You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Lords Publications > Lords Hansard > Lords Hansard by Date > Daily Hansard
Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I shall respond to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. The answer to his first question is yes, we did take that approach. The Government have been clear from the

21 Jun 2007 : Column 405

outset that the order is not a suitable vehicle for the removal of the MP filter. I know that we are 30 years on, but the noble Lord will recognise that the original Act that introduced the ombudsman was the subject of pretty vigorous parliamentary debate. Much persuasion had to occur before MPs supported it; they did so against a background of anxiety that there was another point of reference, apart from the elected Member, for the redress of a grievance. Democratic theory and widespread historical practice made the crucial question of the responsibility of the Member and the redress of grievance through Parliament fundamental to their role, and it always will remain so. An issue of principle always was at stake. He will recognise that a substantial body of opinion in another place still has anxieties on this score. The noble Lord has made conspicuous efforts to shift parliamentary opinion on this matter, and we applaud him for that. The fact that I am able to answer yes to his first question indicates a shift in perspective. He will recognise that this involves such a fundamental shift in concept that primary legislation is required; this is a rather ineffectual instrument to carry out such a reform.

If the noble Lord introduced another of his Bills, he would, far from boring us, delight and entertain us. Perhaps we can look forward to this issue being considered in the other place—that is crucial to its success—more constructively than has been the case previously. He will also know, so far as the Government are concerned, how precious legislative time is. I cannot give him a programme.

I do not think that the noble Lord was fair when he referred to an anomaly. More accurately, this involves a restriction—he also used that term. One might call it an anomaly if one maintains that the change in thought is now so widespread that the 1975 Act is completely out of date. There is still a balance of argument on that front. He will be aware that it will be generated in the other place. He should not presume the position so strongly as to define it as an anomaly. I am not sure that he advances his case by reducing its significance—“belittling it” is not the right phrase—in that way.



21 Jun 2007 : Column 406

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, first, I must correct one matter. The Minister’s arithmetic is as bad as mine—it is 40, not 30, years since 1967.

Secondly, I referred to an anomaly because the order seeks to bring together three ombudsmen and to harmonise their work, but only one of them will be fettered in terms of rights of access. It is also an anomaly in the sense that no other country in the world imposes such a provision. However, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. It is extremely good news for the citizen if, in the other place, it is realised that this must in some sense change.

Finally, I remind the Minister that I am not pressing for an absolute, unfettered right of access. In one of my Bills I suggested that one could, say, go to the Member of Parliament first and if, after six weeks, the issue did not reach the ombudsman, one should go direct; there are other ways of doing it. I hope that this will be taken very seriously. I commend the fact that the other place is a catalyst for change and I hope that the Government will listen to it.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I very much agree with that last statement. I apologise for my earlier mistake, although it was not my arithmetic that was at fault. I was a historian and my history was at fault. I had forgotten the date, which is a different matter entirely.

The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, will recognise that in general terms there is a real problem about the explicitness with which one reflects on a mediator’s role, for obvious reasons. Parties may be required to shift their position for agreement to be reached. That is better done within a framework of some confidentiality, rather than in a situation in which all cases are open and all parties are likely to see the decisions, and how they are arrived at, quite explicitly. But I do not have a categorical answer to his question, so I will have to write to him.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page