Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Goodhart and Baroness Butler-Sloss

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goodhart]

My Lords, I am going to take a rather unusual position on this and say that I am afraid I do not agree with Amendment 3. I was considerably involved in the drafting of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and I had no objection at that time to Sections 48 and 49, which are now objected to in this amendment. The reason why I do not welcome this amendment is that the chief executive is an administrator, not a judge. That being so, I see no serious reason why Lord Chancellors should not continue to be involved in the proceedings of Sections 48 and 49 as they now are. The administration of an issue which involves both those in charge of costs and those in charge of the law needs to recognise the real issues here because of the way in which the funds get to the Supreme Court.

I am in general a strong supporter of the two former judges who have put their names to this amendment and of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, but in this case I fail to be able to agree with them as they would clearly like.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, although this may seem to be a technical point to some Members of the House, it is actually a matter of very considerable importance. It is wrong in law and it is constitutionally inappropriate. I am very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who is an excellent lawyer, has not picked up either of those points. I have to say that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, got it wrong, and it is important to get it right. It is important to preserve the separation of the judiciary, and I speak as someone who is not a member of the Supreme Court and was not a member of the Judicial Committee. However, the separation of the judiciary from the Executive is crucial at every level, so to have the chief executive of the Supreme Court answerable to the Lord Chancellor and not to the president of the Supreme Court is, to say the least, an anomaly. Also, rather more seriously, it is incorrect. This needs to be put right, otherwise there really will be a perception that the Lord Chancellor not only controls the finances but controls the person who controls the financing of the Supreme Court. I strongly support this amendment.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Goodhart and Baroness Butler-Sloss

Monday 10th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I, too, have been burgled and I have absolutely no sympathy with burglars, but this amendment goes too far. I am very concerned about proposed new subsection (5A), under subsection (2) of Amendment 113C, as regards using the words “grossly disproportionate”. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, has just asked, how on earth would one advise a jury—I am glad to say that I was not a criminal lawyer but I did a little crime—that you can be disproportionate but not “grossly disproportionate”?

I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that it is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. I believe it is a matter that would end up in Strasbourg if we were not extremely careful. The Government—I can see for the best of intentions—are just going too far.

My recollection about the Martin case, which I read only in the press, is that he was shot in the back, which would be “grossly disproportionate”. Obviously, one could see why he did not get the existing protection that the Lord Chief Justice has given and that is in the standard advice to juries, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, read out. We do not need to go further. To go further will cause real trouble.

[Lord Goodhart]

My Lords, I regret that I cannot support this new clause. I agree entirely with what the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf and Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and a number of other practising lawyers have said. I regard this matter as very unsatisfactory. I have not practised as a barrister in recent years but I practised in the past and this proposal is unsatisfactory.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord Goodhart and Baroness Butler-Sloss

Monday 16th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 23 and 27, which are very much on the same lines as the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. I find it absolutely astonishing that the Government should, in Clause 8, have an arrangement whereby they can delete legal aid but they cannot bring it back. It is particularly astonishing because a number of judges who know what they are talking about—two Supreme Court judges who have been judges in the Family Division and the present president of the Family Division—all say that this is a false economy. I very well understand that it is absolutely necessary to cut the legal aid bill. However, if the Government cut it in the wrong way, as I suggest they are doing and as I shall say in the debate on later amendments, they cannot put it back if it requires primary legislation.

As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has already said, the whole purpose of these amendments is not to destroy the Bill but to allow the Government, or indeed a subsequent Government, a degree of flexibility so that they do not have to use primary legislation to achieve their purpose. Therefore, I very much support all the amendments in this group.

[Lord Goodhart]

My Lords, I entirely agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. At present, as has already been pointed out, the Bill authorises the Lord Chancellor to omit the services under Schedule 1 but it does not permit him to extend his powers by adding to the services in Schedule 1. Any extension of the power would therefore require primary legislation. By contrast, the deletion of existing services would, under Clause 132(5), require only the affirmative procedure, which is quicker, simpler and cheaper than primary legislation.

From long service on the Delegated Powers Committee, I am satisfied that it would be acceptable to use the affirmative procedure to use Clause 8(2) to delete services that now exist under Schedule 1. We should recognise that as desirable. From that, it follows that we should make it as easy as possible to reconstruct the provisions that have been cut and that ought to be restored when the financial situation permits. That would be done most swiftly by including in the Bill the ability to introduce powers to add new services by the affirmative procedure, as well as a power to remove existing services. That will cost nothing today but it will help to satisfy those of us who accept that some reduction is needed now but who do not want it to continue when the reduction is needed no longer. In some years to come, that will be the case.

Therefore, if we are to go ahead with the Government’s proposal, it is essential to add to it the requirement that the Government accept that in the future, when it is possible on economic grounds to do so, existing provisions can be added and not just deleted by the affirmative procedure in both Houses.