| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for sparing me the one-minute gloat at the start of his speech and for telling me that with his customary good humour. How I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer were also able to limit the gloat quota to one minute in his Budget speeches.
7 Apr 2005 : Column 934
I propose to abide by what I want to call the new Barnett formula for today's debate. Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who I am sorry to see is not in his place, chided a noble Lord who had made an electioneering speech with the words, "No one in this place has a vote, and no one outside is listening". I believe that that is the right approach to this truncated, pre-election Finance (No. 2) Bill, which, in any case, your Lordships' House is powerless to amend. We wait with interest to see what the Labour election manifesto says on the powers of this place. If we end up with a Chamber whose delaying and amending powers are significantly reduced, we will be in the same position in relation to other Bills as we are on this one, and we would be just a second-rate talking shop.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has read chunks of the Conservative manifesto into the record, as the Americans put it. I do not propose to weary the House by following suit. In a comradely, end-of-term spirit, I welcome particularly one change in the Finance (No. 2) Bill: the sudden abolition, almost two years early, of stamp duty relief on commercial property purchases in so-called disadvantaged areas such as High Holborn and Canary Wharf, for example. That relief has simply collapsed under the weight of its own absurdity. It must be the most ill researched, least considered and worst targeted tax relief ever in this country. The Treasury should be thoroughly ashamed of itself for pouring hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money into the pockets of some of the richest property owners in this country and around the world, without a shred of evidence that it has helped economic regeneration in areas that desperately need it.
The Bill will now pass, and we on these Benches look forward keenly to the verdict of the voters on our economic policies.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have two points to make on the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about the scrutiny of the Bill and what was taken out of it so that it could proceed as it is. First, what was left out of the Bill and, therefore, what was left in the Bill, was certainly agreed by the Conservative Front Bench, and I believe also by the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. So it is not appropriate for anyone in this House to complain about something that has been agreed by both Front Benches in the elected Chamber. Yesterday, a good deal of time was spent by Conservative Back-Benchers disagreeing with their own Front Bench about what was left in the Bill, but that is hardly my problem.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, recognised that there were precedents, particularly in 1983 and 1992. She complained that only four hours were spent in debate on the Bill yesterday, but that succeeded four days of Budget debate which, although the detail of the Bill was not available, nevertheless, covered a large part of the issues that we would be expected to consider.
7 Apr 2005 : Column 935
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, repeated—what she has said on many occasions—her grave doubts about the economic future. She contrasted the Treasury forecasts with what she called "most forecasters". The Treasury has looked at its forecasting record, as it always does, against the average of independent forecasters. I say what I have said at least twice yearly for the past seven or eight years, that the Treasury's record in economic forecasting is superior to that of most forecasters. That has been denied on a number of occasions by noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench. They have always been wrong; I see no reason to suppose that they will not be again today.
The noble Baroness referred quite properly to the view of the Advocate General on the Marks and Spencer's case. All I can possibly say about that is that that is the Advocate General's view; it is not the decision of the court. We still believe strongly in the merits of our case and we will await the final judgment of the court before considering whether any further action is required.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, for starting a new Barnett formula. As the Barnett formula for the devolved nations is one which is not going to go away, despite my noble friend Lord Barnett, we will have to call this, as he does I think, Barnett 2. But the noble Lord is quite right—nobody pays very much attention to what we say here on Finance Bills. That tradition goes back a very long way—not least to Commons resolutions of 1678. I take on board what he says about stamp duty relief in disadvantaged areas. I do not claim it was a success. Of course it was always a time-limited relief and it was planned to continue only until the end of next year. I am glad he approves of the fact that it is being withdrawn more quickly. I believe that I have covered the issues raised. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order 47 having been suspended, Bill read a third time, and passed.
Appropriation Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order 47 having been suspended, Bill read a third time, and passed.
7 Apr 2005 : Column 936
Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2005
Baroness Ashton of Upholland rose to move, That the rules laid before the House on 14 March be approved [15th Report from the Merits Committee] [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these rules insert a new Part 76 into the Civil Procedure Rules to support proceedings in the High Court and appeal proceedings in the Court of Appeal under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. The rules were made by the Lord Chancellor in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice on 11 March 2005, shortly after the Act received Royal Assent. The rules came into force immediately after being made but will cease to have effect after 40 days unless they are approved by Parliament.
A draft version of the Rules of Court was made available on the morning of 10 March during the final stages of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. The purpose of this amendment to the Civil Procedure Rules is to establish rules to support control order proceedings and relevant appeal proceedings. Civil Procedure Rules are usually made by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, which is the body established by the Civil Procedure Act 1997, with statutory responsibility for maintaining those rules.
The committee is chaired by the senior Court of Appeal judge, the Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, and the committee consists of representatives from the judiciary, barristers and solicitors as well as consumer affairs and lay representatives.
Due to the exceptional circumstances in which the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was passed, it would have been impossible for the Civil Procedure Rules Committee to make the relevant changes to the Rules of Court in the very short period of time available. That is why it was necessary to legislate for a special rule-making procedure to ensure that the Rules of Court for control order proceedings were in place when the first set of control orders were made and served.
Paragraph 3 of the schedule to the Prevention of Terrorism Act authorises the Lord Chancellor to make rules on the first occasion after the Act was passed, instead of the Civil Procedure Rules Committee. The Master of the Rolls is informed before introduction of the Bill of a need for a special procedure to make the first set of rules.
The Lord Chancellor, in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, had made the first set of rules but the Civil Procedure Rules Committee may make any subsequent rules or amendments as and when necessary.
Rules made by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee will be subject to the normal requirements of the Civil Procedure Act 1997, including the negative resolution procedure. The Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2005 introduce a new Part 76 to the Civil
7 Apr 2005 : Column 937
Procedure Rules. The new rules in Part 76 are based on the general principle that the other provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules should apply to control order proceedings and appeals, subject to any necessary modifications.
New Part 76 is divided into five sections. Section 1 deals with the scope of this part, the interpretation of the terms used and the necessary modification of the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules to ensure that sensitive information is not disclosed contrary to the public interest. It has been modified for the purposes of the new part by placing a new duty on the court to ensure that information is not disclosed contrary to the public interest, and by requiring the overriding objective be read and given effect to in a way which is compatible with that duty.
Section 2 deals with applications to the High Court relating to derogating control orders. Section 3 deals with permission applications, references and appeals to the High Court relating to non-derogating control orders. Section 4 deals with onward appeals to the Court of Appeal. Section 5 contains general provisions that apply to all proceedings in the High Court and Court of Appeal brought under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. That includes provisions in Rules 76-22 through to 76-25 for closed hearings and the use of special advocates.
Finally, Section 5 also includes provision in Rules 76-27 through to 76-29, which require the Secretary of State to disclose to the court all the material available to him, and which is relevant to the matter under consideration. The Secretary of State must also disclose all such material to the other party, except where the court permits him to withhold material on the ground that disclosure will be contrary to the public interest.
If the Secretary of State withholds material from the other party without the permission of the court, the court may prevent the Secretary of State relying on such material himself, or it may withdraw the matter from its consideration.
These rules reflect the requirements of Paragraph 4(3) of the schedule to the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which was inserted by an amendment to the Bill to meet concerns about the need to establish a procedure for disclosure of exculpatory material.
I have outlined the substantive provisions of the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Rules laid before the House on 14 March be approved [15th Report from the Merits Committee] [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |