EU: Police and Criminal Justice Measures

Debate between Lord Maclennan of Rogart and Lord McNally

Tuesday 23rd July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

Before my noble friend sits down, will he give us a categorical assurance that the opt-out will not result in a referendum or referenda having to be held in respect of what the nation has to opt back into? It appears that the opt-out moves responsibility and competences back to this country, whereas the opt-in would move them to the European Union and it might fall foul of the Government’s own Act.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, that is hypothetical and we could spend the rest of the night on it. I have made a very clear statement of government policy, and it does no service to the House at all for hypotheticals such as that to be thrown across.

Political Party Funding

Debate between Lord Maclennan of Rogart and Lord McNally

Thursday 15th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I welcome those suggestions from my noble friend, which I will pass on to the Deputy Prime Minister. In his Statement that I referred to, he said:

“The Government believe that the case cannot be made for greater state funding of political parties at a time when budgets are being squeezed and economic recovery remains the highest priority. But there is a case for looking carefully at whether existing levels of support could be used more effectively”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/11/11; col. 25WS.]

I would have thought that some of the suggestions that my noble friend made could be brought into that general consultation with all political parties.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, will my noble friend indicate whether the advice that has been given will be followed in time to influence elections that are going to be pending quite soon? In particular, having borne in mind that the Government have been speedy in altering the structure of constituencies, will they also take into account the importance of fair dos in spending to affect these forthcoming elections?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, even this report recommends that nothing that it suggests should come in before 2015, but the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that all political parties are welcome to have broad discussions with him, and these matters could form part of those discussions.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Maclennan of Rogart and Lord McNally

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

Absolutely not. I have heard Ministers make such speeches in this House but I will take advice from the Clerks. I am very willing to sit down and to listen to all the debate but the idea was to make it clear where we were coming from. As is shown by the Marshalled List, the Government do not intend to accept any of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Newton. That is abundantly clear. Whether the noble Lord wants to hear that at the end of the debate or now is a matter of choice but I will look to the Clerk for guidance.

I understand that if I want to speak early for the assistance of the House, it is fine. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, will accept that and that we can go on. I do not see where it disrupts the debate and I look forward to his contribution, as I always do.

As I say, the abolition of the AJTC will have no direct impact on judicial independence or judicial decision-making. I want to make it clear that the AJTC is not a tribunal or any other form of judicial body. While it has observing rights, it is not an inspectorate and does not have the range of monitoring and reporting powers that an inspectorate would expect to have. The AJTC was set up to advise the Lord Chancellor, Ministers of the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales and the Senior President of Tribunals on administrative justice. One of the council’s functions is to keep under review the constitution and working of tribunals. However, we have moved on from a structure in which tribunals were funded by the department whose decisions they reviewed. We now have the unified Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service supporting the majority of central government tribunals and ensuring that tribunal users have access to timely and effective justice. Previously disparate management, procedures, appeals and funding mechanisms are now administered centrally by the Ministry of Justice. There are also a number of ways by which ministerial accountability is assured for the performance of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, further reducing the need for the kind of oversight that the AJTC provides.

The Ministry of Justice is committed to maintaining and developing its overview of the end-to-end administrative justice system. It is working with other departments and the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales to ensure that there continues to be a UK-wide overview of administrative justice. It also has close links with the Cabinet Office, which leads on ombudsman policy.

Much is made of the AJTC’s ability to offer independent advice and I understand the principle; it is an important one. However, independence must be weighed against the effectiveness of such bodies if being so far removed from the centre means that they lack the ability to influence and drive change. I urge this House to view the Government’s proposals for administrative justice policy in this light.

It is my belief that officials are well placed to provide Ministers with objective, expert and impartial policy advice on administrative justice matters. That is what officials do in every other justice policy area. Officials have forged links with stakeholders in the administrative justice field that will enhance their role and capability. Indeed, the department intends to establish a group of administrative justice experts and key stakeholders, particularly those who represent the views of users. In practice, that will likely include those who practise or have practised in relevant fields. Such a group will provide a valuable forum for sharing information and best practice and will be used to test policy ideas and, initially, to help prioritise the administrative justice work programme.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

In the light of the concerns that have been forcefully expressed on a number of occasions in this House, will my noble friend consider whether the new arrangements could be made rather more transparent than has been the case in respect of some ministries in revealing what the consequences of these inquiries are? Perhaps an annual report could be produced for a number of years so that we can judge how effective the proposed changes are in the event.

[Lord McNally]

I am happy to take that suggestion back. It sounds a reasonable idea although I do not know what the cost would be. All I can promise my noble friend is that I will take it back and let him know, via a letter that I can put in the Library of the House, what the reaction is to that. The AJTC’s budget for the 2010-11 financial year was £1.3 million, compared with the Civil Justice Council’s budget of a relatively modest £312,000. That reflects the fact that AJTC members are paid while CJC members are not.

So it is for reasons of efficiency, economy and effectiveness that the Government are not seeking to modify any of these proposals. There is no other public body that could easily take on the functions of the CJC, which is why we retain it. However, I insist that the reasons for abolishing the AJTC are as sound now as they were when this House took that decision some months ago. Although I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Newton for offering us the wriggle room, it is not wriggle room that the Lord Chancellor wishes to take advantage of. He wishes for this House to confirm the decision that it initially took and proceed as soon as possible with the abolition of the AJTC. I hope that is of help to noble Lords in the contributions that they want to make to this debate.

Prisoners: Voting

Debate between Lord Maclennan of Rogart and Lord McNally

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, as the United Kingdom is a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, are we not bound to accept the jurisdiction of the court unless we seek to withdraw from it, which would hardly be in the interests of this country? However, if there is a widespread concern, not only in this country but in other countries, about the jurisprudence of the court, is it not more sensible to enter into discussions about possible amendments to the convention on human rights rather than its break-up and withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the court?

[Lord McNally]

One reassuring thing is that I am not aware of any party represented in this House that is looking for us either to withdraw from the convention or to see it break up. My noble friend is right: we are looking to see whether we can put forward a proper and sensible programme of reform for the court. My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor spelled out our agenda, as it were, in a speech in Turkey a few months ago, and we will be taking that agenda forward when we take up the chairmanship of the Council of Europe in November.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Maclennan of Rogart and Lord McNally

Monday 24th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My understanding is that the Boundary Commission’s discretion to consider this would be removed by Amendment 71B. I think that would be a mistake. I hope that the Government have not set their position in concrete on this issue and will be prepared to return to it later.

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

My Lords, I am deeply flattered by the number of noble Lords who have said how excited or interested they are about my reply. I think I have mentioned to the House before that Michael Foot once said to me that he hated reading a brief when he was a Minister because he liked to be as excited as everybody else about what was coming next.

Let me also clarify that it is true that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and I first met 45 years ago on a student delegation to Moscow. I always assumed that I was there to keep an eye on him and he was there to keep an eye on me, and it has been a friendship that has endured. Indeed, looking across the Chamber, I see the faces of many men and the odd woman whom I have known since my youth. It is really sad that my memory of these old friends was of their idealism and yet tonight we have had doubt after doubt about the good intentions contained in the Bill and its integrity. There has been a constant questioning of motive when, as I have said so often to this House, our motives are very clear and simple: fair votes in fairly drawn constituencies.

If we take the broad sweep of the Committee and the special pleading we have had from time to time about the particular problem of looking after an inner city and the special pleading from the large rural constituencies about their problems, we realise that all Members of Parliament in their different ways have jobs to do and I suspect it works out fairly reasonably. On the question of size, there is a simple reason for the recommendation which has nothing to do with the present incumbent of that constituency. It would have applied whether the present incumbent was Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative. It was simply that the independent Boundary Commission in Scotland recommended that that was about the maximum manageable size that a constituency could operate. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, indicated, this is a problem mainly for the highlands of Scotland.

Constitutional Reform: Referendums

Debate between Lord Maclennan of Rogart and Lord McNally

Monday 24th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, on the basis of principle, I rely on my distinguished predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Wills, who, when challenged with a similar question, said this:

“Inevitably, however carefully you define this … you do not actually escape the question of judgment … It is inevitably going to be a subjective test”.

On the question of the forthcoming legislation on the House of Lords, I ask the noble Lord to be a little patient. The Government’s proposals will be put before the House.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, do the Government consider that constitutional changes which are relatively readily reversed or modified by Act of Parliament are less obviously in need of the backing of a public referendum than matters which fall into a fixed and almost irreversible constitutional norm?

[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.

Legal Aid and Civil Costs Reform

Debate between Lord Maclennan of Rogart and Lord McNally

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, I welcome the reference to promoting alternative dispute resolution to accelerate and simplify the resolution of disputes. Can my noble friend indicate what the criteria are to be where exceptional funding for excluded cases is awarded? In particular, will he recognise that it is an issue not just for the excluded individual but for the courts, because if a case is of a particular complexity it can clog up the courts: a point that was made by a former Lord Chief Justice and a former Master of the Rolls when a previous Conservative Government cut legal aid?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, if we are going to recalibrate legal aid, we shall have to explore the alternative resolution of disputes through mediation and other means. On the exceptional cases fund, part of the consultation will be about the criteria and the range of that fund. The recommendations of the Legal Services commission to the Secretary of State will determine how the fund is used, but the opportunity to consult will be taken to ensure that the fund is flexible to the needs of those who really need access to justice.

Elections: Voting Systems

Debate between Lord Maclennan of Rogart and Lord McNally

Tuesday 5th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

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

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, bearing in mind the valuable report of the Electoral Commission on the alternative vote and the arrangements that it has in mind, will the Government make sure that the information that comes to every voter at home is delivered sufficiently close to the vote being cast to ensure that the maximum number of people participating understand exactly which choice is the right one?

House of Lords: Reform

Debate between Lord Maclennan of Rogart and Lord McNally

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

That is why I think that the present arrangements, where the Government have no overall working majority, work excellently.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

In the lead-up to the publication of the reform Bill at the end of this calendar year, will the Government consider proposals to delimit the functions of the two Chambers better to share out the burdens of parliamentary scrutiny and to enhance the effectiveness of our oversight?

[Lord McNally]

I think that that is the kind of discussion that can go on in parallel with the proposals of my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister on the reform of this House and the work that is going on in reforming the working procedures of the other place. The activities that are going on at both ends will help to make both Chambers more efficient and better at doing their proper job of, as my noble friend said, holding the Executive to account and properly scrutinising legislation.

Elections: Costs

Debate between Lord Maclennan of Rogart and Lord McNally

Thursday 15th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I fully appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is a small “c” conservative on constitutional reform. The coalition is committed to this programme. When I say “similar to the costs of a general election”, the previous general election cost £82 million. When I say that we will have to look at the precise proposals for the Boundary Commission, the last Boundary Commission review cost just under £14 million. I point out that legislation will be brought forward very shortly and, at that time and thereafter, the House will have ample time to explore these matters, including the costs.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, as referendum campaigns are sometimes dominated by issues that are not directly connected with the question to be decided by the electorate, will the Government consider commissioning and circulating to every elector who will participate in the referendum an objective account of how the alternative systems work, so that the alternative vote is properly understood before a big response is made by the public?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, as your Lordships know, the plan is to set up two organisations that will receive public funds to campaign. Therefore, the general public will get not just one objective account of how AV works but two objective accounts.

House of Lords: Reform

Debate between Lord Maclennan of Rogart and Lord McNally

Monday 5th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

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

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

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

[Lord McNally]

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

Prisoners: Voting

Debate between Lord Maclennan of Rogart and Lord McNally

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I am not sure that it has support in the editorial columns of the Daily Express or the Daily Mail, but in the broader general public there is a willingness to consider the experience of other countries, both in rehabilitation of prisoners and the kind of punishment meted to them. We will report to the September meeting, and the contributions of this House—both from my noble friend and from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, I hope—will be taken into consideration.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

I am well aware that that is one consideration before Ministers at the moment, but it is one of a wide variety of considerations.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords—