| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McNally: My Lords, as noble Lords can see from the Marshalled List, this is a "go-it-alone" amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
Having listened to her, I am not sure whether it is a probing amendment or a shot across the bows. Either way, I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, on recommitment, we return to day one of the Committee stage when my noble friend Lady Anelay made it plain that if substantial new clauses were brought into the Bill there should be recommitment. If I remember correctly, at that time the new clauses were concerned with using money raised from motoring offences for compensation for victims of domestic violence.
This is a totally different proposal. I attended the Grand Committee and had no idea, until this morning, that there will certainly be changes to the Long Title and so forth. I sought to support the warning of my noble friend Lady Anelay about recommittal. Unfortunately, I was deprived of the opportunity to do so and can at least do so today.
On the substance of the Bill, as I read the amendment—and I understand that my noble friend Lady Anelay maintains that I have perhaps read it wrongly—it could well delay, for example, the setting up of the integrated court at the urgent request of the Court of Appeal sought in Amendment No. 30. I am seeking an assurance from the noble Baroness that, come what may, should that amendment commend itself to the House, there will be no change to the commencement Clauses 28 and 29.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lady Anelay in Amendment No. 1. Clearly, as the amendment says, it is right that none of the Act's provisions should come into force until the necessary resources have been made available to implement them. In those circumstances it is right that, as the amendment asks, they should not come into force until the Lord Chancellor—provided that we still have a Lord Chancellor; if not, then presumably the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs or his or her spokesman in this House—
- "has laid before Parliament a certificate that all necessary resources will be made available to"—
- "implement the provisions of this Act".
Consequently, it is fundamental that we should know what are the provisions of this Act. At the moment, we do not know. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, in this. I have also given the Minister notice that I proposed to raise the matter again. Before we can decide an amendment on resources, we must know the provisions of the Act.
Last year the Government introduced a consultative document dealing with changes in the criminal injuries compensation scheme. They announced that responses to the consultation should be sent in by 31 March 2004. Later, when publishing this Bill, the Government said:
- "We propose to legislate to make the changes where necessary"—
- "through amendments to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill".
Now that we have reached Report stage, I ask the Minister—who was understandably hesitant in Committee about whether that remained the situation—whether they are sufficiently advanced in their consultation to say, "Yes; we will introduce through this Bill legislative changes that are necessary as a result of our consultation". Alternatively, perhaps they are prepared to say, "No; we accept that, in some ways, to do that when the Bill has left this House and is already in the Commons, is a parliamentary outrage. We will say now that if any major amendments to the criminal injuries compensation scheme are to be implemented, they will be introduced by means of a new Bill".
It is an important point. The decisions taken on that scheme are bound to have an effect on the resources required for it. If the Government's present proposals are accepted, there may be a substantial reduction in the resources required by the scheme. However, we cannot know what resources are required by the Bill until we know what resources will be saved or expended as a result of changes to the scheme. We have not been told what is being introduced into the Bill, and currently we do not have the opportunity to debate it.
Furthermore, one is not encouraged by the fact that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, we are faced with the introduction into the Bill of a health clause that has absolutely nothing at all to do with domestic violence and victims. It is to do with the amendment of Schedule 12, I think, to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the provisions over intermittent custody, and it deals with how one assesses the period that people have spent in prison when they have had consecutive sentences. The Minister cannot possibly suggest—I know she will not—that that has anything to do with domestic violence at all. That is a change in the general law of this country. What is the effect of that change going to be? Will we be in a position to resource that change? Is it something that will cost a lot of money? We need to know all these matters before we know what resources are available for the implementation of this Bill.
To say, with great respect, that it was published and you have until Tuesday to consider our proposals, ignores the fact that the whole of the committee stage of these changes has been removed, and that on Tuesday we will be at Report stage. I think it is already too late to put down amendments for Tuesday. I look to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who is the fount of all knowledge in these matters, to shake her head or not; apparently it is not too late but I suspect it has to be done before this House rises tonight. How can we amend something we have just been shown? It has nothing to do with this Bill. Is the explanation that since it can be debated at Report stage in the Lords on Tuesday, we need not have a Committee stage at all?
Worse still, so far as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is concerned, because the earliest that amendments can be introduced is in the House of
Commons. The Government say that the Bill will come back here as an amended Bill, but, as I understand it, the only right of this House will be to debate the Commons amendments rather than having a full Committee stage on what may be some highly contentious proposals. My noble friend Lord Campbell mentioned some of these proposals; for example, the idea that you surcharge everyone for a speeding offence so as to provide a pool of money for the Government to pay out as compensation to people who are the victims of crime of a totally different nature.These are contentious issues. The Minister knows this; she knows the views of the present board on the matters proposed, but in the hope of keeping myself within the orders of this House and within the terms of order of the amendment to which I am speaking, I limit myself at this stage to saying that it is necessary to know what is proposed to be in this Bill so that we know what resources are needed, and we should not implement a Bill until we know what those resources are.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, the Minister will address the speeches which we have heard already on this amendment with her customary and formidable charm, but it will not be enough unless she can deal, point by point, with the very serious issues that have been raised in these speeches.
I intervene only briefly to support the amendment of my noble friend on the Front Bench. It is quite helpful, I hope, just to call to mind the Government's handling of the Human Rights Bill. They said that they wished to make the convention on human rights part of our domestic law, and, in order to save Parliament the frustrated effort of legislating domestically in a sense that would be struck down later for breach of the human rights convention, they said that they would also introduce as part of that Bill the provision that the relevant Minister shall certify that there is compliance. That was very sensible.
What is being asked for here is a certificate that something that would be similarly frustrating and a waste of time will not occur. Many provisions in this Bill call for training. What is the purpose of legislating for various provisions that need training when we are not sure that there will be the money available to provide that training? It is very much better that such a provision should not come into force until we have a certificate that the money will be available. It would cause a lot of damage, and that can so very easily be avoided.
I know that I shall receive a formidably charming reply. However, I very sincerely hope that there will be more to the reply than mere charm.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord seeks to scupper me by using his own charm. I shall try to give as frank and as open a response as I can in relation to the various matters that have been raised.
We are still consulting on the measures about which the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and others have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, will remember, as he has intimate knowledge of and concern and interest in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, that the proposals included in the consultation paper in relation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board are very limited. There was concern prior to the issue of the consultation paper that there might be a wholesale very substantive review of the structure that was being advocated for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. However, I remind the House that we are now talking about three very discrete areas. Those issues are still out to consultation.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page