure about him. I admire him very much, and I very much regret that he is not sitting opposite me at present. I admire him for many reasons, but above all I admire him—

[Noble Lords]

Here he is!

[Lord Bach]

It is funny; I was just talking about the noble Lord. I admire him so much for his many qualities, but, above all, for what can only be described as his chutzpah. Anyone fortunate enough to hear him on the subject of Lords reform will know exactly what I mean—perhaps even those who saw him earlier today. For those who have not much experience of the noble Lord’s repertoire, we saw a pretty good example yesterday.

How could the noble Lord argue with a straight face that this is a proper constitutional Bill, one that has gone through all the procedures that he has so often told us—or, at least, he used to tell us when he was in opposition—are necessary for such a Bill? They are: extensive public consultation; pre-legislative scrutiny; a search for consensus; and perhaps above all, fairness and a lack of political partisanship. His speech yesterday was as good an example of both cheek and nerve as can be found.

The truth is that the Bill is rotten at its heart. It is rotten because it puts the party interests of the two parties that make up the coalition before fairness. It is rotten because no attempt has been made to consult the public or have pre-legislative scrutiny of its contents. It is rotten, too, because it seeks to decimate the role of the independent boundary commissions in determining appropriate parliamentary boundaries. It is, in effect, two Bills, and depends on a third yet to pass the other place.

Why are measures to set up a referendum on the electoral system in the same Bill as measures to set up new parliamentary constituencies? If it is appropriate to join them together, why is not the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill included as well? I am afraid that the answer is obvious: this is a Bill that is not primarily based on principle. If it were, how could either coalition partner press for a referendum that asked a question about, of all things, the alternative vote, but not about proportional representation? As has been said so often in the debate over two days, the Bill is based on a political deal. Of course it is. I would describe it as a kind of Faustian pact. The Helen of Troy in this Faustian pact is a share of political power. I must admit that I am not sure who at this stage is playing Doctor Faustus—the good Doctor Faustus—and who is playing the devil, but I think I can make a shrewd guess.

Part 1 is the offer for the Liberal Democrats although, frankly, to have settled for a referendum on AV—described by the Deputy Prime Minister in the phrase, almost now a cliché, that we have heard so often, “a miserable little compromise”—does not seem a great result, more a 0-0 draw, at least for the time being, rather than a win. Part 2 is the Conservatives’ prize as part of the deal: an unthought-out proposal to cut the number of Members of Parliament to a certain, fixed, strict, unbending, inflexible, unalterable figure of 600 to cause the coalition’s political opponents the maximum damage. All this low politics is hidden under the cover of political principle. It is described as a “new politics”, while the Deputy Prime Minister claims it is the most important political reform since 1832 and that he is the greatest reformer of them all. Stand aside Disraeli; stand aside Gladstone; stand aside Lloyd George, Churchill, Macmillan and Attlee. Bring forward the new hero of the hour, the new kid on the block, the Deputy Prime Minister. It is not unusual to hide motives under the cover of high-sounding principle, but here we see the art form at its most blatant and it needs, I would have thought, a great political writer to catch the flavour of it. Trollope! You should be living at this hour.

As to Part 1, one question stands out from many others and has been asked many times. Why the rush? Why the haste? We are to have a referendum as early as 5 May. Why combine the referendum with other elections in a large part of the United Kingdom but not everywhere? Why have the rules for the referendum been shoved into the Bill at the last moment and not been dealt with in the usual way? Why so little consultation? I ask again: why the hurry? I suspect that the answer is depressingly party political yet again: the Liberal Democrats desperately need an early sign that they actually matter in the Government. Perhaps they feel that they have more chance of winning the vote for AV if the referendum is held early, but perhaps they should listen rather more closely to my noble friend Lord Lipsey, who is a strong supporter of AV and who believes that a positive vote has much more chance if the referendum is held on another date. So often have we been told in this debate, and so often has the question been asked: is this really the way to change something as important as the electoral system of one of the oldest and most respected democracies in the world? I think the answer has to be no.

When we come to Part 2, I believe that we see the deeply partisan nature of this rushed legislation. We have heard of distinguished Conservative MPs during the course of this debate. We heard twice about the honourable Member for where we are tonight, the Cities of London and Westminster, who said:

“the current proposals for AV and the reduction in number of parliamentary constituencies are being promoted by Party managers as an expedient way to prevent our principal political opponents from recapturing office”.

It was not some idiot or some fool saying that, but a Conservative Member of Parliament.

Indeed, I am sorry to quote the Member of Parliament of my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham, who is an independent-minded, respected MP, but it is important. He said:

“When introducing this Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister dressed it up as the beginning of new politics … it is old politics exercised at its very best or its very worst, according to one's disposition. It is about the Executive—the Government of the day—seizing more power for themselves. Let us not be coy about this … The arguments for reducing the size of the House of Commons by 50 are nothing more than very flimsy. We are told that cutting 50 Members of Parliament will save £12 million. Well … that is what 350 years of settled parliamentary democracy adds up to—we are going to save £12 million. Why stop there? Let us get rid of 300 Members of Parliament and save £72 million. There may be many good reasons for reducing the size of the House of Commons, but saving £12 million is not one of them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/10; col. 98.]

Finally, I remind the House of the words quoted by my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark from the Liberal Democrat MP, Greg Mulholland. He said:

“Redrawing the boundaries every five years, for every Parliament, is simply not sensible. I am happy to support the principle of having more equal constituencies, but the proposals as they are now worded show no recognition of the reality of … introducing boundary changes”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/10; col. 882.]

Hear, hear, to that. Greater equalisation is a good thing, but at what cost?

With this Bill we know that something is wrong. This does not look or sound like serious, well thought-out constitutional reform. It lacks that thought-through quality and that achieved consensus that come from proper pre-legislative scrutiny, and the reason is not hard to find. This is a constitutional measure that breaks the long-established and fundamental convention that such measures should not be taken for party gain.

I want to test this view by putting a number of questions to the Minister. First, why is there the need to undertake such an enormous boundary review by the next election? We have just been through the fifth periodical review, and new and important changes were made for this year’s general election. Why is there the rush? Secondly, crucially and without apologies, I come back to why should there be 600 seats. This is the first time in modern history that a Government have sought to set down a number that cannot be altered. Rule 1(1) of Schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 states:

“The number of constituencies in Great Britain shall not be substantially greater or less than 613”.

That gives the boundary commissions the opportunity to use their independent judgment, balancing the need for equality of electors and other proper considerations, such as geography and community ties, before coming to a fair conclusion. This system has worked. It has almost universal support.

A convenient myth has grown up that the number of MPs has risen greatly since 1945. As Professor King argued, in Sunday’s Observer, this is just not true. He went on to say that, at a time when the number of people each MP represents and the workload of MPs have been greatly increased, the number of MPs has risen by 10 over 65 years. So why should we have 600 seats? We have not had a satisfactory answer from the Government. Neither Mr Harper in another place, nor our own Constitutional Committee, nor, with great respect, the Leader of the House has given a satisfactory answer. For him to say that 600 seats strikes him as “a nice round figure” is humorous and well meaning. We know that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who will be answering, can be a cheeky chappie. But I would ask him tonight to take this question seriously and to give the House an answer. Why should the figure be 600? Why not 585, as in the Tory manifesto? Why not 500, as in the Lib Dem manifesto? Was it picked out of the air? Is it random? Is it some kind of magic number?

It is not a bad rule in politics that no decision or choice about a particular number or form of words happens by chance. There is always a motive of some sort—good, bad or in-between—behind it. It is not chance that the number that has been chosen is 600. Let me put forward a possible reason. At 600 seats, the main opposition party stands to lose many more seats than its opponents. At 585 and even at 500 seats, the party advantage evens itself out. Psephologists, I am told, agree on this. Is the Minister denying that conclusion, and if he is, what convincing reason can he give for the figure of 600? If we are right, and this is being done for political partisan reasons, is it not a constitutional outrage? Are not the Government using their majority in both Houses of Parliament to usurp the role of the independent boundary commissions?

In many ways, of course, the final clue to what we argue is a partisan Bill is to be found in the abolition of public inquiries. Why are the Government proposing this? For many years they have been a vital and integral part of the difficult and sensitive process, and it is that, of redrawing parliamentary boundaries. To abolish them is to remove at a stroke the key benefit of having the original proposals of the boundary commissions tested and argued in an open public hearing before an assistant commissioner with legal qualifications. Worse than that, it removes local involvement, the opportunity for ordinary people from the area under consideration to put forward their points of view. I reject entirely the argument that public inquiries are merely a vehicle for political parties. In any event, political parties are actually made up of local people. I want to let the House into a secret. It is not that unusual for members of the same political party to put forward different proposals to the same Boundary Commission.

In my experience, and I have appeared at quite a number of these public inquiries, many years ago now and for nothing—pro bono, because I thought I saw that look in the noble Lord’s face—there are always many other citizens who put their views across. Those views may be absurd or they may be brilliant, but that is not the point. The point is that local people have the opportunity to be seen and heard, to be agreed with or contradicted, and above all to be active citizens. Is not that what, as I understand it, the big society is supposed to be all about?

The alternative proposal set out in the Bill that there should be a written consultation is, frankly, an insult. What I do not understand is how two parties which both speak about localism and the need for greater influence to be given to local people can consider abolishing public inquiries, particularly when the boundary review that is planned in this Bill is going to be the largest and most wide-ranging for a very long time. The painful answer, of course, is that all these arguments come a poor second to the Government’s need for a quick fix, a radical redrawing of the boundaries by 2015, a cutting of corners and established well-proved practices, in order to give them an advantage over the opposition party. That is the uncomfortable truth about this Bill—not so much a con trick as a Con/Dem trick. If a Labour Government had brought forward these proposals, we would have been ridiculed and savaged, and what is more, we would have deserved it.

One of the roles of this House is to help Governments to avoid the follies and mistakes of their proposals. Let me tell noble Lords that if you are in Government, it can be a fairly uncomfortable sort of help. In fact, it does not seem much like help at all. I have been there. In our view, this is a Bill where the Government need assistance from this House—and not just from our side, but from all sides, to move away from proposals that, frankly, are not worthy of the great traditions of the two parties that make up the coalition. They are traditions which accept that constitutional changes should be made, but always under two guiding principles: caution and consensus.

The Bill is deeply unsatisfactory in many ways, as our own Constitutional Committee said in its withering report last week. It represents a genuine abuse of power. I cannot believe that the Government want to gain a reputation so soon after they have come to office. For what it is worth, my advice to them is to listen to what has been said, loud and clear, by the House in this Second Reading debate; otherwise they will deserve the reputation they will undoubtedly get.

I return to the proposition that the argument for bringing the number of MPs down to 600 is to save £12 million. The reputation the Government will get is that they will be accused of knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing.

Legal Aid and Civil Costs Reform

Lord Bach Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place by the right honourable and learned gentleman, the Lord Chancellor, and for allowing me an advance sight of the Statement; but I have to say, thanks to the very comprehensive briefing that has clearly been given to two newspapers over the past 24 hours, we have had the chance of looking at the Statement more than in just the past few minutes.

The Green Papers on cutting legal aid and reducing civil costs are among the most important published by the Government to date. Legal aid, as the Minister said, is one of the pillars of the welfare state that were set up by the post-war Labour Government. It plays a crucial role in tackling social exclusion, especially in difficult and hard times such as these, and ensures, or does its best to ensure, that everyone can obtain access to justice in both the criminal and civil fields, regardless of their means.

Under successive Governments, the legal aid budget has grown to the point where it now stands at more than £2 billion per year. That is not sustainable, especially in the current economic context. Indeed, the previous Labour Government had moved to cap the legal aid budget and to reduce it. We also planned to turn the Legal Services Commission into an executive agency, and the then Opposition—both parties that now make up the Government—supported us. Why have the Government not introduced legislation to achieve that aim? It was quite clear that that was a necessary step to take as quickly as possible. They have not done so, thus far; when are they planning to do so?

In recent years, we brought the principle of fixed fees into civil and family legal aid cases. That principle has applied to criminal cases for some time past. We introduced means-testing into the magistrates’ courts and this year into the Crown Court. Indeed, on the very day that the general election was called, we signed off cuts to advocates’ fees in higher courts without any support from the parties opposite; so much for the accusation that the then Government were somehow economically irresponsible.

We took those decisions because we recognised the need to reduce the legal aid budget, and it should be said that many of our actions were taken in the teeth of opposition from the legal profession, as one would of course expect, and from the parties that then made up the Opposition—by that I do not mean just the Liberal Democrat party. Let me make it absolutely clear to the House that had we been in government today, we would have announced, perhaps not today but earlier, further cuts to legal aid. That is a reality that we have to acknowledge.

The crucial question, however, is where those cuts are to be made and how the money that is left—still a large sum—will be spent. Our policy was, and is, to control the legal aid budget and to get value for money for the taxpayer while optimising services for people who need support the most. That is why we concentrated so much of our investment on what is described, perhaps a little uncomfortably but accurately, as social welfare law legal aid, by increasing it over the years and—even towards the end, when we were cutting back other parts of the legal aid budget—making sure that we protected it at all costs. That is because we argue that legal aid, delivered in the form of legal advice and delivered early, has the power to change lives and, of course, save huge amounts of public money further down the line.

The housing possession court duty scheme, for example, still saves thousands of people from repossession. It delivered a social and financial good. Are the Government committed to preserving that and similar schemes? What balance do the Government intend to strike between the needs of criminal legal aid and civil legal aid? Everyone knows that, over the years, criminal legal aid has had the majority of the spend. Do the Government believe that that should continue?

The Minister said that the Government propose in the Green Paper to reduce fees paid in civil and family cases by 10 per cent across the board. That proposal is, on the face of it, disturbing. Does it mean, for example, that when a fixed fee is paid for advice from solicitors who practise social welfare law, or from the not-for-profit sector—whether it be the CAB or law centres—solicitors in that field will lose 10 per cent on each piece of new advice that they give? This will make life very difficult indeed for those lawyers, who by no stretch of the imagination can be described as rich. I ask the noble Lord to answer that question, if he would be so kind.

I turn to another serious point that I should like to ask the Minister about: the proposal that all clients with £1,000 or more disposable capital should make a minimum contribution of £100 to their legal costs. Full ineligibility is extremely worrying. We as a Government increased civil legal aid eligibility rates by 5 per cent last year to deal with the unfairnesses that the recession had meant for those who needed that vital piece of advice. However, the Government’s proposal in the Green Paper reduces eligibility a great deal more than that, and we are concerned that it will take many people who cannot afford the private insurance that the Green Paper talks of away from getting the legal advice that they need and deserve. Does the Minister agree that that is likely to happen if civil legal aid eligibility is reduced by so much? Will that not harm what we all want: access to justice?

One other disturbing part of the Statement talks about some housing, social welfare and debt cases being taken out of the scope of legal aid, although some will be left in, apparently. Can the Minister help by telling us which cases in those categories will be taken out of scope and which will be left in?

I turn briefly to the important and massive report of Lord Justice Jackson on civil legal aid costs. Before we respond in detail, we will consider that report carefully, as we will consider the Green Paper on legal aid. I remind the Minister and ask a question about what Lord Justice Jackson said at paragraph 4.2 of chapter 7 of his final report, on page 70. He stated:

“I … stress the vital necessity of making no further cutbacks in legal aid availability or eligibility”.

He is talking about civil legal aid and continues:

“The legal aid system plays a crucial role in promoting access to justice at proportionate costs in key areas”.

Do the Government agree with what Lord Justice Jackson wrote in chapter 7 of his report?

The basic test that we will apply to both Green Papers is whether the proposals will deliver a saving to the public purse while ensuring that no one is denied access to justice simply because of their means.