Geo-Blocking Regulation (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, as this is the last item of business it would be very easy to nod it through. However, in the debate on the previous SI, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, made the point that this House is playing a very important part in what he described as the Alice in Wonderland situation of Parliament legislating on Monday to prevent a no-deal Brexit, and then on Tuesday legislating to avoid the worst consequences of a no-deal Brexit. It is important that these statutory instruments are probed. They may seem to be simply belt-and-braces exercises, and the Minister delivers her arguments with such an upbeat lilt that you think there cannot be any problems, but it is worth probing a little deeper and showing the absolute absurdity and danger of what is proposed.

Let us remember that this is part of a great creation of the European Union: the single market and its operation. That single-market concept was the great work of Lord Cockfield, actively supported by Mrs Thatcher, in the 1980s. It was one of the great pieces in the puzzle of creating the European Union. Yet, as the Minister explained in her positive manner, no benefits are forthcoming from this SI—or from any of them. We are doing an exercise in damage limitation.

The Minister clearly explained what geo-blocking means. It is,

“the term used to describe traders discriminating against customers on the basis of the nationality or location of the customer”.

That is the very heart of the single market. She was fair in frankly pointing out—as did the Minister in the other place, Kelly Tolhurst—that, so far as the consumer is concerned, by leaving the European Union we move out of the protections which this legislation provided, and that:

“UK businesses operating in EU markets will still have to comply with the EU regulation when dealing with EU consumers … A failure to revoke the geo-blocking regulation and the Geo-Blocking (Enforcement) Regulations 2018 would not preserve UK customers’ consumer rights. Those rights will in effect be lost if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. The only effect would be to continue to impose obligations on UK traders while providing no benefit to UK customers”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/4/19; col. 977.]


It is lose, lose, lose. In short, EU traders would not have any obligations to treat UK customers in line with the geo-blocking regulation.

As the Minister also explained, this regulation does not require a company to deliver a physical product to all EU locations. It also exempts digital copyrighted content, including e-books, computer games and streaming services such as Netflix, and audio-visual content and transport services. However, the EU is obliged to assess whether to lift these exemptions in 2020. This is a perfect example of the lunacy of Brexit. We are moving into a data revolution—an age of e-commerce. Yet we are now stepping back; we will not be at the table when the EU sets the standards in these areas. We will again be left, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, rightly put in another context, waiting, watching and listening for what others decide.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

I got the impression that we were, in important respects, setting the standards for legislation in relation to data issues—for example, the duty of care that has just been proposed by the Government. Does the noble Lord not agree that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander? EU traders wanting to do business in the UK following Brexit will have to obey our laws, just as we have to obey their laws when trading within the EU, so there is actually a reciprocal balance here.

[Lord McNally]

I have heard the noble Lord intervene time and again over the last year about this reciprocity—I am getting like President Trump in my pronunciation. We are talking about a market of 70 million and a market of 500 million. One of the things that was said in 2016 was that they need us as much as we need them. Oh, do they? How pathetic. Something I used to say when I worked in public relations, talking to big companies, is that it takes years and decades to build a reputation and you can lose a reputation in an instant. We built 700 years of competent parliamentary democracy and we have lost it in two years of madness, mostly egged on by people such as the noble Lord, who has this strange idea that the rest of the world is just waiting to co-operate with our wisdoms. I think I might have provoked him, but I do not know.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by refuting what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said about himself. There can be no comparison between him and the President of the United States; it may be that neither of them knows how to pronounce reciprocity, but the President would not know what it meant either. Let it be said also that the little exchange between my noble friend Lord Howarth and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is indicative of where our manner of conducting these discussions has got us. Two people, for whom I have respect—and, indeed, affection—are capable of having a real bout of reciprocal hostility, if not animosity—

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I have absolutely no hostility towards the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I am very fond of him; please correct the record.

[Lord McNally]

There is no animosity on my side.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2013

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Wednesday 27th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I thank the contributors to this debate. I have listened carefully to the points they have made. Perhaps I could turn first to the important issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on how Parliament does its business and the consequences of its decisions. I would simply remind your Lordships—and the noble Lord had the honesty to do so—of what I said before the House voted on 3 December:

“My Lords, we are almost on the verge of another financial Statement by the Chancellor. I have made it clear that the noble Lord must not lure the House into an idea that following him into the Division Lobby will produce a better offer because it will not”.—[Official Report, 3/12/12; col. 490.]

I do not know how a Minister could be clearer in asking the House to consider that before voting.

Another point is that what my right honourable friend the then Lord Chancellor promised was to use his best endeavours to look for a concession. He came back with a concession which made its way into the final Act passed by Parliament. If the Opposition Front Bench ever returned to this side of the House, they would be as reluctant as we are to have reopened debate on the final settlements in any legislation by the use of fatal Motions. I believe that that would prolong the issue and put pressure on every Opposition to say, “The matter is not closed. You could pass a fatal Motion and that will get us a better offer”. I do not think that is the way that government can operate. The offer was made in good faith after exploring the consequences of the other options. As I say, it would set a precedent for keeping debates running and keeping up pressures which, quite frankly, Oppositions would eventually find difficult to handle. The pressure groups, which quite legitimately keep the pressure on us, would say, “Well, it is not closed now because you could pass a fatal Motion”. That is the point.

It is always flattering to suggest that, secretly, I do not agree with the decision, but I actually do and in part because of my capacity as a business manager in this House. I believe that we gave the House a clear understanding of the consequences. The House took its decision, and that is how the Act is now set.

Turning to the running programme of criticisms from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, again I make no complaint about them. I have said previously that it has been a very strong parliamentary performance, which is absolutely right for someone in the Opposition involved in these areas. I would say, though, that in 2010 we were faced with the situation in which there were going to be considerable cuts in government expenditure. The Ministry of Justice was faced with a budget settlement that had been cut by 23% and, as I have said, it is a department that spends money only on prisons, probation, court services and legal aid.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Will the Minister confirm that the Government have just announced that they are going to spend somewhere between £100 million and £200 million on the modification of the Olympic stadium for the benefit of West Ham United Football Club? Why are the Government so open-handed in their funding of access to sport but so cruelly restrictive in their funding of access to justice? What scale of values does that represent? Should equality before the law not be a non-negotiable and irreducible value?

[Lord McNally]

That is the point that I was going to make. The noble Lord is extremely good at self-righteous debating points; I almost admire him for that. The fact is, though, that he has been in departments and he knows that they accept budget targets and have to look through their own expenditure.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My criticism was of the Government, and the Minister speaks on behalf of the Government.

[Lord McNally]

The noble Lord knows how Governments work, and spending reviews are carried out by individual government departments. He was responsible for the arts budget, fortunately in happier days with regard to spending. Individual government departments have to take hard decisions. It is an old scheme in government to say, “Oh well, of course defence spends this much more”. You have to make the decisions, and we had to make decisions about the scope of legal aid.

We tried from the beginning to ensure that there was a logic to what we were doing, in that—I have just been handed a little guide to it—we prioritised civil legal services so that they would be available in the highest-priority cases: where people’s life or liberty was at stake, where they were at risk of serious physical harm or the immediate loss of their home, or where children may be taken into care. That has undoubtedly meant cuts elsewhere, which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, outlined, although the dividing line between legal advice and advice sometimes gets blurred.

I should also make the point that the universal credit is not a big bang; it will be phased in over a number of years. Of course we will keep a very close eye on how these things develop and the impact that they have.

I make this point again to the advice services: I know that CAB and others have been formidable lobbyists, and again I make no complaint about that, but the advice service is no more spared from the cuts that have affected this area than my own department is or than local authorities are. We live in hard times as far as these bodies are concerned, and we are trying to give money to the advice sector to help it reorganise and adapt to new circumstances. We will continue to do so, but we cannot immunise it from those impacts.

One of the oldest members of my flock, my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington—Jeremy Hutchinson QC—sadly no longer attends the House for what I think is the entirely bogus reason that he is 96, but he is as sharp as a tack. He was involved with the Bar in the setting up of legal aid in 1948 and told me, “We really thought that we were creating a National Health Service for the law”. That was an extremely noble aspiration. However, I have also found, particularly since 2010, that given the financial circumstances that we inherited, not just this Government but the previous Government had been looking at whether some parameters had to be set on the provision of taxpayer-funded legal aid. I hope that in taking these measures forward we can engage in attempts to get some kind of cross-party consensus on society’s commitment to legal aid.

In a discussion that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and I had at University College recently, I said that if he were here in 2015, and he asked Chancellor Balls, or whoever, for £500 million to restore the legal aid cuts, I did not think that he would get a very promising answer as the same economic constraints and realities would still apply. However, there is an interesting debate to be had about the future of legal aid and our national commitment to it. Thus far, we have made hard decisions but I want to make sure that as far as possible we are not left with rough justice.

On the point made by my noble friend Lord Phillips, we will keep the matter under review. I have asked all the various sectors of the MoJ that deal with these matters to keep monitoring the measure’s impacts and effects from day one. I know that noble Lords on all Benches will want to see how this works out. However, I believe that we have done the best we can in difficult circumstances.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2012

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

The Government have not withdrawn that concession. This House passed a fatal Motion meaning that that concession was no longer part of the Bill. That was the decision of the House. If I may so in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and of all those who voted for it, I made that very clear to the House before the vote.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Instead of continuing to sulk, would it not be proper for the Government to bring forward another order, in which they honour the commitment rightly given to Parliament by the previous Lord Chancellor?

[Lord McNally]

I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, again alleged that that commitment was made. It was not made by the previous Lord Chancellor. The commitment was to examine the case for the First-tier Tribunals. As I have reported back to the House on numerous occasions, the decision was that in the circumstances it was far too expensive. It would be nice to have fatal Motions as yet another round in the legislation process, but I ask the House and the Official Opposition to think carefully. If fatal Motions are going to be used in this way, they have great repercussions, not least on our relationship with the other place.

Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2012

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Monday 3rd December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I do not accept that. I accept that the lawyers may have glossed the patch a little, as the noble Lord, Lord Reid, acknowledged. We are discussing various complex matters of its operation. I go back to the point that our initial intention was to take welfare out of legal aid—something that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has opposed from the very beginning; I understand and appreciate that. That does not take away the fact that we have argued our case through both Houses of Parliament and put an Act on to the statute book. This is about implementing that Act.

It is clear that the Government have listened. We have compromised. However, we can go no further with concessions which impact the fundamental objectives of our reform: to focus legal aid on the highest-priority cases while delivering the essential savings needed to address the deficit which is threatening this country’s stability.

I was at a conference the other day where the noble Lord, Lord Bach, used a term which he may have been saving up for his final remarks. He said that next year we face a “perfect storm” in terms of welfare, in that we are indeed carrying through the LASPO reforms and the welfare reforms at the same time. That is going to introduce strain. However, the perfect storm would be if we lost control of our currency and economy, and if we lost markets. That is when the people whom we have heard about today, whom people want to protect, would really feel the full blast of economic problems. We are trying to—

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I am grateful. The noble Lord used to tell the House that taking welfare benefits out of the scope of legal aid would save £25 million, but we know also that his department is dumping all kinds of costs on other departments through the health consequences and the damage to vulnerable children living in circumstances of great poverty. What is the noble Lord’s assessment now of the net contribution to reducing the deficit made by his policy of removing access to justice for some of the neediest people in our society? Does he still think that it is £25 million? Does he think it is less? Does he think that that is the crucial difference that is going to avert fiscal disaster?

[Lord McNally]

I do not believe that these matters remove access to justice. I notice that an organisation called MyLegal put out quite a long briefing, the interesting bit of which was on the last page, where it said that Ken Clarke had said these measures would cost £25 million. The briefing said that that was wrong and that it was £14 million. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, said that it would cost only £5 million. What I do know is that it will have a cost. When I am carrying out my other responsibilities in the Ministry of Justice and I am suddenly told by this House, which has no responsibilities in the Ministry of Justice, that I have to find £5 million, £15 million or £25 million, there are decisions that must be made. I sit on boards where people lose their jobs and where the management of these changes is extremely difficult. I have never tried to hide that but I ask this House to have a sense of responsibility. We came up with a concession after a lot of exploration and talks with departments and various boards. It is a narrow concession but it comes on top of a whole range of other concessions which we believe retain legal aid in a vast swathe of the process of welfare and which we think is in keeping with the promises we made to Parliament.

I ask this House not to go further in voting on this. I must make it clear that, if the amendment is carried and this concession is lost, the Act is still an Act of Parliament and will still be implemented in April but without this concession. I would consider that a rather pyrrhic victory.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Monday 23rd April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

This is an interesting side issue. Anybody who has read the debate in the other place will see that the amendments passed in this House were thoroughly discussed.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally]

The House is not doing itself much service by this, but do go on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate on this. I hope when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has time to read his own remarks, which contain some fairly harsh strictures about the Lord Chancellor, he will reflect that the question of financial privilege is not a matter for the Government or for the Lord Chancellor. As the Clerk of the Commons explains, an amendment that infringes privilege would be the only reason that would be given. That is because giving other reasons suggests either that the Commons has not noticed the financial implications or that it somehow attaches no importance to its financial primacy.

We had a debate very like this one when we discussed the Welfare Reform Bill. I do not have figures at my fingertips—perhaps we can give the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, the task of looking at the record of respective Administrations in using financial privilege—but when we last discussed the matter it was made clear that this is a matter for the Commons. As the Companion states:

“Criticism of proceedings in the House of Commons or of Commons Speaker’s rulings is out of order, but criticism may be made of the institutional structure of Parliament or the role and function of the House of Commons”.

I think noble Lords have exercised that procedure today.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, the Minister said that financial privilege is not a matter for the Government but for the House of Commons. We understand—we are very familiar with the convention—that when the House of Commons rejects a Lords’ amendment it may state reasons of financial privilege and give no further explanation. However, that does not explain or justify why the Minister, Mr Djanogly, in opening the debate on the Lords’ Amendment 1 last Tuesday, began his speech by drawing to the attention of the other place that:

“Lords amendments 1 and 24 impinge on the financial privilege of this House. I ask the House to disagree to them and will ask the Reasons Committee to ascribe financial privilege as the reason for doing so”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/4/12; col. 200.]

That was his argument, essentially because he could not think of a better one. It is very unusual for the Government to rely blatantly on financial privilege during the debate.

We have to contend with a new situation. We are not criticising the constitutional arrangements, the conventions or the manner of the relationship between the two Houses, but we are saying that the Government should not hide behind this formula, this antique convention, but should deal fairly and squarely with the merits of the argument.

[Lord McNally]

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has wandered—I shall come to some of his comments later—into interesting fields. The financial privilege of the House of Commons may be antique, but as an old House of Commons man I am rather attached to financial privilege. Kings have lost their heads and revolutions have taken place to protect financial privilege and I do not airily sweep it away as an antique remnant of a bygone age. It is an important part of the relationship between the two Houses.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Can the Minister explain how financial privilege applies in this case? Of course the Bill concerns public expenditure, and in that sense financial privilege applies, as it does to virtually every item of legislation, but how do the Government contrive to justify making it the basis of their argument to Members in another place? They asked them to reject the amendment on the grounds of financial privilege as if it were at risk of incurring unaffordable increases in public expenditure, which is simply not the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, when the Government launched their consultative Green Paper on this legislation nearly two years ago and I made one of my first ministerial responses from this Dispatch Box, I made it clear that I was aware that we were making some tough and difficult decisions about legal aid. We have heard many times in many debates over the past 18 months that X, Y, or Z is attacking, undermining, or damaging the most vulnerable in our society. I have listened to those debates, but I remain convinced that what would have damaged the most vulnerable in our society more would have been if we had not taken the tough economic decisions necessary to put our economy right. It is no use noble Lords opposite shaking their heads. We were a lot poorer than we thought we were and every government department has had to make tough decisions. My own has had to take cuts of 23 per cent across the board over this spending review. That has meant tough decisions not only in terms of legal aid, but in staff numbers and in other aspects of the Ministry of Justice’s work.

We have never ducked the fact that we have made some hard decisions in this matter. Neither have we ducked the fact that our approach to cutting the legal aid budget meant taking the bulk of social welfare law out of scope. We had taken the decision to focus on civil legal aid. The term “relatively low priority” refers to our view that in terms of criminal legal aid we are talking about people’s liberty and reputation. It is an important part of our system that people should have legal aid in this area.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Is the Minister therefore confident that there is no waste in the criminal legal aid budget and that there are no rackets there? Is he confident that this is an area that did not need the Government’s attention and that since the Treasury obliged his department to find savings of 23 per cent it really needed to focus its effort on the civil legal aid budget?

[Lord McNally]

On the contrary. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is ready to leap to his feet to draw attention to the fact that we have carried through the savings in criminal legal aid that the previous Administration put in train.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Monday 12th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I listened with care to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Best, on matters concerning housing. However, our existing proposals make sensible provisions to keep people in their homes. Notably, they already preserve legal aid for advice and assistance for those facing immediate risk of losing their dwelling, whether the cause is housing-related or a consequence of welfare and debt issues.

Crucially, legal aid will be available when repossession action is contemplated, for example where a person is threatened with repossession action. Our plans do not mean that a case must reach court before legal aid is available. Therefore, for example, legal aid would be available on reaching agreement with a landlord to delay threatened possession action pending the resolution of a welfare benefits issue. In addition, in cases where possession proceedings have already started, legal aid could be used to argue for an adjournment if, for example, the individual is likely to be in a position to make the necessary payments if the benefits dispute is resolved in their favour.

Some argue that we need to fund welfare advice earlier to prevent problems escalating, but, crucially, what people often need is general advice on, for example, benefits, debt or housing, not specialist legal advice. That is one reason why we were pleased to announce that additional funding will be made available in the Budget for citizens advice bureaux on a sustainable footing. We recognise that many people rely on benefits, and my department is working with the DWP as part of the wider welfare reform programme to improve the quality and effectiveness of initial decision-making in applications for social security, reconsideration within the DWP and a system of subsequent tribunal appeals.

In addition, the Bill ensures that legal aid will continue to be available in judicial review about welfare benefit decisions and benefit matters which relate to the Equalities Act 2010. Noble Lords may not agree with the choices we are making, but I hope that they recognise that our proposals represent a genuine attempt to ensure that people can get access to legal advice on the most serious issues.

To cover one or two points raised, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, asked about when a benefit appeal is lost and people are facing homelessness. Where the client loses their benefit appeal and subsequently faces action for rent or mortgage arrears that place the home at risk, legal aid will be available, including, for example, to negotiate with mortgage lenders, but it will not be available for welfare benefit matters. Where the benefit dispute is ongoing at the point where repossession action is taken, legal aid will be available in relation to the action. Legal aid could be used to argue for adjournment of possession, as I said.

On the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Best, and others, that changes will mean more serious cases resulting in homelessness, we recognise that early advice can be helpful in a range of contexts. However, as I said, people need general advice. Where a debt or welfare benefit problem places individuals at risk of immediate risk of loss of their home due to, for example, rent arrears, legal aid will be available.

The noble Lords, Lord Howarth and Lord Beecham, both referred to the research by Citizens Advice, which has certainly not been short of resources for its lobbying activities. I note what Citizens Advice states in Towards a Business Case for Legal Aid. Although we have read that research with interest, it did not contrast the outcomes of legal aid recipients with those who did not receive legal aid, so our view is that the evidence is not sufficiently robust to allow the conclusions drawn about the impact of advice. That said, we recognise that early advice can be helpful in a range of contexts. However, what people often need is general advice. We propose focusing our limited legal aid resources on those cases which need it most: disabled people in dispute with local authorities about care needs; people detained under mental health legislation; or parents who are facing the removal of their children by social services.

We do not believe that we have got it very far wrong on housing, and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Will the noble Lord be kind enough to write to us with a detailed refutation of the specific figures that Citizens Advice has put forward in all good faith and on the basis of careful research? That is important and a lot of people would be interested.

[Lord McNally]

I will consider that matter, but quite honestly, during the passage not just of this Bill but of every Bill, lobbying organisations produce reports—as the noble Lord says, in all good faith. To answer every one might overburden a relatively small department working on a small budget. I will consider that request.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Monday 5th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

That certainly increases the case that I am rather lamely seeking to put forward. My noble friend is deeply expert in this field. It is, therefore, the more regrettable that the Government have sought to save only 8 per cent on the much larger criminal legal aid budget while taking 53 per cent from the funds provided to support people in poverty seeking to establish their claims for social welfare benefits.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said in our earlier debate that there had been difficulties with the equality impact assessment. I think he argued that it was methodologically very difficult to pursue it to the point that we were arguing it should be taken to. However, we know from the evidence of that assessment, unsatisfactory as it was, that the effect of these cuts will be disproportionate on some of the most disadvantaged people—ethnic minorities and disabled people, for example. Although it was found to be intellectually too difficult to complete the investigation initiated in that assessment, it clearly established that the risks of social injury were very great, and I do not think that a more prudent Government would have wanted to go further down that avenue. I was pleased to hear from the Minister that there is going to be a revised equality impact assessment in the light of any amendments that may be made to the Bill and, moreover, that the Government intend that there should be another impact assessment—I think that that is what the noble Lord said—in due course. Therefore, the Government’s thinking is beginning to concur with thinking on this side of the House.

If a post-commencement review is to take place two years after the commencement of Part 1 of the Bill, when enacted, there will by that time have been an opportunity to assess progress that may have been made in other regards to reduce the costs of the legal system and the courts, and that may leave a little more margin to restore legal aid to the levels that I am sure we would all wish to see it at. There are all sorts of ways in which costs in the system could be reduced in principle: the law could be made clearer and procedures could be made simpler. Perhaps lawyers could be paid less, although I do not think that lawyers doing legal aid work ought to be subjected to those kinds of savings. However, we could hope that there would be more pro bono work and that charities would provide more support to people in need. We could hope that the tribunals might indeed become more user-friendly, although I noted that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, in her Sir Henry Hodge Memorial Lecture earlier this year, discussing the question of whether tribunals could really be user-friendly, as their authors have always hoped they would be, and looking at the system of law they administer and the procedures that they developed in employment law and immigration cases, said that such a concept was, frankly, laughable. We might hope for better decision-making by public agencies so that fewer people have a need to appeal. We might also hope that alternative dispute resolution makes more progress, and that mediation, as the Government hope, will indeed lead to more expeditious and economical ways of resolving disputes.

All those things may develop and there may be progress, but I think it is unlikely in the extreme that we are going to see such appreciable economies or a system made so much more attractive and beneficial to disadvantaged people in those ways that we can reconcile ourselves to the loss of legal aid for welfare benefits claimants. Lord Bingham wrote judiciously in his book, The Rule of Law, that,

“the goal of expeditious and affordable resolution of civil disputes is elusive, and likely to remain so”.

However, if we have the post-commencement review that my noble friend has asked for, we can look at the progress that has been made on all those fronts. As a corollary of having this review, I think that my noble friend Lord Beecham is right to propose that there should be a sunset clause and that Part 1 would need to be positively revived in the light of the evidence that would have become available by then. Therefore, I am very happy to support the amendments proposed by my noble friend.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, let me make it absolutely clear from the start that my spirits are lifted when I see the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, rise to his feet. In all seriousness, I believe that he is a very effective parliamentarian. I say that as a compliment. He researches his interventions, his arguments are well marshalled, and it is always a pleasure to respond to him. That is particularly the case this evening, when we have had a glimpse of what might have been: the Howarth Chancellor of the Exchequer Budget. There would be all the savings and cuts and the only thing that would stop Chancellor Howarth getting the country a triple C rating would be the presence of a triple D rating. Nevertheless, it is always a pleasure to respond to him, and that is why I intend to take at least 25 minutes to deal precisely with the points that he has made.

As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, very frankly, pointed out, Amendment 7A would require a post-commencement impact assessment in the same terms as the pre-commencement impact assessment, which we discussed under Amendment 6. I do not propose to rehearse the same arguments again here, as the real issue of this amendment concerns its relationship with Amendment 161. That amendment would, as has been explained, place a time limit on the effect of the primary legislation, and any revival of its provisions would require the approval of both Houses.

I ask the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, to consider for a moment the legal, contractual and practical implications of the legal aid scheme under this Bill lasting for only three years unless Parliament’s approval were reaffirmed at that point and thereafter annually. That would undermine the approval that Parliament may give by seeking re-approval inside a period shorter than most governmental terms. I do not really think that this proposition for a sunset clause in this Bill is practical. I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider the wisdom of this amendment and withdraw it.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Monday 5th March 2012 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, before the House receives this Report, may we have an assurance from the Leader of the House that we will not be wasting our time as we scrutinise the Bill and offer our advice to the House of Commons by way of amendment? Will he confirm that there is no necessity for Ministers to advise the House of Commons to claim financial privilege in relation to Lords amendments that may have public expenditure implications, which in the case of this Bill would be modest at the most? Will he assure us that this time the Government will not hide behind 17th century resolutions of the House of Commons to prevent the House of Lords in the 21st century from doing its proper job as the revising Chamber of a bicameral Parliament?

Magna Carta

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

Again, I am delighted by the enthusiasm with which the House is approaching this and I shall feed that idea back to Sir Robert.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Will the Minister confirm that Clause 29 of Magna Carta, which enshrines the right to due process, remains part of the law of England and Wales, but that it is under attack by the Government? Would it not be seemly if the Government were to celebrate the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta by withdrawing Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which removes legal aid from people on low incomes who are in dispute about their benefits entitlement or with their employer or with their landlord? If the Government should be less than gracious about this, will it not still be for the Barons to insist on the ancient constitutional principle that:

“To no man will we sell, or deny, or delay right or justice”?

[Lord McNally]

The noble Lord once again confirms that one should never take that final question.

Legal Aid

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I thank my noble and learned friend for that helpful question—he is making a habit of helpful interventions. Of course we do, and nobody doubts that. That is why, as I said before, we have provided funds for this transitional period and why my honourable friend Nick Hurd is at this moment making attempts to identify funding that will give the not-for-profit sector a better long-term future. Nobody denies, underestimates or fails to appreciate the benefits of the not-for-profit sector. The key is how it will adjust to the new structure of legal services that we are bringing about by these reforms.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, is equality before the law not a basic liberal principle? Why has the coalition abrogated it?

[Lord McNally]

It has not.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

Yes. I have been one of the strongest supporters of post-legislative scrutiny, and I am just putting it in place in terms of the Freedom of Information Act. The Justice Committee in another place has just taken from the Ministry of Justice a full assessment of how that Act has been working and will then take evidence. I would have thought it inconceivable that such post-legislative scrutiny would not examine the issues relating to clinical negligence.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I apologise to the Committee that I was not able to be here at the beginning of this debate. In the Minister’s view, does the legislation as drafted provide the flexibility to enable the Lord Chancellor to respond constructively and effectively to such findings as a review might produce at a suitable interval?

[Lord McNally]

Yes. If it did not, presumably we would bring forward primary legislation to correct it, but that is the parliamentary process.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Lords Chamber

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

I do not think the noble Lord should worry. At this time of night it becomes a bit of a blur for us all.

Amendments 72 and 82ZC would bring into scope debt matters that are not covered in Schedule 1 and which we intend no longer to fund. We are faced, as we have said before, with tough choices in this current fiscal climate, but this has allowed us to focus resources on those who need them most in the most serious cases where legal advice and representation are justified. We estimate that we will continue to spend around £50 million on social welfare law overall.

Amendment 72 relates to paragraph 28 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 and appears to be aimed at making legally aided advice, assistance and representation available where a person’s financial difficulties, such as debt problems, could potentially lead to the individual losing their home.

Amendment 82ZC would bring into scope all debt matters not covered in Schedule 1. In our consultation on legal aid reform, we proposed that funding should be prioritised on cases where the individual’s home is at immediate risk. We are therefore retaining legal aid in relation to court orders for possession or sale of the home and in relation to eviction. We generally consider that other debt matters are a lower priority and therefore do not justify public funding for legal advice and representation.

We recognise that early advice can be helpful in a range of contexts. However, what people often need is general advice, for example on welfare benefits, debt or housing, rather than legal advice. There are many alternative sources of help with debt issues, including Credit Action, the National Debtline, the Consumer Credit Counselling Service and local authorities, which also direct people to local sources of advice and assistance on debt matters. In addition, the Money Advice Trust has recently launched My Money Steps, an online tool for providing advice for people with debt problems. The Consumer Credit Counselling Service also offers a free online debt remedy service.

We also recognise the argument that withdrawal of legal aid for any issue could lead, by a chain of events, to serious consequences. We considered this point carefully when formulating our final proposals. However, our view is that the limited public funds for legal advice and representation should be focused on those cases where the client faces serious direct consequences. Therefore, we do not propose to devote these limited public funds to less important cases on the basis that they could indirectly lead to more serious consequences for that person.

It is also important to recognise that the Bill does not require legal proceedings to have been issued before legal aid can be made available. Legal aid will be available where action for repossession or eviction is contemplated—for example, where a person receives a letter threatening repossession action in the absence of payment. Therefore, legal aid will be available to a person threatened with repossession action for mortgage or rent arrears, for example to negotiate with the mortgage lenders. It should also be noted that we will retain funding for the housing possession court duty scheme. It offers free legal advice and representation to anyone in danger of eviction or having property repossessed, on the day of the hearing, regardless of their means. Research shows that 77 per cent of clients who receive this last-minute advice avoid the immediate loss of their home. Under the circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.

Amendment 82D appears to be aimed at bringing into scope debt relief remedies under Part 5 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and, in particular, as the noble Lord said, debt relief orders. As I have already said, we consider certain debt matters to be a high priority for funding. That is why we are retaining legal aid for debt cases where the individual’s home is at immediate risk of repossession because of rent or mortgage arrears or involuntary bankruptcy. We recognise that debt problems can be difficult for the individuals concerned. Nevertheless, we strongly believe that what is often required is practical advice to resolve issues, rather than advice of a legal nature.

It is important to note that debt relief orders are relatively informal procedures. Advisers act as approved intermediaries and assist debtors in applying to the Insolvency Service for a debt relief order. I reiterate that individuals who have debt issues are able to seek advice from alternative routes. For example, the Insolvency Service website provides guidance and leaflets, and information is available through the insolvency inquiry line. Importantly, it should be noted that debt relief orders are used by people who owe limited amounts of money and have no assets. Therefore, they do not involve a person’s home being at immediate risk. They are clearly not analogous to cases in which a home owner is at immediate risk of losing their home as a result of involuntary bankruptcy. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured by what I have said and will not press these amendments.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Can the Minister assure the Committee with complete confidence that every single one of the organisations that he has named in his remarks are confident that they will be in a position to provide debt advice—indeed, sufficient personalised debt advice—to the people who will need it? Has he taken into account that the number of people sinking into the toils of debt is increasing hand over fist as the economy deteriorates?

[Lord McNally]

No, of course I cannot give that assurance, but neither do I assume the absolute worst case in everything that we discuss, as the noble Lord seems to do in each of his interventions.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Monday 16th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

Of course, having listened to a debate dominated by what I acknowledge is a great deal of expertise and experience in this area, I will go away to ponder and think about what has been said, and discuss it with my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor. At this time of night, like the noble Baroness I think it is better if I put on the record our approach and we can then resume on Wednesday.

Amendments 33, 34, 39, 40, 41, 51, 52, 79B, 80, 80A, 82A, 82B and 82C all concern legal aid for children and young people, or people with dependent children. Others refer to the use of mediation in family cases. While—as I have said—I acknowledge the expertise and experience on display today, and while I understand what motivates these amendments, I ask the House in turn to acknowledge the economic realities behind the difficult decisions that we have been forced to take.

As the House is well aware, the Government’s approach has been to look at every area of law where legal aid is provided, and to consider whether it should continue, and in what form. In developing our proposals, we have considered carefully a number of factors, including: the importance and complexity of the issue; the litigant’s ability to present their own case; the availability of alternative sources of funding; and the availability of other routes to resolution. We have used these factors to prioritise funding so that civil legal services will be available in the highest priority cases; for example, where people’s life or liberty is at stake, where they are at risk of serious physical harm or immediate loss of their home, or for domestic violence remedies, or where children may be taken into care.

A number of noble Lords have drawn inferences that this is a cruel and uncaring Government; as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, a government for the sharp elbowed. Let me just put on record at this stage and remind noble Lords that even after our reforms are in place we will still be spending £120 million of funding per year for private family law, including domestic violence; an extra £10 million per year on mediation; £50 million on categories of social welfare law; £6 million on clinical negligence; and £2 million on education. That is why I sometimes bridle at suggestions that we are destroying the legal aid system. We are trying to manage an overall cut in legal aid that will still leave us with—as I have said before—one of the most generous legal aid systems in the world.

Amendment 33 applies to all civil and family proceedings, and seeks to bring into scope civil legal services for many areas of law that are excluded where the individual has a child who is dependent on them. The intention appears to be that this group of people should receive civil legal services because of the potential impact on their children of the withdrawal of legal aid. The amendment would retain funding across the board for people with dependent children, without regard to the relative priority and alternative methods of resolving disputes, and would lose the bulk of the £170 million of annual savings, as most family law cases involve a respondent or applicant who has dependent children. It would also significantly impact on the £110 million saving in other areas of civil law. We have not sought simply to retain legal aid for any case where the individual has a child. Doing so would mean expending limited funds on a range of cases: some important, some not as important and some where alternative ways of resolving the dispute would be preferable. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will not press the amendment.

Amendment 79B would bring all civil non-family matters within scope for children, with the exception of work relating to breach of a statutory duty, the making of wills, trust law and business cases. Amendment 82C seeks to bring into scope civil legal services covering welfare benefits, debt, housing and employment for those aged 24 or under or who are represented by a legal guardian. Amendment 82B seeks to bring into scope civil legal services in relation to advice and proceedings where the person is a care leaver under the age of 21 in wide-ranging civil and family areas specified in the amendment. Amendment 79B would mean that nearly all civil cases would be brought into scope if the applicant were a child. It is worth making it absolutely clear that in civil cases, claims brought in the name of a child are usually conducted by their parents acting as the child’s litigation friend rather than by the child themselves. This accords with the normal rules of civil litigation. The civil justice system as a whole does not generally require children to act on their own behalf.

I turn now to the rest of the amendments in the group. Providing blanket funding for all cases where the child or young person is the applicant would be costly, unnecessary and might create perverse incentives for parents to attempt to bring civil litigation in their children's name purely to secure funding in otherwise out-of-scope areas of law. The Government recognise the importance of funding in a range of cases where children's interests are paramount. This is reflected in the decisions that we have reached. As a result we have protected funding in areas that specifically involve children. We have retained legal aid for child protection cases, civil cases concerning the abuse of a child, and for cases concerning special educational needs assistance. We have also made special provision so that legal aid will be available for children who are made parties to private family proceedings.

There will also be an exceptional funding scheme that will ensure the protection of an individual's rights to legal aid under the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as those rights to legal aid that are directly enforceable under European Union law. Each case will be decided on its own facts, but in cases where Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is engaged, the ability of the client to present their own case, the complexity of the issues and the importance of the issues at stake will be relevant factors when a decision is taken on whether to grant exceptional funding. Therefore, where a child brings an action without a litigation friend, this will be an important factor in deciding whether they have the ability to present their case.

Amendments 80 and 80A seek to bring into scope civil legal services for any person who is under 24 and has a disability. They include but do not limit themselves to particular areas of scope that are excluded. Amendment 82A seeks to bring into scope civil legal services in relation to advice and proceedings for any person who is 24 or under and has a disability or lacks mental capacity. We have considered the point that the amendment makes about legal aid for those with disabilities. The equality impact assessment published alongside the Government’s response to consultation sets out our analysis of the potential effects that the reforms may have on people sharing protected characteristics in accordance with the public sector equality duty set out in the Equality Act 2010. We have acted consistently with that duty, one requirement of which is to have due regard to the impact on groups of different ages and those with different needs, such as disabilities. While we have identified the potential for the reforms to have greater impacts on some groups, we believe that those impacts are proportionate and justified by the need to meet our objectives, including the pressing need to make savings from legal aid.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

As this issue came up in an earlier debate, will the Minister explain to the Committee how it is that his policies that he acknowledges will have an impact on disabled people are not discriminatory and therefore legally offensive?

[Lord McNally]

They are not legally offensive. We have been honest right from the first day I answered questions. I go back again to this, which is something that the noble Lord in his many, many interventions never acknowledges. If you are making cuts in such an area that is directed at the poorer sections of society, of course, you will affect the poorer sections of society. But what will also affect the poorer sections of society is if you lose control of the economy and are forced to bring in further draconian cuts over which you have no control. We will return, as we have done, through six or seven parallel debates with the same briefings and research from the same organisations. We have a fundamental difference of opinion on how to tackle these problems. I am not even sure that the noble Lord is quite on message at least with the latest pronouncements from his Front Bench in the other place about what we are facing in these matters. I suspect that we will have further discussions on this.

The Bill contains important safeguards for children and adults who lack capacity and who require treatment for mental health issues. Paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 provides that legal aid may be made available for cases arising under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005, including cases concerning medical treatment of patients or those who lack capacity. Furthermore, paragraphs 9 and 15 of Part 3 of Schedule 1 provide for legal aid for advocacy for mental health cases before the mental health tribunal. Paragraph 4 provides for advocacy before the Court of Protection where there is to be an oral hearing and the case will determine the vital interests of the individual: medical treatment, including psychological treatment; life; liberty; physical safety; the capacity to marry or enter into civil partnerships; the capacity to enter into sexual relations; or the right to family life. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 3 of Schedule 1 provide legal aid for advocacy for an onward appeal to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court on a mental health or capacity issue that is within scope.

As I have already mentioned, there will also be an exceptional funding scheme that will ensure the protection of an individual’s right to legal aid under the European Convention on Human Rights as well as those rights to legal aid that are directly enforceable under European Union law.

Amendment 34 applies to all civil and family proceedings. It seeks to bring into scope civil legal services for many areas of law that are excluded for any child party or child represented by legal guardian. I will address the amendment on the basis that the term “legal guardian” means the child’s guardian of the type appointed by CAFCASS. We are already retaining legal aid for child parties in family proceedings which we have prioritised. This part of the amendment is therefore unnecessary. Otherwise the amendment retains funding across the board for children in all civil disputes without regard to their relative priority or alternative methods of resolving them.

As I said, the Government recognise the importance of funding in a range of cases where children’s interests are paramount. That is reflected in the final decisions we have reached. As a result, we have protected funding in areas that specifically involve children. We have also made special provision so that legal aid is available for children who are made parties to private family proceedings.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Monday 16th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, Amendments 32 and 89 seek to bring welfare benefit matters into the scope of legal aid funding, first, by deleting the exclusion for welfare benefits in Part 2 of Schedule 1 and, secondly, by adding social welfare as an in-scope category in Part 1 of Schedule 1.

The amendments are contrary to our reform programme in which we are focusing our resources on the highest priority cases. Currently legal aid is available for legal advice but not representation in relation to decisions on welfare benefits at the First-tier and Upper Tribunals. While we recognise that many people rely on welfare benefits, these cases are primarily about financial entitlement. In our reforms we have concentrated on the fundamental issues of liberty or safety. Given the need to prioritise funding, we have decided to remove legal advice for welfare benefits from the scope of the legal aid scheme.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally]

I am only one and a half pages into my reply. I do not mind. Carry on.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Can the Minister explain why poverty is a less fundamental issue than liberty or safety?

[Lord McNally]

I am going to go on to this. I must say to the noble Lord that it would help if I can get further than just past page one. I will deal exactly with the issue that he has raised. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Mallalieu and Lady Howe, indicated, we will have a series of debates on a number of specific individuals who will be affected by reforms.

A number of noble Lords have cited their own experiences, either professional or personal, so I shall in part answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, by giving a personal experience of my own. In 1976 I sat in the Cabinet Room in Downing Street with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister—Denis Healey and James Callaghan—and during the course of a two or three hour meeting the pound fell from 1.95 to 1.45 against the dollar. By the time it hit 1.45 we had sent for the Governor of the Bank of England and decided to call in the IMF. Like many events, it has left a political scar, which is this: if you lose control of your own economy, all the concern for the poor and the disabled and the disadvantaged is as nothing because you cannot help them if you are not in control of your own economy.

Many of the debates that we have heard in the past few days, including this one—and probably the one tomorrow—have addressed the kind of issues that we have heard today. As I look around the House, I know that on all Benches there are people who have devoted their lives to the betterment of the citizens of this country. No one party has a monopoly on that. However, it is right to say that we have had to take hard decisions in difficult circumstances. I hear that £1 million is within the margin of error and that £20 million is trivial, but in a department like mine those are the figures that we are having to face and deal with. Therefore, although I understand some of the—

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I am sure we all accept that it is imperative that the Government do not lose control of the economy, as the Minister puts it, but it is a question of how you gain control of the economy. Why do this Government prefer to deprive people of legal aid in their appeals for welfare benefits in order to save £25 million—they think, but very good reasons have been put by noble Lords all round the House as to why that saving would be illusory—while being prepared to spend much larger sums on freezing council tax, which will largely benefit more affluent people, or on weekly refuse collections? It is a question of priorities.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

No, I recognise a red rag when I see one. I will think about the point that the noble Lord made. I commend him for merging two groupings and ask him to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, perhaps I can ask the Minister a question. I am sure that the Committee is grateful to him for the full explanation that he has given in response to the amendments. He has assured the Committee that it is unimaginable that the Lord Chancellor would not consult regularly with bodies representative of those who provide legal services and he has insisted on the importance of due monitoring and accreditation—all processes no doubt designed to uphold standards. Can he give some account of how all those processes that he has said that the Government will undertake assort with something else of which the Lord Chancellor has made much? He said in his article in the Guardian on 20 December:

“This year we've begun deregulation of the legal sector, a change comparable in its possible impact to the Big Bang in the City in the 1980s”.

That suggests that there will be some very different procedures and that the relationship between the Ministry of Justice and the legal profession could become very different indeed.

In the context of the ministry's zealous desire to deliver substantial savings in public spending and its desire to break open some of the traditional structures and ways of carrying on, I wonder how the consultation, monitoring and continuing assurance of standards are to be reconciled with the exciting and radical new approaches that the ministry is developing.

[Lord McNally]

If I may say so, that is an extremely helpful intervention. One reason why my right honourable friend is reluctant to have these things battened down is that, as I have said from this Dispatch Box, the provision of legal services and the structures of the legal profession will be changed not by any radical zeal from the Ministry of Justice but by market forces and changes that are happening in our society. Much of what we have been talking about since the dinner break has concerned the machinery to be put in place, which very much replicates machinery already there but anticipates a more fluid situation in the legal profession.

That is why specifying named organisations and people could be dangerous. What must be clear is that the Lord Chancellor has those responsibilities, including the overriding one of protecting justice. I also invite the House to have some common sense: any Lord Chancellor or Secretary of State for Justice who tried to ignore or ride roughshod over the various bodies involved would soon come to grief.

I agree with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Bach: successive Ministers will find that you can consult but you do not always agree. I am sure that there was not total agreement when the previous Government imposed cuts in various fees for parts of the legal profession. That is the nature of things. Any sensible Lord Chancellor would involve and consult those bodies. That makes the amendments unnecessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Will the annual report say what the directions are? How are the legitimately interested public to know what directions the Lord Chancellor will give the director? Will the Minister tell us how they are to be known and what ground they would cover? What would be the subject matter of the directions?

[Lord McNally]

I think that we will have to await the document, but I will take advice on it. As far as I understand, the directions and guidance on the director’s functions will be published by the Ministry of Justice.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

At one stage I accused Peter Lodder, chairman of the Bar Council, of stalking me, so often did I see him. Of course the Bar Council, the Law Society and various other bodies, including committees of this House, will give an opinion on legislation. We are certainly in conversation on these matters. The noble Lord shakes his head, but when he was a Minister he did not say, “Come in, vested interests, tell me what you want and I will do it”. He listened to them, and where they could convince him he made changes. I assure noble Lords that my honourable and right honourable friends the Ministers in the other place and I have made ourselves constantly available to a wide range of bodies, including professional organisations, and we will continue to do so during the passage of the Bill. No organisation has a rubber stamp on the matter, but we will listen.

In philosophy and in content, this has been an extremely useful debate that I will draw to the attention of the Lord Chancellor. When it comes to the crunch, we face a division between the principled approach of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, that access to justice means that we must pay the legal aid bill, whatever it is.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I referred to expenditure that was genuinely necessary to ensure that all our citizens have equal access to justice. I certainly did not endorse any inefficiencies or extravagances in the legal aid system that there might be at the moment.

[Lord McNally]

The point is that that is genuinely what we, too, are trying to do. It is a matter of judgment. In the next month or six weeks, as we take the Bill through the House, we will test those judgments in detail. I hope that in the light of my response, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will withdraw his amendment.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Monday 21st November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I stand by that quote, then. If we are going to take that attitude, and if we are going to avoid taking tough decisions, we will face far greater economic problems. This idea that somehow we can put things off until tomorrow is perhaps why we are where we are today, and why we have to take the decisions that we will take today.

I heard closely what the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, was saying. Of course, it was a wonderful speech. A number of the speeches made today were wonderful speeches, if we believe that there is no limit to the amount of money that we can spend on legal aid; that there was somehow a golden age when this was all available. However, we know well—

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

The difficulty in the position that the Minister is taking is that while he may indeed reduce the Ministry of Justice’s expenditure, he is exporting his cost to other government departments and to local government. Far from reducing the deficit in public finances, the policies of his department are likely to increase it.

[Lord McNally]

That is the speech the noble Lord made earlier. He knows, as I well know, that across government, except for two special cases—health and overseas aid—departments have had to make severe cuts. In each of those departments, there are people who could make speeches, like those that have been made today, about how those cuts hurt specific sections of society. But there is no getting away from it: the Ministry of Justice is a department with a budget of just over £9 billion. Its commitment was to cuts of £2 billion in a department that spends on only four things—prisons, probation, legal aid and staff and court administration. Each of those has taken a hit. If noble Lords are successful in stopping the changes we have made in legal aid, those other parts will take a hit as well. I can tell noble Lords that it may be heartbreaking to hear some of the stories today, but for me, it has been heartbreaking to see very good staff who have served the Ministry of Justice well having to leave through no fault of their own. We have a probation service, which does exceptionally good work, that is under pressure. There are no soft options and no easy ways in this. We have tried to put forward a series of suggestions.

Listening to some of the distinguished lawyers, they do not fully appreciate that their profession is in flux. The way law is delivered and by whom it is delivered is going to change. I do not think the full impact of alternative business structures and changes in the way chambers and solicitors are organised is fully appreciated yet. They will mean changes, and they may be changes that make a big difference to the way that legal advice is delivered. I heard the disparaging of telephone advice, but the world is changing and lots of people receive advice on the net and by telephone. Indeed, I went to the Law Society’s prize giving for solicitor firms of the year and I was intrigued by how many of the prize winners now have web pages where people can go. You can get lots of advice for free before you press the button to hire them. It is a changing world in some of these things.

I understand that when campaigning groups are campaigning they always produce figures that will be brandished around in debates like this. For example, I point out that none of the horrendous cuts that we are being told about actually yet impacts on CABs. I hold up my hand on the £20 million. I thought of saying that when I was doing economics there was something about the velocity of money, and I think this is an example of it. I do not know whether it has been around 14 times, but it is, I confess, the same £20 million that was advised earlier, but it is a very useful addition. We are across the department looking at this very special problem of advice centres and the CAB to see whether we can bring forward proposals longer term.

I go back again to this idea that somehow we are moving from a principle in terms of legal aid. It invites the question: what is so magic about £2.2 billion or £2.1 billion against £1.7 billion? It is less, and it means cuts, but it is not a move away from some absolute commitment to pay for everything, whatever, which seemed to be the thrust of some of the speeches earlier. Once you have a budget, you make choices within that budget, and that is what we are doing. These reforms will still be spending £1.7 billion a year on child protection proceedings, most judicial reviews, international child abduction, special educational needs, community care, discrimination, debt and housing cases where a home is at immediate risk, mental health cases and 95 per cent of funding for child parties.

I accept that a number of issues have been raised today that need the kind of scrutiny and expertise that this House brings. The Government have not sprung these issues on an unsuspecting country. The proposals on legal aid were in the Green Paper that was published over a year ago. Certainly, some of the more recent additions will need the close scrutiny of this House, but it is not true that we brushed aside the Law Society’s wonderful ideas for saving the money in different ways. We considered its proposals very carefully, and we are looking very closely into the one for more efficient prosecution and reimbursement of legal aid funds. A great deal of its proposals were shuffling responsibilities and costs around Whitehall or producing new taxes, which is not the same as making savings.

I also take on board the very strong concerns that were voiced about domestic violence. I believe that we have tried not just with these measures but with other government measures to try to give support and help in this area. We should go through this in Committee and I will be able to respond to amendments that are put down at that stage. The same is true of clinical negligence. These issues have been raised with considerable passion and they merit closer scrutiny in Committee.

Those who are experienced as Ministers will know that I cannot make any commitments at this stage, other than to suggest, as I did earlier, that we use Committee for a useful and productive examination of the Bill. I take on board what a couple of my noble friends said about advice at police stations. I suggest that they put down an amendment on that. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, suggested that we had not listened to earlier consultation. That is not true. I will not weary the House by going through them but there are at least a dozen examples of specific changes we have made during the consultation process. I take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Gold, that the best way I can end this debate is the way I ended my opening speech; that is, to recognise that the range of expertise in this House will be extremely useful to us when examining this in Committee.

This may excite noble Lords or send them into depression, but we have something like three months of parliamentary time looking at this Bill in its various stages. I cannot go further on these issues than saying that we will listen, but we will listen to some very serious points that were made in a very serious way. I hope on that basis we can move to Committee and that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.

Elections: Alternative Vote System

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

Gosh, we are getting a lot of information today. This is all extremely useful for the electorate. In less than 48 hours, the power will pass to them. I have always been one of those politicians who trusts the people and I will wait to find out what they say. As to the earlier point on the Australian experience, the noble Lord is perfectly right.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

As the noble Lord has just acknowledged, the reality is that under AV the count would take longer. Will it not be the case that if we were to have an AV system, people would expect to know the result of the general election quickly, as they are accustomed to do? For that reason, is the Minister not absolutely right that if we were to have AV it would be inevitable that we would have to invest in counting machines?

[Lord McNally]

I think we have already had at least three questions on that to which the answer was no. As the noble Lord will know from his experience on the AV Bill, the Government are remaining aloof from the debate itself. However, I found it interesting that a Political Studies Association author at the University of Reading thought that the introduction of AV would imply an annual cost across a five-year electoral cycle of around only 30p per person. That sounds to me like a bargain.

Constitutional Reform: Referendums

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Monday 24th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, as I say, it is a subjective judgment, but that would seem to be one possible dividing line when looking at these matters. It would, in each case, be a matter for the Parliament of the day.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, if a constitutional change is to be submitted to a referendum as the price for holding two parties together in a coalition, is that not a poor reason and a worrying precedent?

[Lord McNally]

It certainly would be if that were ever to happen in the future.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I will take comfort in it. It is still seared into my soul—we should count ourselves lucky here—that I once had an order in the other place that involved Northern Ireland. There was me, the government Minister, and five Ulster Unionists, and we finally got away at about 2.20 am. I take the noble Lord’s Gypsy’s warning; I will check on this, and if there are any worries I will bring it back to the House.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Before the Minister sits down, I want to pick him up on his use of the term “paranoia”, which he has used a couple of times.

[Lord McNally]

I can give the noble Lord evidence. There has been bullying by—

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

May I just make my point?

[Lord McNally]

No.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I ask the Minister and his colleagues on that side of the House to understand that there is deep and genuine concern on our side that great quantities of constitutional legislation are being driven through Parliament by the coalition, which has no mandate for it and has not offered the public or the political system as a whole the opportunity to consider it in advance of its introduction. The legislation is being driven through on a fast track. We have a responsibility to guard the constitution, and if the Minister considers that our objections to the process that the coalition Government are adopting are paranoid, he is being extraordinarily obtuse and insensitive.

[Lord McNally]

This side of the House has treated serious amendments seriously, but I invite any future historian to read Hansard and then they can make their judgment.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their questions. The principle is that the clause was inserted in response to the committee in the other place asking for clarification. We have put Clause 5 into the Bill to ensure that media outlets are not caught by spending restrictions that are in place in terms of publishing information about the referendum. The media play a vital role in building public awareness and presenting facts and opinions on the matters raised by the poll. This amendment ensures that the media's ability to carry out that role and to exercise the usual freedom of the press and broadcast media is not restricted in any way. That was our intention.

On the point that the noble and learned Lord has just raised, I will have to check again with the Electoral Commission, but I believe that if in making a referendum broadcast, one or other of the campaigns was to indulge in the kind of expenditure to which he referred, that would be counted as expenses.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Does not this whole debate point up very clearly the absurdity of holding the referendum on the same day as other elections? It will be completely impossible to police the distinction which the Government seek to make between coverage that is referendum-related and coverage that is election-related. What if a programme or an article discusses both those topics together? It cannot conceivably work. My noble friend Lord Snape reminded us of how perplexing and confusing voters found it in 1975 when they found politicians of different parties on different sides of the argument. If I remember rightly, that referendum was not held on the same day as other elections; but it still caused people to scratch their heads. It will be completely impossible to sort this out if the two processes are carried forward on the same day. Will not the Government now accept that?

[Lord McNally]

I do not mind the constant argument about how people are going to be confused by this, but one lesson that we have learnt since 1975 is that a referendum and elections can be held on the same day, because we have done it. There is no reason why the two cannot be run together. To be absolutely clear, the extra expenses would come under Schedule 14.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

I have every confidence that those in government know how to consult the political parties they come from. I see no problem here and I have certainly not encountered one. As will have been noticed throughout the debate, on my Benches my noble friends Lord Tyler and Lord Rennard are both plugged into and expert on these matters for the Liberal Democrats. The noble Lord’s concern is touching, but I can assure him that it is not a problem.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

When Ministers consult with political parties about the processes that it might be appropriate to incorporate into this legislation, can the noble Lord assure us that they seek to act in a spirit of disinterestedness? After all, it would not be appropriate for the Government to stack the system so that it would benefit what the parties perceive to be their particular interests. Can he assure us that the Government’s hands are clean in this process?

[Lord McNally]

Absolutely clean. The problem about this, and the reason we are having such difficulty in convincing the Benches opposite, is that our whole aim is to get fair votes on the basis of fair constituencies, which obviously discomforts them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, on the question of how these rules are applied, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and I have a philosophical difference. As I said earlier, I supported the 2000 legislation and the setting up of the Electoral Commission. I am not in favour of the untrammelled process of elections. You need rules and checks and balances if you are going to offer a level playing field in these matters. Much of what was done during the period of the previous Government was worthy of support in making our electoral systems fairer and more transparent in funding and process. What is clear about the process is that much of what is in the Bill, although it is a fairly thick Bill to look at, and certainly what is in this clause, rests on tried legislation that is already in place.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

As my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, have rather compellingly pointed out to the Committee, there are real and practical problems with the existing rules. Does the noble Lord consider it to be the responsibility of the Government to iron out these difficulties and to put into place a more satisfactory set of arrangements, or is he saying that it is for the Electoral Commission to modify the rules as it thinks best? If the latter, is he satisfied that the Electoral Commission has the freedom and scope actually to do that?

[Lord McNally]

The answer has to be yes, as if we did not have that confidence in the Electoral Commission we would be in a very odd place. As I said, we support the trusting of the commission, which will publish guidelines on how these rules will operate. It is for the designated organisations and the other parties campaigning to work within those rules.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

No one is suggesting that the Electoral Commission is not to be trusted. The question is whether the commission has the scope under existing legislation to make the changes that may be necessary.

[Lord McNally]

Part of the debate is how much the changes need to be made. We believe that they do not and that the existing rules and regulations will stand. We see no reason to change the current legislation on spending limits for this referendum. Quite apart from seeing no compelling reason of principle, we should consider the practical effects. We are not far away from the start of the referendum period and changing the rules at this late stage could penalise permitted participants unfairly. In particular, we do not agree that there should be different spending regulations for this referendum compared with others, as the amendment suggests. We do not agree that there should be this distinction and we believe that the current spending regulation framework should apply to this referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

All right, we can spend a lot of time on this. I am not going anywhere. If the noble Lord wants to get up again then he can, but the argument about £20 million being spent on the campaign could have been used in any election in the past 100 years. It is not going to happen in this referendum.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

We are not talking about an extreme and highly unlikely possibility; we are talking about the possibility that someone with perhaps £2 million to spend could parcel it out between different beneficiaries who would all then campaign on one side of the referendum argument.

The Minister just said two things that are in conflict. He said that he had confidence in the rules and regulations as they are now but, when he was asked by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours what there was to stop this kind of abuse, he said that he frankly suspected that there was nothing. Those two remarks are in conflict with each other. This is a very important issue. We need to know the answer to the question, and if that answer is not satisfactory then the legislation needs to be amended to ensure that such abuse cannot take place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

The straightforward answer is that the question will be never ending. We will always be looking at how these things are regulated. We will always be looking at whether the rules can be tightened, improved or made more transparent. The question is whether you can conduct a referendum on a fair and transparent basis under the terms of the legislation proposed in the Bill. It is the opinion of this House and it was certainly the opinion of the other place that we could do that. The questions raised on the opposite side may be reasonable, including the question on the funding of political parties, which again will be an ongoing matter. That is why the Committee on Standards in Public Life is looking at that very issue, and this party and this coalition Government will legislate on the funding of political parties.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Of course the Minister is right to say that there will be continuing debate on this range of issues. However, on the specific issue of potential abuse to which the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, alerted us, and which my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and others agree should be taken seriously, the Minister said just now that in his view nothing in existing legislation would safeguard against that abuse. That is very worrying, and it will not do for the noble Lord to seek blandly to assure us that the legislation is probably good enough and that we should proceed with it. The Government have had plenty of time to think about these issues. This Bill was introduced months ago, and it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that the rules governing the conduct of referendums are sufficiently rigorous to provide against such abuse occurring.

[Lord McNally]

But if the Opposition, or even my noble friend, are putting forward hypothetical threats to the fair conduct of the referendum, I am not sure that any piece of legislation on God’s earth can meet every imagined threat.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Not every threat; but this is a specific abuse that was forensically identified by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, it is reassuring that the power of argument and eloquence still triumphs in this House.

Clause 6 and Schedule 9 to the Bill ensure that all permitted participants in the referendum that are not political parties are covered by the same regulations regarding loans as already apply to political parties that campaign in the referendum. The Bill does this by creating a new regime for the regulation of loans to permitted participants which closely reflects the rules that already govern loans made to political parties in Part 4A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Part of this regime is the creation of 13 new offences applicable to those permitted participants in the referendum. Again, these offences replicate the offences that already apply to major political parties through Part 4A of the 2000 Act.

This amendment seeks to apply the Electoral Commission’s new civil sanctions powers—they came into force by order on 1 December—so that they are available in relation to 12 of the 13 new offences created by the Bill. The civil sanctions regime was inserted into PPERA 2000 by the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. It is intended to allow the Electoral Commission to apply sanctions that are appropriate to the nature of each contravention and to use new approaches to secure compliance with the law where appropriate rather than referring a case for criminal investigation. The civil sanctions include fixed monetary penalties, discretionary requirements, stop notices and enforcement undertakings.

It was not possible to prescribe the new loans offences that the Bill creates in the order so as to apply the civil sanctions regime to them on 1 December. That is because the new loans offences have not yet been approved by Parliament and will not be approved until this Bill obtains Royal Assent. However, the order that came into force on 1 December prescribes the existing offences regarding loans to political parties. This means that there would be a disparity between how political parties and other permitted participants who receive loans to fund their referendum campaigns could be sanctioned if we were not to apply the civil sanctions provisions to the new offences by making this amendment. Our amendment will ensure that civil sanctions powers are also available for the new loans offences and will close off this disparity. The result is that any permitted participant who commits a loans offence after Royal Assent could be subject to civil sanctions imposed by the Electoral Commission. I beg to move.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I detect some inconsistency in the Minister. He is using this legislation to introduce new rules concerning loans but he has spent a considerable amount of time this afternoon telling the House that it is not appropriate to use this legislation to change rules in respect of other matters that may arise in the conduct of referenda—for example, expenditure on publicity or the rules governing the donations that authorised individuals may give. Why is it okay for the Government to change the rules here where it happens to suit them and not in those other respects?

[Lord Soley]

May I ask for clarity? I found the Minister’s comments confusing. He seemed to be saying that, because the rules were not ready, we could not change this, but he was setting aside time or something—I did not understand that bit—so that we could change it at a later date. I think that he needs to explain that a bit better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

First, I do not believe that the role of the Electoral Commission is as passive as the noble Lord, Lord Soley, suggests, as was demonstrated by the fact that it suggested a better question for the referendum, which was taken on board by the Government and implemented in the Bill. I supported the establishment of the Electoral Commission and welcomed the introduction of political input into its deliberations. I remember when we first discussed it, the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and others and I pointed out that there was a necessity to have some sensitivity about how political campaigning was carried on by mainly voluntary organisations. The Electoral Commission has performed its duties well, and I have every confidence in its being able to carry out its responsibilities under the Bill.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I am glad to hear the Minister affirm his confidence in the Electoral Commission. Does he repudiate the very unkind remarks about the chair of the Electoral Commission made by his right honourable friend Eric Pickles a few months ago? The chair came under heavy personal criticism from his right honourable friend.

[Lord McNally]

I shall not comment one way or the other on extraneous interventions like that, for goodness’ sake.

The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, gave me a slap about getting irritated, but the point is that these election rules and regulations—most of the schedules to the Bill—are straight lifts from existing legislation put in place by the last Labour Government, so it comes as a surprise that people who were Ministers in that Government suddenly find all kinds of loopholes and dangers in that legislation. We have transposed into the schedules existing legislation, bringing it as up to date as we can with this amendment and this clause.

I am not a lawyer but, as far as I understand it, the civil sanctions have been brought in because, as I said earlier—and this is not in my brief but from my understanding of it, so perhaps if I am wrong one of the experts behind me can correct me—the criminal sanctions in the existing legislation were felt to be far too heavy-handed, particularly as they applied to volunteer officers in political parties. A range of civil sanctions were brought in that allowed the Electoral Commission a degree of flexibility, from giving a little advice to an errant officer to applying heavy sanctions. That flexibility was intended in bringing in civil sanctions. The decision on how to apply them is one for the Electoral Commission.

As noble Lords know from briefings sent to them, the Electoral Commission is following very closely these deliberations and listening very closely to the points made by noble Lords on all sides. I have every confidence that, if a point is made that the Electoral Commission thinks is of substance and needs to be dealt with, it will not hesitate to bring this to the attention of Ministers and Members of the Opposition, just as it has done in the past. The clause is a fairly narrow one to make provisions regarding the regulation of loans and bring the regulations under the referendum up to date with the legislation already introduced on 1 December.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

I will write to the noble Lord on that. It seems that one element of confusion is that we are not asking United Kingdom constituencies to make a decision—we are asking for a national vote. It will be a yes or no poll, designed on a national basis.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I understand the argument about administrative convenience and, of course, that argument is not negligible. However, does the Minister not think it is important that people should know how the votes have been cast, parliamentary constituency by parliamentary constituency, on what the future electoral system for those constituencies should be? Surely that is a matter of some importance to not only Members of Parliament but members of political parties, the generality of citizens and those who seek to evaluate and learn the lessons from this campaign. This is an important consideration which should not be set aside simply on grounds of administrative convenience on the day.

[Lord McNally]

I stand by the case for administrative convenience, but the fact that there will be a national vote, not individual constituency decisions, is the important issue. In fact, I had forgotten, until the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, helpfully reminded me, that the referendum in 1975 was not declared on a constituency basis, partly because the whole point of a referendum on an issue such as this is to get a national decision. These provisions are designed to make the voting process easier and more straightforward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

I suspect that, again, the decision is based on administrative convenience, which is not a dishonourable reason. What we are trying to do, as I have said so many times before, is to make the procedure as straightforward as possible. I believe there was an amendment in the other place. Perhaps, when this Bill goes back to the other place, Mr Chris Bryant will put down an amendment for a constituency base.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Is the noble Lord really saying that it does not matter whether Members of Parliament hear the voices of their constituents, and whether Members of Parliament know what judgment their constituents have come to on this matter of what the parliamentary voting system should be?

[Lord McNally]

The noble Lord is a master at pious interventions. Members will campaign, make their voices heard and assess their constituencies. I give way to my noble friend.

Legal Aid: Family Courts

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Monday 13th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, it is difficult to assess the full impact at the moment, but it is certainly true that, in many of the firms that have been dealing with family law, ethnic minorities are better represented. However, I think that it is too early to say that the impact to which my noble friend has referred will come about.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that a large majority of our fellow citizens would be willing to pay whatever taxes are required to ensure that everyone in this country, through legal aid, is equal under the law and has equal entitlement to access to justice before the courts? Should not that be a bedrock principle of a liberal society?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, one of the Government’s proposals, which I think has some merit, is to attempt to move away from a culture in which the taxpayer pays for litigation, particularly in family disputes. Many studies have shown that the litigation route to settling family disputes exacerbates the dispute and causes lasting harm to all sides of the family, particularly the children.

Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

As far as I understand it, for deaths in custody, legal aid is automatic.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, following the welcome Statement to this House from the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that measures included in the Coroners and Justice Act to improve the treasure system will be implemented, and following the comparatively welcome news this week on funding for the Portable Antiquities Scheme, along with the commitment made by the Culture Minister to review the scope of the Treasure Act in 2011, may I encourage the Minister to continue in this positive vein where archaeology is concerned? What progress have Ministers made towards establishing a national coroner for treasure?

[Lord McNally]

Believe it or not, a national coroner for treasure is not in this brief, so I promise to write to the noble Lord. As a former member of the All-Party Archaeology Group, I hope that progress is being made, subject of course to the financial constraints that we found ourselves in when we took office.

Public Expenditure: Members of Parliament

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. One of the problems with the persistence of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, in putting these Questions on the Order Paper, is that much of this is idle speculation by him. We will soon have the Bill and then we can have a proper debate.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, would not such a reduction in the number of Members of the House of Commons have larger and dangerous implications for the control of public expenditure? With the payroll vote being a yet larger proportion of its Membership, would not the freedom of the House of Commons to scrutinise the Government’s proposals for public expenditure, and its capacity to hold the Government to account for their performance over public expenditure, be enfeebled even beyond its present inadequacy?

[Lord McNally]

In responding seriously, I honestly do not think that this is a numbers game. I agree with the noble Lord that, whatever reforms are carried out at this end, the House of Commons should also sharpen up its act in holding the Executive to account.

Elections: Voting Systems

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Tuesday 5th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I can give the assurance that we will give an open-minded look. My suspicion, however, is that in both Houses and in general there will be reluctance to bring an element of compulsion into voting, although all parties would like to see greater participation.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

If the House of Commons were to be elected under AV and the second Chamber were to be elected under proportional representation, would not the second Chamber then have greater legitimacy, and what would be the implications for the primacy of the House of Commons?

[Lord McNally]

I think none whatever, because our reform programme will certainly underpin the primacy of the House of Commons.

Elections: Costs

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Thursday 15th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

Of course we are going to give the time. The last Boundary Commission review took seven years and came into practice after nearly nine years, so there is clearly an opportunity to find a more efficient way of undertaking the task. The legislation will bring forward proposals that will then be thoroughly examined by both Houses.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, how much more would it cost to offer people the option in the referendum to vote for a proportional electoral system? Have not the Liberal Democrats sold their souls to the coalition too cheaply?

[Lord McNally]

It has been decided in the coalition agreement that this is the clearest and simplest alternative to offer to the electorate. I would have thought that it would be extremely welcome to the Benches opposite, because that was their preferred option, too.

Political Parties: Funding

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Thursday 1st July 2010 Lords Chamber

[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.

Parliament: MP Numbers and Constituency Review

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Howarth of Newport

Thursday 24th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[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.