Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and William Cash

Tuesday 25th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I am not encouraging small companies to start engaging in arbitration in major commercial disputes. That is an average. It depends on the complexity of the issues. I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that full-scale commercial litigation—probably on either side of the Atlantic—is more expensive. This is a quicker arbitration process to substitute for the enormous costs that would be involved in challenging a public body, on either side of the Atlantic, on a commercial dispute about a breach of treaty obligation.

[Mr Cash]

Before my right hon. and learned Friend concludes, will he elucidate on the point he made earlier?

[Mr Clarke]

Which point I made earlier?

[Mr Clarke]

indicated assent.

[Mr Cash]

It was with respect to the question of transparency and the fast-track arrangements. As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, President Obama, in his State of the Union address, called for fast-track arrangements. The next day, the Democratic leader in the Senate turned down the idea. Indeed, Nancy Pelosi, the minority Democratic Leader in the House of Representatives, turned it down only last week. Was my right hon. and learned Friend being a little sanguine in his assessment of the position, and does he have any up-to-date information to give us today?

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and William Cash

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I keep giving way one last time, so, with apologies to my hon. Friend, let me turn to what I think is the subject matter of the serious debate that has been taking place since we consulted on the Green Paper.

It was our intention from the start to consult on the Green Paper. As what we are doing goes to the fundamentals of our legal system and our rule of law, we actively sought the widest possible support for what we are doing. Even before the Bill was introduced and before it went through the Lords, we narrowed its scope to make quite sure that CMPs could be made available only when disclosure of the material would be damaging to the interests of national security. Green Paper language that slightly implied that the police, Customs and Excise and all sorts of other people might start invoking them has gone completely away. We removed the Secretary of State’s power to extend the scope of the Bill by order, and excluded inquests after a campaign led by the Daily Mail got widespread support in this House. As I have already said, we never even contemplated that our proposals should cover criminal cases.

We also conceded—this is the key point, which I think we are still debating with most of the critics—very early on, after publishing the Green Paper, that the decision whether to allow a closed material procedure or not should be a matter for the judge and never for the Minister. That is an important principle and it is what most of the arguments, even about the JCHR’s amendments, are all about. We have all, I hope, now agreed that it is a judge’s decision whether or not to hold closed procedures. The question is how far we need to keep amending the Bill to clarify this and how we avoid unnecessary consequences if we overdo it. I shall return to that.

That is what most of the debate was about in the House of Lords and it is the point of the JCHR’s report. When it came to a Division in the House of Lords on the principle of closed material procedures, the Government had an enormous majority. The Labour party did not oppose the principles of CMP, even though it was a Back-Bench Labour amendment which the other place voted down. I trust that the Front-Bench Labour team and the right hon. Member for Tooting continue to be of that opinion. Unless his undoubted radical left-wing instincts have got the better of him, I do not think that is the position of any party in this House.

The concern of the House of Lords and of the JCHR was that the judge should have a real and substantive discretion about whether a CMP is necessary in any case. Many Members of the upper House made their support for CMPs contingent on changes being made to increase judicial discretion and ensure that it was clear on the face of the Bill that CMPs would be used only for a very small category of exceptional cases.

I begin by making it clear on behalf of the Government that I agree that the judge should have discretion. I agree that we should be talking about a small number of cases where any other process is impossible and it is necessary for it to be handled in this way. A strong and compelling case was made by those who argued that we ought to trust our judges to decide the right way to try the issues in any particular case. I agree. The debate—I suspect it will be the same debate today as it was in the House of Lords—starts from the fact that the Government’s case is that the Bill as it stood already accepted that principle. As we were defeated, we will consider what more we can do by way of reassurance. People are deeply suspicious of anything in this area and they are convinced that, despite what we put in the Bill, the judge will somehow be inhibited by what the Government propose to do.

Our judges are among the finest in the world. They are staunch defenders of the rule of law, and they have shown time and again that they can be trusted not to endanger the national security of this country. I know that they can be—

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Mr Clarke]

If it is on a British process, not a Strasbourg one.

[Mr Cash]

It is on the Law Lords themselves in the past and now the Supreme Court. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there are divisions of opinion even at the highest level about the extent to which such decisions should ultimately be made by the most senior judges or Parliament, and that there are very senior judges who take the view that Parliament, not the judges, should decide these questions?

[Mr Clarke]

There are other occasions on which we shall no doubt debate parliamentary override of the courts of law. I realise that that is a matter dear to my hon. Friend’s heart. In the Duma it would be carried nem. con. The Russian Government would be utterly delighted to hear the principle of parliamentary override brought into our legal system in this country. I think the House of Commons should be hesitant. There may be senior judges who think that that should apply. The process that we are applying is different. The Government’s case is based on trusting the judges to use the discretion sensibly. That is what I think we should do, but of course I address seriously the views that were put forward.

I want to make it clear, to go back to what the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) asked me earlier, that the Government will not seek to overturn the most important amendment—the most important, in my opinion—made by the House of Lords that the court “may” rather than “must” order a closed material procedure upon an application. I do not see how we could give a wider discretion than that.

We will also accept that any party, not just the Government, should be able to ask for a closed material procedure. I think it highly unlikely that any plaintiff will be in any situation to start arguing that he wants to protect national security, but if people want that, they can have it. More importantly, the court of its own volition should be able to order a closed material procedure.

A further series of amendments were made which we still need to look at more closely. We have time to look at them closely and the others will be addressed by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup in Committee. We are not against the principle, but we are not sure that the amendments add anything. I shall give the reasons in a moment.

Rights and Protection of Victims

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and William Cash

Monday 11th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

It is a long time since I have taken part in a debate on the Floor of the House on any European subject that was completely free of any controversy. [Interruption.] Certain Members were not here. We all congratulate the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Stafford, on selecting the measure for debate, because we all agree on the great importance of giving better protection to victims of crime, not only in this country but across the European Union.

[Mr Cash]

I am sorry to have to remind my right hon. and learned Friend that, in fact, I am now the hon. Member for Stone. It was during the Maastricht debates that I was the hon. Member for Stafford.

[Mr Clarke]

I will not weigh up the issue of whether Stafford has lost or gained, or whether Stone has benefited or been deprived, but I enjoyed the debates on the Maastricht treaty. We were not quite as close on that occasion as we are on the directive.

This is an extremely important subject, and there is general agreement that the framework agreement of 2001 is not adequate and should be improved, which is the objective of the Commission’s documents. The proposals have received extremely widespread support, and were movingly supported by Members whose constituents had been adversely affected. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) cited the case of Mr and Mrs Dunne, and a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) was murdered in Spain. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) discussed difficulties that he had encountered. As I said at the beginning of our debate, we are trying to raise European standards on the issue because many British citizens go abroad and their families would benefit if minimum standards—and we hope very adequate standards—were in place throughout all member countries.

It was claimed that that could be achieved by bilateral agreements with other member states. With respect, I do not think that that is practicable. The notion that bilateral agreements have to be negotiated with 26 EU member states, where the tradition of supporting victims is variable and in some cases far below that in the UK, is not the best way to proceed. I was urged by other speakers to support the Commission and the Hungarian presidency’s Budapest declaration to see what we can do to strengthen support for everyone.

Reference was made to the work of Louise Casey, the victims commissioner, who shares the views of my hon. Friends and of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby about the importance of considering the problems experienced by bereaved families. Victim Support, the biggest organisation in the field of victim support, supports the proposed directive, and it has urged the Government to take a constructive approach to it. It was said that its funding had been cut, but we have responded to the opinions expressed by the victims commissioner. We need to make sure that specialist, targeted support is available for vulnerable victims. Many hon. Members have been victims of crime—probably, almost everyone—but people do not always need counselling and support afterwards. Bereaved families, however, are a particular concern of Louise Casey, who has produced a report on the subject. We have given extra support to specialist services for bereaved families and victims of rape and sexual assault. More targeted support is required. We have a code of practice in this country that also needs to be revised and improved in the light of experience, and everybody is pressing in the same direction on that.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) was pretty supportive of the proposals before us. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), he talked particularly about protection orders. The idea of mutual recognition of protection orders throughout the European Union is very valuable. These orders are usually given when someone is being harassed, often by a husband, partner or spouse with a history of domestic violence. If we do not have mutual recognition of the orders, the consequence is that every time anybody travels in Europe, they are obliged to try to get a fresh court order in the area where they are then living and give evidence again about the same experiences. Where possible, we should support this move. We have already opted into the criminal law directive on the subject, and we will do so on the civil order once we have scrutinised it to make sure that the two will work together and that particular burdens are not put on us.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone talked about the possible resource and administrative implications for this country. I do not see any insuperable problems in the proposals, but we will obviously have to scrutinise them in detail because we cannot accept unnecessary extra resources or administrative burdens being demanded of us. That is highly unlikely because we are so far ahead in the field compared with most other member states, but we will bear that concern in mind.

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Mr Clarke]

I will give way one last time.

[Mr Cash]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend also bear in mind the severe criticisms, most of which are entirely justified, about our moving generally towards a compensation culture?

Sentencing Reform/Legal Aid

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and William Cash

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

That is just a very broad-brush defence of what the hon. Gentleman believes is the need to carry on paying £38 a head per taxpayer for the current legal aid system. Of course some legal aid is absolutely essential—crucial—to the liberties of our subjects and it is one of the standards of our society that we provide legal aid for people in extremis who would otherwise have no means of urging their cause. We have this grand, across-the-board system that finances what we can sometimes see is an inferior way of resolving disputes if we look for better methods of doing so. That will apply in Birmingham as elsewhere. The previous Government knew that the system had to be reformed; they simply could not make up their mind about what they were going to do to reform it. We are making some very well-considered proposals, which have been consulted on and thus modified to a certain extent, for getting the system back to a sensible size.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Lord Chancellor said that he had been personally impressed by the representations of the senior judiciary. Given that they said it would not be right as a matter either of principle or of practice to go beyond the maximum discount of one third, who are the wishy-washy liberals who have induced this row and all the fuss and problems that we have witnessed in the press over the past few weeks?

[Mr Clarke]

We did have quite a lot of support and it was not all from wishy-washy liberals. We also had some opponents who opposed the policy for reasons that I completely disagreed with. I was impressed by the input I got from serious people in the criminal justice system who are all used to discounts for early guilty pleas. Anyone who has ever had anything to do with criminal justice knows that there has always been a discount for pleading guilty early. The public do not know that and they do not like it when they are first told it, but there are good reasons for it. However, a reduction by half proved to be too much and I could not find any other way of resolving the issue and getting over the undoubted difficulties, so if there are any bleeding-heart liberals left who still think we are going to have a reduction by half, I am sorry to disappoint them, but at least my hon. Friend and I are now agreed on where we are.