| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that Ian Stillman is an Englishman, who was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment in India because cannabis was found in a taxi in which he was travelling with other people. Ian Stillman is profoundly deaf and relies upon sign language, yet at his trial he was denied an interpreter, which meant that he could not follow the proceedings. That means that he did not have a fair trial. As my noble friend knows, the organisation Fair Trials Abroad has said that this is the worst miscarriage of justice that it has ever seen. I ask my noble friend whether it is possible for the Government to institute vigorous, urgent and determined action at the highest level, not only in regard to his conditions in gaol, but also on his conviction.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of the facts of the case and that Ian Stillman is profoundly deaf. I am also aware of the comments made by Fair Trials Abroad. We have been active in Mr Stillman's case, not only with respect to his welfare, but also, on a number of occasions, in raising this case with the Indian authorities. We have reached the point where the judicial process has come to an end and we are waiting to hear from Mr Stillman's family what next steps they intend to take. On that basis we shall determine the next steps that the Government take. We have to understand what Ian Stillman and his family intend to do next.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, is Mr Stillman's family being given any advice by the Government?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, Mr Stillman's family is being given advice by the Government about his welfare. The legal aspects of his case are being handled by Mr Stillman's legal representatives. We have offered the use of a lawyer from our pro bono legal panel.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I speak as a trustee of Fair Trials Abroad. Does the Minister recognise that this state of affairs does not apply to Mr Stillman alone? In many countries around the world people suffering from deafness, or other disabilities that interfere with their ability to understand what is taking place in a trial, do not receive proper assistance. Will the Government take all steps open to them to ensure that proper practices are observed in foreign trials?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, with respect to Mr Stillman's disability, I am aware that disparaging remarks were made about that at the recent trial. I have asked our High Commissioner in Delhi to take up the matter with the Indian authorities. Of course we shall look at other ways in which we can bring this to the attention of authorities in other countries of the world where this practice is ongoing.
We have explained our policy on pardons and clemency pleas to Mr Stillman's family. We consider supporting pleas on a case-by-case basis as a last resort. That is why we await a decision from his family as to the steps they would wish to take next.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am sorry to come back again, but can my noble friend respond to my points about top-level representation by the Government and making application not only on his prison conditions but on his conviction?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I hope I have explained, we support pleas for clemency and on pardons on a case-by-case basis if there is prima facie evidence of a miscarriage of justice. We also support pleas on health grounds if a prisoner is chronically ill or where continued incarceration would endanger or reduce life expectancy. But in order to do that we need a decision from the family and from the individual.
With respect to top-level representation, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has discussed our concerns with the Indian authorities. Of course we shall continue to think about the most appropriate level at which representations should be made once the next steps have been decided.
Adoption and Children Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, although there is no formal time limit to today's debate, the usual channels suggest that if there is the usual allowance for the Front Bench speakers and if the Back-Bench speakers limit their speeches to a maximum length of eight minutes, the debate should conclude between 8 and 8.30 p.m. Of course if any Peer wants to speak for less than eight minutes that will not attract any criticism from any Bench.
Your Lordships will also be aware that there is an important National Health Service order which follows the debate on working practices of the House.
Working Practices of the House
3.3 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn rose to move, That this House takes note of the report by the working group appointed to consider how the working practices of the House can be improved, and to make recommendations (HL Paper 111); and that the report be remitted to the Procedure Committee, with an instruction that it makes by 8th July recommendations, for approval by the House, as to the implementation of the report.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
This is an important time for this House, and the decisions that we make about this report may be critical for our future. The debate today is to take note of the report of the group which I chaired. The Motion also asks the Procedure Committee to consider the practical implementation of the group's recommendations and to report back to this House by 8th July with proposals for its approval.
The report is the product of nine months' work. The group comprised the present Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the former Conservative Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, the Chief Whip of the Liberal Democrat Peers, the noble Lord, Lord Roper, the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. I invite your Lordships to study that list and to try and find one of whom it could fairly be said is not devoted to the interests of this House.
We took evidence. We circulated a questionnaire. Our starting point—I ask your Lordships to accept this—was that this House has a duty on behalf of the public to hold any government to account. We believe that Parliament's scrutiny of the Government needs to be enhanced. This is particularly true when any government has a substantial Commons majority.
The changes recommended in the report are intended to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of this House. The watchdog must have a louder bark and sharper teeth. If one looks at the changes in a fair and open-minded way, I believe that they offer enhanced opportunities to this House.
Efficiency, of course, is bound up with other issues, such as procedural reform, sitting hours and working conditions. Procedural reform alone will not make us more effective. My belief, shared by my colleagues on that small group, is that the effectiveness of the House depends significantly on an approach by consensus in the interests of the general health of Parliament as a whole.
The Government ought to be willing to agree to changes which they may find burdensome or inconvenient. Some of these changes, if approved and adopted, will be. Burdens and inconvenience ought to be accepted if we are to deliver the great prize of improving the quality of legislative scrutiny and therefore of legislative output.
Such an approach is reflected in all that we have tried to do. I fundamentally believe that we can improve the institution of Parliament as a whole. Effective parliamentary scrutiny is a valued and valuable discipline for governments of all complexions. If we go forward on this path, we can go some way to reducing the undoubted present public disenchantment with politics and political systems.
We tried to produce a coherent whole. From the identities I have so far disclosed, plainly, we do not share a unanimous political view, but we have the
general view that we ought to have looked for consensus, which we achieved. This is a unanimous report. Therefore, all of us had to bend to the others' opinion. No one could be adamant to his original stance. I stress, as we tried to do in the report, that this is intended to be a package, not every item of which will satisfy everyone, but the broad thrust of which I hope commends itself to the House.Some proposals looked at in isolation will seem either to burden or benefit the Government, the Opposition or the Cross Benches. I invite your Lordships to look at the totality of what we have tried to achieve. We recognise that the House may want to test the package. Your Lordships will have seen in paragraph 4 of the report that we suggest a trial period of two Sessions, thereafter the House would have to approve any continuation.
In speaking of the drafting of the report, I pay particular tribute to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. Significantly, it was he who induced and encouraged us to produce a short report which was easily understood. Perhaps I may quote from the recent report of the Hansard Society, entitled The Challenge for Parliament: Making Government Accountable. I suggest that these are useful words. It stated:
- "The potential exists [for the Lords] to develop a different dynamic to the Commons, opening up new and innovative means of scrutinising the Government".
We have made some minor, early starts. We now have much more realistic subsistence allowances. At last, we have access to the postal system without paying for it ourselves. Last summer, we acquired Fielden House which will provide more accommodation for your Lordships, who work in difficult circumstances. But we need to do a lot more. As we improve our working conditions, we need to improve our methods of work.
I repeat: we proceeded entirely on the basis of consensus and agreement. At page 7, recommendation (a), our first recommendation, states:
- "virtually all major government bills should as a matter of course be subject in draft to pre-legislative scrutiny".
- "subject to the right of the House of Commons to determine its own procedures, bills that have received pre-legislative scrutiny in either House should, on a motion moved in the house in possession of the bill at the end of the session, be allowed to be carried-over into the next session; but if a bill that has been carried over does not reach the statute book by the end of the session following carry-over it should fall, as now".
Parliament as a whole does not perform its legislative scrutiny well. I must say—I hope without offence to anyone in the other place—that the way to cure that, the remedy, will be found in this House. If
we have pre-legislative scrutiny, we will at least address and, I hope, solve a problem. It is a criticism frequently levelled that we produce legislation that is ambiguous, inaccurate and not always fully thought out. In my 10 years' experience here—which I know is brief compared to many of your Lordships—that has been true of all governmental legislation. Constantly, observers of Parliament say that defective legislation is the result of weaknesses in the system. It is often easier for the Government to accept changes to a draft Bill than to seem to accept the humiliation of a change once policy is set. That recommendation will increase the burden on Ministers. The length of time for which each Bill is scrutinised and the lead-time from publication to delivery of Royal Assent will lengthen. However, the potential benefit to the public good is such that that burden is well worth taking on.It is not in our power alone to make that a reality. It will depend on the Government producing Bills for pre-legislative scrutiny in the first place. My right honourable friend Robin Cook has already given his view that that is the way that we ought to proceed, and I absolutely agree with him. I hope that your Lordships today and subsequently will give strength to that argument by encouraging the Government to follow that direction.
In the past, pre-legislative scrutiny has been conducted in Lords Committees, Commons Committees and Joint Committees. It could occur in the House of introduction or in the other House. Our group thought that it would be a good idea if liaison arrangements were established between the Houses to determine which scrutiny option to adopt. We can proceed with that only if carry-over is adopted. Proposal (a) is utterly linked to proposal (b). The ability to carry over for a single Session would enable each Bill to proceed at its own pace, but I stress that that is dependent on the decision of the House on any particular occasion. In the past, we have performed too little pre-legislative scrutiny. When we have done so, we have produced a better outcome.
I turn to recommendation (c). One of the strengths of this House is that we have a large number of experts who know of which they speak. We do not fully realise the potential of the financial expertise to be found here. I stress as firmly as I can—this is highlighted several times in the report—that we do not intend in any way to encroach upon the financial privileges of the Commons, but we ought to be able to work towards a procedure to enable this House to deal more effectively, within its limited scope, on matters relating to Finance Bills. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Saatchi and Lord Roper, for their contribution to developing the proposals either in written evidence or, in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Roper, in his personal comments.
We suggest for consideration at least that, before the Chancellor makes his Budget Statement, this House should appoint an ad hoc committee to consider and comment on the Budget and Finance Bill. The terms of reference would absolutely preclude the committee from considering the incidence and rates of tax rates. It would concentrate on the technical issues of tax
administration and make suggestions—they can be no more than that—that the Commons may or may not accept. That would enhance the House's opportunity to contribute in an area of undoubted expertise, but I stress again that we make no form of challenge to the Commons. We simply intend, if the proposal is carried, to offer suggestions.A number of your Lordships from all quarters have said that secondary legislation is not properly scrutinised. It is often as complex and detailed as any Bill. Recently, an extremely thoughtful and careful leader in the Daily Telegraph made that very point. Large chunks of law—secondary legislation—are passed without effective scrutiny. Again, without disrespect to the Commons, I suggest that we can do work here that is not presently attempted elsewhere. Since 1980, the number of statutory instruments laid before Parliament has increased by more than a third. It is no exaggeration to say that much secondary legislation may affect the individual more keenly than primary legislation, which we scrutinise.
We therefore recommend a Select Committee of your Lordships' House to examine the merits of every statutory instrument subject to parliamentary activity. There would have to be a sifting process—the work would be impossible otherwise—but if we work at the mechanisms, we can produce a good outcome.
I turn to Questions. They are extremely burdensome for a Minister who is not entirely on top of his or her brief. They offer the House not only an enjoyable opportunity for those who, like myself, are keen supporters of blood sports but, especially in topical questions, allow the House to challenge the Government before time passes. We have therefore suggested that, as an experiment, for two days a week—on Tuesdays and Wednesdays—Question Time should be extended to 40 minutes and that the extra, final Question should be a topical Question.
It cannot be claimed, as has been said somewhere, that that is a plot by me to try to safeguard the Government. I did not consult my colleagues before offering that proposal; I expect that they will be extremely cross with me, but I shall have to bear that with such fortitude as I can muster. That is, and is intended to be, an extra burden on Ministers. At present, the executive faces insufficient challenge, as it did when the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was Prime Minister. There is a minor quid pro quo. There would be one day when, say, the Home Office or the education or health departments would not be subject to questions, simply so that Ministers could go to prisons—as they ought to—schools and hospitals.
I shall be as brief as possible, because I know that there has been quite a rush on the red document, but as part of the package, we recommend that we should not sit after 10 o'clock at night, which would mean a new Standing Order. In our happier moments, we frequently congratulate ourselves that we perform revision extremely well. We do not after 10 o'clock at night. We collude together to go home in the early hours of the morning because we are exhausted. If that proposal is acceptable, the detail will have to be worked out by the Procedure Committee.
We suggest a greater use of Grand Committees, which were first proposed as long ago as 1994 by the committee chaired by Lord Rippon. Lord Rippon made it perfectly plain that they are not a device to help the Government to pass more legislation more quickly. They are intended to improve scrutiny and therefore produce better quality.
There is no nomination to a Grand Committee; it is a Committee of the whole House. I understand the criticism made in the Commons that the composition of a Committee for the Committee stage of a Bill can be fiddled. There is no prospect of that here, nor ought there ever to be. All Members can attend, and the procedure will be the same, except that there will be no Divisions. We recommended—again, unanimously—that "Rippon Bills" ought to be committed to Grand Committee, but the decision will be one for the House to make on every occasion.
In this House, we receive very good reports from Select Committees, and sometimes, I think, we deal with them rather churlishly. They are of exceptionally high quality. I do not say that in a self-congratulatory mode; I have never been on one. Often, high quality material is produced, only for it to be debated in the dead hours of a Friday. Therefore, it is not properly reported or, ultimately, properly considered.
We also recommend that there should be three additional Wednesdays for Back-Bench debates in each Session and more debates on Select Committee reports and general topics in prime time. That is not a device to emasculate the House: utterly the opposite. We suggested that, on Thursdays—this is not our old friend, the Wednesday/Thursday split, on which we decided relatively recently—we should start at 11 o'clock and finish at 7 o'clock. Many of us do not live in the South East, and it would be a legitimate convenience for people to know that they could be away—after quite a long day, after all—at 7 o'clock on Thursday.
We recommend that the House—in particular, the Grand Committees—should be willing to sit in September. We will adjust our sitting times, and, in accordance with what has been generally welcomed about my noble friend Lord Carter's timetable for this year, we will have sensible breaks at convenient times. We shall sit not longer but, I hope, more conveniently. The Grand Committees could do useful work in September. I shall explain our underlying thoughts on the matter. Most Committees are not well represented on the Floor of the House. If there are 12 of us present late in the evening, that is a good turn-out. Not every one of your Lordships is interested in every Bill. If we could have Second Readings, say, before we rose in July and had the Committee stages organised well in advance for two or three days in September, your Lordships would be able to plan, and everyone with an interest in a particular Bill—and others—could attend.
There is a vast wodge of excellent Law Commission reports, most of which have draft Bills at the back, carefully locked away in a cupboard marked "Not to be disturbed". We do not do those things well. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridgeman, has, rightly,
frequently complained that consolidation Bills would be useful to the general public, practitioners and the courts. Subject to your Lordships' views, we could consider doing consolidation Bills. I think that I can say, with the eyes of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridgeman, boring into me, that consolidation Bills are not—
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |