238 Lords a Leaping...

It's an interesting time in the House of Lords at the moment. The Coalition Government is continuing to push through controversial legislation - despite all party concerns in the House of Lords. It has suffered a number of significant defeats.

However the Executive retains some high powered weapons to force its will. In the Commons it can push legislation through the House with limited scrutiny. Ministers are bound by the doctrine of collective responsibility - which means that they are expected to vote with the Government (whatever their own personal reservations) or RESIGN. Commons whips can make persuasive arguments to backbenchers who are desirous of re-selection or advancement. The convention that a government defeat on a motion of confidence will bring down a government is also a useful threat to use against backbenchers who are minded to rebel. (John Major famously reversed a defeat on the Maastricht Bill in 1993 by bringing back the issue the next day as a motion of confidence - see the Wikipedia article). Rebels in marginal seats decided they preferred to fight another day than face a General Election at which they faced almost certain defeat.

Recently, and very controversially, they refused to accept Lords Amendments by using a wider definition of "Money Bill" than had been used previously (read the row that ensued in the House of Lords (Hansard) - I was there to watch this from the gallery).

Sadly, the most important battles against the Welfare Reform Bill; the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (LASPO) and the Health and Social Care Bill has been fought in the Lords, rather than in the Commons. This is for the reasons set out in the second paragraph of this post.

Opposition Peers (Labour); and Crossbenchers have been at the forefront of these fight. Some limited support has come from dissident Lib-Dem Peers - but most of the time they have backed the Government. Breakdown of votes by party can be found on the Lords Divisions database.

Labour Peers have been buttressed by tweets supporting their campaign - and have used tweets to get out the message. This week they established a website - Labour Lords. Whether you agree with them or not (and in the interest of full disclosure I have worked for - on both a paid and unpaid basis - some of those Peers, and continue to work with them) - it is worth following - just to see how - in this technological age - opposition in the House of Lords is carried out.

Magna Carta

The Great Charter was the subject of a lively, informative and sometimes amusing exchange in the House of Lords last week. Here is the transcript from Hansard.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to celebrate the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta in June 2015.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally): My Lords, plans to celebrate the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta in June 2015 are being co-ordinated by the Magna Carta Trust, an independent organisation chaired by Sir Robert Worcester. I am keeping in close contact with the trust and I hope that as many people as possible will join in the commemorative activities and events that are being planned for the run-up to 2015 and on the anniversary itself.

Lord Lea of Crondall: I thank the Minister for that reply. There are of course very special reasons to commemorate in this House what happened at Runnymede in June 1215 and, indeed, the evolution of our constitutional arrangements between the Lords and the Commons over many centuries since. Does the noble Lord agree that in addition to weighty documents being published and speeches being made, there could be something of a more popular nature? For example, the pageant that preceded the tournament in 1215 was itself preceded by a ceremonial exchange of hostages between England and Scotland. What does the noble Lord think about a replay of that? Other events might also intrude, such as an inconclusive outcome of the general election. In those circumstances, would one way forward be a series of ceremonial jousts between the parties in which the noble Lord himself might be called upon to participate?

Lord McNally: What excellent ideas. It is strange how the same thoughts go through our minds. Just as the noble Lord was speaking, I was looking at the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and thinking what a perfect hostage he would make in the circumstances. Not long ago, I went to a ceremony at Runnymede and pointed out something that may surprise some Members of this House in view of my views about reform-that at Runnymede, the Barons did very well.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, does my noble friend think that the Barons who look down upon us daily from their plinths above this Chamber would be best pleased if, a month after the next general election, they looked down upon a hybrid Assembly with a group of senators in it?

Lord Strathclyde: Progress.

Lord McNally: Indeed. I am sure that the Barons would be as revolutionary in 2015 as they were in 1215, but I defer to my noble friend because, sometimes when listening to him, I think he must have been at Runnymede for the signing.

The Lord Bishop of Chichester: My Lords, the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton, played a decisive and formative role in the formulation of Magna Carta, and that was not the first or the last occasion in our history when the Church has, so to speak, helped to keep the feet of the powers-that-be to the fire in matters of constitutional freedoms. Will the Minister take the opportunity to acknowledge the continuing contribution that people of faith are still making today in defending human dignity that transcends temporary political arrangements, and will he further let us know whether he is prepared to advise the independent commission to which he referred to invite the Church of England to play a particular role in the 2015 celebrations?

Lord McNally: I would certainly hope so. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, Archbishop Langton played an important part at that time. I shall draw the idea to Sir Bob Worcester's attention. I believe that this is an opportunity for us to celebrate a significant part of our history. I know that historical purists will cavil at the importance of the Magna Carta, but I always remember Eleanor Roosevelt, when she published the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, saying that it was a Magna Carta for all mankind. Nobody needed to translate what she meant by that. Magna Carta carries a resonance that has come down to us through the ages.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, may I invite the Minister graciously to disabuse himself and all others who fall prey to the misconception that Magna Carta was ever signed? It never was. As a charter, and as the name implies, it was sealed by the royal seal of King John, as the facsimile mounted in the Contents Lobby makes very clear. May I apologise for making such a pettifogging legal point?

Lord McNally: Not at all. I have long considered the noble Lord a master of the pettifogging legal point, but his question gives me the opportunity to put on the record, for noble Lords who want to get involved in the build-up to the Magna Carta celebrations, that my honourable friend Eleanor Laing in the other place is chairing an All-Party Magna Carta Group. I am sure that it would benefit from membership from this House.

Baroness Benjamin: My Lords-

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords-

Noble Lords: Order!

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there has not been a question from the Liberal Democrat Benches.

Baroness Benjamin: Thank you, my Lords. A favourite expression often used by British citizens is, "It's a free country". Thankfully, so it is, but many are not aware that our freedoms are the greatest legacy of the Magna Carta. What are the Government doing to ensure that children and young people use and appreciate this precious gift of freedom with respect and responsibility? Perhaps they could do so by establishing an annual Magna Carta day to raise awareness and celebrating on the underused Parliament Square, as suggested by the Hansard Society.

Lord McNally: Again, I am delighted by the enthusiasm with which the House is approaching this and I shall feed that idea back to Sir Robert.

Lord Howarth of Newport: Will the Minister confirm that Clause 29 of Magna Carta, which enshrines the right to due process, remains part of the law of England and Wales, but that it is under attack by the Government? Would it not be seemly if the Government were to celebrate the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta by withdrawing Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which removes legal aid from people on low incomes who are in dispute about their benefits entitlement or with their employer or with their landlord? If the Government should be less than gracious about this, will it not still be for the Barons to insist on the ancient constitutional principle that:

"To no man will we sell, or deny, or delay right or justice"?

Lord McNally: The noble Lord once again confirms that one should never take that final question.

* I would also note that Sir Robert Worcester is a native of Kansas. While I'm thrilled that Americans honour this important development in British History - I wish that the English would do more themselves to celebrate Magna Carta. The monument at Runnymede was of course paid and built by the AMERICAN Bar Association *

Update on LASPO

This blog has been following the Legal Aid; Sentencing & Punishment of Offenders Bill in the House of Lords. The committee stage will begin just before the House breaks for the Christmas Recess. As amendments are submitted for consideration (and unlike the House of Commons where the selection of amendments for debate is a matter for the Speaker or the Chairman presiding over that Public Bill Committee - all amendments can be discussed - though by mutual consent they may be put together in group of similar amendments and debated together) - they are listed under Amendment papers (here).

It's worth reading through some of the amendments. In order to see how they make changes - you will need to download a copy of the Bill (download here)

Amendments make reference to clauses - these are the main building blocks of a bill (and become "Sections" when the bill becames an Act of Parliament.

For example clause 27 is preceded by

27 Position of providers of services



On the right hand side of the page are numbers (5, 10, 15....). These are the line numbers.

So to find The following amendment -

Clause 11

LORD BACH
LORD BEECHAM
Page 8, line 18, leave out “may” and insert “must”

Go to page 8 of the bill - and on line 18 (which is in clause 11) the word currently in the bill is "may", Lord Bach & Lord Beecham which to delete the word may (which gives a discretionary power) and replace it by "must" (an obligation)

Yesterday in Parliament

I spent many hours yesterday watching proceedings in the House of Lords from the public gallery. Before we were admitted the Lord Speaker's Ceremony took place where she was escorted from her rooms at the southern end of the Palace through Princes' Chamber; along the "Not Content" Lobby (Votes are taken in what is normally a corridor) into the Peers Lobby and finally into the Chamber where she took her seat. Visitors were then escorted from the Peers Lobby upstairs - but we were not admitted until prayers had been completed. In the Westminster Parliament, only Members and certain officials are allowed in while prayers are in progress. Finally we were allowed into the gallery - and Question Time began.

In the Commons questions are directed at Ministers from a specific Government Department. In the Lords they are to "the Government". Thirty minutes are set aside for oral questions. Four Members get to put a question which has been submitted in advance. The Minister's initial reply must be in less than 75 words. Then supplementaries begin - first from the person who had put down the initial question - then from others. After seven or eight minutes (or less if there are no further Peers wishing to ask a supplementary) the next question is taken.

There was a small amount to business to be dealt with before the big debate of the day began. Yesterday it was the Second Reading of the Legal Aid; Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. My post of last Wednesday has the background to this controversial bill.

It is well worth watching or reading the debate - particularly if you are a law student - but also if you are a citizen. There are many important issues involved - and at its heart, the importance of the ability to enforce rights. Magna Carta was quoted (and in the chamber statues of the Barons who forced King John to sign that groundbreaking document, look down upon proceedings). Many references were made to Lord Bingham's excellent book - "The Rule of Law".

The committee stage of the Bill will start soon - and I'll be reporting from it for Washminster.

The Week Ahead

It's going to be quite a week politically.

The "Super Committee" tasked with coming up with an agreement to reduce the US budget deficit must act this week- the deadline is on Wednesday (the day before the Thanksgiving Holiday). In order for congressional action - the real deadline is today.

The Guardian was reporting last night -

"The bipartisan committee tasked with reducing America's $15tn (£9.5tn) budget deficit looks close to admitting defeat as its deadline looms.
The committee, created in August, has until Wednesday to report a plan to cut $1.2tn from the nation's deficit. Failure to do so will trigger automatic cuts to defence and social welfare programmes starting in 2013."

In the UK the controversial Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill will come up for Second Reading in the House of Lords today. As I will be down in Westminster all day - it is unlikely that I will be able to update Washminster during the day. When I can - I will tweet on WM_Alert. US news can be followed on Politico and RollCall .

The agendas for the following week are available for

Westminster Parliament
Assemblee nationale, France (from p2)
House of Representatives, USA

Legal Aid, Sentencing & Punishment of Offenders Bill

This controversial, and far reaching bill, is due to have its Second Reading on Monday (21st November). There are a number of concerns about the effects of measures in the Bill. Below are a number of links to the Bill and reports about its repercussions.

The Bill
Explanatory Notes to the Bill

Justice for All Briefing
SCOPE Report - Legal Aid in Welfare
Law Society - on the costs of the "savings"
Rights, Welfare & Law. Legal Aid Advocacy in Austerity Britain by Prof. Deborah James & Dr Alice Forbess (LSE)
Law Centres Federation
Article from Law Society Gazette on proposed MANDATORY telephone gateway for civil legal aid.
National Accident Helpline Briefing on Referral Fees