Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th January 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Rooker]

109A: After Clause 50, insert the following new Clause—
“Application of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to National Food Crime Unit of Food Standards Agency
In the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, after section 114B, insert—“114C Application to National Food Crime Unit of Food Standards AgencyThe Secretary of State may by regulations apply any provisions of this Act to investigation of offences conducted by officers of the National Food Crime Unit in respect of search and seizure.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to avoid the police having to obtain these powers from a court on behalf of NFCU. The officers dealing with offences could present the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 109A, which proposes a new clause. I freely admit that the content of what I am about to say is really nothing to do with the Bill; the Bill is a vehicle for a change quite unconnected with its main thrust. Oh! You can forget to take your mask off.

During Oral Questions on 22 February, I raised the issue of food-related crime and the resources devoted to it. The then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, pointed out that the Food Standards Agency constituted the National Food Crime Unit in 2014 and that Ministers were in dialogue about increasing its powers. Indeed, in his supplementary answer later he went further and said that

“its investigatory powers could be enhanced and its impact improved. That is the view of the Government, industry and the police, and that is why we are committed to the dialogue, first suggested by the Kenworthy review”.—[Official Report, 22/2/21; col. 614.]

The food crime unit’s work is about tackling serious organised or complex cases of food crime. The unit, and indeed the Food Standards Agency—which, of course, is a non-ministerial department—can use the powers of RIPA and CHIS, and the unit can access the police national computer and the automatic number plate recognition system. But in key aspects, the unit cannot get into the serious complex cases without the support of hard-pressed partners in policing and local government.

The police have never taken food crime seriously and admit that it is not a high priority. I first came across food crime when I went into MAFF in 1997. I had the same issue when I arrived at Defra a dozen years later. I am not criticising; this is the reality. It is not counted as proper crime, yet billions of pounds are involved—and what is more, there is the risk to public health. There is an issue there.

Delays owing to competing higher-risk police priorities have proven detrimental to a number of food crime unit investigations. The unit needs the powers to be able to go to the courts rather than have the police doing it once removed. In fact, all the unit needs is access to the powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. There have been some cases in the recent past where the police have been unable, unavailable or reluctant to apply for warrants on behalf of the unit. There have been delays when the food crime unit has had to wait for police officers to become available or when police withdrew support because of other priorities.

The gangmasters authority, among others, has secured these powers. In fact, my amendment is a straight copy of the amendment put into the Police and Criminal Evidence Act on its behalf, so I did not have any trouble drafting anything. Of course, the Public Bill Office was incredibly helpful, but I am just following a process that has happened before.

The lack of these powers is affecting staff in the unit due to it being a real constraint. The officers of the unit, none of whom I have spoken to, are well qualified to present cases directly. They consist of ex-police officers of very senior rank, ex-National Crime Agency officers and ex-police intelligence officers, so they are fully qualified in other circumstances to go to court to get the warrants. We are talking about seizure and search; that is the limit of what is in the amendment. The former chair of the Food Standards Agency, Heather Hancock, has said that the National Food Crime Unit cannot do its job relying on the kindness of the police to lend their powers in important cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for raising this important matter. I acknowledge that there is considerable experience of the Food Standards Agency in your Lordships’ House. We support, in principle, the proposal to increase the investigative powers available to the National Food Crime Unit. The fraud cases of which we have been made aware by the chair of the Food Standards Agency, Professor Susan Jebb—as referred to by the noble Lord—are truly shocking.

Food crime is a very serious issue, with fraud in our food supply chains costing billions of pounds each year. The National Food Crime Unit, which was established to investigate these crimes, should be empowered to tackle them, to improve the response to these cases and to reduce the burden on its colleagues in law enforcement. As such, we are still committed to working with the Food Standards Agency and DHSC, its sponsoring department, on extending certain Police and Criminal Evidence Act powers to the National Food Crime Unit. However, in doing so, we need to work through the implications of this. It may assist the noble Lord if I briefly set out some of the issues we think we would need to explore further.

First, the exercise of any PACE powers by the National Food Crime Unit must be necessary, proportionate and legitimate. As such, it is important that there are suitable governance, accountability, oversight, investigations and complaints arrangements in place, as there are for the police. The National Food Crime Unit is not a statutory body, nor does it have a separate legal identity. Oversight, governance and the complaints processes sit with the Food Standards Agency board, which commissions independent reviews and facilitates a complaints process which ultimately reports to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. There is therefore no formal independent oversight.

There is also a lack of clarity on the necessary protocols when PACE powers would be exercised, including in relation to post-incident procedures on seizure, retention and evaluation of evidence, and the treatment of arrested persons without police presence. These are all issues which, I have no doubt, can be resolved but I am sure noble Lords would agree on the necessity of ensuring that the appropriate accountability and governance arrangements are in place, given that we are dealing with intrusive powers of the state. As such, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to extend the search and seizure powers in PACE to the National Food Crime Unit without further consultation on the issues I have described. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, misses very much, but that is the answer to his question.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that we are committed to taking this work forward with the Food Standards Agency. I do not have a specific answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on where the dialogue is at the moment. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I remind the House that I said that the Food Standards Agency, and therefore the unit, can use the powers of RIPA and the CHIS Act that we passed last year. We are not dealing with some little quango here; this is a government department. If the Government were serious, between February last year and today they would have sorted this out.

I have not campaigned on this. I left it in February and thought, “All I have to do is wait until a vehicle comes along and check if it has been dealt with or not.” The fact is that I am not going to let the Minister get away with it. Someone is going to have to go to the members of the FSA board, and therefore the unit, and say to them, “The Government stopped this change.” When the next big scandal comes along—there are scandals of different scales, and it is nine years since horsemeat so we are due another any time now—no one over there will be able to say, “We were going to do this but Lord Rooker withdrew the amendment.” As such, I am going to test the opinion of the House.

Libel and Defamation Cases: Cost to Public Funds

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Rooker]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the estimated cost to public funds of people based outside the United Kingdom using UK courts to mount libel and defamation cases against (1) people, and (2) publications, based in the United Kingdom.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)]

My Lords, court fees are set to achieve full cost recovery, and thus the cost to public funds of libel claims brought by people from outside the United Kingdom in England and Wales is negligible.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that five Russian billionaires are involved in a strategic lawsuit in London against the journalist Catherine Belton as a result of her book, Putin’s People? Why should Igor Sechin, Roman Abramovich, Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven and Shalva Chigirinsky be using London lawyers Carter-Ruck, CMS, Harbottle and Lewis and Taylor Wessing to silence a journalist? These grubby law firms should be struck off and the barristers whom they are paying to do this work should be disbarred. Our courts are being abused by these people, and as Nick Cohen said in the Observer, they are making London

“the censorship capital of the world.”

What are the Government doing about the co-ordinated, shameful abuse of our courts, which must have started life in the Kremlin?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, it is not what the Government are doing but what the Government have done. Section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013 provides that if a defendant is domiciled out of the jurisdiction then London can hear the case only if the judge is clear that this is the appropriate forum. That Act also contains defences of truth, honest opinion and public interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Written Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, focused on the cost to public funds, which the Minister fully answered. The Oral Question contains an attack on barristers and solicitors for representing clients. Does the Minister agree that any litigant, whoever they may be and wherever they may come from, is entitled to legal advice and representation, and that it is the job of the judge to decide what the legal rights and wrongs are?

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

They have vested interests.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, that is absolutely right. With respect to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, from a sedentary position, it is not a vested interest point, it is a fundamental principle of the rule of law. A lawyer should not be identified with their client, and perhaps I may say that I would not want to be identified with all my former clients. But they are all entitled to representation in free and fair courts, which is what this country provides.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

Whereas I was very happy to support it—I will be interested to hear other speakers, notably the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who I know has extensive experience, and my noble friend the Minister—perhaps we can look at nuance, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said; some way of amending or making sure that, in the instructions to the courts, the presumption that they can disapply is recognised a bit more formally.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, my quick message to Hansard is that they can tear up the note I sent earlier. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, has just made the speech I decided to make having listened to the debate. I do not propose to repeat what he said, save for the fact that the general thrust of his conclusion as a lay person is the same one I have come to. I read the briefings, considered the issue and listened to my noble friend Lord Rosser; I was then surprised when listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. As the debate went on, I started to have second thoughts. This is the benefit of Committee—that is what it is for. The idea can be taken away and reworked.

I will raise one point from one of the briefings, from Support Not Separation and Women Against Rape, which quoted the harm review. They said they found a pattern of bias in the court professionals which gave weight to the views of the child who wanted contact but dismissed the views of the child who did not. That is extremely worrying.

However, having come to the same conclusion as the noble Lord, Lord Randall, I will leave it there.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I view this amendment, which is in two parts, with some concern. To a very large extent, I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.

When I was President of the Family Division—and throughout the 35 years I was a family judge—I heard a great many cases which had some element of domestic abuse. I do not like presumptions, if they can be avoided. I remember that, when the amended Section 1(2A) was introduced while I was a Member of this House, I was very dubious about it, because I do not like presumptions. The important point of the Children Act is Section 1, which says that

“the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.”

Any family judge or magistrate has to look at all the circumstances and decide whether it is appropriate, in those circumstances, for both parents to have a relationship with the child after their separation. In normal circumstances, one takes it for granted that both parents will have a relationship, but there will be cases in which there should not be one.

I am not quite so concerned about the first part of Amendment 130, because it says that subsection (2A) shall not apply in situations which have affected the child. Even so, it should be a matter where the welfare of the child is paramount and the judge exercises his or her discretion, having come to a conclusion based on all the facts.

I am particularly opposed to the second part of Amendment 130: the restrictions on Section 9. This is, first, because it does not require domestic abuse to have affected the child. Other points have been made on this by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, with which I entirely agree, but I can see circumstances where a child was for one reason or another—possibly at boarding school or away on holiday—not present when there was domestic abuse between the parents, and the child had no knowledge of it. In those circumstances, it would not be inappropriate for the child to have unsupervised contact with a parent who had done absolutely nothing wrong to the child but who may have been involved in a single or unusual circumstance which could be classified as domestic abuse of the other parent.

This draconian proposal that Section 9 be restricted is inappropriate, although I entirely understand and share the concerns about the parents—mothers as well as fathers—who have been given unsupervised contact where there are issues of domestic abuse which are true, where the children are then killed. That is extremely sad; there should be adequate training of all judges and/or magistrates trying family cases. It may be more important to get the Ministry of Justice to discuss with the Judicial College and the President of the Family Division whether the training of judges and magistrates in issues of domestic abuse, to which I shall refer on the next group, should be improved. I will later refer to a useful case in the Court of Appeal which has been discussing this.

I am completely opposed to the second part of Amendment 130. I am sympathetic to what lies behind it, but I believe there should be a broader consideration of whether, where the welfare of the children must be paramount, there should be any presumptions of any sort—but certainly not in the way this has been drafted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Helic (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I intend to focus mainly on Amendment 133, which is in my name. Like the other amendments in this group, which I support, it is trying to make sure that the courts protect survivors of domestic abuse from further harm. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his support on this amendment and for his leadership on the others, and I take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friends Lady Newlove and Lady Bertin for their contributions. I have learned a lot from them.

I approach this debate humbly. I am not a legal expert and I have not had what is called “a lived experience”. My intervention is informed by many cases I have come across, in particular the case of a close friend whose experience at the hands of a judge and experts lacking domestic violence training has been traumatic, painful and unjust. I also want to put on the record the work of the London Victims’ Commissioner’s office and Women's Aid, from whom I have learned an enormous amount.

The Ministry of Justice review into the risk of harm in family court cases involving domestic violence, which concluded in June last year, found serious systemic issues. Despite good intentions, domestic abuse allegations are being overlooked, misunderstood and dismissed. Survivors and their children are being put at risk as a result, something which I have heard about directly from survivors. To quote one survivor who spoke to Women’s Aid and Queen Mary University of London:

“All professional witnesses supported me but despite overwhelming evidence, the judge said that I didn’t fit the profile of domestic violence victims as I wasn’t scared enough. Also I was too educated and knowledgeable to allow DV to happen to me.”


This runs against everything we know about domestic abuse and the damage it does.

I am afraid that underpinning this is a lack of judicial understanding. This is not a criticism of individual judges; they face tremendous challenges, given the complexity of domestic abuse cases and the way that society’s awareness and understanding of domestic abuse has improved in recent years. But, unfortunately, the family courts’ approach to domestic abuse remains much the same as 20 years ago, and the system is stacked against the survivor because of both the pro-contact culture of the courts and the intersecting structural disadvantages women experiencing domestic abuse face within then.

If we want to change the practice and culture of the courts so that they truly put the best interests of the child at heart, they need to work at the cutting edge of our understanding of domestic abuse and its harms, not years behind, and, for that, specialist training is absolutely crucial.

We have already heard several times in Committee about the need for better training. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, discussed judicial training, while Amendment 53 looked at the issue from another angle. Among those calling for improvements from outside are Women’s Aid and the London Victims’ Commissioner. The Government have also recognised the importance of training. The Ministry of Justice review panel recommended

“training for all participants in the family justice system”,

and I was heartened to hear my noble friend Lady Williams agree that judicial training needs to be revisited. I hope that she and my noble friend Lord Wolfson will be receptive to this amendment.

Domestic abuse affects all aspects of a family court case. It shapes how participants present at court, the evidence they give and how they give it, and it is a critical factor in determining the interests at stake and how safe child contact is arranged. However, as is recognised in the Bill, domestic abuse has a wide range of impacts and requires a wide-ranging, intersectional understanding. Mandatory training, delivered by domestic abuse specialists, will ensure that judges at all levels are much better equipped to understand the effects of domestic abuse and how to respond to it. As such, it will support and make possible the implementation of all aspects of the Bill. I note also that similar training is required for sexual violence, although that remains outside the scope of the Bill.

By stipulating that the training should be developed in consultation with the domestic abuse commissioner, we can ensure that it truly teaches current best practice and is aligned with national and specialist efforts to tackle abuse. As our understanding of domestic abuse improves, the courts will not, and should not, be left behind.

My focus so far has been on judicial training, but perhaps the real importance of the amendment is that it goes further than that, extending not just to members of the judiciary but to any Cafcass employees, social workers or appointed experts advising the court. That is why this amendment is so necessary. The Judicial College could offer better training for judges without it, but that is not enough.

Expert witnesses rightly play an important role in advising and guiding the family courts, but of course they do not have a thorough understanding of every field or every issue. Many expert witnesses, whose opinions might be crucial in shaping a court’s decision, are not experts in domestic abuse at all. They are not well placed to advise on whether domestic abuse is taking place or on what its impact might be.

Training which gives a full picture of domestic abuse—the context, the impact and how to respond—is therefore necessary in order that experts in our courts have a full picture of the situations they advise on. It will make them more aware of the risks and more attuned to the harm that could be inflicted. It will help implement the recommendations identified by the Ministry of Justice review, which called for training for all participants, including a cultural change programme and a multidisciplinary approach across all agencies and professionals. The result will be better processes for survivors and, crucially, better outcomes for children.

One survivor who contacted me recently described how Cafcass does not see her as a victim of domestic abuse because there are no broken bones or scars and because she seems like a strong and capable woman. But, as we all know, and as the Bill recognises, domestic abuse takes many more forms than just the worst manifestations of violence. It is no good changing our legislation to reflect that if we do not change practice as well. That requires training, and that is why we need this amendment.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Helic. I will speak to Amendments 131, 132, 133, and 136. I shall not go back to my time in the Commons, when I dealt with some cases in a personal way.

I have had the benefit of a briefing from someone who has sat as a court independent domestic violence adviser and has what I will call direct, hands-on street experience and remains involved in the wider processes. She has worked in the voluntary sector and in law enforcement, so her experience comes from both sides.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

Yes, but it is done now in a deliberate attempt to try to prevent us pursuing a very important issue. I suggest to your Lordships that we should be very careful of any attempt to do that, particularly in those circumstances. Look at the wider context. Taken with this House’s effective exclusion from discussions on English votes for English laws, which is now going on—we were not allowed in—and with the Strathclyde review, we will have only ourselves to blame if we fail to note the way the wind is blowing. Please observe the words of Mr Stewart Jackson, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Peterborough, in last week’s debate:

“In conclusion, it is a constitutional outrage that the superannuated, unelected, unaccountable panjandrums in the House of Lords have told us what the elected House should be doing even though we have a settled view on this. They should learn their place. They must be subservient to the elected House, and it is high time that we had House of Lords reform”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/12/15; col. 880.]

Amen to the last one. That is what is behind this: it is not to give new influence to this House, but to take away what little influence we have.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I want to ask the noble Lord a practical question. We are discussing a Bill, not an order. The elected House will always have the last say under the Parliament Acts. I ask him to be more practical about this: given that the Commons has sent this back without an in lieu amendment, if this House carries this amendment and it goes back to the Commons, we would be put in the position of not being able to provide another in lieu amendment. Next week we will have the same reason back—financial privilege. What will he do then?

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, let us wait and see. If the House of Commons and the Government do not take this House seriously, why are we here? That is the question we have to ask ourselves.

I take up in particular this issue of the elected House having a right to bulldoze through what they think is right for election law. I have been a Member of the other House. I have to tell your Lordships that it is not unknown for Members of Parliament to have a particular interest in the electoral arrangements that got them there. I reject utterly the idea that somehow your Lordships’ House is not allowed to have a view on electoral law. I have been here some time now—more than 10 years. I have been involved in revision of electoral law many times. No Government have ever sought to stop us.

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (Criminal Courts Charge) Regulations 2015

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I have just received an email from a friend who is a magistrate. I shall not say where because these days one cannot do that. It is worth putting on the record. He writes:

“Courts are closing in great numbers with another 90 about to be closed and there will be more after this. Defendants and witnesses now have to travel great distances. Some cannot afford it so plead guilty when they may not be. Also, it has removed the fundamental right of citizens to be tried by their peers as the cost of the criminal court charge is so high and beyond most defendants’ means, so they are pleading guilty. It has removed the need of the CPS to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. Not many well-off people appear in court so it is the poorest who are being hit with a double whammy”.

That is the view of a serving magistrate sitting on the Bench today.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, on this subject, I am on the side of the two Jeremys: the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and Jeremy Bentham. In 1795, Jeremy Bentham wrote:

“The statesman who contributes to put justice out of reach … is an accessary after the fact to every crime”.

For Bentham, such a law tax was a denial of justice. These regulations are a denial of justice, and they are a denial of justice for the two reasons given by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Marks. First, because the sums involved—£150 up to £1,200—may well encourage innocent people to plead guilty, and, secondly, because the magistrate or judge has no discretion to vary the charge by reference to the circumstances of the offence or the offender—in particular, the offender’s means.

I will add a further point. There is a much fairer and more lucrative way forward for a Lord Chancellor who wants to help balance the books by imposing a court charge. Let the Lord Chancellor give the judges and magistrates a discretion to charge much higher court fees to defendants who are convicted of serious crimes and who can afford to pay. The drug dealers, the bank robbers and the fraudsters can be charged the true cost of their occupying the courts for weeks in trials that end in convictions if the judge or magistrate in their discretion thinks that it is appropriate to do so. The regulations could then give the courts a proper discretion not to impose on the small fry charges that may well induce guilty pleas from innocent people and may well result in the imposition of orders for payment from people who cannot afford them. If the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, wishes to test the opinion of the House on these regulations, he will certainly have my support in the Division Lobby.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I am a complete outsider on this, but I am now confused. The examples that the noble Lord has given I can recall from my own experience, not of judicial review but of group activities—the community. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, however, said that he would buy 15% to 20%. Now, 15% is six or seven people. That is not a group or a community. Twenty per cent would be five people funding. I am now at a loss. I realise that the Government should put something forward about the level, but I am confused by the idea of lots of people contributing for the community. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, “I could buy 15% or 20%”. That is not a group and it is not a community. That is a small tightly knit group of motivated people. So I am confused about which way we are going on this debate.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has, extremely uncharacteristically, if I may say so, missed the point. I am sure that it is my fault. We are talking about group actions that may involve a significant number of people—hundreds or thousands, maybe—to which a few individuals make a large contribution. They are making that contribution, often anonymously, to ensure that the matter is capable of going to judicial review for the reasons I gave earlier. We are not talking about 20% meaning that there are only five people involved in the action. We are talking about 20% of the funding that is collected, although there may be hundreds of people involved in the action.

Probation Services: Privatisation

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

On the original Question to which the Minister just referred—and I have listened with care to his answers—the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, made it specifically clear that the starting gun was to be fired on 28 October. It is now 31 October. We are already three days late at the beginning. So what is the answer? When will that date and that target be met?

[Lord McNally]

The Question implies a kind of sprint race where there is the firing of a gun. Some of these things have been in track for months and indeed years, and will continue in progress after October, after next April and after the October after that. We are managing change in a very important sector, whereas the Question implies that public safety must be paramount. The idea that we are somehow firing a gun and everybody rushes off ignores the reality of some careful preparation which is under way.

Coroner Service

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

Indeed, we have been in regular contact with INQUEST and those are exactly the kinds of issues for which we hope the new charter will enable the bereaved to have direct redress if problems arise. Let us be clear: as much as the previous Government, we want an efficient coroner service that allows bereaved people full information about a process which is always going to be stressful. It really is our full intention to try to make this system work along the main lines of the 2009 Act, but without a chief coroner.

[Lord Rooker]

Does the Minister accept that the Question asked by the noble Baroness was a first-class use of Question Time in bringing a long-standing individual grievance to the Floor of Parliament? Without knowing anything about the circumstances, would it not have been appropriate for the Minister at least to have said that he will go away and look into this?

[Lord McNally]

It may have been. I am not so sure that it is a proper use of Question Time to expect the Minister to know about an individual, personal case, which I fully understand for the individuals concerned must be extremely serious. One of the things that I do, as the noble Lord probably did as a Minister, is have a washing-up session after Question Time to see what needs to be followed up. However, I do not intend ever at this Dispatch Box to use personal cases either for attack or defence.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

Indeed, that is the case. The interesting issue about that, since we were talking earlier today about the importance of community, is that that is one area where we now see parliamentary constituencies straddling local borough boundaries in London. I think that the MP for the area that my noble friend described is Karen Buck, who also represents part of Westminster. It is a bad idea to cross London borough boundaries; I suspect that we will return to that at a later stage in this Committee. However, my point is about the degree of underrepresentation. I picked on Kensington and Chelsea because, apart from those pockets which my noble friend knows so well, it is not regarded in most people’s minds as being an area of acute deprivation—although parts of it are.

The figures are: in Hackney, there was a 72 per cent response rate; in Tower Hamlets it was 76 per cent; in Hammersmith and Fulham, 76 per cent; in Camden, 77 per cent; in Southwark, 77 per cent; in Islington, 78 per cent, and in Lambeth, 79 per cent. The point is that the work which has been done where there are concentrations of poor response, either to the census or to electoral registration, demonstrates a number of characteristics. First, the highest non-response rates come from those who rent from a housing association or a council. There are higher non-response rates: where the occupants are from black, Asian or mixed ethnic groups; where the household contains a single-parent family; where the average age of the people in the household is 70-plus; and in areas with higher income deprivation scores.

I am not making any moral judgment about people in those households. I am only reflecting the research that has been done, which demonstrates that there are certain socioeconomic characteristics suggesting, as my noble friend Lord Lipsey has identified, that there will be lower rates of registration.

[Lord Rooker]

My noble friend makes an interesting point and I am not gainsaying anything that he has said, but the other propensity among the groups that he has just listed is that of knowing how to apply for housing benefit. Therefore, they are on a list and the local authorities know, because we know the propensity and the distribution. I cannot see what the problem is or why, on the census, we put up with this low rate when there is easily obtainable information to know that there are people there. The propensity to claim is co-related exactly with the groups that my noble friend has just listed. I do not understand why we still have this problem now, let alone having had it 10 years ago.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I do not disagree with anything that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has said. He is right—it is not something that we should necessarily tolerate. If there was much more of the passing of these registers, electronically, between the various agencies, or if we adopted the simple solution that the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, put forward—that of an identity card—we would resolve some of these problems. However, my point is not that we could resolve them like this, but that there is a wide variation, which is not standard in terms of the degree of electoral registration, and that it happens to be correlated with certain types of socioeconomic group.

My noble friend Lady Farrington, before she made her tendentious comments about the north and the south, made a point about the consequences and implications of the poll tax.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I think that the Electoral Commission will publish some guidance on the conduct of the referendum, but it certainly will not make any judgment on the question to be put before the people. The one thing that I do remember about the 1975 referendum is that it gave a resounding 2:1 yes vote.

[Lord Rooker]

According to the Bill, the Electoral Commission is going to produce a leaflet explaining the AV system; it will go through every front door in the country. We would like to see a draft of that leaflet, because that is where the value judgments come in. How will it explain this rigged, dishonest AV system, which is so open to abuse? As I have said, I will be forced to vote for first past the post if that is the alternative.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I referred earlier to New Zealand, where an official leaflet explaining the system was provided. Afterwards, there was a great argument about whether it had been impartial.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rooker]

My noble friend should turn over the page and see sub-paragraph (2) at the top of page 20. That is permissive, whereas the paragraph that my noble friend read out is compulsory. There is a real problem in paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 about the leaflet and the information. There will be a long debate on sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 9 when we get to it, because what is in the Bill seems quite contradictory to me.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

The offences under paragraph 8 are knowledge and ought-to-know offences. Can the noble Lord give some indication, because it will obviously be important to the people involved, of what circumstances will determine whether the sanction is civil or criminal? The offences have maximum terms. What is the maximum civil sanction that can be applied? Who will determine whether it is a civil sanction or a criminal sanction?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

I have been around Whitehall and Westminster only for about 40 years, but during the whole of that time people from the Opposition Benches have stood up and made that speech about various bits of legislation. In fact, as noble Lords opposite will know, the time offered in the other place for scrutiny of the Bill was positively extravagant, matched only by the verbosity and time-wasting of the spokesmen for the Opposition, who used every opportunity to waste time exactly so that somebody at this end could make the complaint that the noble Lord has just made—and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, knows that more than most.

[Lord Rooker]

When I took this Bill on holiday to read in the summer, it was 153 pages. When it arrived in this House, it was 300. Yet the Minister has the brass neck to say that the other place was time-wasting, when the Bill doubled because of 286 government amendments that were put into the Bill in the House of Commons. Come off it!

[Lord Lipsey]

Perhaps I might make a helpful suggestion to the Minister to move things on, because we are getting into other waters. He said something incredibly helpful just now: that this is intended to give part of the powers to be exercised by a Secretary of State for Scotland and a Secretary of State for Wales—by a territorial Minister; that is what the noble Lord said, as he will find when he checks in Hansard—and part of them to be exercised by the Lord President. That is perfectly sensible and a very good description. All he therefore needs to do is to agree to introduce at the next stage of the Bill an amendment that makes that clear and we can move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

I have been around this Parliament for 40 years and I do not need lectures from the noble and learned Lord about respect for its traditions and for its importance. I did not suggest anything other than something he knows darn well. For as long as I have been here, and long before, Governments have brought in guillotines and Oppositions have complained about lack of time and scrutiny. That is all that I said. That is all that is in Hansard. I am not going to take lectures from the noble and learned Lord about respect for this Parliament and its institutions. I have given my life to this. I believe in it passionately. I respect it as much as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, respects it. No more, no less. But I am not being lectured to or allowing my words to be twisted. I am simply saying something that every noble Lord knows is a simple truth—nothing more, nothing less—and certainly with no disrespect to Parliament.

[Lord Rooker]

Say sorry to Chris, then.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I have understood the Minister to say that the interventions by Members of Parliament down in the House of Commons were done for time-wasting purposes. I regard that as expressing contempt for their contributions. That is what I was suggesting he might think about withdrawing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bach]

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

[Lord Rooker]

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

[Lord Bach]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott]

Since the degree to which we are genuine is being tested at the moment, the House will simply have to accept my absolute, total, 100 per cent, categorical—I cannot think of any other adjectives—assurance that when I tabled this amendment, I did so, believe it or not, because I thought that it would be a better referendum if the results were declared by constituency, which is never normally a problem in general elections. It came as a surprise to me that the Electoral Commission thought that there would be all sorts of administrative problems in doing so, particularly—I am repeating myself now, I know—because time and again local elections and parliamentary constituency elections have been held on the same day.

I hope that the Minister’s notes do not say that this is just another silly amendment from the Opposition and that it should be knocked down. I hope that he recognises that there are people who have lived and worked in areas of this country, many of them for generations, who are used to the system under which they are operating and who wish to cast their vote—though not enough of them, I believe, as I fear that the turnout will not be very high. Still, there is a good possibility, although perhaps this is wishful thinking, that the majority will decide that they think the system under which they have been operating is quite good, and they should be allowed to express their own views within their own individual constituencies. That is all that my amendment is trying to do. I beg to move.

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, I did not really see the significance of my noble friend’s amendment when I was reading through the Bill, and I missed this.

I am thinking back. I know that we are going to be told that the 1975 referendum was not declared by constituency. If I remember rightly, one of the arguments used at the time was, “It would be very uncertain if MPs who had campaigned on one issue about the EU found that their constituents had gone against them”. I recall it being a bit mixed up. I was part of the no campaign, in that sense—I certainly voted no, anyway. In this case, though, the issue is very personal to the MPs concerned because it is about their voting system.

Take the districts. I used to represent part of Birmingham. The whole of the city gets lumped together, no one gets embarrassed about which way a particular constituency has gone and everything is in the melting pot. It is easier to count when all the constituencies have been lumped together, but where does that leave the Members of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament elected on that day? They will be out campaigning. The results will be declared in their constituencies for AV or not. So, you will be covering it up for some so as not to cause embarrassment, but not for others.

I am unaware of a constituency called “the Isles of Scilly”. If I remember right, the Isles of Scilly are part of a constituency on the mainland. That is my understanding. Why on earth are they singled out in this way? On Northern Ireland, I hope that we will not have the argument about there being an east and a west and a green and an orange. We do not want any arguments about which constituency went which way. We do not want any arguments about lumping it all together. You cannot use all these arguments to defend this set of voting declarations. Whichever you use for one is contradicted by the other.

It cannot be being done for the administrative convenience for the Electoral Commission. It is not doing the counting. The counting officers are doing the counting—a well-oiled machine, highly sophisticated in counting votes in this country based on wards and constituencies. I freely admit that a little bit went wrong but not on the counts. Why deviate from that? Why deviate from the tried and tested system that we know works for counting? People know where to go. They know where their counts are. The type of people who do the counting go to the same place virtually every year and are almost on a permanent contract. Why interfere with a system that works? I have offered up some of the issues.

I would like an explanation about the City of London. Normally when there is a count for the constituency, are we referring to the City of London as the city or as the constituency of the City of London, because it is not quite the same, is it? I am not certain. I am a bit out of touch. Is it a constituency or not? I am not certain why the Inner and the Middle Temples should be treated differently. It is reasonable to have an explanation for each one of these because the answer to one has to contradict the answer to another. So I await with interest the response of the noble Lord, Lord McNally.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I support my noble friend Lord Grocott. This referendum is to be about the choice of a parliamentary voting system, so it is bizarre not to declare the results on the basis of parliamentary constituencies. If it were a referendum about how local government is organised, one might see some sense in the stipulations—districts, counties, London boroughs and so forth—that are set out in Clause 7(2). However, those units are irrelevant to the question at issue in this referendum, so my noble friend’s case is self-evidently sensible.

I also join my noble friend in his mild but firm stricture on the intervention of the Electoral Commission. The proper responsibility of Parliament is to ensure that the system put forward in this Bill is well designed. The expedience for the Government of ensuring that the referendum takes place on 5 May must be a secondary consideration. I would have hoped that the Electoral Commission would also want to make it its priority that the system that it is there to oversee and to administer is appropriately designed. I am disappointed that it has not done so in this case.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Rooker]

I accept that. However, the referendum in 1975 was to make a decision on whether the country—I repeat, the country—should stay in the EU or not. On 5 May next year, the issue is whether 650 individual constituencies should use a different voting system.

[Noble Lords]

No!

[Lord Rooker]

Of course it is. Therefore, people are entitled to know at a local level. While the noble Lord is on this point, I should say that only the count is affected here. If there is a delay in the count, so what? The Electoral Commission cannot delay when the voting take place, but what happens after the close of polls and the way that the votes are counted is what my noble and learned friend is on about. If it takes another half a day to count the votes and divide them, so what? That cannot delay the poll. It cannot affect the target date of 5 May, can it?

[Lord McNally]

I am not sure that I accept the argument that there is an overwhelming interest in knowing the results of a national decision constituency by constituency.

[Lord Rooker]

Perhaps MPs should have a free vote when the Bill returns to the other place. Let them decide; after all, they are the ones with the supreme vested interest. There is no interest more vested for an MP than their constituency boundaries and knowing what their constituents actually feel.

[Lord McNally]

As the noble Lord said, they have a vested interest. I want to make a national decision in the national interest.