Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The trouble with the concept of a huge bureaucracy is that it suggests that everyone is being told what to do and is responding unwillingly. We did not talk about huge bureaucracies in the First and Second World Wars, although the numbers of government servants increased on both occasions, as they were bound to do. Even in a society much more committed to limited government, the United States was transformed by the Second World War in the amount of its bureaucracy, as the noble Earl calls it. Others among us would not express that in pejorative terms. However, there was a large number of public servants dedicated to fulfilling a goal which society recognised as being of such significance that all society subscribed to it.
Earl Ferrers: I had in mind the subject so dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker; that is, the single farm payment. It has resulted in colossal bureaucracy and no one benefiting.
Lord Davies of Oldham: If the noble Earl will forgive me, I will not go down the single farm payments route this evening. Sufficient unto the day is the challenge thereof, and we have quite enough with this Bill as it is.
This Bill does not underestimate the necessity of engaging with the public and ensuring that we can only make progress. If there is answerability for decisions taken, we take the whole of society with us. That is why the broader approach of the Government is that all new policy proposals will be examined for their impact on business, charities, the voluntary sector and so forth. All that must be subject to an impact assessment to determine the costs and benefits of the proposals. It is clear that we will be going through a process of considerable business and societal change, but we are building into the Bill a model to ensure that there is careful assessment of the impact of the policies that are to be followed.
In addition, I emphasise that we are committed to help businesses to reduce their carbon emissions. It is not a question of dictation, which suggests that others should jump to the Governments tune; this is a way in which the resources of society are committed to help those who need to be assisted with change for the benefit of the overall objective. We will be helping
23 Jan 2008 : Column 291
Ministers from Defra and across governmentof course, the Treasury will play its role in thiswill regularly meet employer organisations and trade unions to discuss a wide range of issues, including climate change and technology. Good government requires us to consult widely, particularly when we have to effect the transformation in society which this Bill envisages, and when we bear in mind the nature of the challenge which global warming represents.
The Bill already has an expert independent bodythe Committee on Climate Changeto provide advice on the budgets. I cannot see that the amount of expensive administration needed in setting up an additional body would be justified in the purpose for which it is proposed. We have established a body, which is charged and fully accountable to the nation through Parliament, to take responsibility for this process. The Bill makes it absolutely clear that it must be governed by accountability and that there needs to be a significant committee on climate change at the centre of it.
I entirely understand that my noble friend is motivated by the highest principles and that you achieve large change in society only through consent. Governments will have to take people with them down difficult roads. There is no doubt that there is pain in this process as well as gain. There is a growing realisation in the wider society that if we do not control and abate the growing impact of global warming, it will produce disastrous consequences for us all. That is the basis on which we expect and can anticipate the whole of our society to respond to the challenge. The Opposition here and in the other place will do their job of critical scrutiny of the Bill and at times we will look divided, but every sentiment expressed from both Opposition Benches is set against an acceptance of the broad principles of what the Bill seeks to achieve. It is a challenge to which we all need to respond. I hope that my noble friend will recognise that the legislation envisages just that.
Lord Lea of Crondall: I have to thank my noble friend for that reply, but I thought that it was very poor. The Treasury brief did not address the issues which two weeks ago I signalled I wanted to raise. That only reinforces in my mind the notion that on this climate change programme the Treasury has no comprehension whatever of the social dimension. I am certainly very disappointed.
I asked specific questions about regressive taxation and price rises, as did my noble friend Lord Whitty. I also asked about the impact on income distribution. Can I stop for a minute and ask my noble colleague whether he heard me ask those questions and whether he would like another opportunity to come back to me now?
Lord Davies of Oldham: The Committee probably recognises that we are moving into the expectation of dinner time against the background in which my noble friend deployed his case at considerable length and with his usual skill. I responded to the broad issues raised by his noble friends on the challenges that we face. I also responded to his amendment, which he contends is necessary to the Bill. I sought to establish that the Bill contains all the necessary provisions to reach his objectives.
Lord Lea of Crondall: Will my noble friend Lord Rooker and other Ministers at senior level agree to write to me on the points that I made in my speech, not the points in a brief that was written beforehand? Secondly, if you read any history of the labour market and the involvement of people during the war, you find that that Ernest Bevin became Minister of Labour. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, would not have any comprehension of these matters, but bringing the trade unions around the table with the employers, the Government and people in the region made an enormous difference. People were able to see each other's problems face-to-face and they could be carried along. Thirdly, this whole programme around the world is predicated
Baroness Byford: My noble friend Lord Ferrers is a big chap and well able to defend himself, but I must admit that, as a mere Back-Bencher, which I now am, I found the comment that the noble Lord, Lord Lea, has just made unacceptable.
Lord Lea of Crondall: The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, disparaged as bureaucracy what I had said about the need for a committee with a totally different function from the Committee on Climate Change. When my noble friend the Minister referred to the functions of the committee, including those referred to in Clause 10, they were totally different. Moreover, as the noble Baroness has raised the matter, Schedule 1 does not refer to any representatives of the sort of peoplethe hearts and mindswho need to be convinced. This is a job of a totally different character from the semi-technical job of the Committee on Climate Change. I have nothing to withdraw from what I said about the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
I hope that before Report my noble friends in the Government will agree that something needs to be included in the Bill. I said that I would be happy to discuss this further, because there could be a great failure. Mark my words: it will be seen to be a foolish and short-sighted decision in future years if no opportunity is taken to put on the face of the Bill the whole challenge of the ownership of this process by members of civil society, industry, commerce and workers representatives. On that basis, I look forward to the response in writing from my noble friends and will decide how far I will press the amendment on Report. At the present time, I feel that I will need to press it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rooker: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17 December 2007 be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order before the House this evening proposes amendment with effect from 1 February 2008 to Codes of Practice A to E issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 requires that, before the codes are laid before Parliament, the Government must first consult the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities, the Bar Council, the Law Society and the Institute of Legal Executives. That process was completed in September and October of last year and the summary of responses was subsequently published on the Home Office website. Additionally, we took advice in advance from the Home Affairs Select Committee on both the method of consultation and the process to be followed before this House.
In addition to the codes, I have also laid the register of changes before Parliament to assist the House in identifying the changes that are proposed. The register not only shows what the changes are but who proposed each change and why. I hope that noble Lords have found that information helpful. Noble Lords will have recognised that most of the changes reflect changes in legislation since the last version of the PACE codes was published in January 2006 or make minor typographical corrections. Accordingly, I do not intend to speak on each and every amendment. Instead, if noble Lords will permit, I will address only a number of specific areas.
First, I shall deal with the implementation of the recommendations of the review of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. The changes in Code C will take forward a recommendation from the noble Lords review on legal aid procurement through the expansion of Criminal Defence Service DirectCDS Direct. CDS Direct is a telephone advice service providing advice to detainees at police stations who are arrested for relatively straightforward offences such as drink-driving, disorderly behaviour or minor assaults.
As my colleague the Minister for Security, Counter-terrorism, Crime and Policing indicated during consideration of this order in another place, the Legal Services Commission has been running a CDS Direct pilot since October 2005. The focus of the pilot has been to offer telephone advice in suitable cases and to those who would otherwise have been referred to a duty solicitor. The pilot has produced impressive results. CDS Direct answered 97 per cent
23 Jan 2008 : Column 294
The changes proposed to the Notes for Guidance 6B1 and 6B2 in PACE Code C do not extend the range of offences that are considered suitable for telephone advice; they simply extend the service to include cases where the suspect asks for advice from a specific solicitor. The decision to include these types of cases follows from the outcome of the public consultation exercise carried out last year by CDS Direct on expanding the service to cases where a detainee would request his or her own solicitor. This is anticipated to achieve a rise in the net savings to the legal aid budget of a further £2 million to £6 million per year. Importantly, it will mean that detainees are able to achieve access to legal advice at the earliest opportunity and that the time they spend in police custody may subsequently be reduced.
It is vital that the quality of legal advice is not compromised. That is why the minimum quality standard that CDS Direct providers have to achieve continues to be higher than that needed by firms of solicitors.The benefits from these changes are, therefore, for both the detainee and the criminal justice system. To manage the process effectively, the expansion of CDS Direct to own-solicitor cases will be in two phases. The first will be in Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and the West Midlands from 1 February and the second will be throughout the rest of England and Wales from 21 April. That will allow any problems to be identified and resolved quickly, without compromising the quality of service for legal aid clients.
I wish to assure the House that the CDS Direct service will continue to apply only in relation to appropriate cases. For example, a solicitor will still be called to attend the police station where the police are going to carry out an interview or identification parade or in cases where the suspect is eligible for assistance from an appropriate adult, is unable to communicate over the phone or alleges serious maltreatment by the police.
The expansion of CDS Direct is vital to supporting the wider legal aid reform programme, the aim of which is to ensure that legal aid services are procured in a way that provides value for money for the taxpayer while maintaining a steady income for lawyers and a quality service for defendants. The government reforms to legal aid, such as the introduction of fixed fees, which the expansion of CDS Direct supports, will give legal aid lawyers a tangible stake in the efficient operation of the justice system at the police station and at court and will enable the Government to purchase services in a more efficient manner. I am aware that the Law Society was initially unhappy with the wording used by the police in relation to the use of ones own solicitor. This has now been rephrased and the new wording agreed with the Law Society and ACPO.
The changes to Code E form part of our ongoing work with the police to reduce bureaucracy and increase efficiency. They will enable Lancashire Constabulary to pilot the recording of interviews directly on to a
23 Jan 2008 : Column 295
Taken together, I trust that the House will support these proposed amendments to the PACE codes, which aim to improve the delivery of efficient and effective justice during the investigative process. I commend the order to the House and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17 December 2007 be approved. 6th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.(Lord West of Spithead.)
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear exposition of the order. While I recognise that some of these changes are extremely sensible, none the less they raise one or two questions, which I should like to put to him. Paragraph 2.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that the changes are rather minor and that they,
You could be slightly misled by that into thinking that all the changes to the code are rather minor. However, it is fair to say that the proposed revisions to the code of practice are in many respectsthe Minister outlined them just nownot minor at all, notably those to Code C, where significant changes are made, in particular to the right of representation in a police station for less serious offences, as the Minister pointed out.
The Minister mentioned the Law Society, by which I have been briefed, as, I am sure, have other noble Lords. He said that some changes had been made as a result of that bodys representations, but they are certainly not apparent in the order. I am sure that the Law Society has drawn its concerns to the Governments attention.
Changes to the way in which representation may be accessed in a police station for those charged with some more minor offences, particularly for those who seek publicly funded representation, mean that that will now have to be carried out through telephone advice from CDS Direct. Despite what the Minister said, this removes at a stroke the right of a defendant to ask for his own solicitor, or another from the same firm, to be called. This right was previously enshrined in the PACE code. The changes now being made to remove this provision came about as a result of recommendations in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Colesas the Minister saidto try to achieve greater economies in the legal aid system.
Furthermore, it will be for the Defence Solicitor Call Centrethe telephone advice systemto determine whether legal advice should be limited to telephone
23 Jan 2008 : Column 296
Another concern raised relates to the appropriateness of telephone advice for someone from an ethnic minority. The Minister said that a duty solicitor could be sent for for people who find using telephones difficult. However, some people, not only those with a disability, but those from ethnic minorities with certain cultural difficulties, particularly those who cannot speak English very well, may not have sufficient understanding to give and receive clear instructions over the telephone. Who will decide whether interpretation is necessary or whether a person from an ethnic minority or someone with a disability such as blindness or deafness has insufficient understanding?
I wish to ask the Minister the following specific questions. Have the Government considered the points raised by the Law Society? If so, how do they justify the restriction of a telephone-only service where someone may justify publicly funded advice but have their own solicitor? Does the Minister see the difficulty that, where a detainee has his or her own solicitor, the only way in which they can have access to him or his firm is by telling the police that they are going to pay for it? Surely that is not a matter where the police should have any involvement, although that is what is being brought about by the limitation to the telephone-only system. Can the Minister tell us how the difficulty of appropriate ethnic minority representation is to be handled?
The last matter under Code Cthis point was not raised by the Law Societyto which I refer is the inclusion of provisions for both a caution and a warning to be given in Welsh. I know that this will apply in Wales but does the order presume that the caution or warning will have to be given first in English and then in Welsh, or will it just be given in Welsh, in which case other people present might not understand what has been said?
Finally, provision is made under Code E for interviews to be undertaken by a digital recording system, as the Minister said. He explained that a pilot would take place in the Lancashire Constabulary, east division. How long will it last? Will the end date of the pilot be put into the code? At the moment the pilot is open-ended. Presumably, before this measure is rolled out, not only will discussions take place with other interested parties but the code will have to be amended. As I say, at the moment the pilot is limited to the Lancashire Constabulary. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
The more important point that arises from these interviews, on which the Minister touched, is the whole question of how the integrity of the interview is to be guaranteed, as under this system there are no
23 Jan 2008 : Column 297
I apologise for detaining the House on a number of questions, but I think that they need an answer. I hope that the Minister will be able to supply the answers tonight.
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |