EU: Police and Criminal Justice Measures

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord McNally

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, on these specific questions, I have seen only the initial response from the Commission that was carried on the news-tapes; as far as I could see, that response was constructive in terms of welcoming this approach from the British Government. Of course we have had to get to this point before going into more formal discussions, but officials have had technical discussions with the Commission and the Council, focusing on the legal framework under which the decision will be made, to ensure a shared understanding of the legal processes around the 2014 decision. I know that my right honourable friends the Justice Secretary and the Home Secretary spoke today to Commissioner Reding and Commissioner Malmström respectively. There is no doubt that the Commission has responded in a way that we find constructive. I will cover another point made by the noble Baroness, about whether there would be gaps and lacunas in this. That would not be in the interests of any of us; we will negotiate with both sides to make sure that the move from one jurisdiction to another is a smooth one.

On the question of UKIP and how our respective parties respond to it, that is a matter for the political campaigners. However, in this Statement my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has demonstrated what we would expect of her, given her high office. She has taken account of the national security and policing needs in coming to these decisions, and she should be congratulated on that.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, on the point about the committee’s report, we will respond to that in due course. I hope that as we move forward we do not get bogged down in the niceties of protocol. The report from the noble Lord’s committee was influential in the discussions that have taken place. This is a little bit like a game of three-dimensional chess. In reaching decisions, the Government are trying to keep both Houses informed and to keep relations and channels open to the Commission and to member states. I hope Members of the House will understand that the issues covered by the 2014 decision are numerous and complex. We have been conscious of the need to ensure that any information we provide is as accurate and as informative as it can be.

Members of the House will be aware that the document today with its five explanatory memorandums is a measure of that commitment to put the information before the House as quickly and as fully as possible. Of course, I think it is implicit in everything that has been said that a second vote will be taken when the outcome of these negotiations are known. Common sense dictates that this will not be finessed through or carried through with smoke and mirrors. Both Houses, with all their experience and expertise, will demand the full facts on which they will base that second decision.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, is there not something very odd and illogical—weird, bizarre, even—about this Statement? It goes at some length into the merits of the proposals, or measures, that the Government intend to opt back into, so why opt out of them in the first place? It does not say anything at all about the de-merits of the measures that the Government want to abandon definitively. It is not surprising that the House seems to have come to a consensus this evening that what the Government have been conducting is essentially a charade. Will the noble Lord accept that this is a charade not entirely without cost? There will be the cost of an unnecessary negotiation. There will be the exasperation caused to our partners by the fact that we treat them in this particular way. There is, of course, the risk that we will not be able to renegotiate in exactly the fashion we want our resumption of the measures to which we wish to adhere in future—unless of course the Government have already received assurances in advance about that, in which case I hope the noble Lord will be frank and tell the House. Is it not also true that the Government embarked on this quite unnecessary, gratuitous and risky course simply for reasons of the most squalid party-political nature—designed simply to buy off their own Eurosceptics and to keep UKIP from making inroads into the Tory Party vote?

[Lord McNally]

That intervention would have a scintilla of credibility if it did not come from the Benches that negotiated the specific option with which we are now dealing. The noble Lord cannot get away from that fact. For heaven’s sake, why was Protocol 36 negotiated in the first place if it was not for the opportunity that the House is now taking? The noble Lord can score all the party-political points that he wants, but this was the legacy of the Benches opposite; the Government are dealing with it—like many other things. We are dealing with this, as my right honourable friend has emphasised, with a clear focus on the best assistance we can give to our policing and the best protection we can give to our national security. I am very happy that the Government are able to bring forward such a coherent programme, which is now open to both Houses to study and for a negotiation to progress.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord McNally

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, this has been an interesting and useful debate and I am grateful to my noble friend for outlining the matter with his usual thoroughness. Third-party litigation funding has developed and—to use the phrase deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell—there is a welling up of disquiet about it. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, takes what I would describe as the Robin Hood approach to this matter and views it rather optimistically as a way for the rich to help the poor. The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, was a little more sceptical about that scenario and drew on his American experience of how the process works. I think that people are a little worried when investors and investment opportunities are mentioned—the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned that matter—when we are talking about the law.

I was delighted to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, mention Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who I remember speaking from the Cross Benches. You used to see the colour draining from a Minister’s face as he realised that Lord Simon of Glaisdale had thoroughly read and filleted the relevant Bill and knew exactly the contradiction in the government amendment that he was about to dissect. I experience that same feeling of foreboding whenever the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, rises to speak. The noble and learned Lord said that Lord Justice Jackson could not be criticised for his brevity. All I can say to him is that Lord Justice Jackson is not alone among lawyers in that failing. I look at no one in this House in saying that.

Like other noble Lords, however, I take on board the noble and learned Lord’s point about the need to exercise caution in this matter. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, caught the mood of the House when he referred to the concept of legal hedge funds being established and cases being bundled up as investment opportunities as something that gives rise to rightful concern.

The code of conduct was drawn up with the specific requirement that the matter would be revisited if and when third-party funding expanded. It is a question of whether it has now expanded to a point where the matter should be revisited. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, explained, the Civil Justice Council published a voluntary code of conduct for litigation funders on 23 November. It was drawn up with the co-operation of the Association of Litigation Funders.

What I can say is that some serious points have been made during this debate, to which I have listened extremely carefully. My right honourable and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would like further time to reflect on these matters. They are serious, and some serious and worthwhile advice has been given. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is about to leap to his feet, and perhaps I may say that there was good and useful advice on both sides of the argument. I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment so that the Lord Chancellor can reflect on this issue. I shall not sit down if the noble Lord, Lord Davies, wishes to intervene.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The noble Lord is extremely kind. Does he agree that the best way of looking at this situation is to try to find the least undesirable possibility, or a less undesirable possibility, of a whole lot of very undesirable possibilities? Those are the only possibilities that exist. It would be lovely if legal aid was universally available for civil justice, and there were people in the 1940s who thought that that might happen. Sir Hartley Shawcross was saying at the time that he thought that legal aid could be turned into a kind of National Health Service equivalent for civil justice. We know that that is not financially conceivable.

The Government are engaged in further cutting back access to legal aid. I disapprove of that because it is an undesirable objective. We introduced conditional fees. I remember having a conversation with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, after I introduced an access to civil justice Bill in the House of Commons. He asked me not to take it any further because he was thinking of introducing conditional fees as a government initiative. I agreed with that at the time. He said that the Bill had certain inadequacies and did not cover all cases. However, when we introduced contingency fees, a lot of perversities were attached. I concede that, at first sight, investment in a tort case just as a commercial transaction seems unedifying and unattractive. However, I put it to the noble Lord that all these solutions are undesirable. The most undesirable solution of all might be further to restrict access to civil justice for whole categories of potentially meritorious cases.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I am sure that that postscript will be studied by the Lord Chancellor, and he will carefully study this debate. As I was saying in my concluding remarks, I thank my noble friend Lord Thomas for introducing this subject and noble Lords for expressing a variety of views on it. The Lord Chancellor would like further time to reflect and I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.

Courts: Super-injunctions

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord McNally

Thursday 19th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

The noble Lord, Lord Bach, has more experience on this. The chief statistician is looking into the matter. We hope to be able to give those figures shortly.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, is not a right to a private life and respect for privacy an essential, indeed defining, characteristic of a free society? Of course, there must always be an over-ride where there is a connection between private behaviour and the fulfilment of public responsibilities, including voting and speaking in Parliament. In that connection, is it not intolerable that important sections of the media, in pursuit of a commercial agenda in competition for getting more titillating material to increase their sales, think nothing quite regularly of bribing informants, of surreptitious surveillance and photography, of tapping telephones and of using the methods normally associated with the activities of a secret police in a totalitarian society? Is this not a national disgrace and should not Parliament and the Government face up to their responsibilities and legislate on the issue?

[Lord McNally]

I think I was with the noble Lord right to the last bend, there. Of course, in a free society we have to recognise those rights that he has just recognised, but also in a free society we recognise the need for a robust and free press. The noble Lord laid down a catalogue of sins, which throws a challenge to our press. I know that noble Lords on all sides of the House want to defend a free press, but the press has a duty to put its own house in order to see whether some of the faults that the noble Lord outlined should not be more robustly dealt with by the self-regulation that the press claims to be so proud of.

Bribery Act 2010

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord McNally

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, again I cannot help but draw attention to the fact that there is a sense of unity in the House on this. We are proceeding with all due speed on the matter. One thing that gives me encouragement, having sat in on a number of the meetings the Lord Chancellor has had with industry, is that industry itself seems to be quite capable of living with this Act. I take note of what my noble and learned friend has said, but I do not think that this is a matter of the reputation of the Lord Chancellor, although there is the question of implementation on which I hope these exchanges will be duly noted.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, the Government are taking strong action on anti-corruption, including the recovery and freezing of corrupt assets in the areas the noble Lord has referred to, but the message is clear from this House that there is a matter of national reputation involved in any further delay. I duly take note of that.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, have any bribes, facilitations or other payments that might or could be bribes within the meaning of this Act been paid from public funds to Libyan officials over the course of the past few weeks? If so, at what level and by whom were those payments authorised?

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord McNally

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I have to say that I think it is quite extraordinary that the noble Earl should find it necessary to try to protect his Minister, who is doing her job and defending as best she can the policy of the Government of the day. I hope that no Minister worthy of the name would need protection of that kind. I would be grateful if the Minister will just answer a simple question. Do the Government realise that there is a fundamental moral issue here? It is not a matter of complex socioeconomic categories—it is a very simple moral issue, is it not? Citizens have bought in good faith from the Government a good or a service and a new Government are now proposing not to deliver. Is that not the action of a dishonest trader? Is that the sort of example which this Government believe it is right to set for the nation?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, as there have been a number of interruptions, and we are perhaps following precedents which perhaps should have been challenged before, I shall just read to Members on both sides what the Companion says on this matter:

“A member of the House who is speaking may be interrupted with a brief question for clarification. Giving way accords with the traditions and customary courtesy of the House. It is, however, recognised that a member may justifiably refuse to give way, for instance, in the middle of an argument, or to repeated interruption, or in time-limited proceedings when time is short. Lengthy or frequent interventions should not be made, even with the consent of the member speaking”.

I suggest that we stick to the Companion.

Legal Aid and Civil Costs Reform

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord McNally

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I thank my noble friend. His question gives me the opportunity to mention a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, to which I did not respond. If not exactly ring-fenced, criminal legal aid is more protected because we take the view that when people are on trial for a criminal offence, it is important that they have access to justice and legal aid. However, that does not mean making a choice between criminal and civil cases, other than that, in terms of access to justice, a criminal charge is more serious.

The exceptional funding scheme will go wider than assistance for inquests, and it will indeed be available for those who may find themselves out of scope in these decisions but who have an exceptional case to make. I note what my noble friend says. We are well aware that we are making tough decisions that are needed to ensure access to public funding in cases that really require it and in protecting the most vulnerable in our society, as well as encouraging the efficient performance of our justice system. As we have made absolutely clear, those decisions are motivated partly by economic circumstances but also by a view that the legal aid system, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, acknowledges, needs to be recalibrated and rebalanced, and that is what we have tried to do.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am very sorry that the noble Lord just brushes aside the leaks in this case—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I associate myself with the comment of the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, about the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and his record in this area. Within the constraints in which we find ourselves, we certainly intend to make sure that our responsibility to service personnel and their families remains. Exceptional funding will remain available where there is a significant wider public interest in the applicant being represented at an inquest. Therefore, the families of service personnel will still be able to access legal aid funding for representation at inquests into their loved ones’ deaths. Rebuilding the military covenant is one of the top objectives of this Government, and the Ministry of Defence is currently considering how best to fulfil that covenant.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I am very sorry that the Minister just brushed aside the leaks in this case, as the Government always seem to do, by saying that it is just a matter of the world that we live in. It is a matter of the world that we live in only because it is tolerated. It is about time the Government adopted a slightly more rigorous approach to investigating and pursuing these things, as the Ministry of Defence did in the previous Parliament. I very much welcome the Government’s decision to propose that success fees should no longer be chargeable to defendants. It seems quite wrong to penalise defendants because of the funding structure that plaintiffs agree with their lawyers. Does the noble Lord agree that one of the great anomalies and problems of legal aid is that the costs incurred by a successful defendant cannot be claimed against the plaintiff? That is not only unfair, unjust and unbalanced between plaintiffs and defendants and legally aided plaintiffs and non-legally aided plaintiffs; it clearly reduces the financial disincentive to litigate marginal cases. Do the Government have any plans to deal with that anomaly?

[Lord McNally]

I think that I had better duck for cover in this case. I hear the point that the noble Lord makes. If we already have specific plans in this area, I shall write to him; if not, I shall make sure that that point is fed into the discussions that will be part of the review, which will go on for the next three months.

On investigating leaks, at the very beginning of my career I recall the Labour Party, under Harold Wilson, setting up a leaks inquiry and the first meeting of that inquiry being leaked to the Guardian. I was not dismissing the issue; I deplore it and, as I said at the beginning, I wish that we could get back to the rather old-fashioned idea that statements are made to Parliament and then the newspapers report them.

Divorce

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord McNally

Monday 18th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I fully understand and accept that. Things have changed a great deal in the past 40 years, but a lot of things have stayed the same. We have to take both realities into account. In terms of divorce, the lower down the social scale—if that is the right description—the less things have changed. I can quite imagine that the qualified professional woman is able to re-establish herself very quickly. The woman who has been holding a family together but is very much dependent on a male breadwinner is in a very much different situation. I just make the point that when we are looking at reform, we have to ensure, as our system does, that judges consider three principles—need, compensation and sharing, shaped by the overarching requirement for fairness. Each party is entitled to an equal share of the assets of the partnership unless there is good reason to the contrary, but the yardstick of equality is to be used as an aid, not as a rule. Any decision will be based on individual circumstances and needs. The court does not impose a one-size-fits-all solution. Consideration will be given to the potential earning capacity of both parties. Spousal maintenance orders can be conditional and time-limited, ending in any case if the recipient marries again. One-third of divorced couples make an application for ancillary relief, but a large majority of them seek simply a consent order.

Mention was made by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, of prenups. We await with interest Wednesday’s ruling of the Supreme Court in Granatino v Radmacher. At present, the courts can take into account prenuptial agreements as part of the balancing exercise that judges must undertake in ancillary relief proceedings under Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The judges can still apply discretion—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has read out a list of the various arguments and considerations that the courts, under the Matrimonial Causes Act, can take into account, including—to the extent to which they may wish to do so—the existence of a prenuptial agreement. Would he not agree that the problem is that because there is such a range of criteria, principles and precedents, it is impossible in any one case to give professional advice or predict what the likely outcome, or weighting between those considerations, will be? Would he not agree that a law that is not clear is a bad law?

[Lord McNally]

Certainly, a law that is not clear is a bad law. That is why we will consider carefully the outcome of the Supreme Court decision, and then the recommendations of the Law Commission, which will look at reforming the law. I hope that we will be able to do that with some urgency.

Another issue raised was that of “the divorce capital of the world”. The term has gained traction mainly because of some high-profile cases with large sums involved. However, I noted a comment by Lord Justice Thorpe, who said:

“There are only 17 judges of the family division”—

of the High Court—

“whose primary responsibility is to justice domestically. There they operate under great pressure of work. I question whether there should not be a more stringent allocation of judicial time to cases such as this where the parties have slender connection with our jurisdiction”.

As I said, there has been criticism of the system by the judiciary as well as by those who have to go through it.

Another point made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech, Lady Meacher, and Lady Murphy, concerned the issue of mediation. My colleague in the other place, Jonathan Djanogly, said the other day:

“Too often people in family breakdown situations use court as the first answer when they shouldn't. Often it's dealing with contact with children or intimate personal relationships that really shouldn't be going before the courts”.

The Government's view, which is shared by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is that there is a prospect of putting forward mediation as an alternative to expensive and emotionally charged court proceedings. It is an interesting fact that about 70 per cent of publicly funded cases in which mediation is attempted end up with a successful outcome reached away from the courts, and 60 per cent of publicly funded parties who learn about mediation end up with a successful outcome reached away from the courts. The figures for self-funding parties are similar if not higher. In looking at reform, the Government and many outside experts believe that we should publicise mediation and encourage it to be used much more than it is at the moment.

The contributions from all sides have indicated that our law is in need of examination. That examination is under way: the Supreme Court is considering prenups, while the study group and the Law Commission are also looking at the issue. We hope that, in 2011, those findings and studies will come together, which may be an opportune time to look at a range of reforms to our divorce law, so that it meets real needs and many of the criticisms that have been voiced today.

Again, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for raising this issue. I cannot give a snap answer to the question that she has raised in this short debate, but I hope that I have given a sense that we are continuing the initiatives of the previous Administration with a sense of urgency and that we shall look at the matter when the various studies come to fruition.