Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Bach Excerpts(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 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.
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—
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(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Coroners: Terminally Ill Patients
Lord Bach Excerpts(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
My Lords, as the noble Baroness will be aware, the coroners’ service is under local jurisdiction and the protocol established in Manchester is something that has been decided between the coroner’s office and the police in Manchester. It does give us concern and the department intends to issue guidance under its new powers which we hope will smooth out some of the variants in how coroners apply their powers. This is one of those that will be looked at.
Lord Bach
The Minister will know that the director of the Royal British Legion, no less, has said that the Government’s decision to scrap the new post of chief coroner is a deep betrayal of bereaved service families. Does he agree that during the passage of the Coroners and Justice Bill all sides of this House were as one in believing that not only was the reform of the coronial system an urgent necessity but also that the establishment of a chief coroner, along side a chief medical officer, with powers to set national standards, to lead, and to hear the new system of appeals, was at the heart of the reforms? Why have the Government taken the absurd and counterproductive step which, in the words of the co-director of INQUEST, renders the new model “completely hollow” before it has even started, and a step that has, moreover, managed so deeply to upset bereaved service families and the Royal British Legion?
Lord McNally
My Lords, I am sorry that the Royal British Legion has made that judgment. The decision not to go ahead with the chief coroner was made, as the noble Lord knows, mainly on financial grounds. The setting up of the post would have been expensive. The alternative that was put forward in my Written Statement is that we are going to take much of what was in the legislation in-house in the Ministry of Justice and do the tasks ourselves. I am well aware that in so doing we set ourselves a pretty important task because, as the noble Lord rightly said, when the Coroners and Justice Bill was going through this House all sides wanted to see an improvement in consistency in the coroners’ service. That is what we intend to do in-house and we will be judged on our performance.
Prisons: Population
Lord Bach Excerpts(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of the Youth Justice Board. As the noble Baroness said, during its time it has overseen a very welcome drop in youth offending. It is not disappearing: its work will be reabsorbed into a unit within the Ministry of Justice.
Lord Bach
My Lords, of course it is common sense that if reoffending rates fall, fewer people will go to prison. However, how are the Government planning to get reoffending down when the comprehensive spending review plans to cut 10,000 jobs from the Prison Service and the National Probation Service? Does the Minister understand—I am sure that he does—that it is utterly and completely unrealistic to argue for cutting the number of prison inmates by 3,000 while at the same time decimating the National Probation Service?
Lord McNally
My Lords, first, the job figures cover a five-year period, and in some cases the reductions will be absorbed by natural wastage. Some of the excessive language that has just been used ignores the fact that the Administration will genuinely look at alternatives to prison. What has struck me in the very short time that I have been in this job has been seeing examples—often very small examples—of interventions with prisoners that have an extraordinary impact on reoffending. There was an example on “Today” last week of a charity finding accommodation for prisoners before they were released. Among the prisoners with whom it was working there was a 20 per cent reoffending rate rather than the 80 per cent in other categories. I believe that there are alternatives and I hope that the Green Paper will give scope for an intelligent and non-hysterical debate about these factors.
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums (Civil Sanctions) Order 2010
Lord Bach Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bach
My Lords, I shall be fairly brief but I cannot resist commenting that it is slightly ironic that we should be debating this matter on the afternoon when staff in the Ministry of Justice—whether front-line staff or those who work in the main office—are being decimated by a Statement made in another place. The staff who produced this order and the Bill, which became the Act, are the ones who will have to suffer. It seems to me ironic that we should discuss such a good order on the very day when they are to be decimated as a result of government policy.
I thank the Minister for outlining so clearly and in such detail the statutory instrument that we are being asked to approve. We support the order, which is hardly surprising as it flows from two Acts of Parliament introduced by the previous Government. As we have heard, the civil sanctions were introduced by the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, and these regulations flow from the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. As it happens, I played a small part in taking both those Bills through this House, so I am interested in the order which flows from those Acts.
The use of civil sanctions was not approved without controversy in this House when it considered the Bill. Their use, as opposed to criminal proceedings, is a flexible, sensible and proportionate step for many of the offences—for that is what they are—committed under the 2000 and 2009 Acts. As has already been said, criminal proceedings are appropriate and necessary in cases where a person has acted in a knowing or reckless way, but I hope that those cases are rare.
I say this with perhaps more feeling than some. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on this and, no doubt, that of the noble Lord, Lord Martin. I was a constituency Labour Party treasurer for many years and now, for my sins, I am a chairman of a constituency Labour Party.
Lord Bach
I am very grateful to the House for that acknowledgement. Both as treasurer and chairman I could be affected by the legislation that is now on the statute book.
I congratulate the Electoral Commission on the note it sent to noble Lords on this order, but I invite it to use its considerable powers—and they are considerable, as has been pointed out in the debate—with care, tolerance and humanity, bearing in mind the voluntary nature of so much political activity in this country. We support the order.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I shall reply briefly to this debate. I am sure that we are all impressed by the climb of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, from treasurer to party chairman. Disraeli called that climbing the greasy pole.
I shall also respond briefly to the noble Lord’s point about the Ministry of Justice. Twelve years ago, I served on an inquiry, initiated by this House and chaired by the late Lord Slynn, into whether the ethos of public service was still alive and well in our Civil Service after the changes that had taken place in the 1980s and 1990s. Our report stated that yes, it really was alive and well—people in our public service were motivated by a sense of public duty and public service. Since returning into government five months ago, my experience has been such that I would not change a word of that report. I have been much moved and impressed by the dedication of the public servants with whom I have worked at all levels. I am well aware that percentages are meaningless for the individuals concerned. For them, the unemployment is 100 per cent. Therefore, we will try to manage the changes that we judge to be inevitable with a duty of care to those people and with as much humanity as we possibly can.
I am very familiar with this topic because more than a decade ago I was on the Benches opposite arguing about the Bill and many of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Martin, raised. I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and myself, as two former party officials, pointing out that the Bill was couched in terms that made the treasurership of a political party sound like one of those golden prizes in politics, whereas the hard truth is that it is usually given to someone who has inadvertently left the room at the wrong time. It was argued at the time that the commission would have all kinds of talents except perhaps the most valuable talent of all—the ability to run elections at the sticky end for the political parties. The most recent appointments to the commission have been an attempt to remedy that, because the nominees have come from the political parties. I hope that that answer meets the point that was raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Martin, and my noble friend Lord Tyler asked whether the heavy hand of sanctions would come down on inexperience or on genuine mistakes. The Electoral Commission, in putting forward how it wants to approach these matters, said:
“We recognise that many of those responsible for complying with the law on party and election finance are volunteers … The new civil sanctions will allow us to use more constructive approaches to secure compliance in cases where the law has been broken. For example, we could issue a statutory notice designed to improve future compliance, rather than just imposing a less flexible penalty such as a fine.”
As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, a lot of work was done on this before the general election, and this order reflects that. The thinking behind it is that the Electoral Commission was faced with using either a tap on the wrist or a criminal prosecution. The order gives it a range of measures. What is in the order, and what is in the remarks that I made when I introduced it, is the point that the Electoral Commission is in no doubt that proportionality will be expected of it. With political experience in the commission, I hope that it will be able to use these powers with due proportionality and that there will be no sledgehammer, as the noble Lord, Lord Martin, and my noble friend Lord Tyler feared.
My only other point is in response to my noble friend Lord Tyler, who asked about the funding of political parties. This is a firm commitment in the coalition agreement. It was mentioned in the Queen’s Speech. I am tempted to say that the Government will move directly to the measure as soon as reform of the House of Lords has passed, but that might be seen as not the kind of commitment that the House is looking for. As my noble friend Lord Tyler said, noble Lords on all sides of the House know that in the previous Parliament we came very close to getting agreement on party funding. The coalition Government are committed to try again and we hope, as the Opposition are nodding vigorously, that if we initiate a new attempt to get agreement on party funding, we will succeed this time.
Lord Bach
I absolutely agree with everything that the noble Lord has said, but if he wants to know the reason why the talks on political funding failed—as Christopher Wren said when asked for what his monument would be—he should look around him. It is the people with whom he is in coalition who have prevented it happening.
Lord McNally
I would prefer to leave those matters to the historians. We are looking forward. The Committee on Standards in Public Life is making a report. The report to which my noble friend Lord Tyler referred is on my desk at the moment. I think that we have a really good chance of taking matters forward. As I have said before, all the major parties have at some time or other faced problems, embarrassments and difficulties because of our way of funding political parties. If we really apply ourselves early in this Parliament to the problem, we could and should find a solution.
I commend the order to the House. It will help the party activists. I finish by endorsing the comments made by my noble friend Lord Tyler and the noble Lords, Lord Martin and Lord Bach, who all have campaign medals as party activists. Nothing annoys me more during a general election than knocking on a door only to be told by some proud person that they never vote and that we are all in it for what we can get. We know that our democracy works because of the tens of thousands in every political party who are willing to do those hard, dull jobs such as sticking things through doors and knocking on the doors of perfect strangers to engage them in discussion. They are the people who make our democracy work. I pay tribute to them and hope that this order will make that voluntary work a little easier.
Divorce
Lord Bach Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bach
My Lords, it is not only this House that should be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for raising this subject today, but society in general. This debate is not just interesting, it is significant, because of where it stands in relation to a campaign for reform that now has the push and impetus to make it, in my view, unstoppable. The timing of this debate is crucial in seeing this forward.
I speak with the experience of having been legal aid Minister in the Ministry of Justice until five or six months ago, where obviously this issue, in one particular form, came across my desk many times. I was convinced by the time I left that post that there was need for reform, and considerable reform, of our system of divorce in this country. The latest available figures show that in the United Kingdom, more than 136,000 people were divorced in 2008. That is a declining number in percentage terms, but it always remains an inevitable emotional and financial impact for the individuals and families concerned. Deciding how to divide property and assets and settle the financial arrangements is and always has been one of the big challenges to our system of justice. Few can genuinely say that this system is working and is satisfactory in any real way.
I hope the House will forgive me if I return to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which sets out the principles that the court has to take into account when deciding in each individual case on the division of assets. These include, as many noble Lords will know better than I, whether there is a child; the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has; financial needs, obligations and responsibilities; the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown; the age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage; any physical or mental disability; the contribution each party made, including family welfare; the conduct of each party if it is inequitable to disregard it; and the value to each of the parties of any benefit, such as a pension, brought to the marriage which, by reason of dissolution, the party will lose the chance of acquiring.
These principles also help to guide decisions by parties for out-of-court settlements too. However—and it is a big however—the extent to which the principles are useful is affected hugely by the court’s overriding discretion under Section 25. Under this section, the court is required to take into account all surrounding circumstances of the case. Therefore, each case is dealt with on an individual basis according to the facts. Some may say that that is great, but the truth is that it leads to such uncertainty that people end up in court when really they should not.
Let us look at examples from overseas. In many comparable countries, the statutory starting point for dividing matrimonial property on divorce is 50:50. In New Zealand, for example, any departure from the 50:50 rule would apply only where there was, interestingly, an enforceable prenuptial agreement, if it was a marriage of very short duration or there were extraordinary circumstances. The New Zealand system recognises that a person may have separate property that is not subject to the sharing formula unless it merges and becomes matrimonial property such as a family home. In the United States, where each state seems to have its own system, there seems to be a general move towards a simple 50:50 split.
Many couples who get divorced in this country are able to agree on financial arrangements and simply apply to the court for a consent order to be granted. For others, financial arrangement decisions on divorce, as we have heard, are long, expensive and painful. This obviously has a damaging effect on family life in the future when there is a need for parties to stay in long-term contact where children are concerned. Children are often caught, as we have heard, in the middle, with a potential impact on their development and relationships with one or both parties. Allowing the court to have a broad discretion recognises that not all disputes are the same. I will quote, not in the original Russian but from a well known translation, the first lines of Anna Karenina:
“All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way”.
The current law has led us to a growing feeling that there is just too much uncertainty for parties who are attempting to create financial settlements on divorce. This takes an enormous emotional toll on parties, as well as being extraordinarily and unnecessarily expensive. The longer it stretches on without being settled, the more stressful it can become. The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, whom I praise for the frankness and honesty of her speech, gave good evidence of this. Of course, it then does more damage for the vital future.
We on these Benches are very interested in the Government’s plans for changes in this area of law. Do the Government plan to change the principles that guide the court and the parties in determining whether a financial settlement is fair and reasonable? To what extent would they retain courts’ discretion to take into account the individual—but not exceptional—circumstances of parties? How will they calculate a fair formula for maintenance payments where a party is young, with years of future earning potential; or older, following a joint marital decision for one party to forgo their career to care for the children of the relationship instead?
When we were in government we recognised the complexity of financial settlement on divorce. That why we initiated the fundamental review of the family justice system in January this year. We are delighted that the new Government decided to continue with that review and issued their call for evidence in June 2010. I invite the noble Lord, in responding to this debate, to give us what information he can about any preliminary findings from this review. I know it closed only on 30 September but any information that he can give us would be gratefully received.
An amicable divorce is indeed a rare thing. Often there are harsh words, and even deeds, between parties to a divorce, with negative outcomes. That is why the family review looked at the best methods for avoiding confrontational court hearings and encouraging the use of mediation to deliver fairer and less acrimonious settlements that place the needs and interests of children and the parties at the heart of the system.
We are proud of our system here as far as criminal law is concerned. It says that there should be two parties and they should fight it out in court. For criminal law there is a strong argument that that is a better system than systems elsewhere. However, in the sensitive field of family disputes, is it really to be argued that confrontations in court should be the rule, rather than the exception? Is it not much better to look at alternatives to confrontation in court? One of those alternatives is mediation, which has been around for a long time. However, there is—I have heard lawyers say this themselves—a belief that some lawyers in the industry have from time to time merely paid lip service to the option of mediation. In some ways, one cannot blame them because the incentive is to keep the case going. However, if you do that it is unfair to clients and other lawyers, the vast majority of whom make every effort to ensure that cases are not brought to court unnecessarily. I pay tribute to Resolution, a body with 5,500 members comprising solicitors and others committed to using non-adversarial processes with their clients, including mediation and collaborative law, as we have heard.
The question is whether and how we can enhance the use of these processes to improve the family law system. These are very difficult issues. I pay tribute to all those, whether litigators or advocates, who carry out family work. It is a very hard job, which is sometimes difficult and uncomfortable and, on the whole, they do it with enormous skill and probity, and not always for the greatest reward. We on this side of this House think that change must come. I very much hope and believe that the Government are of the same opinion. Our present system is not an option. It is not working satisfactorily for anybody in the system—parties, lawyers, courts or the state. However, change must be thorough, thought out, discussed and, we hope, agreed by consensus.
Human Rights: Spending Cuts
Lord Bach Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
I can only repeat what I have said; for all the decisions in all the departments, the departments are asked to look at how protection can best be given to the most vulnerable.
Lord Bach
Will the Minister ensure as best he can, given his strong support for the human rights agenda, which is appreciated, that his Government do not arbitrarily remove financial support from the institutions and bodies that protect human rights in this country? Further, would he confirm, as alleged in a recently published booklet, Common Sense: Reflections on the Human Rights Act, that at the post-coalition Liberal Democrat party meeting, a big meeting held in Birmingham on 16 May, he threatened to resign if the Human Rights Act was repealed by this Government?
Lord McNally
On the first part of that question, all the groups will have to see what happens in the public expenditure review. On the second part, I did say that if at the end of this Government’s term there was no Human Rights Act, there would be no Tom McNally—but I also suspect that if that were the case, there would be no William Hague either. We are both determined, as the Foreign Secretary said, that there will be no downgrading of human rights under this Government.
Crime: Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour Commission
Lord Bach Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
I share all the descriptions of the report that the noble Lord used. It has come at an extremely opportune moment. I cannot guarantee that every last recommendation will be in it but, as he said, it comes from a very good stable. I think that, in drawing up the Green Paper and carrying the debate forward, it will be reflected in many of the things that we want to say.
Lord Bach
My Lords, perhaps I may say from these Benches that we too welcome the report and we look forward to the Government’s response as soon as is possible. Does the Minister agree, first, that the decline in the number of children and young people in custody by around one-third, as the report mentions, is to be widely welcomed and, secondly, that in some cases, alas, custody even for those so young is necessary? Thirdly, will he assure us that the Government’s policy is, as the report suggests it ought to be, that custody should be a last resort?
Lord McNally
My Lords, I have no hesitation in endorsing those three points, in particular that the whole thrust of government policy—as I think that it was with the previous Administration—is to make custody for young people a last resort.
Prisons
Lord Bach Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bach
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Dubs. This has been a useful debate but he was right to say that it is much too short. However, it is important to discuss issues when we get the chance, even though there are honestly held different points of view, as there are on this issue.
The right honourable gentleman the Lord Chancellor said that his priorities are,
“to protect the public, punish offenders and provide access to justice”.
Given that speech, it seems to me that those who believe that prison should rarely be used as a form of punishment have become a little prematurely overexcited. To be fair to the Lord Chancellor, he is starting a discussion which has a long way to run, and even longer to go before legislation on sentencing and other measures is discussed in Parliament. Debate is a good thing, of course, but it is important—particularly for those who believe that he is going to satisfy their every wish—to read his whole speech and not just the parts of it that you want to read.
For our part, we think it is important to imprison serious offenders, but we also think that it is important to seek to rehabilitate them, whether inside or outside prison. We believe thoroughly in community sentences but they must be sentences that really mean something and, when breached, eventually invite custody. As the chairman of the Magistrates’ Association said in response to the Lord Chancellor’s speech, and indeed as the Prime Minister’s mother said—if she was rightly quoted by her son—from her experience as a magistrate of long standing, many shorter sentences are imposed on those who constantly breach the chances that they have been given. I am afraid that we cannot escape from that, however much we would like to do so. Indeed, one reason why the number of domestic violence offences has gone down is that domestic violence offenders now sometimes receive short sentences of imprisonment. No one thinks that there is no problem with short sentences—of course there is—but it is perhaps not quite as simple as some have made out, even in this debate.
When in government, we spent a huge amount of money on increasing learning in prison, on prisoner work and on dealing with drugs in prison, with an additional allocation to NHS primary care trusts for the total targeted implementation of the integrated drug treatment system. What will happen now if the PCTs are abolished? Outside prison, large amounts were successfully spent on dealing with youth offending so that, now that fewer young offenders enter the criminal justice system, there is a fall in reoffending and a smaller number of young offenders in custody than there were a few years ago. There is also the Corston report and the money that has been spent in implementing that. However, the spend on probation increased hugely by, in real terms, nearly 70 per cent between 1996-97 and 2007-08. It is sad to think that the budget, which we set of £870 million for the year 2010-11, has already been reduced by £20 million by the new Government. Goodness knows what is to come.
Therefore, although we make no apologies for our policy towards an increase in custody for those who deserve it, we point out the obvious: that non-custodial disposals are expensive, too, if they are to work. The Lord Chancellor was honest when he said that,
“I … cannot promise that we will be investing vast amounts of public money into non-custodial sentences across the country”.
My point is that prison is expensive—of course it is—but so are alternatives that also work.
I end by asking the Minister a couple of questions which I hope he will answer. First, does he agree that, as the figures make clear, there has been a substantial decrease in the level of crime over the past 15 years? My second question, which is linked, is: if the answer to my first question is yes, does he seriously believe that the decrease in the level of crime has nothing whatever to do with the fact that more people are in prison for longer? If that is the Government’s view, then many ordinary people who have been, but are no longer, the victims of crime will be horrified.
Defamation Bill [HL]
Lord Bach Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bach
My Lords, I shall begin what I intend, and what I am sure the House fervently desires, will be a fairly short contribution with a number of congratulations. I congratulate, first, our two maiden speakers today, my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town and the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, who both come to this House with high reputations. After their contributions today, we can all see why. We look forward to hearing much from them in the future. I congratulate also all those who have spoken in this debate, whether lawyers or non-lawyers. The fact that both have been importantly involved in this debate proves perhaps the point, if it needed proving, that the law of defamation affects all of us in society. Above all, congratulations are due to the noble Lord, Lord Lester. While there is clearly a consensus for reform, he has taken matters a step further and produced a serious and compelling legislative proposal in the form of the Bill before us today. For that, he deserves much more merely than the thanks and congratulations of this House; he deserves the congratulations and thanks of the country.
I commiserate with the noble Lord on being so near yet so far from being the Earl of Leicester. What a wonderful thing it would be to be Earl of what to some of us is God’s own city, but, distinguished as he is, he has not quite yet reached that high point.
I hope that it comes as no surprise that we on this side in favour of reform in this area of the law—it was specifically referred to in our recent manifesto. Therefore, it follows that we warmly welcome this Bill and its crucial role, as we see it, as instigator of legislative change—it is not the final word; the noble Lord, Lord Lester, made that absolutely plain. It is quite clear that the impetus for change has been growing and, when in government, we responded. The libel working group convened by my right honourable friend the previous Lord Chancellor produced a report alongside other significant reports and consultations such as Defamation and the Internet, the consultation entitled Controlling costs in defamation proceedings—about which I shall say a little more later—and, earlier this year, the Select Committee report from another place. All those have all strengthened the case for reform.
Some much publicised and shocking cases—the Singh case here comes to mind—have also been instrumental in bringing this campaign to the wider public’s attention. I praise the organisations Index on Censorship, Sense About Science and English PEN for their campaigning and influence.
As to the contents of the Bill, it would be foolish at this stage for any political party to commit itself in detail to a precise view on each clause. That is for a later time but, I hope, not too much later. I can say that, as a whole, the Bill strikes us as being sensible and practical in establishing a better balance between the right to personal reputation, so well argued for in this House today by my noble friend Lord Triesman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh among many others, and the right to free speech; in other words, the balance between Articles 8 and 10.
It is clear that the time has come for the scope of the defence of public interest, as ruled on in Reynolds and Jameel, to be set out in statute. The changes in both words and meaning to the defences of “fair comment” to “honest opinion” and “justification” to “truth” seem at first sight to be reasonable and workable. Similarly, the Clause 9 provision on responsibility for publication and the Clause 10 creation of a single publication rule with discretion for the court seem useful and important proposals. We will want to look closely at Clause 11 dealing with actions for defamation brought by corporate bodies, but the Australian experience and the noble Lord’s draft clause dealing with our own law looks more than interesting.
I listened with great care to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, had to say about Clauses 14 and 15 and the issue of trial by jury in defamation cases. We believe that on balance it is right to reverse the presumption very much for the reasons set out by the noble and learned Lord and in paragraph 151 of the Explanatory Notes. It is interesting and encouraging that that excellent organisation, Justice, agrees in principle. Of course, the interests of justice caveat is absolutely essential to that proposition.
A possible addition to the Bill arises out of a concern referred to already on a number of occasions in speeches today, raised by the organisation Mumsnet. It is concerned that the Bill as presently drafted does not provide explicit cover for hosts of third-party comments. I invite the noble Lord to consider that point, not necessarily today but as the Bill progresses.
There will obviously be a great deal of further discussion and debate before the final shape of the reforms is agreed. I do not think that anyone can argue that this is not a huge step forward. However, the Bill does not deal with—and it is not intended to deal with—what in the modern cliché could be described as the elephant in the room. That is the question of costs in defamation actions. I make no criticism of that at all, as this Bill is concerned with the substantive law and the position on costs does not need primary legislation to be changed. The briefing from the Libel Reform Campaign makes the point, already referred to by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, that fighting a libel case can cost 140 times the European average and can routinely cost £1 million. But the maximum 100 per cent success fee allowed under conditional fee agreements is just too high. Alongside the high legal costs anyway, we believe that this has had a harmful effect on freedom of expression and think that the 100 per cent figure should be lowered—and should be lowered now. The reply of the present Government to that proposition is that we should wait, perhaps until the Government legislate on Sir Rupert Jackson’s review of civil litigation costs, which has come up today. Sir Rupert has trenchant views on success fees generally, I think it is fair to say.
The Jackson report is a massive piece of work covering the whole civil law field. Given its length, importance and complexity, it was produced in a remarkably short period of time, and praise has been given to Sir Rupert for his work. However, with the greatest of respect to how government works—and I have a little experience of that—I do not believe that legislation will emerge for some considerable time yet. I would love to be proved wrong, but I fear that I will not be. It is not like waiting for Godot, who of course never came; waiting for Jackson will be rewarded eventually, I am sure—but not soon, and certainly not in the near future, and it is in the near future that we need change to the success fee regime in this field. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and other noble Lords, agree with that proposition. So I urge the Government to bring forward the necessary secondary legislation, as we did—and, I hope, with more success—as an interim though not the final solution to what is, as many noble Lords have said, a major problem.
Meanwhile, the Bill will of course pass its Second Reading and will then be subject to detailed consideration and discussion. We very much hope that that will be so. We wish it well and pledge to do our part in taking it forward. We look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.