Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Borrie Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, happily this is a relatively short matter and appropriately I shall be speaking to it.

The issue here is a change to the way in which shoplifting is to be dealt with. The thrust of the Government’s proposals is to make a summary-only offence of shop theft below £200. That would facilitate matters being disposed of without trial following a written guilty plea, with a fine then usually being imposed on an absent defendant. It might seem somewhat illogical for the Government to preserve the right to elect trial for somebody even on a charge for such a moderate amount, but they are absolutely right to do this.

The problem identified by members of the retail trade and the Magistrates’ Association in particular, and perhaps also by others, is that under the present system an on-the-spot fine can be given for a low-value shop theft if the penalty, which I believe at the moment is £80, is not paid within 21 days. Half of them, incidentally, are not. It then becomes a higher fine of £120 and the court system manages the collection. That is a reasonable way to approach first-time offenders. It should not, however, continue to be available for repeat offences. The penalty notice for disorder—we are into alphabetical descriptions again: the PND—is not an admission of guilt.

The police often caution offenders for shop theft—that does require an admission of guilt. It could be the next stage after a previous PND. A summons to court may follow after two previous incidences of shop theft. If the Government’s measures turn this into a kind of postal process only, there is the danger that repeat offenders will accumulate a succession of fines without really being stopped or deterred at all. The view of the Magistrates’ Association is that a great deal of shop theft goes undetected as it is, and some offenders detected under this process for the third time will have committed nearer to 30 offences. This is obviously not good for the trade. It is also probably not good for the offenders. Many of them have huge problems. They may be afflicted by homelessness and a consequent inability to claim benefits, or they may have problems of addiction to drugs or alcohol. Of course, those aspects will not be picked up on at all under this process. There is therefore a double risk, both to the trader and, indeed, very often to the offenders.

The purpose of the amendment is therefore to narrow the scope within which these new procedures can apply. The figure is one which simply triggers the debate. In the Commons, my honourable friend Mr David Hansen who moved the amendment did so with two figures, £100 and £40. It is irrelevant which figure one looks at, the question is whether the system as proposed will produce more problems rather than fewer for both traders and potentially for offenders, and whether—at the very least—a lower figure might limit that. I hope that the Minister will consider that area. I am not expecting a complete response tonight, but perhaps by the time we come to Report the Government could have had another look at this issue with a view to seeing whether some of these fears which have been expressed by those with an interest in the matter can be properly addressed. I beg to move.

[Lord Borrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment —I suppose because it comes from my Front Bench. However, I do not like the provision in the Bill at all. Shoplifting has been with us, as it were, for a long time. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is unprecedented for shoplifting to be singled out as a form of theft that should receive special attention. What is the gain to the public of that?

Shoplifting is of course prosecuted under the Theft Act 1968. When I was a young barrister prosecuting young shoplifters up and down Oxford Street, the notion was that very few people did other than plead guilty. They wanted to get it out of the way. They certainly did not want to go for trial and have to wait until a jury trial could be arranged. Therefore, they invariably preferred the summary trial. I would be surprised if that were any different today.

I see little point in this clause if it introduces for the first time special provision relating to one particular kind of theft. Why this kind of theft? Why not theft from one’s employer, or from one’s friends and neighbours? Why shoplifting, in particular? From my experience of years ago, I am afraid that the general public seem to think that shoplifting is not nearly as serious as real theft. It is something that most people engage in when they are young, or otherwise. However, to label this aspect “shoplifting” rather than theft in general, as the Government are doing, is perhaps to lend credence to the notion that shoplifting is not so important at all.

I suggest that the very least which could be done would be to adopt the amendment of my noble friend Lord Beecham. Really, however, the Government ought to withdraw the clause. Is the Bill not big enough, covering enough subjects, as it is, without dragging in something which has no relevance to any other part of the Bill?

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Borrie Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, like others, I have been aware of the paradox that some senior lawyers have commented on the complexity of immigration law, but that if those extraordinarily senior lawyers had attempted to give advice they would be committing a criminal offence.

I do not want to repeat all the powerful points made in this debate, but an obvious point to me is that so many of the not-for-profit organisations which are not approved to give advice in this field work on something less than a shoestring. We have seen some of them folding not so long ago. Those which are approved are very stretched. They may not survive if legal aid in this area does not remain available. I do not suppose that the financial criteria for being granted legal aid under any part of the scope will be that generous—one's means must be very low to qualify. Like the noble and learned Baroness, I very much welcome the announcement that victims of trafficking will be eligible to receive legal aid. I wait to see the detail on that.

I just wanted to make two points. First, not everyone who wants to stay either wants to or can apply for asylum—I recognise that that will remain in scope. Secondly, their very difficulty with immigration status restricts many trafficked victims from seeking help to escape from their traffickers. Their passports will have been taken away. To many of them, that amounts to their identity being taken away. That leaves such control with their traffickers that I find it a difficult notion that they will not be able to get advice under a legal aid scheme.

[Lord Borrie]

My Lords, if the House was today being given a choice between the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Bach, to bring within scope the immigration laws and advice that is needed by so many people to get through the impenetrable weight and mass of immigration law, and simplifying and reducing the impenetrability of immigration law, many of us might go for the second.

I remind your Lordships that many branches of administrative law—or what is nowadays called that—were created by the welfare state, post-Beveridge, after the end of World War II. The idea was that there would be a law which need not be dealt with by the courts but could be dealt with by a mix of lay men and lawyers in administrative tribunals. I recall that the TUC used to say: “No more law, no more lawyers”, when dealing with industrial injury and other matters which were to go to tribunals. Of course, we all know that during the past 50 or 60 years the law relating to the welfare state and immigration has increased. It has expanded. Many times during debates on this Bill in the past few weeks, mention has been made of the vast quantity of material contained within the 1,000 pages-plus of the law relating to welfare. Many lawyers know, as many of your Lordships have said this afternoon, that that is the case with immigration law. There is a mass of detail.

If I were given the choice between simplifying that and my noble friend’s amendment, I would probably prefer a scheme to start on the major task of simplification. We do not have that choice today. The choice today is how to deal with the present Bill. Whatever we may do as Parliament in due course, today and tomorrow, in the immediate future, there is a real need for people to have proper advice from authorised persons about the detail of immigration law. That can be done only if we agree to the amendment to enable relevant people to come within scope of legal advice and legal aid.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Borrie Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Borrie]

My Lords, I have a natural sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord. I was once, admittedly a long time ago, a member of the Parole Board, when it was fairly new. That was under the chairmanship of Lord Hunt of Llanfair Waterdine, who was in this House. He was sometimes known as Lord Hunt of Everest, for obvious reasons. I served on the Parole Board then and thought that it was a rather good body. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, was a fellow member. I have fond memories of it and thought it a good body with a good mix of experience of criminal law, criminals and criminology—in my case, apparently. It is bound to be even better today in terms of experience. I am glad that it has a central position under the amendment.

I have one query, rather on the same lines as that of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It is a question to the noble and learned Lord about the difference between duty and discretion, and who has what. I would also like to know the answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—as would he. My question is a slightly different twist on that. In the amendment there is a duty on the Secretary of State, and then if the matter goes to the Parole Board, the board has discretion. Surely, even among those who have spoken this afternoon who are most sympathetic to the long-term prisoner, we can all think of those who should never come out of prison under any circumstances. That is clearly known and pretty definite. I wonder why the amendment does not impose a discretion on the Secretary of State rather than a duty, on the basis that it will be a complete waste of time for the Parole Board to examine or review certain cases on which every report, indication and study from within the Prison Service shows that it would be quite unsafe at any time to allow the release of certain people given life sentences. I query the duty and discretion bit from a very different angle from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, but pursuing the same point. I certainly believe that most cases should have a review and that should be by the Parole Board. That would be excellent and I hope that the amendment will be carried.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I support my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd on this excellently moved amendment and pick up on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. He mentioned the impact on prison order. I will, as it were, personalise this. As Chief Inspector of Prisons I was always interested in how prisoners serving natural life sentences were managed. Without the word “hope”, which has appeared in the contributions of many noble Lords, those prisoners had nothing to look forward to. More importantly, the staff had—in theory—nothing to offer the prisoner.

Noble Lords may remember the name of Dennis Nilsen, who was awarded a natural life sentence for a series of perfectly dreadful crimes. Noble Lords may not know that one aspect of education denied to blind children is access to science textbooks because graphs cannot be read in Braille. One of the education officers in the prison, looking at Dennis Nilsen and his characteristics, reckoned that something there could be harnessed. Nilsen was taught to write in Braille. Then, over four years, he described graphs in a science textbook in a way that would be understood, and translated his descriptions into Braille. After four years, blind children had access to a science textbook, thanks to the activities of someone who, in theory, had been rejected by society. I talked with Nilsen and will not describe that. But I will never forget talking to the education officer who had had the wit to realise that there was something in Nilsen that could be harnessed to the public good. She used the word “hope”, which was present at the time, and said how essential it was that she had hope that something could be achieved. I was enormously disturbed when that hope was removed by the 2003 Act. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to respond to this amendment.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Borrie Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

No, I am not seeking to wind up the debate. I thought that it would be useful for me to say something now so that there would be something for the noble Lord to attack me on afterwards—and then I can attack him after that. No, I thought it would be useful at this stage to state where we are coming from because, as I say, I had a number of conversations with my noble friend Lord Newton. I had a meeting with him and my noble and learned friend Lord Howe and I took their concerns back to my colleagues.

However, I have to make it clear that the purpose of the Government today is to restate their intention to abolish the AJTC outright, using the powers in Clause 1. I also make it clear that the Government have no intention of merging the AJTC with the Civil Justice Council. There is no appetite within Government or the senior judiciary to add to the CJC to the Bill. I am pleased that following a Division in Committee, noble Lords agreed to the proposal to abolish the AJTC. I am conscious that what my noble friend Lord Newton has been trying to do—I still use the term noble friend, as I hope he will—is to give the Government some wriggle room on this matter. Sadly, as I have just explained, the Government do not want wriggle room on this matter but to abolish the AJTC.

The Government’s rationale for abolition has been made in both Houses and on a number of occasions. The Government are committed to this reform because the AJTC is an advisory body whose functions are either no longer required or, in the case of its policy functions, are more properly performed by the Government themselves. The abolition of the AJTC will have no direct impact on judicial independence or—

[Lord Borrie]

My Lords, an intervention by the Minister may well have been useful but he is using every sentence he now utters in opposition to any move of any kind. Does that mean that there is no point in any of us intervening further in this debate after he sits down?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Borrie]

My Lords, we have just heard a most helpful intervention from the noble and learned Lord because he has put the issue of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council into context. It is concerned with that part of the judicial scene that consists largely of tribunals—under one name or another—that seek to do justice as between the individual and the state. It is a field of judicial work that has become increasingly significant and understood by the public and the courts—because sometimes, through judicial review or appeal, the courts have had to hear cases that have been attended to first by tribunals.

During our earlier debates in this House, I proposed an amendment that was, I should say to the Minister, only narrowly lost. It would have deleted this body from the list of bodies in the Bill that were for the chop, as the noble and learned Lord put it. I was grateful then for the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, other noble and learned Lords in this House, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Newton. I do not know whether the noble Lord would agree with me, but one of the disadvantages of our debates on this subject is that the body is in the wrong place alphabetically. The trouble is that because its initial is A, it came at the beginning of a great list of bodies. Therefore, when seeking an amendment whereby this body would be deleted from the schedule of those bodies that were for the chop, we had to have a debate and vote fairly early on in our discussions. With respect to all those who took part, I do not think that the body received the justice it deserved to ensure its continued existence.

The noble Lord, Lord Newton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, have just emphasised the significance and importance of the AJTC and the fact that it should not be abolished because it provides an independent voice on matters which are of tremendous importance to this relatively new set of bodies—we are talking about 50 or 100 years but that is new in the law—which deal with disputes between the individual and the state.

There is a case to be made for independent advice from a body such as the AJTC, formerly known as the Council on Tribunals, which had a slightly narrower remit. Its significance was that there were practitioners of all kinds who were independent and represented the customer—the ordinary person appearing in these cases. Those practitioners included academic lawyers. I state an interest in that I once was such, but they provided useful input into the Council on Tribunals, in part because they knew something about the ways in which these cases were decided in other countries. Therefore, a knowledge of these matters and how other countries deal with them was brought to bear in the Council on Tribunals.

The noble Lord, Lord Newton, has stated very clearly that, while of course the assistance and guidance of civil servants in the department is invaluable and essential, useful advice can come from elsewhere, especially when it is given not by a narrow group but with each person representing him or herself on a whole range of interests concerning tribunals. Those people come together and discuss the vital maters affecting tribunals, and that will be lost if the AJTC is abolished.

The attempt by some of us to preserve this body in some form at an earlier stage was defeated, and I have perhaps been biased in my remarks as to how that came about. However, it would be of great service to the community and to the rule of law in this country if we took a step today through the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, to ask the Commons to look at the matter again.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, the policy of the law over the past few years has been to focus more attention on tribunals and to do so because they are quicker and cheaper than the courts and they often have expertise that judges, for all their qualities, do not have. Surely we should be very slow indeed to abolish the body which will help to ensure that this policy of the law is promoted efficiently, economically and in an independent manner.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Borrie Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Borrie]

My Lords, several participants in the course of this debate have referred to and quoted from the book by our late colleague Lord Bingham. If noble Lords will forgive one more quotation, he described the Legal Aid and Advice Act as one of the great but less celebrated achievements of the post-war Attlee Government. The noble Lords, Lord Pannick, Lord Goodhart, and others, made the point, following on from what Lord Bingham said, that legal aid is a service that the modern state owes to its citizens as a matter of principle. Lord Bingham went on to say that the closer a country comes to achieving the goal of expeditious and affordable dispute resolution, the better the rule of law is served. As several noble Lords, including the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, from these Benches, have already said, access to justice for all is essential to the rule of law.

These are powerful and persuasive sentiments. Because of the cost of legal aid—many noble Lords have rightly concentrated on this this afternoon—increasing, of course, in the 60-plus years that have passed since 1949, successive Governments and senior judges alike have promoted alternative remedies. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in particular has promoted alternative dispute resolution procedures such as arbitration, mediation, more informal tribunal hearings, and alternative methods of financing litigation in the courts through conditional fee arrangements. Some of these are not appropriate in all circumstances, and I do not think that anyone is suggesting that they are. However, as people have worked through those proposals and as some of them have been implemented, we have come to see their value but also their limitations.

This Government, like the previous Government—and I certainly have no objection to this at all—are trying to reduce the costs of civil litigation. Many participants in the debate this afternoon have indicated serious doubts about the detail of the Bill because it very specifically limits legal aid for the most vulnerable and impecunious in society, such as those in need of advice on social welfare. Many people in this House, this week, next week and so on, will be involved in the most tremendous upheaval in welfare rights, and many individuals who may or may not be on welfare at the moment will have somehow to see whether they are eligible under the new legislation that will be in force very soon.

Many provisions in this Bill are counterproductive, as has been indicated, sometimes with detailed figures such as those given by the former Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, and as Citizens Advice has pointed out as well. Judges have said many times that if applicants are unrepresented in the courts—and in the tribunals, which deal with so many welfare matters—they will be overwhelmed trying to cope with litigants in person. Trials that might have taken such and such a time will take much more time if litigants are not represented. The noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, made a special point about this.

A seemingly minor change is a promised requirement that applicants must use the telephone as the only method of communication. Several people have put it as a mandatory requirement. Yet it must be clear to many people that for those with mental health problems or linguistic problems, the telephone is a more difficult method of communication compared with others.

The only other matter that I wanted to mention briefly relates to criminal proceedings. I do not think that it has been mentioned today; it is the provision that bail should be granted to a defendant where,

“there is no real prospect”,

that the defendant will be sentenced to imprisonment at the conclusion of the proceedings. But of course, as many people realise, bail is normally determined at the beginning of proceedings, and at that stage it is guesswork rather than any rational, intelligent observation that determines whether the proceedings are likely to end with a term of imprisonment. I understand that the Sentencing Council has criticised the Government’s proposals, saying:

“it will not be clear until the conclusion of the trial … whether the offence … merits a custodial sentence”.

So what is the point of this in determining whether bail should be given?

Finally, again on the subject of bail, the Opposition in the other place made a powerful case for the prosecution to have the right of appeal against a court decision to grant bail to an accused person. Jonathan Vass was given bail in a rape case in 2009, despite the fact that he had a very violent past. While on bail he murdered a woman who had earlier filed a number of complaints of rape against him. I understand that the Director of Public Prosecutions endorsed the desirability of a change in the law through a statement made by Parliamentary Under-Secretary Mr Crispin Blunt, and that favourable comments were made by the Government a few weeks ago in favour of the prosecution having the right of appeal against the granting of bail. I will be interested both in what the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, will say shortly and in what the Minister will say in due course.

Supreme Court: President

Lord Borrie Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

Yes, my Lords. This is often called the “tipping point” criterion: whether, if there are two candidates of absolutely equal merit, the one from the black and ethnic community or the woman should be given the post. I go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that the aim should be to get the best person for the job. That is something that I believe in but, if there are two candidates of absolutely equal merit and one is a woman or from the black and ethnic minorities, you might take into account that they have had a greater struggle to reach that point of merit. That may come into your final conclusion.

[Lord Borrie]

May I question the Minister’s view that diversity has been sufficiently practised by the Government and is being pushed in the way in which it is being pushed in discussion in this House? The most recent appointments to the UK Supreme Court were of two men: one came up the usual route from the Court of Appeal and was promoted; the other has not had any full-time judicial experience but is a distinguished Queen’s Counsel. Those are the most recent appointments, yet, as the Minister himself said, there are several women members of the Court of Appeal. Are they being sidelined?

[Lord McNally]

I do not think one should take a snapshot of the last two appointments and say that means that there is no diversity. There will be four appointments to the Supreme Court in the next 24 months. Let us wait and see.

Industrial Tribunals: Fees

Lord Borrie Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I suspect that we will have discussions along these lines over a range of issues. I suspect that small charges for access to courts such as the tribunal service will not have a deterrent effect on meritorious cases. One small range of consultations suggested that there might be a small fall-off in applications with the introduction of fees. As part of the consultation that will take place in December, we hope to widen that impact assessment to make sure that we are going down the right road. Between 2001 and 2010, there was an 81 per cent increase in cases going to employment tribunals. There is a limit to what a free service at the taxpayers’ expense can bear.

[Lord Borrie]

My Lords, instead of charging workers for exercising their statutory rights to claim whatever it is that they want to claim for unfair dismissal, discrimination, et cetera, we should try to return to the position when employment and industrial tribunals started, replacing the courts to provide a more informal, less costly and simpler system to operate so that people would have the opportunity to put their case to a body that could deal with matters free of charge without incurring the sort of expense now being suggested.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I fully endorse the growl of approval from the Benches opposite but this is precisely the argument that we will have again and again in the weeks and months to come. The problem is that a system that started off as a non-confrontational, non-legal settlement of disputes has become peopled by m’learned friends at great expense. We are trying to move away from a legalistic approach to settling disputes to one that will settle more by arbitration, conciliation and mediation.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Borrie Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, now we are on Amendment 25 and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will be pleased that we have an opportunity to debate it. I am much relieved, as my notes for Amendment 22 had long since disappeared.

Government Amendment 25 would add the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission to Schedule 2 to the Bill, which, as noble Lords will remember, deals with mergers. The purpose of the amendment is to provide a vehicle through which to take forward a merger of these bodies, and it responds to a commitment made in our debate in Committee.

I should remind noble Lords that the Government are also minded to transfer most of the consumer enforcement functions and resources of the Office of Fair Trading to trading standards, and advice, information and education functions and resources to Citizens Advice. For that reason, the OFT will need to remain in Schedule 5 in order to facilitate the transfer of most of these functions prior to the expected order to merge. A number of points relating to the consumer landscape were raised by noble Lords in Committee and I am happy to answer questions that may occur in today’s debate.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked for more detail about the Government’s proposed consultation. I can inform him that the Government published their proposals for consultation to merge the competition functions of the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission and on other changes to the competition regime on 16 March. I do not know whether noble Lords have been able to obtain a copy, but it is a substantial document of 172 pages, covering the breadth of that particular aspect of government. The consultation will run for three months. The Government hope for as wide an engagement as possible, including holding seminars and specific meetings focused on specific issues. The Government intend to issue in May a further consultation document covering a model for the consumer landscape.

Growth matters now more than ever. Businesses—particularly SMEs—and consumers have been hit hard by the economic crisis. Reform is now important to create the right environment for business to create and enter new markets—reducing barriers to entry and encouraging rivalry between firms to promote lower prices and better quality products and services. There is longer-term potential for growth through benefits reaped from innovation that stems from greater competition in the market place.

Competition is the cornerstone of growth, innovation and consumer choice. The UK competition regime is regarded as one of the best in the world. But it can and should be even better. That means that we also need to have a strong regime to promote effective competition in markets. The Government believe that creating one, powerful Competition and Markets Authority would ensure a more dynamic and flexible use of competition tools and resource and a single advocate for competition in the UK and internationally and would end duplication for business.

The proposals in the consultation document include: creating a single, powerful advocate for competition to ensure a dynamic and flexible use of tools to promote strong and fair competition; increasing business confidence through faster decision-making, ending duplication and giving more predictability of competition processes and decisions; reducing barriers to entry by making it easier for the competition authority to tackle anti-competitive mergers and reforming anti-trust provisions to increase deterrence of anti-competitive and abusive behaviour; delivering faster results for consumers by shortening end-to-end studies and investigations into markets where lack of competition is giving consumers a raw deal; reducing the SME burden by introducing an exemption for small mergers from the merger control regime; and giving small business a voice in an extended super-complaints process to spotlight market features that harm small companies.

Those proposals are an excellent opportunity to strengthen and streamline the competition regime to deliver better outcomes for consumers and increase business confidence. The Government want to strengthen and improve the UK’s competition regime in order to promote growth, innovation and competition. The proposed merger of the OFT and the CC is about creating one, single competition authority that is dynamic and efficient and retains the best aspects of those bodies. The proposed transfer of the OFT’s consumer functions to organisations better placed to ensure enforcement against rogue traders and businesses and give consumers the advice that they need is important to ensure action can be taken at a local level. The Government are consulting on all these proposals. I beg to move.

[Lord Borrie]

It would be churlish of me not to welcome the 172-page document that has been issued. I have been one of those who has suggested that one common feature of the Public Bodies Bill is that whole lists of organisations covering every conceivable subject were inserted into schedules, in nearly all cases without any explanation as to why or how their functions would be replaced or where we were to go from here. It was a rushed job. Among the bodies listed when Schedule 7 existed—and I am glad that the Government have got rid of it—were the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission.

The Minister said several months ago when we first touched on this, at Second Reading and in Committee, that the intention was to merge those two bodies. Then it became clear that they were not being abolished but somehow brought together. I say “somehow” because it is only now, or 10 days ago, that we have had the 172 pages of explanation. Delighted though I am to see that document, it still raises the issue of how the Government still want by this amendment to insert the Competition Commission and the Office of Fair Trading into the schedule when they have not yet had the outcome of the consultation. In other words, the Government still want to determine the future and merger of these two bodies before they have received the answers to the question that the consultation paper very fairly raises of what the advantages or disadvantages would be of a merger.

It is not appropriate in this debate to raise large numbers of issues about that very lengthy document, and I hope there will be other occasions on which to do so. However, in relation to the Office of Fair Trading, which is to become part of the Competition and Markets Authority, a number of provisions in the first eight or 10 sections of the Enterprise Act 2002 list a whole lot of functions for the Office of Fair Trading—to promote consumer interest, to educate and inform consumers and to have various other functions. The Minister might say that some of those functions will go to Citizens Advice and some will go to trading standards offices. That might be so. However, as a debate on this Bill and the loss of the National Consumer Council indicated, the Minister explained that Citizens Advice would be adequately resourced to be able to substitute for what the NCC now does. The suggestion in the consultation paper to which the Minister now refers indicates that the consumer functions of the OFT are to disappear, as are the consumer functions of the National Consumer Council. Am I right in thinking that that is the result of bringing together the competition functions of the OFT and the Competition Commission?

Furthermore, how are the new bodies to function? I am interested to find that the consultation document seems to further the idea that has been working well for 40 or 60 years of a two-stage investigation. The main first investigation, the prosecutorial investigation, was done by the first government department, and then the OFT when it came into existence. The second stage investigation was of a more quasi-judicial type, with experts from different parts of business and the professions brought together in panels to determine individual cases. That range of expertise to be drawn upon by the Competition Commission has generally been thought of, internationally, as a very helpful procedure. As far as I read it—I hope that this is broadly correct—it is intended that the panel system should continue but it is suggested that more people should be full-time rather than part-time. I have generally thought that the very part-time nature of the Competition Commission’s panel members is their plus point, because on every day of the week except for one, or perhaps two, they are in their own business, profession or work and bring that in to inform their work as members of the Competition Commission when investigating cases.

I then noticed that it is intended that the actual employees—the economists, lawyers and civil servants within the Competition Commission—are to operate as teams not just at one stage or at the second stage but right the way through. That might be because there is a conflict in the mind of the Government. It might be to do with wanting to save money, which you do if only one team operates on the same case throughout instead of moving from one to another. Yet it also makes it more difficult, surely, for the second stage to be truly independent of the investigation. To make a rather crude analogy, you have the work of the court getting mixed up with the work of the investigators and the police.

I have those various doubts and questions, but then I, like everyone else who has it, has only just received the consultation paper. I think the noble Lord said that we have two or three months to go through it and give our answers but why, here and now in March when the consultation paper has only just gone out, are we as the House of Lords being asked to determine in this Bill that there shall be a merger of these two bodies?

[Baroness Kingsmill]

My Lords, I support much of what my noble friend Lord Borrie has just said. I have always been in favour of a merger of these two bodies and am pleased to see that the Government are thinking of bringing that about. I have received the consultation paper and I have not yet come to terms with all the points therein. This is a merger that, on the face of it, has a lot to commend it—as I said, I have always supported it—but I feel that the devil is in the detail and that there is much detail to be determined.

From what I have seen in the consultation paper, the one aspect that I regret is the separation of consumer protection from competition issues. When I was at the Competition Commission, our primary and overriding rule was the public interest. We felt constantly that we were protecting the interests of consumers. It is regrettable to separate out those consumer interests and consumer protection from the competition regime. While it is very good that it is proposed that the panel system should be retained, the balance between that panel of, if you like, independents and the professionals who are fully employed must be carefully regulated. I also agree that the part-time nature of the role is one thing that enables its independence and expertise to be maintained.

We also ought to be looking at the separation of the two roles or stages within the competition regime. The first stage is a sort of triage: how serious, how big and how important is this, and what are the main issues? It is important to have that first stage, and it is fundamental to the fairness of the whole procedure that, once that triage stage has happened, it should move on to another panel that looks at it afresh, having had the triage diagnosis to enable it to do so. From my point of view as an ex-regulator and as one who is now on the boards of many companies that have undergone and are undergoing competition investigations, business needs certainty and speedy results. We must ensure that the merged body produces both. If it does, as a result of the consultation document that emerges, that could be a very good thing.

I continue to have a number of questions about this and I think it is a shame that this merger should be regarded and looked at in the context of the Public Bodies Bill. It deserves a piece of legislation of its own and should not just be shovelled in with the consultation document, with such a short time to consider it. Having said that, it is, on the face of it, an appropriate merger.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Borrie]

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, on devising a way of trying to ensure some sort of future for the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council after my failure in Committee to secure a vote against abolition. I failed by nine votes despite the support of several Law Lords present on that occasion and of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. I remember that on one occasion when we debated this matter the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, stressed the very point just made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, on the significance of the work done by the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council for ordinary people in this country. Often that work is much more important for ordinary people than that done by the courts of our land. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, emphasised the tribunals to which the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has referred and added in employment tribunals. You could hardly have a more significant set of judicial bodies than employment tribunals when dealing with the troubles of ordinary people such as unfair dismissal cases.

The Government narrowly won the vote on this issue in Committee but in seeking to defend the Ministry of Justice from the queries that some of us had raised the only answer they could provide was that the relevant tasks could be carried out by the Ministry of Justice. Of course, the Ministry of Justice has a great deal to contribute on policy and other areas of administrative justice but it cannot replicate the advice and role of independent people from outside the department who have a range of experience. That experience can be tapped individually by the department; indeed, I think that the ministerial representative said that. However, if this council disappears, you will not get a group coming together and discussing among themselves the important issues of administrative justice. They will merely be seen individually by an appropriate department civil servant and we may or may not hear the results of that discussion. Therefore, I again congratulate the noble Lord on bringing forward the amendment and hope that he will press it to a vote.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

My Lords, since the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, does not seem to be tempted by his noble friend’s invitation I rise to respond on behalf of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Not surprisingly, we wholeheartedly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Newton. I take this opportunity to commend the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, for his powerful intervention and for the work that he did in relation to the Ely inquiry. The House will know that that was seminal to the material changes regarding mental health which came after it.

I invite the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to consider carefully whether he cannot accept the amendments spoken to so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Newton. As we heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, in regard to the previous substantive debate that we had on the Youth Justice Board, this is enabling legislation. Notwithstanding the fact that the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council can be abolished, there is nothing to stop Her Majesty’s Government thinking again. They are not bound to abolish it. If they want to abolish it, they should think carefully about how it can still be merged, used or modified in regard to other bodies. I invite the noble Lord to think again about this matter. If Parliament decides that there is to be no independent voice, it is very difficult to see how some of the challenges that have been so forcefully laid out by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, will be responded to.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, will know the position in relation to legal aid which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Newton. As the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council has recently said in its response to the Ministry of Justice consultation document Proposals for the Reform of Legal Aid, some material difficulties arise in this regard. Your Lordships will know that in its response the council opposed the proposed cuts to legal aid for administrative justice. It gave the example that welfare benefits legal aid costss £28.3 million in 2009-10, representing less than 0.18 per cent of the £16 billion value of benefits that are unclaimed every year. The success rate of legally aided clients in these areas is more than 90 per cent. The council believes that the Government bear responsibility for causing many of the appeals in the administrative justice system through poor decision-making, poor communication, delay and overly complex or incomprehensible rules. Not only will the legal aid cuts affect individual claimants, they will contribute to increasing work and delays in courts and tribunals that are already under pressure. How will such a challenge to the department that is also responsible for legal aid be made, made independently, and by whom? The value of an independent critical eye will remain present. Therefore, merging, modifying or otherwise dealing with this issue remains of critical importance.

I understand what has been said previously about the utility of the council’s work no longer being identified, but we have not had an answer to the question posed in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and again now, regarding how the department responsible for all these administrative issues will deal with issues such as these. The difficulty will remain. The challenges are likely to be much more honed, because the issues that administrative justice touches upon in its remit, in terms of everyday lives, become increasingly broad. I invite the Minister to consider very seriously indeed merging the council with another body, modifying the constitution arrangements under Schedule 3, or modifying the funding or transferring the functions—but not to expunge them in their entirety.

The noble Lord will know that acceding to these amendments would not oblige the Government to do all or any of those things. They would be given the power and opportunity to do so if they, in their inimitable wisdom, decided, on mature reflection, that the same was necessary.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Borrie Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Borrie]

My Lords, it has been a long time since we last discussed these matters in Committee. Perhaps I may be forgiven for forgetting that I had added my name to that of my noble friend Lord Whitty on one of the amendments that we are now considering—Amendment 85. Since I did so, I cannot see any great reason to be in favour of one amendment but not the others. I am particularly glad to see Amendment 113 in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty. Surely it is essential that the Minister, when making an order under these provisions, should give the reasoning behind the change of status—the transfer or modification—from one to another. Surely one wants a ministerial explanation.

I have, however, come to doubt—this is really a question to my noble friend Lord Whitty—the need for the first five of his amendments, including the one that he is moving. He asks that, in relation to orders to transfer the functions of one body to another, or to modify a body’s functions, the Minister should pay attention to Clause 8. However, Clause 8 itself says:

“In considering whether to make an order … the Minister must”—

I emphasise—

“have regard to the following objectives”,

which include efficiency, effectiveness and accountability. I do not disagree with the point just made by my noble friend Lady Hayter, but I ask the mover of the amendment to clarify why he wants to insert certain phrases that seem to indicate simply that the Minister must consider matters referred to in Clause 8, when that is what Clause 8 itself says.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I, too, hope that the Minister will welcome this group of amendments. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, they are helpful amendments, which do not seek to change, amend or delete any body or group of bodies listed under Schedules 1 to 6. The amendments simply require the Minister concerned to lay before both Houses of Parliament, for debate and approval, a report setting out the Government’s reasons for changing the status of any body or group of bodies listed in the schedules before making the order enabling that change in status to be implemented, with a few exceptions where primary legislation will still be needed. Orders can be only accepted or rejected but not amended, and the Government will seek to push them through considerably more rapidly and with considerably less debate than would apply had the change in status been made through primary legislation.

The amendments of my noble friend Lord Whitty will enable a somewhat fuller discussion to take place. They will also enable Members of both Houses, as well as the public and interested parties, to comment and express their support, opposition or reservations over what the Government propose for the body or group of bodies in question in a proper and open public debate before the Government make a final decision on whether to proceed with the order and its detailed provisions. Such a development would at least begin to address the democratic deficit that the Government are fostering through the absence of any pre-legislative scrutiny, followed by seeking to change or abolish by statutory instrument bodies with important roles, which were in many cases set up by Acts of Parliament.

There would also be another advantage in that it would enable the Government to reflect further on their proposals and intentions on which bodies, or groups of bodies, should have their role and status changed or abolished. It is already clear that this Bill was cobbled together in a great hurry, which is why there has been so much backtracking, albeit welcome backtracking. This has not happened because this is a listening and open Government but rather because this is a Government who seem to think that instant decision-making is the same thing as effective decision-making.

The requirement under these amendments for a report to be made to both Houses that would have to be debated and approved would encourage the Government to think carefully about the necessity and justification of what they are proposing, and would ensure that the implications have been properly thought through and addressed and that the proposals have been subject to challenge and scrutiny in a way that would never be achieved through the laying of a statutory instrument. A statutory instrument is not meant to be the way of implementing what in many cases will be significant change but rather constitutes the detailed implementation of a change which has already been the subject of properly parliamentary scrutiny and debate. That proper parliamentary scrutiny and debate is not happening under the terms of this sweeping Bill, with Ministers all too often simply hoping to get away with saying that the full case for what they are proposing, the implications of their proposals and how it is intended to implement the changes, as well as the details, will have to await the statutory instrument.

I am sure the Minister knows that the Bill has been rushed and is ill thought out and that proper, pre-legislative scrutiny, for a start, would have been beneficial to all concerned, not least to the Government themselves. The usual excuse for the rush—namely, to make quick savings to reflect the Government’s exaggerated claims about the financial situation—was not given because the Government are unable to provide costed figures on savings that might result from the Bill, or even costed figures showing that there will be any savings at all. I hope that the Minister will now accept these amendments and show that the Government’s repeated words about openness and transparency are not simply smooth and meaningless platitudes.

Crime: Murder

Lord Borrie Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Borrie]

My Lords, was the statement that the Minister made today approved by the right honourable Kenneth Clarke, who said, in the same week as the publication of the Green Paper indicating the view that the Minister has just given, that he did not think that mandatory life sentences were suitable except in the most serious cases and that they were quite inappropriate for mercy killings by a husband or wife of the other?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, over the past few months when these matters have been discussed, a number of views have been given—I have given some views myself—but the fact is that the collective view of the Government is that the time is not right to take forward such a substantial reform of our criminal law.