House of Lords: Working Practices

Lord McNally Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Filkin]

My Lords, the Leader of the House with his customary suaveness has shot the fox that a number of us were pursuing, in that we expected that we would have to spend some time arguing the case for a Leader’s Group with wide terms of reference. He has taken the wind out of our sails and I am delighted that he has done so. This must, of course, mean that our debate will finish that much sooner this evening, which will be a comfort to us all.

I will confine my remarks to two points: first, the working group on the scrutiny of primary legislation, which has been referred to previously; and, secondly, some points on governance. First, the cross-party group, of which I was pleased to act as convener or chair, set out a number of recommendations. I shall speak to the most important of those, which has been touched on briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar. It is essentially the argument that, before legislation enters this House, the Government should commit to ensuring that it is properly prepared and ready for this House. This, of course, causes no fear to the Leader of the House as his party, like mine, was never guilty of a sin in that direction, as I am sure he will concur. However, to be more serious, all parties sin in this respect at times. I think the paper is suggesting that, before legislation is introduced, the Government should have set out: the policy argument and evidence as to why they are legislating; the underlying policy objective that the legislation is part of a process of achieving; what they seek to achieve—in more specific terms, what success might look like and by when—and the processes by which they will achieve those objectives, of which legislation is of course only a small part in many cases.

The purpose of all that is not to be tedious and to employ civil servants, but to try to ensure that when this House is scrutinising legislation it does not just dive for the detail of clauses—which it must do, of course—but looks at the larger picture and actually holds the Government to account as to whether their policy objectives are clear and whether or not they are likely to achieve them. We spend little time in our legislative scrutiny processes on such an agenda, but we spend a lot of time repeating—as has been mentioned —the detailed, clause-by-clause element. We would be better served if the process I described were to be carried out. It is not that difficult. It would do for primary legislation essentially what the Merits Committee already does for secondary legislation. There should be a set of standards set by the Cabinet Office which the Government of the day say they would seek to fulfil, and the House should have a process looking at whether those standards are met, and make a report at Second Reading.

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

Is the noble Lord suggesting that that is a job for the existing Merits Committee or for a separate committee?

[Lord Filkin]

There could be a separate committee; the Merits Committee is quite busy enough already and its focus is different.

The process that I am talking about would logically apply only to legislation that started in the Lords, because it would be slightly strange for this House to say, “We have looked at this Bill. It does not seem to us to be ready for legislation”, when another place had spent a lot of time on it. That may be slightly self-denying, but it is almost common sense. We could hardly argue for reversing a process that was already under way. Therefore, the process would not apply to a lot of legislation, but it ought to apply to all Lords starters.

Let me say a few words about governance—the principle, not the detail. I hope that the argument that the House should review its own governance does not need making. I assume—and I hope that I am right, given the warm tones with which the Leader spoke—that the governance review will be part of the working group that he announced would be set up as a Leader’s Group.

Why we need to review our governance does not need labouring. We have not had a happy year or two and we do not have the confidence of the public. I will not provide statistics; there are plenty of statistics as to how this House is seen, and they are a disappointment and a point of regret for this House, because most of us believe that we generally do a good job. The challenge for the House is to ensure that we meet the high standards expected of a public body. That goes beyond whether we think that generally we are good chaps and do a good job, to whether the wider public think and understand that our governance is: transparent; comprehensible to them and us; instils confidence in them, or at least in the informed public; and is well able to prevent—or, if not, address— crises, because crises will occur in the future as they have done in the past.

Noble Lords can tell by my tone that I am not taking a view that all our governance is self-evidently flawed, but it needs to be reviewed and needs to be seen to be reviewed thoroughly and thoughtfully. That is even more important because, as has been mentioned by many speakers, we are a self-governing House. Self-governing institutions start with a problem, because most of the public believe that it is difficult to be judge and jury in your own court. It is difficult to convince the public that we keep separate our personal interests and the wider public-policy interests that the institution serves. I will not labour the point, but noble Lords can see why we might feel that we have a case to prove. I shall not go into grisly detail on that, but it is a fact that self-governing institutions have a harder case to make that they actually act in the public interest than have that public interest tinged at times by the interests of players. I make no sweeping accusation about the House, but that perception increases the challenge for us to be seen to carry out a proper review.

While we have had many reviews, I cannot see any evidence in recent times of a proper review of the governance arrangements of the House. Therefore, such a review would look at the governance of finance—because as a House we will be challenged on that—and at performance.

Finally, to have confidence that a review process was well done, it would be desirable for the Leader’s Group to ask someone independent from the House to cast an eye over what we have learnt about good governance standards from Cadbury, the Audit Commission and elsewhere, and bring back, without making it a long business, a short report to the Leader’s Group on what the process looked like from the point of view of an outsider of eminence and authority by comparing our governance standards against the standards that can be found in other public bodies and public companies. That would accelerate the discussions about governance and give confidence to those outside who had an open mind that we were treating this process seriously.

I thank the Leader again for his clear statement and thank all those on my group and others who worked to advance a little of the agenda that I am delighted we are now discussing seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, first, I am grateful for those final words—“the parties opposite”—because, as was said earlier, there is an attempt by the Opposition to make a very harmonious coalition into a single party. We are a coalition. The other point that came from the debate is now a hardy annual from the Benches opposite, about the harsh treatment of the Labour Party during Question Time. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will not let the facts get in the way of a good grievance.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I do not think that I said that at all. I paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for the even-handed way in which he helped the House come to a view on who should ask questions.

[Lord McNally]

I am very grateful. I hope that, from now on, when some people—I will not name them, but we know who they are—start shouting and screaming from those Benches, we can mention that, in the first week in June, the Labour Party had 42 per cent of questions, as against 19 per cent for the Conservatives and 16 per cent for the Liberal Democrats. In the second week, it was 48 per cent for the Labour Party—well done—21 per cent for the Conservatives and 13 per cent for the Liberal Democrats. In the third week, it was 40 per cent for Labour, 19 per cent for the Conservatives and 16 per cent for the Liberal Democrats. In the fourth week, it was 44 per cent for the Labour Party, 18 per cent for the Conservatives and 18 per cent for the Liberal Democrats. I hope that, as this Parliament settles down, we can get away from that Millwall supporters’ attitude.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

Is the noble Lord being indignant?

[Lord McNally]

No, I was just getting to the nice bit of my speech. I just thought that we could get something on the record, especially as there has been so much praise for the Library, which is busy producing statistics for both sides, as it should.

I welcome the assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the Opposition intend to play a constructive role. We share his approach that the test must be the overall effectiveness of this House. I will return to that. As to how the House will work in the circumstances of the coalition, again, we have to see how things go. It is a different circumstance, but there have been other times when this House has been effective before reform. If people go to the memoirs of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, they will find that she constantly complained about the defeats that the Government suffered in the House of Lords.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the noble Lord traded statistics with me. He has just to look at the scale of the defeats that the previous Government suffered. By my reckoning—again, I am grateful to the Library for these statistics—there were 526. During the Conservative Administration, the number of defeats was very much less.

[Lord McNally]

As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has just whispered in my ear, it is too early to tell what the pattern of this House will be. All that we know so far of the statistics is that the Labour Party has won 40 per cent of the votes and the Government have won 60 per cent.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the first vote was on a technical point on the Local Government Bill. The second vote that the Government lost was very late at night on an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, described as a meaningless vote.

[Lord McNally]

I know what the votes were. You know what the votes were. I am just giving you the statistics.

I close this debate as Deputy Leader of the House and a loyal No. 2 to my noble friend. I am pleased to say that we approach our task today with a complete unity of purpose. I am delighted that he has given such priority to the reform of working practices so early in this Parliament. I am also pleased that he has chosen to do so in a way which benefits from the groundwork prepared by his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. This debate and the announcement of the immediate setting-up of a Leader’s Group to look into the matter in the first few weeks of this Parliament means that the reform of working practices is more than a declaration of intent: it is work in progress. I am delighted to say that my noble friend has persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, a former chairman of the Constitution Committee, to be the chair of the Leader’s Group. He will lead it with the independence and rigour that it demands.

This has been a stimulating debate. Thanks to the customary enthusiasm that noble Lords have for this subject, nobody need fear that the Leader’s Group will be wanting for inspiration, advice or input. It is not my intention to set out the Government’s views on the suggestions that have been put forward by noble Lords—they are House matters for the Leader’s Group to reflect on—but I shall make brief mention of a few individual contributions. Many noble Lords paid tribute to the ad hoc working parties chaired by the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord Filkin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, which originated from the Lord Speaker’s work in this area. The Hansard report for this debate will provide an excellent first evidence paper to the Leader’s Group.

Looking back even over the past 18 months, we have made a number of advances in this House’s ability to scrutinise legislation and to hold the Government to account. We have adopted an additional set of arrangements for scrutinising fast-track legislation, based on the recommendations of the Constitution Committee, which should ensure that the House has at its disposal the information it needs to give proper consideration to such Bills and to the case for fast-tracking legislation. We have introduced a new procedure for scrutinising national policy statements, an innovation intended to enhance the House’s ability to scrutinise government policy formulated under the Planning Act. We have put in place a panoply of procedures for exercising the new powers that the House now wields in respect of European Union policy and legislation as a result of the Lisbon treaty and the entry into force of the European Union (Amendment) Act. We have conducted successful experiments with Question Time for Secretaries of State. They were successful, and have not been abandoned. We just, at the moment, do not have any Secretaries of State in this House—hope springs eternal, as they say. We also have a new approach to scrutinising Law Commission Bills, which I very much welcome. I could go on. My point is simply that we have been steadily adding to the armoury of tools at our disposal, and I am confident that the Leader’s Group will both refine existing practices and propose new ones.

[Lord Rooker]

I am not aware that the House debated or voted on any of the examples the Minister just gave. Something has been missing for change, and this is why we were advised not to go down the Procedure Committee route. No one is asking the Leader’s Group to put the whole agenda forward but, when it has considered issues, it should bring to the House not just recommendations about those issues that it agrees with, but other issues for the House to decide. We do not want to be told that the Leader’s Group has agreed all these things and to be asked whether we agree with them. What about the things it may not have agreed with? The House might have a view and therefore it must make the final decision about what goes on the agenda, not the Leader’s Group.

[Lord McNally]

This House is its own master. The Leader’s Group will report to it, and there will be full discussion and a full debate. I gave a list of procedures that have been put to—oh! I have been passed a note; I have always wondered what these notes said.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

You can never read them.

[Lord McNally]

It says here: “Did the House vote on these examples? Yes, it did”. It must have been when the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was not here. I could go on. My point is simply that we have been steadily adding to the armoury of tools and as we move forward we need to recognise that, although there is a considerable appetite for further reform to our practices and procedures in many parts of the House, notably among those who have contributed to today’s debate, others take a different view—and we have heard a few of those today.

There is little time left tonight, save to say that we will set up the Leader’s Group, which will have the widest of wide agendas. We will then see what it reports back to us. That will be a very exciting time. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, asked what we are here for. In my 15 years in this House, I have never had any doubt that I am a parliamentarian. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said that we are here as legislators. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that we are here to check the Executive. The noble Lord, Lord Luce, said that he used topical debates to influence government policy. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said that she goes about making a nuisance of herself. That combination is what we are here for, and we want the procedures to fulfil those roles. We do not need to agonise too much about this; the task is to find the working practices to facilitate that work.

Some themes have come through. It is interesting that about 10 speakers referred to a revised role of the Lord Speaker. I am sure that the Leader’s Group will look at that but, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and others have said, there are doubts about it. We have said before that powers to the Lord Speaker would be a slippery slope. Well, let the Leader’s Group look at that.

I have always been a great advocate of pre- and post-legislative scrutiny, and I hope that we can look at that very quickly.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, talked about Questions being a bear pit. I am not too sure about that. This is a Parliament, and I worry about what people who are invited to join a Parliament expect it to be. I also listened to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh. I know a place where people come in, read their speeches and go out. Has anyone seen the American Congress being televised? It looks like a funeral parlour most of the time. One of the things that I like about this place is the courtesy of people staying and listening to speeches. I know that Members harbour suspicions about my intentions for this House. I am even a bit suspicious of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, wanting us to get rid of the ermine. We wear it only once a year, and I think that we should keep some of the old courtesies and perhaps some of the old clothing. I have said once before, and got into terrible trouble when I did so, that if we start to look like Croydon Council we will be treated like Croydon Council. I had forgotten that there is a complete mafia of Croydon councillors in this House, who stopped me the next day and said “Oi!”. One of the constructive things about this place is that it retains those courtesies, which are part of its power.

The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked what our approach would be to trial and pilots, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. That is a very good suggestion, but it is a matter for the Leader’s Group, which I hope it will take on board.

I turn to other points that I can cover in the time left. The noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Filkin, referred to whether the Leader’s Group remit would extend to the governance arrangements of the House. The terms of reference will be widely drawn. The group will need to set priorities and will take its own decisions on what it wants to cover, but it is setting itself a big agenda.

A large number of noble Lords pointed out that we cannot consider our practices and procedures in isolation from those of the House of Commons. The House of Lords and the House of Commons keep their separation up to a point. We should learn from what they have done. There have been several good references to the work of the Wright committee. I do not think that we have been standing still even while the Wright committee has been working, but the Leader’s Group gives an impetus to what has been going on here. As a first step, my noble friend might talk to Sir George Young, the Leader of the House of Commons. I cannot remember who mentioned this point, but striking up a dialogue with the House of Commons is not always as easy as colleagues might think. However, knowing the two men I have just mentioned, some soft soundings might help in meshing what is going on at both ends of the building.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

It would be helpful to the House if my noble friend could give some indication of how long this might take. My noble friend Lord Goodlad is a serious man who I am sure will take this very seriously. But is there any chance of getting an interim report by, say, the end of the calendar year?

[Lord McNally]

Again, that would be both impudent of me and unfair to my noble friend Lord Goodlad and his group. From what has been said today, this will not be a speedy process. There is a big agenda and a lot to be considered. As has been said, the group will look for advice not only from within this Chamber but from bodies outside which have studied these matters.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, while clearly one must not rush into this, the fact is that a draft Bill for reform of your Lordships' House is expected by the end of the year. I really think that it would be right to ask the Leader’s Group to report before that.

[Lord McNally]

I will not commit myself to that. At the end of the year there will be a draft Bill which will itself go to legislative scrutiny. There is no rushing of fences on this. There is some serious work to be done. A very good agenda has been set up. A standing committee to look at practices and procedures may come out of—

[Lord Elton]

While my noble friend is on procedure, perhaps we may revert for a moment to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I presume that the Leader’s Group will produce a report, which will be put to the House with a Motion that it is approved and will be open to amendment. It will include an enormous number of proposals, which could well elicit a large number of amendments. I hope that my noble friend will take on board the need to have perhaps a special procedure or at least a substantial time for us to deal with it.

[Lord McNally]

I think so, but we should first look at the report. Certainly, we will not do what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, implied; namely, to say, “This is it: take it or leave it”. We hope that the committee will bring forward a range of suggestions which will be open to the House, but it will remain in this House’s power to decide what it wants out of that report.

As I said, this Hansard report will produce a good first working document for the group of the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad. Also, those such as the Hansard Society and other groups who take an interest in these matters will see an open invitation to submit their evidence, as will the parties and individual Members of the House. I hope that it may even consider the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Lucas and open up its workings to the new technologies so that we can get ideas through in that way. I also noted him saying that the Benches behind me should relearn the art of rebellion. I have to say that some of us never thought he had lost the knack for that.

I finish on a thought that comes from my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. He gave us a political warning, and it is one I can feel as a parliamentarian: do not think that you can smooth all the rough edges out of our parliamentary workings. If you smooth all the rough edges away, the House will stop doing its job. Sometimes it has to be awkward and uncomfortable, and indeed sometimes we have to stay late, to make it do its job. I have never wanted to see this House be a kind of rubber stamp for the Executive of the day. My noble friend has put this forward in the real spirit of his job, not as a government Minister but as the Leader of the House—in the spirit of looking after the interests of this House. In this debate he has combined the Churchillian order of “Action this day” with the Maoist invocation to let a thousand flowers bloom.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord McNally]

You didn’t know you’d done that, did you? My noble friend is now getting worried.

It is that combination of urgency and open-mindedness which gives us the best prospect for progress. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, and the Leader’s Group well, and I hope that it receives ideas and proposals from both inside and outside the House to help it in its deliberations.

Motion agreed.

Defamation Bill [HL]

Lord McNally Excerpts

Friday 9th July 2010 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, there were once two cows looking over a fence when a tanker passed by. On it was written, “Drink Co-op milk—pasteurised, sterilised, homogenised”. One cow turned to the other and said, “Makes you feel plumb inadequate, doesn’t it?”. [Laughter] That is something of my feeling today, following this debate that has had such a galaxy of talent and a plethora of learned noble Lords, all with their usual fluidity. I will make some effort to respond.

I was pleased by the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Bach. I, too, shared some interest in the thought of my noble friend Lord Lester as the Earl of Leicester. I sent out for clarification because I could not remember if he was one of the Virgin Queen’s friends who came to a sticky end. I am assured, however, that he did not and that he died peacefully, so at least my noble friend has that encouragement.

I acknowledge that the previous Government did a lot of groundwork in this field. We are building on that. I understand the noble Lord’s desire to examine some of the details of my noble friend’s proposal. I hope that I can make some suggestions on how we can do that.

Before that, I express my personal delight that both maiden speakers today are old friends. It was a delight to hear them both make such excellent speeches. It was interesting to find out from the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, how many of us have Fabian pasts—almost as interesting as hearing of some of the previous jousting of the legal profession. I say to the noble Baroness that when I set out in politics, my ambition was to one day be on the government Front Bench sitting next to an athlete. I admit that I did not think it would quite work out this way. That just shows that you never can tell.

The noble Lord, Lord Willis, was just as good as I knew he would be. He brought his amazing experience to the House, not least on science and technology issues. It was also a first for me: it was the first time that I heard a Yorkshireman say that he was modest. That is almost a contradiction in terms. My noble friend Lord Shutt is at this moment outing him as a Lancastrian. Is that true? Oh my God. Now I understand his modesty.

There have of course been ample and justified tributes to my noble friend Lord Lester. So many important pieces of legislation over the past 40 years—the Human Rights Act, the forced marriages Act, the Equality Act and so on—have had his fingerprints all over them. As a parliamentary reformer, he has a Wilberforce-like tenacity in pursuing the causes that he espouses. With his track record, the prospects of a defamation Bill reaching the statute book are high indeed. My noble friend rightly paid tribute to his colleague, Sir Brian Neill, and Heather Rogers QC, who have helped him in producing this formidable piece of work.

Today’s debate has been extremely interesting as part of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, termed the great debate between freedom of speech and the rights of the individual. Several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and many others, referred to this tug in the task ahead of us. I was pleased that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said that because of the tension between those two objectives, it was right that government and Parliament should now take the initiative in trying to get this balance right. A constructive process of reform usbis what he called for and what I hope we can respond to.

The noble and learned Lord also mentioned another theme that has come through—that of cost. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, referred to it as the elephant in the room. It has to be addressed. Again, many noble Lords referred to this. We are urgently assessing the recommendations from Lord Justice Jackson’s report. We will try to come forward with proposals as quickly as possible. I am not sure we will follow the suggestions which the previous Government tried to get through before the election. I am not sure that that is exactly the road that we will go down. However, the way that Lord Justice Jackson and the previous Government approached these matters clearly identified that this is a key issue in this area and one that we have to get right, even if their solution to how costs should be paid was not exactly the right one. It certainly did not receive favour before the election but we are considering it urgently.

I give the usual ministerial health warnings at the beginning of a response to a Second Reading of a Private Member’s Bill. The Government will not oppose giving the Bill a Second Reading. Indeed, we welcome its introduction. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has indicated, my department and I have already benefited from discussion with the noble Lord and his team on this matter. We will also benefit greatly from the quality and diversity of noble Lords’ contributions today. I used to say about the distinguished crop of QCs on the Liberal Democrat Benches that if I had to pay them, I could not afford them. That is doubly true of the wealth of experience made available to us today.

I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, however, that the Government should simply adopt the Bill. What I say later will, I hope, reassure him that that is not a way of avoiding action—quite the opposite. My hope is that having received his Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will give me and my advisers time to digest what has been said today. We will then embark on a wide range of consultations over the summer to take stock. When the House returns in the autumn, we will have made considerable progress on a draft government Bill, which we hope to publish early in the new year and make ready for pre-legislative scrutiny. As I say, this is not a vague promise of better things to come, but a firm commitment to action on this matter. Such a timetable would give us a strong case for making time in the 2011-12 legislative programme for a substantive Bill. Old parliamentary hands will know that even in that form of words, it is positively daring—certainly for a Minister of my rank—to suggest such a thing. I hope the noble Lord sees that as a sensible and speedy way forward.

We recognise the concerns that have been raised over recent months about the detrimental effects that the current law may be having on freedom of expression, particularly in relation to academic and scientific debate, the work of non-governmental organisations and investigative journalism; and the extent to which this jurisdiction has become a magnet for libel claims. These are all matters that have been covered in this debate. In reviewing the law, we want to focus on ensuring that freedom of speech and academic debate are protected and that a fair balance is struck between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation. We want to ensure that the right balance is achieved so that people who have been defamed are able to take action to protect their reputation where appropriate, but that free speech is not unjustifiably impeded. We believe that this will help to ensure that responsible journalism and academic and scientific debate are able to flourish, and that investigative journalism and the valuable work of non-governmental organisations are not unjustifiably hampered by actual or threatened libel proceedings.

I wish to respond briefly to specific points raised in the debate. The noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady McIntosh, referred to Mumsnet. Our law in this respect may have been developed to meet the needs of a past age. Noble Lords have referred to the internet and the convergence of media. When we conduct consultations over the summer we will want to talk to internet providers to explore their concerns. Mumsnet is welcome to express its concerns to us to explore how they can be met in legislation.

I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann. It was worth the entrance fee to see the jousting between him and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. At times, you could see going through the mind of the noble and learned Lord the thought, “If ever I got you before me, young man, I’d show you a thing or two”. However, it was interesting to hear the warning about what the American legislators are up to. I have asked my department to request the embassy to let us have its thoughts on that and what implications it has for us.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and others mentioned the super injunctions. The Master of the Rolls has a committee looking at their implications and we await its report. Interesting comments were made about libel tourism. Some think that it is much exaggerated while others consider that it is a real threat. We are aware that simply identifying cases does not present a full picture. We are worried about the so-called “chilling” effect and are keen to give careful consideration to ideas for improvements that could be made to address libel tourism, including those put forward in Clause 13 of this Bill.

I was very interested in the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. We are looking at a greater use of mediation not just here but in other areas of law. This should be developed further. It is well worth pursuing, and not just in this Bill. The Government should pursue it in other areas.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and others referred to companies suing for libel. As part of our review of defamation law, the Government are considering whether the ability of corporations to sue should be limited in any way. We recognise the important point that NGOs have raised about the problems that they are encountering due to the threats of libel proceedings by large corporations. Clause 11 gives us substantial food for thought and will be helpful in those considerations.

The noble Lords, Lord Triesman and Lord Bew, said that the public-interest defence might need further work. We agree. There is a case for codifying it, but we want to hear more opinions about how that can be done.

Although there is considerable thought that parliamentary privilege should be covered in the Bill, there are also concerns that we want to examine further, including with my noble friend Lord Lester.

The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, asked us to refer the Bill to the Law Commission. I am afraid that if I said yes, it would confirm all the worst fears of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that we would be engaging in delay. I am an admirer of the Law Commission and we will take any advice that we receive from it on this issue, but given the work that has been done by my noble friend Lord Lester and by the previous Administration, and given the amount of consultation that we want to consider over the summer, the way ahead that I have proposed is to move as quickly as possible to a full government draft Bill which can go into pre-legislative scrutiny with a possibility of legislation in the second Session of this Parliament. That matches the advice that we have received from a number of causes—not to rush our fences, but not to embark on endless delay. I think that we have got the right balance.

I was very interested in the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I know that her work has involved trying to get the Press Complaints Commission into shape. I welcome that. She will know that I am not the greatest admirer of the PCC. I have often said—and I said more than 10 years ago in a debate in this House—that the PCC does a good job in 98 per cent of its cases; in the 2 per cent of cases when the media see advantage, money and profile overtaking the code, the code goes out of the window. But by its deeds we will judge it. The noble Baroness has set herself a task of making self-regulation work, with public confidence, and I wish her well in that. When the owners of newspapers and journalists see entrapment and illegal activity as demeaning of their profession and damaging to the long-term interests of the media, we will all be in a good place.

The noble Baroness also threw up the challenge of the convergence of the media, which perhaps requires other parts of the media, outside the realms of the PCC, to consider coming under its code. This is certainly an interesting area that is not central to the Bill, but important to it.

Perhaps I may repeat that although the debate has to a certain extent been a lawyer fest, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out, it has also been of value that a number of either lapsed lawyers or noble Lords who have never been lawyers have participated and brought an extremely important dimension to this task. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, pointed out the dangers to academic, not just scientific, work. The contributions by my noble friends Lord Taverne and Lord Willis warned of the dangers to scientific commentary and the testing of scientific views. The noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter, Lady Young and Lady McIntosh, pointed out that the creative industries and the arts are influenced by this issue.

It is not possible for me today to indicate exactly what provisions will be included in the Government's promised draft Bill on defamation because of the ongoing consultations to which I referred. However, a number of areas have already been subject to much discussion and I confirm that we will give further consideration to them with a view to including provisions in the draft Bill. In particular, we recognise the strength of the calls that have been made for a statutory defence relating to the public interest and responsible journalism. This is a complex area of the law and we want to give further consideration to whether and how a statutory defence can be framed in a way that is beneficial and appropriate for a range of contexts. Clause 1 of the noble Lord’s Bill provides a very valuable starting point for those considerations.

We recognise also the criticism that English defamation law has received because of the perception that libel tourism has flourished. The approach adopted in the noble Lord’s Bill offers us helpful food for thought. The Bill also includes provisions relating to multiple publications in defamation proceedings. We recognise the concerns that have been expressed in the media and elsewhere about the difficulties that the multiple-publication rule, whereby each publication of defamatory material gives rise to a separate action subject to its own limitation period, causes in relation to online material. We will consider how best to frame a single-publication rule to remove the threat of open-ended liability that currently exists. Again, the Bill provides a very interesting approach.

In addition to the areas that I have mentioned, the noble Lord’s Bill represents an extremely valuable first step in identifying a range of issues in respect of which reform will be beneficial. In particular, the Bill takes in provisions on renaming and codifying the existing defences of justification and fair comment; on the basis on which an action for defamation can be brought; on the ability of corporations to bring defamation actions; on trial by jury—the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, was very interesting and gave further justification for why we need further consultation on this matter; on defamation in the context of internet publication; and on issues relating to absolute and qualified privilege, including parliamentary privilege. These are all important issues that merit further consideration in the context of the Government’s review.

Ensuring that the right balance is struck is a difficult and sensitive exercise. It raises very complex issues on which a wide range of differing views are likely to be held. We believe that it is important to ensure that the views of all interested parties are taken into account before we move further. As I have said, we therefore intend initially to conduct informal discussions with all interested parties to ensure that we can reach a fully informed assessment of the merits of reform in those areas, and on any other issues that may be of concern. In the mean time, we wish the noble Lord’s Bill to have a Second Reading, on the basis that we are listening to those who are enthusiastically in support of it and to those who have constructive criticisms. We recognise the considerable expertise in this area of the noble Lord and his advisers, and the extensive consideration that they have given to these issues, and we are keen to co-operate further in taking matters forward. Following the informal consultation with interested parties that I have outlined, I hope that I and my team will hold further discussions with the noble Lord, possibly immediately after we return after the Recess. I hope that on the basis of our firm intention to publish a draft Bill in the first Session and our commitment to take the matter forward on a co-operative and timely basis, the noble Lord will feel able not to pursue his Bill further at this time.

We have had a debate of much wisdom and wise advice. We are not rushing to legislate, but considering very carefully how to proceed. The way ahead that we have set out reflects the sense of urgency that has been present in this debate, but also has the right balance of caution that has been another underlying theme. I hope that the Bill gets its Second Reading and look forward to the noble Lord's response.

General Election: Voting Deadline

Lord McNally Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I have to declare an interest: I preside over certain premises in Surrey which hosted one of the voting stations at the last general election.

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

My Lords, the Electoral Commission’s report of 20 May suggested that just over 1,200 people were affected by problems with queues at the close of poll on 6 May. We are considering the report carefully and will take any appropriate steps necessary to prevent this situation happening again.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I am grateful to the Deputy Leader for that reply. Were the problems to which he has referred about the same in Scotland and Wales as they were in England?

[Lord McNally]

I am not aware of problems in Scotland or Wales—perhaps I shall be informed of some within a very short time—but the Electoral Commission did not mince its words about the problems where they did occur. It said that they were down to inadequate planning processes and contingency arrangements. However, I point out that 27 polling stations out of 40,000 and 1,200 voters out of more than 29 million were affected.

[Lord Rogan]

My Lords, following the electoral abuses experienced in Fermanagh and South Tyrone in 2001, changes to electoral rules and methodology—such as reducing the number of voters per ballot box from 900 to 500—were introduced in Northern Ireland. All those changes were much stricter than in the rest of the kingdom. Will the Government take cognizance of the vast experience of electoral practices that we have in Northern Ireland and consider introducing in the rest of the kingdom these higher standards that we have for Northern Ireland constituencies?

[Lord McNally]

Yes, we should study very carefully the lessons that have been learnt in Northern Ireland in this area.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, is the Minister not aware that thousands of votes were disqualified in the Scottish elections of 2007, due in large part to the confusion caused by holding two ballots on the same day? Will the Minister commit this Government to consult widely before going ahead with their plans to hold a referendum on the same day as the elections for the Scottish Parliament?

[Lord McNally]

I think that my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has already given the assurance that he will consult widely.

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton]

My Lords, do the Government realise that there has been no progress on disability access to polling stations since 2005, according to the Scope research that has just been published? What steps will the Government take to make sure that disabled people can vote in the next election and vote for reform in 2011?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I have not seen the Scope research, but I will certainly study it. It is very important that all sections of our community, with any measure of disability, should be able to vote. One thing that I know is being considered is electronic voting, which might be an alternative for people with disabilities. But I take the noble Baroness’s point: disabled people, just like anyone else, want to exercise their vote personally at a polling station. We will look into that.

[Lord Naseby]

Is my noble friend aware that I asked a similar Question on 14 June? Since that date, it has transpired that bonuses have been paid to the returning officers for a number of those polling districts. Is that not an extraordinary situation and one that should be reversed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

The matter of payment for returning officers in the last election is for the local authorities concerned. The Electoral Commission, in its report, called for it to be given greater control to make sure that returning officers do their jobs properly.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, is there not evidence that some local authorities are skimping on the funding that they are making available for the conduct of elections? In particular, polling officers in the individual stations are not being given sufficient training. That is causing real problems in the way that they then deal with issues that arise on election day.

[Lord McNally]

We will learn lessons from this and there are some hard lessons to learn. For example, some local authorities looked at the three previous elections for which they had responsibility, which all had much lower turnouts. As the Electoral Commission said, that was not proper contingency planning. There is no doubt that the photographs and television pictures that went round the world were very bad public relations for British democracy. We will do all in our power to make sure that it never happens again.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the timing of polling days should be based on the convenience of the voters rather than that of returning officers, many of whom are paid large bonuses for their work in general elections? Is he aware of the most recent survey of public opinion on this issue, conducted by ICM earlier this year, which showed by a margin of almost 3:1 that voters would prefer to be able to cast their votes at the weekend rather than on a weekday? Will he therefore begin a proper consultation on shifting polling day from the traditional Thursday to the weekend, when many more people could vote more conveniently?

[Lord McNally]

It is very interesting. When I was first briefed on this, I was told that the consultation showed a very balanced response on the question of weekend voting. Then I probed a little further and found, as my noble friend surmises, that most of the people against polling at weekends were returning officers and most of those wanting voting at weekends were voters. As part of the review that I am talking about, I want us to look again at weekend voting.

[Lord Strabolgi]

Is the Minister aware that a number of authorities cut down on the officials working in the polling stations for reasons of economy, thus preventing many electors from voting because the queues got longer and longer and moved more and more slowly? Will the Government ensure that this sort of petty economy is not used to deprive people of their vote?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, the expenditure on the general election in 2010 was £73.2 million compared with £47 million in 2005. Any local authority that claims that it was not funded enough to do its job is simply misleading the public. There was ample funding to do this job but in a very few places there was some very poor planning.

House of Lords: Reform

Lord McNally Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2010 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, instructions to parliamentary counsel will be drafted by officials in the usual manner, based on decisions made by the committee.

[Lord Campbell of Alloway]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response. The take note debate raised a question of due process relating to this Question, which, in effect, has not been answered. I am afraid that I cannot answer it; I did not set up the committee. I suspect that the only person in your Lordships’ House who can really answer it is my noble friend the Justice Minister. In the mean time, though, there is a problem about this process. There are two aspects.

[Lord Campbell of Alloway]

I am sorry. I will sit down.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, because, as the noble Lord said, the debate raised the issue of due process, I was very careful to make inquiries about whether it could be suggested that anything that was taking place was not being done with due process. I am advised that parliamentary counsel will draft the Bill, which the Government plan to publish before the end of the year, based on clear instructions provided by the departmental lawyers, and that this is normal practice.

[Lord Dubs]

Does the Minister agree that every Minister should be accountable to one House or the other in Parliament and that it is therefore an anomaly that the Minister without Portfolio in the Cabinet Office is apparently not answerable to anybody in either House? Will the Minister ensure, in feeding in to this process, that all Ministers are accountable?

[Lord McNally]

I cannot believe that that is not the case. Perhaps the noble Lord will write to me on it; otherwise, I will report what he suggests to the Cabinet Office. I think that I have seen most Ministers up for Questions. If the Minister is in another place, it is open to Members of another place—

[Lord Dubs]

It is this House.

[Lord McNally]

Ah, I know where we are now. Why does the noble Lord not try putting down a Question to her?

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

Can my noble friend give a little further advice on the status of the committee, which, although appointed by the Government, includes a representative of the Opposition? None the less, the Leader of the Opposition in this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, described it as a Cabinet committee. Does it have that authority and collective responsibility? Secondly, what steps will be taken to enable representations to be made to the committee that are germane to the work of the committee in the form of advice, given that the noble Baroness said to the House that the committee’s proceedings could not be made clear or transparent? Are we not all interested in helping constructively? If we are to help constructively, can we be given some greater indication of how we can do so?

[Lord McNally]

I am very much aware of just how constructive most of this House wants to be to the committee and I am grateful for that. It is not a Cabinet committee; it is a working group that is drawing up a draft Bill. The reason why the Opposition accepted the invitation to join the group is that, prior to the election, a great deal of the work had been done by a similar committee under the chairmanship of Mr Jack Straw. That committee left a good body of work for this group to get ahead in its work in drawing up a draft Bill.

[Lord Christopher]

My Lords, I understand that the Cabinet rules on legislation require an impact assessment and a cost-benefit analysis. Indeed, the Government were criticised only recently for not producing them. In the case of this government draft legislation, it seems ludicrous that the House should discuss something without knowing what the consequences will be.

[Lord McNally]

Those matters can be fully scrutinised by the pre-legislative scrutiny committee when it sees the draft Bill. I emphasise that this committee is working on a draft Bill, which will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, when there will be a lot of opportunities to look at both the impact and the cost.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, as I previously understood it—the Minister has made it much clearer to me now—the agenda and the minutes of the committee could not be made public because the committee was a Cabinet committee. The noble Lord has now told us that it is definitely not a Cabinet committee. Given that this Government have trumpeted their commitment to transparency and openness, on which the Deputy Prime Minister has been in the lead, why on earth cannot the agenda and the minutes be published? If the noble Lord tells me that they cannot be, what offence would be committed if, for example, I were to ask my noble friend the shadow Leader of the House to let me have a copy of them?

[Lord McNally]

I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition would honour what has been set out by the committee. This is a drafting committee and we are working with due speed to produce a draft, which will then give the opportunity for the real work that Lords reform requires. I think that the House is getting overexcited about this. We are receiving advice and written submissions and we are working hard to be able to give the House what I have described before as a bone for it to chew on. I think that that is the best way forward for Lords reform.

[Lord Jones of Birmingham]

My Lords—

Political and Constitutional Reform

Lord McNally Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2010 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows.

“Mr Speaker, every Member of this House was elected knowing that this Parliament must be unlike any other, that we have a unique duty to restore the trust in our political system that has been tested to its limits in recent times. If anything was clear at the general election, it was that more and more people have realised that our political system is broken and needs to be fixed. They want us to clean up politics; they want to be able to hold us properly to account. So the Government have set out an ambitious programme for political renewal, transferring power away from the Executive to empower Parliament and away from Parliament to empower people.

That programme includes: introducing a power of recall for MPs who are guilty of serious wrongdoing; tackling the influence of big money as we look again at party funding; taking forward long overdue reform of the other place; implementing the Wright Committee recommendations; taking steps to give people more power to shape parliamentary business; speeding up the implementation of individual voter registration; and increasing transparency in lobbying, including through a statutory register.

Today I am announcing the details of a number of major elements of the Government’s proposals for political reform. First, we are introducing legislation to fix parliamentary terms. The date of the next general election will be 7 May 2015. This is a hugely significant constitutional innovation. It is simply not right that a general election can be called according to a Prime Minister’s whims. This Prime Minister will be the first Prime Minister to give up that right.

I know that when the coalition agreement was published, there was some concern at these proposals. We have listened carefully to those concerns, and I can announce today that we will proceed in a Bill that will be introduced before the Summer Recess. First, traditional powers of no confidence will be put into law, and a vote of no confidence will still require only a simple majority. Secondly, if after that vote of no confidence a Government cannot be formed within 14 days, Parliament will be dissolved and a general election will be held. Let me be clear: these steps will strengthen Parliament’s power over the Executive. Thirdly, there will be an additional power for Parliament to vote for an early and immediate dissolution. We have decided that a majority of two-thirds will be needed to carry the vote, as opposed to the 55 per cent first suggested, as is the case in the Scottish Parliament. These changes will make it impossible for any Government to force a dissolution for their own purposes. These proposals should make it absolutely clear to the House that votes of no confidence and votes for early dissolution are entirely separate, and that we are putting in place safeguards against a lame-duck Government being left in limbo if the House passes a vote of no confidence but does not vote for early dissolution.

I am also announcing today the details of the Government's proposals for a referendum on the alternative vote system and for a review of constituency boundaries to create fewer and more equally sized constituencies, cutting the cost of politics and reducing the number of MPs from the 650 that we have today to a House of 600 MPs.

Together, these proposals help correct the deep unfairness in the way that we hold elections in this country. Under the current set-up, votes count more in some parts of the country than in others, and millions of people feel that their votes do not count at all. Elections are won and lost in a small minority of seats. We have a fractured democracy where some people’s votes count and others’ do not, where some people are listened to and others are ignored.

By equalising the size of constituencies, we ensure that people’s votes carry the same weight no matter where they live. Only months ago, the electorate of Islington North stood at 66,472, while 10 miles away, in East Ham, the figure was 87,809. In effect, that means that a person voting in East Ham has a vote that is worth much less than a vote in Islington North. That cannot be right. These imbalances are found right across the United Kingdom.

Reducing the number of MPs allows us to bring our oversized House of Commons into line with legislatures across the world. The House of Commons is the largest directly elected Chamber in the European Union, and is half as big again as the US House of Representatives. It was never intended that the overall size of the House should keep rising, yet that is precisely the effect of the current legislation—the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. Capping the number of MPs corrects that, and saves money too. Fifty fewer MPs would save £12 million a year on pay, pensions and allowances.

On the referendum, by giving people a choice over their electoral system, we give that system a new legitimacy. Surely when dissatisfaction with politics is so great, one of our first acts must be to give people their own say over something as fundamental as how they elect their MPs. The question will be simple—asking people whether they want to adopt the alternative vote, yes or no. The precise wording will be tested by the Electoral Commission.

As for the date of the referendum, in making that decision we have been driven by three key considerations: that all parties fought the general election on an absolute pledge to move fast to fix our political system so we must get on and do that without delay; that it is important to avoid asking people to keep traipsing to the ballot box; and, finally, that in these straitened times we must keep costs as low as possible.

That is why the Prime Minister and I have decided that the referendum will be held on 5 May 2011, the same day as the elections to the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and local elections in England. That will save an estimated £17 million. I know that some honourable Members have concerns over that date, but I believe that people will be able to distinguish between the different issues on which they will be asked to vote on the same day.

Our Bill will make explicit provision for the boundary commissions to report on more equally sized constituencies for the process to be completed by the end of 2013, allowing enough time for candidates to be selected ahead of the 2015 election, and we will ensure that the boundary commissions have what they need to do that. That means that, in the event of a vote in favour of AV, the 2015 election will be held on the new system, and according to new boundaries. Let me be clear: these are complementary changes—the outcome of the referendum is put in place as the new boundaries are put in place.

The Bill will require the boundary commissions to set new constituencies within 5 per cent of a target quota of registered electors, with just two exceptions: Orkney and Shetland, and the Western Isles, uniquely placed given their locations. We have listened, also, to those who have very large constituencies—so the Bill will provide that no constituency will be larger than the size of the largest one now. We intend that, in the future, boundary reviews will be more frequent to ensure that constituencies continue to meet the requirements we will set out in our Bill.

I understand that this announcement will raise questions on all sides of this House, for these are profound changes. But let me just say this: yes, there are technical issues that will need to be scrutinised and approached with care as these Bills pass through Parliament. But ensuring that elections are as fair and democratic as possible is a matter of principle above all else. These are big, fundamental reforms we are proposing, but we are all duty bound to respond to public demand for political reform. That is how we restore people’s faith in their politics once again. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, on that last point, I would expect no other. Yes, it is the job of the Official Opposition, and indeed of both Houses of Parliament, to scrutinise carefully any constitutional change, and there is nothing in what the noble Baroness said that I could disagree with. Nor would I disagree with the fact that, given the experience and collective wisdom of this House, when the legislation comes forward it should again have proper scrutiny in this House, as it will, as a constitutional Bill, on the Floor of the other place.

It is always good fun to find U-turns. If you do not U-turn then you are arrogant, you do not listen and you are pushing ahead, but if you consult, listen to advice and make changes then you have done a U-turn. What I look at is the end result, and here the end result is far more sensible and should be far more acceptable to the House than the original proposition. Two-thirds is belt and braces against the Government breaking the fixed Parliament, and as such it should be welcomed. The endorsement of the straight majority being the requisite for a vote of no confidence should, again, be welcome.

On the question of “outrageously arbitrary”, “gerrymandering” and so on, one expects the Opposition to get a little excited and start using colourful and florid language. As most colleagues know, what was wrong with our system was that it was becoming increasingly distorted: in 1951, 98 per cent voted either Labour or Conservative, so the system reflected the view of the country to a general degree, but in 2005, 36 per cent of the vote delivered a majority of 66 per cent in the House of Commons. Giving absolute power on a grotesque minority of the vote is arbitrary and unacceptable, so it is right that we should look at equal constituency sizes. As my right honourable friend pointed out to Mr Straw in the other place, equal constituency size was in fact one of the initial demands of the Chartists in the 1840s, and if it was good enough for the Chartists, it is good enough for me.

[Noble Lords]

Annual Parliaments!

[Lord McNally]

The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, is showing off his history again.

These missing 3.5 million citizens are a concern, and it is a concern that many of them can be identified as young people, people from ethnic minorities and the very poor. The reason why they are not registered is a matter that we all have to address, and I fully agree that there has to be more of an effort to get them on to the register. On the other hand, if you have between 92 percent and 93 per cent of your electorate registered, with all the churn that goes on, that is not a bad record for a functioning democracy.

What is more unacceptable is the idea of holding elections on Boundary Commission boundaries that, by the time the election is held, are over 10 years old. That is how you get your elections out of kilter. However, I take the noble Baroness’s point. We will certainly make every effort to get people registered and involved in our political system. One of the good things about this exercise is that nobody has suggested that our Boundary Commission has been anything other than absolutely above reproach in the way in which it has carried out its work, except that it has been extraordinarily slow in doing that work. We will talk with the Electoral Commission and the Boundary Commission to see what resources they need to do a better job quickly.

Whether or not AV is a “miserable little compromise” is a matter of judgment, but it is interesting that the party opposite opted for AV for the very good reason that it retains the link with the single constituency. I see the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, nodding in agreement. I find one of the refreshing and enlivening things about coalition is that, after you have fought an election with firm vigour, you sit down with your coalition partners and you manage to convince them about a referendum on voting reform, while they manage to convince you that AV would be the best solution to put to the country. That is the kind of healthy give and take—

[Lord Davies of Coity]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally]

No, sit down. We have 20 minutes. So eager are the Opposition to start asking me further questions that I will just say that I think that I have covered most of the points that the noble Baroness raised and I look forward to questions from the Back Benches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

My noble friend makes a very interesting point, which I suspect that the draft Bill will cover. We have to find the right balance between the Boundary Commission doing a proper and thorough job and not getting bogged down in the way that my noble friend describes.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton]

Given the Government’s new-found enthusiasm for a two-thirds threshold for a Dissolution of Parliament, will there be a threshold in the referendum? Will two-thirds of the country have to vote yes in the referendum? Will there be a threshold in the turnout of the electorate before the referendum has any validity?

[Lord McNally]

No. If the noble Baroness wants me to show her the scars, I will tell her about the first Scottish referendum.

[Noble Lords]

My Lords—

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

My Lords, what is most notable about my noble friend’s presentation is that in the last paragraph he emphasises that these are profound changes—“big, fundamental reforms” which will require immense and careful scrutiny. Does it begin to make sense for the whole range of solutions to these wide-ranging problems to be presented in this way at this time? Is he aware that the first book I reviewed, for the South Wales Evening Post, was written by Christopher Hollis and had as its title the question Can Parliament Survive? That was 60 years ago. The book was full of anxieties and propositions. Parliament has, on the whole, until the last decade survived pretty well. In the earlier 50 years it would not have dreamt of approaching problems as large as this with solutions as great as this. It would surely have committed them to a Speaker’s Conference, a royal commission or both, and done it step by step. To address this situation of total disillusion, as my noble friend describes it, with a torrent of ill considered change of almost everything is surely the last thing people want at this time.

[Lord McNally]

That speech has been made in this House and the other place many times over the last 200 years, though not by me. I have always taken the view that constitutional reforms are carried through by Governments that believe in them and put them with vigour to both Houses. My noble and learned friend gives the recipe for inaction that we have always had—Speaker’s Conferences, royal commissions and inaction. This is a radical programme to deal with a problem that we are all aware of. I was a member of the Maclennan committee before the 1997 election. I remember our high hopes that the incoming Labour Government would move forward. Unfortunately, after three or four years they completely ran out of stem on steam on constitutional reform.

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, does the Minister recollect that, about a fortnight ago, in reply to my intervention in a Question on the reduction of the number of seats in the House of Commons, he said that the justification for that was devolution in relation to Scotland and Wales? Today’s Statement makes no reference to devolution—only to the saving of £12 million per annum. Which is it? Will it be the case, as far as the reduction is concerned, that it will be pro rata over the whole of the United Kingdom, with no specific culling on the basis of devolution for Wales or Scotland?

[Lord McNally]

There is no specific culling on the basis of Welsh or Scottish devolution. There is an aim, as far as possible, to get the same size of constituency. Saving money and moving forward with devolution are not mutually exclusive. We have already pledged that we will move forward with the referendum on more powers for the Welsh Assembly—something that the Government are committed to and which is part of this broader pattern of political reform.

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I ask a question that will be on the minds of elected Members of the House of Commons. The noble Lord referred to 5 per cent of the target quota of registered electors. What is that number per constituency on the basis of calculations which have already been done in the Minister’s department?

[Lord McNally]

I think the figure is about 80,000. I am not sure whether I am going beyond my brief in telling the noble Lord that, but it does not take a great deal of high mathematics to work out that 600 into the electorate is about 80,000.

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, from this side of the coalition I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for repeating the Statement on political and constitutional reform. Coming so soon after the reform of the criminal justice system announced last week, this is most welcome and the Government ought to be congratulated on it. Does the Minister accept that the previous election, fought on the first past the post system, did not deliver a strong, stable or decisive Government—so much for that system? Some in government have indicated that they do not wish to play an active role in the referendum campaign. What is being done to encourage them to participate? The referendum and the involvement of political parties will have resource implications. What discussions are being held with the Electoral Commission and others to ensure that funds are available for that campaign? Will the Minister encourage the media to take an active role similar to that adopted in the leadership debates so that the electorate are better informed about the new system being proposed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

I thank my noble friend for those comments. It is clear that a referendum will involve a yes and a no campaign with a cap on the expenditure on either side but with some public funding available to help both sides. That will become clear following the discussions we are having with the Electoral Commission to ensure that the referendum can be conducted properly and with the involvement that my noble friend talked about.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

When precisely will the Government speed up registration? What action will they take between now and the referendum, or can we expect 3.5 million people not to vote in the referendum because they are not registered? Will the Minister consider the suggestion made recently to him by his Back-Bench noble friend Lord Goodlad as regards adopting the good and well tried practice in many countries, particularly Australia, where there is compulsory registration of individuals? Are the Government considering that; if not, why not?

[Lord McNally]

We are not considering compulsory voting. The note of indignation about the missing 3.5 million comes a bit rum from a Government who tolerated it all through their period in office. However, I do not blame them. Suddenly the Labour Party has become indignant about the missing 3.5 million. I believe that in a voluntary system it is almost impossible to get 100 per cent registration. Then there is the problem to which I referred of a low turnout among the very poor, ethnic minorities and the very young. Those problems face all political parties when seeking to engage those groups in our political process.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

[Lord Higgins]

We have heard various cost estimates, but not one for the redistribution of the boundaries under the Boundary Commission. What is that cost estimate? I do not share the noble Lord’s view on the Boundary Commission. In a public inquiry in my former constituency of Worthing all the political parties and everyone were agreed on what the right answer was. After the matter had been concluded, the Boundary Commission, without warning, came up with a totally different solution. Should there not be an appeals procedure, at least in extreme cases where the answer seems to be wrong?

[Lord McNally]

We will have to see what the proposals are in the Bill to meet the objective of streamlining the work of the Boundary Commission. I think that any reasonable person would say that is needed if its work is to be relevant to elections. I repeat that a gap of 10 years between the commission doing its work and the holding of an election renders that work absurd. It is very difficult to respond on individual constituency issues and to give at the moment a precise response on costing. All those will come forward in due course and in proper time.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Because it’s useless.

[Lord McNally]

I have just heard a major flaw in AV plus; the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was elected to the Scottish Parliament on it. The Government of the day have a duty to put forward a proposal for Parliament to consider a referendum on AV plus—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord McNally]

I am sorry, I meant AV. It is for Parliament to scrutinise and Parliament will decide.

[Lord Pannick]

Can the Deputy Leader clarify what is the purpose of legislating to allow for a dissolution of Parliament on a two-thirds vote of the Members of the other place? Her Majesty’s Opposition will of course seek to persuade that House, on a 50 per cent vote, to pass a vote of no confidence. This matter was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, but the noble Lord gave no answer.

[Lord McNally]

The point is that once we have got to a system of fixed-term Parliaments, to prevent the Government of the day engineering an early dissolution for their own short-term political advantage, they would therefore need a two-thirds majority—something that no Government in the UK have had since the war. As I said in my opening response to the noble Baroness, it is belt and braces against what we are trying to get away from. We are trying to move to the stability of a fixed-term Parliament and away from Governments of the day using early elections for short-term advantage.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

My Lords, given the profundity of the constitutional changes that will be incorporated in this Bill, can my noble friend give an undertaking that in no circumstances would the Parliament Act be invoked in order to secure its passage?

[Lord McNally]

I do not think that we go into things like that at this stage.

[Noble Lords]

Oh! Shame!

[Lord McNally]

We put forward proposals for the very good reason that we think they are very sensible, and we assume that both Houses of Parliament will endorse them.

[Lord Davies of Coity]

My Lords, with regard to the referendum on the alternative vote, can the Minister answer this simple question? We understand that both parties that make up the coalition Government will campaign in opposite directions. If that is the case, what impact will that have on the electorate?

[Lord McNally]

I have no idea. However, I am sure that, as with previous referenda, we will have people of good will taking honest opinions about voting yes or no and campaigning on them—and may the best side win.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the estimates that have been made of the party-political consequences of this reducing and equalising measure suggest that it may make a difference of only seven or eight, or 12 or 13, seats; and therefore that much heat has been generated needlessly about this proposal?

[Lord McNally]

I am quite sure that the psephologists and slide-rule merchants in all parties and on television will be making calculations. We are putting this forward because it makes our system of elections fairer, and that is what people want.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, I do not want to be unkind to the Deputy Leader of the House, but his answers seem to have been a combination of, “You would say that, wouldn’t you?” to the Opposition, and, “I have heard that argument before” to members of his coalition; and it seems that he cannot say whether the Parliament Act would be used. I will ask a straightforward question: what will happen to the coalition if the referendum on an AV system is lost?

[Lord McNally]

Usually, people who say that they do not want to be unkind mean that they want to be unkind. I assure the noble Baroness that if the referendum is lost, the coalition will move on with its programme of government towards the election in May 2015. What has not got across to the other side is that we are into a new system of politics that provides better governance.

[Lord Goodlad]

My Lords, will my noble friend arrange for an early debate on the Select Committee on the Constitution’s recent report on referendums, in the light of the difference of views that have been expressed around the House and of the topicality of the subject?

[Lord McNally]

That is a matter for the usual channels.

[Lord Myners]

The Minister explained the reduction in the size of the other place by reference to the size of Chambers elsewhere in the world, and to cost. Will he explain why the Government are increasing the membership of this House?

[Lord McNally]

It is a period of transition—I nearly said “ambition”. Once the radical reforms for this place are through, this House, too, will come down in size.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I know that this subject interests all parts of the House, but we have now spent 20 minutes on it. Normally, we would go on to the next Statement, which is on education. However, since it has not yet started in another place, we will continue with the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, is the next person on the list of speakers. It has been drawn to my attention that he has now arrived, which is very good news for the whole House and no doubt for the nation, which will be waiting to hear what he has to say.

Political Parties: Funding

Lord McNally Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proposals they have to reform party funding and to limit donations to political parties.

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

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister indicated during the debate on the Address that the Government will pursue an agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding to remove big money from politics. The approach to party funding is being worked up as part of the overall programme of reforms and an announcement will be made in due course.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for repeating what the Deputy Prime Minister said. I wonder whether my noble friend recalls a question that was posed in this Chamber:

“Is it not time for all parties to return to Sir Hayden Phillips’s report on party funding and put in place a tight cap, some firm regulations and an Electoral Commission with teeth to enforce them?”—[Official Report, 5/12/07; col. 1700.]

The questioner was my noble friend. Can he now tell us what the timetable is? Is it not important that progress should be made as quickly as possible in the early part of this Parliament, rather than leaving it to the bitter end?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I sometimes think that all old copies of Hansard should be pulped on change of Government. Nevertheless, I stand by the thrust of that question. For the good of all parties and politics, we should move quickly to see whether we can get all-party agreement on this. It is good that the Deputy Prime Minister has taken responsibility and has indicated that he will make progress on this issue a high priority at a very early stage in this Parliament.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, why cannot tax relief be applied to small individual contributions to political parties, perhaps to a capped contribution sum of £50 per annum? Will the noble Lord refer the matter to Treasury Ministers, because the proposition has support on all sides of the House?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, as on many other subjects, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I have supported that idea for a long time. I can assure him that I shall report our exchange to the Deputy Prime Minister and suggest that he raises the matter with the Treasury.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, popular as the idea of tax relief is with the coalition Government, I do not think that it will solve the problem of funding political parties for the duration of a Parliament. I met no one at the last election who complained about the Conservative Opposition receiving £4.2 million of taxpayers’ money. Indeed, I think that very few taxpayers knew that they were contributing to the Conservative Opposition to that extent. It is critical that we get ahead with this. I am disappointed that it was not in the Queen’s Speech as part of our legislative programme for this Session. I suspect that at the next election no one will be talking about it.

[Lord McNally]

I take the point that my noble friend is making. That is why I said that we will be getting ahead with the issue early in this Parliament. We need to deal with this. As long as I have been in politics, one party or another has become embroiled in some scandal or another—and it will happen again unless we face up to the fact that politics costs money. If you want to keep big money and big influence out of politics, you have to do some radical things about party funding.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

Does the Minister accept that the problem is not only the total amount of money spent on political parties but the disproportionate amounts spent in individual constituencies? It is now so expensive that in certain constituencies independents simply cannot afford to run. That cannot be good for democracy.

[Lord McNally]

That is absolutely true. We have seen in all political parties a nuclear arms race of political spending. I pay tribute to the last Government for putting a cap on it, for which I think even the Conservative Party was grateful in the end. If there was no cap, fundraising would go on and on. The problem with campaign expenditure is that it is like expenditure on advertising: we all know that half of it is wasted, but we do not know which half.

[Lord Ryder of Wensum]

My Lords, while I vividly recall the introduction of Short money 35 years ago and the help that it gave to the then Opposition, does my noble friend not agree that during these days of curbing public expenditure it would be wise for the Short money and the Cranborne money to be frozen at present levels for the duration of this Parliament?

[Lord McNally]

It would ill become a government Minister to start suggesting that. I was a special adviser to the Government who brought in Short money and I know the benefit that my party got in opposition from Cranborne money. I know that it is easy to play to the media on this, but political parties need proper funding to do their democratic duty. If you do not do it through legitimate, open, transparent public funding, big money will come in, which, in the end, corrupts the whole system.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, what is “proper funding”? Would it not be better if the political parties spent less on advertising, opinion polls and helicopters, raised more money voluntarily in accordance with the new localism and resisted the blandishments of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, to pick the taxpayer’s pocket?

[Lord McNally]

Again, we have all heard “picking the taxpayer’s pocket”—it gets approval from the media, which have an interest in keeping politicians and politics weak and dependent on their approval—but it is time that politicians got off their knees. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, that too many of the consultants and advisers who surround political parties think up ways of spending money to justify their own existence. Perhaps the answer lies in what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, suggests: some tie-in between small donations and tax relief that would give a greater and broader base to funding.

[Lord Goodlad]

Is my noble friend aware that in Australia in the early 1920s, because the political parties were finding the cost of getting people to the polls in a huge, sparsely populated country very onerous, compulsory voting was introduced, with universal support? It has had universal support ever since. The noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition said the other day that she supported compulsory voting. Will he give it his consideration?

[Lord McNally]

I will certainly give it my consideration and I will report it to the Deputy Prime Minister. I think that I had better stop there.

[Lord Grocott]

Is it not worth noting one of the lessons from the history of funding and politics? At the end of the 19th century, very strict limits were introduced on the amount that could be spent in individual constituencies, for very good reasons. Does it not strike the Minister that to concentrate on how much is being spent is more important than examining precisely where the money comes from? We need to look, at a national level, at the ludicrous amounts of money that are spent in general elections; we do not want to get anywhere near American levels. Any review should concentrate on putting much more severe, strictly applied limits on expenditure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

I think that we are on common ground. I worked on the Bill that set up the Electoral Commission with the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and a representative from the Conservative Party who had worked in Central Office. The three of us had worked in the political parties’ headquarters and thought that there was a ludicrous amount of detail in the Bill about the responsibility of party treasurers at local level. The debate was couched in terms that would lead one to think that being a treasurer for a local party was one of the pinnacles of political achievement, whereas, as everyone in this Chamber who has been active in party politics knows, you look for some poor dumb cluck—as the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, helpfully said, the person is usually absent from that meeting—to take on that responsibility.

We are awaiting the report of the Electoral Commission on this issue. We are some way from a general election. Perhaps one of the advantages of a fixed-term Parliament is that, at this early stage in a five-year Parliament, we can look at this issue without saying, “Well, what implication will it have for us in the impending general election?”. We can take a proper cross-party look at this. We can look at what Hayden Phillips recommended, which I still think is a good basis for negotiations, and move with it with some sense of urgency.

[Lord Dykes]

My Lords, my noble friend has given some sensible and wise answers on these questions today. Does he share my anxiety, bearing in mind that politicians are, quite rightly, individually and collectively severely criticised in a lively British press, that almost every British newspaper now has overseas-based owners who do not pay United Kingdom taxes?

[Lord McNally]

That is another matter that is beyond this Question. However, if politics really wants to be respected, it has to be less beholden to big money and less subservient to our press.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

Does the Minister agree that a trade union is not the same as an individual when it comes to a cap?

[Lord McNally]

I thought that we might have a question on that. This is the first time I have had to look at my notes. We are keen to ensure that any future system for party funding is fair and, importantly, one that the public can trust. Sir Hayden Phillips noted in his review the specific issues around trade unions. We are looking at his work when considering how to deliver the coalition agreement commitment to take big money out of politics.

Immigration: Refugee and Migrant Justice

Lord McNally Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Avebury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their reaction to the probable closure of Refugee and Migrant Justice.

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

My Lords, since this Question was tabled, Refugee and Migrant Justice has been placed into administration. The Government’s immediate concern was that the clients of RMJ should continue to receive a good-quality service.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, as other practitioners specialising in asylum cases—particularly, although not exclusively, those who operate on a not-for-profit basis—have had similar cash-flow problems to those of the RMJ, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that the LSC may be able to find providers to take on the RMJ’s 10,000 cases? Will my noble friend acknowledge that there will be serious delays in looking after those cases, first, because the new providers will have to get to know what the cases are, and, secondly, because they do not know whether they will be funded in the spending round that begins on 1 October?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I will take the last point first. Yes, there is bound to be a certain amount of disruption if an organisation that covers 7 per cent of cases goes into administration. However, I can assure the House that the Government are giving high priority to minimise that disruption. On whether other non-profit-making practitioners are facing difficulty, it is true that there have been complaints about the change in funding and fees, which was made by the previous Administration with an eye to saving taxpayers’ money. The change is not popular but, as my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor said in another place, the organisations are coping. Trying to balance the good work that these organisations are doing against the taxpayers’ not-bottomless pot is difficult.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I am delighted that the Minister has praised those who worked for Refugee and Migrant Justice, which over a number of years did an excellent job. I am also delighted that the Legal Services Commission is ensuring that the existing clients of that organisation continue to have proper advice and representation. Are there estimates of the extra cost to the Legal Services Commission in ensuring that proper advice and representation from fresh providers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

There are no estimates on that. There will be an extra cost, but Ministers had to face a balance of judgment: did they take into account that RMJ was going into administration and that therefore there would be knock-on costs, or did they give it more taxpayers’ money with no guarantee that it would not again find itself in difficulty in a short time? It was a hard call but, as the noble Lord knows full well, sometimes Ministers have to make hard calls.

[Lord Pannick]

Will the Minister confirm that the problem faced by RMJ is the consequence of payments being made only after decisions are taken by the Home Office, or by the tribunal, in an individual immigration case, and that that can take two years or more? Will the Government therefore consider introducing a system of interim payments so that competent and efficient organisations such as RMJ are not threatened with closure?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, if the description “competent and efficient” was correct for RMJ, one asks how it managed to get itself into administration. It represents 7 per cent of cases, so organisations representing 93 per cent are coping. Again, it was a difficult decision to make and I know that there have been complaints about the tough system of paying. However, we are dealing with taxpayers’ money and there is justification for ensuring that the organisations provide value for it. It may be worth noting that, in the round of bids, double the number of law firms are bidding for this business. That suggests that RMJ is not alone and that companies believe that they can deliver the service under the present scheme.

[The Lord Bishop of Exeter]

My Lords, reports are circulating that the UK Border Agency is refusing to grant extensions to RMJ clients in order that they might find new representation. It is saying that clients can raise any issues that they have with such a refusal at the time of an appeal. That is not only terrible for clients, but it is also poor value for money, because the appeal process is extraordinarily expensive. What advice, if any, is being given to the UK Border Agency in this respect?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, the UK Border Agency has been asked to treat RMJ clients with common sense and to allow time during this period of adjustment. Therefore, according to my briefing, the right reverend Prelate’s first assertion is not true.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

Again, dealing with the last point first, I am not even sure whether that is under review, but I certainly cannot give an answer. On the matter of money owing, a case from RMJ will be heard on Wednesday, so I am not sure how much I can comment on it, other than to say that it is the view of the Government and the LSC that no moneys are owing to RMJ. Indeed, when the books are finally balanced, it may prove to be the other way around.

[Lord Davies of Coity]

My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, the Minister said that he had to strike a balance. He also said that he did not know what it was going to cost. How does he strike a balance when he does not know what it is going to cost?

[Lord McNally]

Because Ministers have to take a view on whether paying out money to an organisation that has gone into administration is a better deal for the taxpayer than making the adjustments necessary to give the clients—as I said at the beginning, the clients are our first priority—the legal coverage that they deserve. Of course, during this period of adjustment, we do not know the final cost, but a decision had to be made. As I said, sometimes Ministers have to make hard decisions and we made this one.

Parliament: MP Numbers and Constituency Review

Lord McNally Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consultations they plan to hold with local authorities and the Boundaries Commissions on reducing the number of Members of Parliament and reviewing the size of parliamentary constituencies.

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

My Lords, Ministers are taking advice on the details of proposals, including on consultation, and, as I said in the House on 15 June, we will of course seek to frame the legislation in a way that ensures that the Boundary Commissions complete their task in a timely, fair and thorough way.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

I thank my noble friend for that response. Will the Government assure us that when the Boundary Commissions consider this, they consider not only the electorate size but the geography and the local authority boundaries when reporting on the new constituencies? Will they also discuss thoroughly with the devolved Administrations any effect that the new boundaries for Westminster might have on, say, the Cardiff Assembly or the Edinburgh Parliament?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, my noble friend will know that the sole objective of this exercise is to bring greater fairness to our electoral regulations and equal weight to votes. He is right, of course, that common sense and a sense of history and of geography will have an influence on this, and we will consider the implications for Wales and the other nations and regions of this kingdom when we come forward with our proposals.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, is quite right; local consultations, representations and involvement in boundary reviews, particularly this boundary review, are vital. The Liberal Democrats have always been proud of their commitment to local democracy. My question is: will this commitment survive? If promises such as the ones on VAT can so easily be shredded, how can the Minister convince the House that this commitment to local democracy will not be sacrificed in due course?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

These proposals will strengthen local democracy and enhance the whole quality and culture of our democracy by giving fairer votes and votes of more equal weight.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I congratulate the coalition Government on their plan to reduce the size of the other place in order to achieve economies, but will the Minister explain why they propose at the same time greatly to enlarge the size of this House at considerable cost, and in doing so, as he himself has pointed out, perhaps bring this House into some disrepute in the country?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I could not agree more with my noble friend. If he comes to the debate next week, as I am sure he will, he will hear my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and me speaking at an appropriate length about how we think the numbers and the costs of this House could be radically reduced.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

I suggest to the Minister, I hope without impertinence, that these proposals are spawned by cosmetic considerations and indeed by populism, and that it is utterly absurd to consider a reduction in the number of Members of the House of Commons to a lower level than at the time of the Great Reform Act when the population of this kingdom was only a third to a quarter of what it is now. Indeed, all that will be achieved is an enhanced distance between the ordinary voter and the ordinary representative, which cannot be good for democracy.

[Lord McNally]

On the contrary, one of the things on which we can again pay tribute to the previous Administration is the progress that they made in devolution. We intend to carry forward the process of devolution so that more responsibility is given to the Parliaments and Assemblies of the nations and regions of this country. If you do that, it is absurd to continue with a House of Commons of the same size as when it had the responsibilities that have now been devolved. That is part of the sensible consequences of devolution.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, is the Minister entirely confident that it is a wise course on the part of the Government to attempt to reduce the number of constituencies at the same time as introducing AV? Does he accept that it is one thing, and pretty difficult at that, to persuade Members of Parliament to vote for an electoral system other than the one that brought them to Westminster, but that it is an altogether more desperate undertaking to ask them to agree to a game of Russian roulette, which will ensure that for significant numbers of them there will not be a seat in the next Parliament? Will all this not stretch the tolerances of coalition Back-Bench MPs?

[Lord McNally]

These are matters of political judgment. The twin objectives of the coalition are to bring greater fairness to our electoral system and equality of weight to each vote. At the same time, we would wish to go with the flow of what we have been doing in recent years, which is to move power to the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that special provision for island communities would need to be made in the guidelines given to the Boundary Commissions? Does he further accept that without special provisions, it would, for example, be very difficult for a single Member of Parliament to represent, say, a part of the Isle of Wight and a part of the mainland, or for a single Member of Parliament to represent the 20 populated islands in the Orkney and Shetland constituency, and the large geographic constituency of Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross?

[Lord McNally]

That is a fair point. The integrity of the Boundary Commissions and the way in which they go about their work have never been in doubt, thank goodness. Because this is constitutional legislation, it will be taken on the Floor of the House in the other place and we will have in this place experts such as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, my noble friend and others who have great experience and will put their input into the deliberations as this legislation goes through.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, two weeks ago, when I asked a similar Question, the Minister was good enough to acknowledge that the Answer provided by his civil servants was wholly inadequate. He was also rather disappointed that the answer with which he attempted to improve the efforts of his civil servants was not that good either. Now that he has had a fortnight to think about how long he estimates the Boundary Commission will take bearing in mind that the last review took six years, and now that the finest brains of the civil servants in his department have been focused on this for the past couple of weeks, can he give any improvement on the wholly inadequate Answer that he gave me last time?

[Lord McNally]

I very much regret that the noble Lord has raised that. I was severely reprimanded by the department and it was a couple of days before any of the civil servants talked to me. As I said in answering this question, Ministers are taking advice on the detailed proposals and will bring forward legislation and a timetable as soon as possible.

Justice: Legal Fees

Lord McNally Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to exercise the power conferred by section 58(4)(a) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 to reduce the maximum success fee chargeable under a conditional fee agreement in defamation proceedings.

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

The Government are currently considering the recommendations from Lord Justice Jackson’s report, Review of Civil Litigation Costs, published in January 2010. The Government’s analysis of Sir Rupert’s recommendations, once completed, will determine the next steps on the success fee in defamation proceedings.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and the right honourable Jack Straw, who began to focus on the abuses created by conditional fee agreements with 100 per cent success fees. I urge the Minister and his colleagues not to wait for consideration of the vast Jackson report before taking urgent action to deal with what I think is a scandal, where some fellow members of my profession charge inordinate fees through the conditional fee agreement so that the costs far outweigh any damages that NGOs, individuals or the press may have to pay. That is a very urgent matter.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, we recognise the sense of urgency, but also the complexity of the issue. As my noble friend will know, the proposals made by the previous Government ran into trouble at the other end of the building. We are looking at the Jackson report and we will treat the matter with the urgency that my noble friend said that it deserves.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, the Minister knows that on 25 March last, this House agreed the statutory instrument that would have given effect to the intention of his noble friend Lord Lester. Will he please use his undoubted great influence in government to ensure that that intention is fulfilled and that that happens soon? It needs to. This is a bit of a scandal. We cannot wait for Jackson. We look forward to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in due course but this needs quick government action. Can the Minister please do his best to ensure that that happens?

[Lord McNally]

I can give assurances that we will treat the matter with all due seriousness. Whether we will follow the same path as the previous Administration is more questionable. As the noble Lord will know, Lord Justice Jackson has made a different recommendation about how to deal with this problem. We will weigh up what he has argued in his report and consider the debate in this House and other views on what the previous Administration was proposing to do.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that a very large proportion of success fees are paid in defamation cases brought by claimants who are sufficiently wealthy themselves to pay a proper professional fee for their action? Therefore, success fees make no contribution whatsoever to proper access to justice. In asking that question, I declare an interest as I act for Mirror Group Newspapers, which is bringing proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights relating to success fees in the case of Naomi Campbell and her privacy complaint.

[Lord McNally]

Having spent some years treading the line between public relations clients and what I could say in the House, I am always very envious of how my learned friends manage to tread that line so well. This defamation area produces great scandals, and I think that the balance of Lord Justice Jackson’s report will point us in the direction of urgent action. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who has made available to my department his not inconsiderable research and preparation for a Defamation Bill, which will, I hope, enable us to move forward very quickly on this. I do not think I will say any more about the Mirror Group case.

[Lord Bates]

Can the Minister confirm whether this change in success fees would apply to cases heard in the High Court? If so, is he aware of a ruling in the High Court this morning that the decision of the previous Government to impose unitary authorities on Norwich and Exeter was unlawful? Given that this is a victory for common sense, will he ensure that there is no maximum in the success fee available to counsel?

[Lord McNally]

I thank the noble Lord for bringing me up to date on that saga. I think there should be a limit on success fees or, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggested, that the success fee should be borne by the successful claimant.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

What are the views of the Bar Council and the Law Society about this issue? Do they think it can wait or do they demand urgent action?

[Lord McNally]

We are taking the advice of the Bar Council and the Law Society. Nobody has suggested that the issue should wait. Lord Justice Jackson has produced a 500-page report which even due courtesy would suggest should be studied before the Government proceed to action.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Would my noble friend look more widely at the conditional fee situation now prevailing? As he may know, there are large commercial purchasers of cases from the public—they are not subject to any Law Society or Bar Council rules—who then sell them in bulk to solicitors for a fee per case plus a proportion of the conditional fee gathered in the course of it. Would he not accept that that is a gross problem for justice today?

[Lord McNally]

The way the conditional fee regime has grown up has produced a number of abuses and anomalies. Right from the beginning, from those Benches across there, I raised some of the actions of the companies to which my noble friend referred. I know that Lord Justice Jackson has looked at the actions of those companies in his report and has made some recommendations. I think that right across the House, there is a general feeling that there are abuses in the conditional fee system. We have to get the balance right between the access to justice that conditional fees give and some of the anomalies and, indeed, abuses that have grown up in practice. We will do so after consideration of Jackson, but with all due urgency.

Parliamentary Constituencies: Boundaries

Lord McNally Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the estimated time required for a full review of parliamentary constituency boundaries.

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

My Lords, the Government have announced that legislation will be introduced to provide for the creation of fewer and more equal-sized constituencies. Further details will be announced in due course, and we will of course seek to frame the legislation in a way that ensures that the boundary commissions can complete their task in a timely, fair and thorough way.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, that was an Answer to a question but not to the one that I asked. The Question was what the Government’s estimate is of how long it will take to undertake a full review of parliamentary constituencies—a simple and straightforward question, I would have thought. Is the Minister aware that the previous review took six years and eight months? That was quite proper; it gave local people the opportunity to appeal and for full local inquiries, part of the localism that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, rightly referred to as being a crucial part of this Government’s objectives. I appeal to him to ensure that there is no short-circuiting of local democracy and no denial of local people’s rights to appeal. If there is any short-circuiting of the appeals procedure in the established parliamentary Boundary Commission, then if this is the new politics, I for one prefer the old.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

The Answer drafted by my department was even vaguer than the one that I gave, so I feel rather hurt because that one was all my own work. It answered the Question, too: the previous review lasted nearly seven years but this one will be done in a timely, fair and thorough way. We will see when it ends whether it has fulfilled those criteria; I suspect that it will.

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

Is my noble friend aware that many people are confused, sometimes to the point even of failing to vote, by the frequency with which constituency names are changed? Is he further aware that, remarkably, the constituency of Aberavon has borne the same name over at least the 42 years for which it was represented by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, after he had defeated me in 1959? More than that, is he aware that it bore the same name when Ramsay MacDonald represented it in the 1920s, and that it bears the same name today? Will he pass that observation on to the Boundary Commission?

[Lord McNally]

I fully endorse that. I have great confidence in the independence of the Boundary Commission. I have to say, with some bitterness, that when the Boundary Commission decided to put Stockport Town Hall, Stockport market and Stockport’s major municipal buildings into Denton and Reddish in 1983 I doubted its sanity, but I am sure that the message about consistency in names and the preservation of historic names is important.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords—

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

Would the Minister give an assurance that the interests of the constituency in terms of geographical area covered will be given due regard by the Boundary Commission, because some constituencies could be almost half the size of Scotland? Could he also give an assurance that the Boundary Commission will be asked to have regard to those areas of dense population where everyone knows that the number of people who register is far below those entitled to vote, because those not failing to register are not necessarily spread evenly across the country?

[Lord McNally]

Yes, of course the Boundary Commission will be taking all those considerations into account. I understand the concerns about registrations to vote, which are extremely important. As I think was mentioned in a question yesterday, 92 or 93 per cent registration is not bad as an aim, but there is no doubt that there is difficulty about registration. My brief says that,

“non-registration was higher among private renters … unemployed … those without qualifications and those in non-permanent employment”.

There are similar bad figures for ethnic minorities. Those have to be looked at, and I am quite sure that that and other considerations will be taken into account by the Boundary Commission.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

The Minister will recollect that, during the general election, much was said about seeking to achieve an equal number of constituents in each constituency. How harshly is that rule to be applied? Does it mean that a time will come when mountain ranges, rivers and county and borough boundaries will count for nothing, and that there will be total arithmetical correctitude but no soul, no character and no history for such constituencies?

[Lord McNally]

No, that would be an absurd objective, but we have to come to a realisation that when a Government are elected on 36 per cent of the vote but are given a healthy 60-seat majority in the House of Commons, the electoral system has got out of kilter. I might also mention that when 23 per cent of the electorate return only 57 MPs, there are signs that perhaps that system is in need of examination. Of course, when the Boundary Commission comes to look at this, the kind of historical and geographical issues to which the noble Lord referred will be taken into account. I am actually quite surprised at the scepticism from some parts of the House. There is nothing up the sleeve; this is a rational approach to a distorted system.

[Lord Tyler]

As my noble friend has indicated, this is part of the general objective of trying to make sure that there is equal value for every citizen’s vote, as is the electoral reform to introduce a fairer voting system. Can he reassure us that the Government intend to make sure that this exercise and electoral reform proceed in tandem, and that the programme or timetable to which he refers will indicate an outcome and complete the process before the next general election?

[Lord McNally]

That is our intention.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the Conservative-Liberal coalition’s plans to reduce the size of the Commons will make it smaller than at any time since the passing of the Great Reform Act in 1832? I remind him that the population is now 61 million; in 1832 it was 17 million. Does he, as a former Member of Parliament, as he mentioned, and as a Liberal Democrat really believe that the citizens of the United Kingdom have suddenly become overrepresented in the House of Commons?

[Lord McNally]

The size of the constituency is a matter for discussion. In the present House of Commons, as is well known, it ranges from around 100,000 people to just over 20,000. There are reasons for those extremes but within them there is plenty of room for discussion of what would be a reasonable size of constituency for a Member of Parliament to look after. As well as the differences in population since 1832, there have been great changes in the communications and facilities open to Members of Parliament, and to the staff and assistance that Members of Parliament get.