Victims and Courts Bill

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to which I have added my name. I have listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord has said, but this is not an attempt to encourage lots of challenges to unduly lenient sentences. It is, above all, an attempt to achieve a degree of parity between the way offenders and defendants are treated.

The intent of the amendment it to suggest that a government department nominated by the Secretary of State should do the informing. It would need to be a body that was viewed as genuinely neutral, but it would be perfectly possible to inform the victim of their right and make quite clear the orbit within which an appeal against an unduly lenient sentence is likely to be successful and the parameters beyond which it would be highly unlikely to be considered, so as to make very clear to the victim, from the very beginning, the possibility of their having a case that might be over the threshold as opposed to being clearly below the threshold. It is entirely possible to imagine that one could create that.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, when I say that I will be brief, I will be very brief. I have listened carefully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. He is quite right in his observations, and particularly about the ultimate test of whether a sentence is set aside because it is unduly lenient. However, I think the answers have already been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell: this is a notification. The CPS is not taking a position on the merits of making the application; it is just setting up a timetable.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I will deal first with the existing time limit. We are listening—I am making a “we are listening” speech—not just to the strength of views in this Committee and in the other place on the time limit for the unduly lenient sentencing scheme but to the victims themselves. We are consistently hearing that this time limit is simply not long enough when victims are processing the outcome of the case, and I am extremely sympathetic to their representations. A ticking clock is the last thing that they need at a difficult time. The Government have been persuaded by arguments that something needs to be done, but we want to make sure that we get this right. Currently, we have been given a number of conflicting views on the best way to go about this. I would like to meet all noble Lords who have tabled amendments, and indeed any other interested Members of your Lordships’ House, to discuss the best way forward.

Turning to the question of notification, it goes without saying how important it is that victims are made aware of the ULS scheme. It is another subject that comes up over and again; it is not much of a right if you do not know that you have it. I am afraid that I am not persuaded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, saying that we should not tell people that they have this right in case they want to use it—if that is not what he meant to say, I apologise and withdraw the remark. The way it is supposed to work is this. Under the victims’ code, police-run witness care units are required to inform victims about the unduly lenient sentencing scheme within five working days. However, we are hearing that this is not happening, so we need to ensure that it does. The question is how best to go about it.

At present, I am not persuaded that putting the obligation into primary legislation is the best way. The first reason is that, usually, if you create an obligation, you have to create a penalty for the breach. The second is that if you want to change it, you have to amend primary legislation in order to do so. The victims’ code is a statutory code of practice. Last week, we launched a consultation to ensure that we get it right and that the code is fit for purpose. Again, we would welcome your Lordships’ engagement with that consultation before it closes on 30 April, and any other ideas before we reach our final conclusion. For now, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Victims and Courts Bill

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

As my noble friend will recall, I raised this issue at Second Reading. I support Amendment 14, in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and Amendment 15, in the name of my learned friend, if I may refer to him in those terms, the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I add that I have sympathy towards the drafting of Amendment 13, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

As I say quite frequently in this House—the issue of sexual offending arose in the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and I said it then and I repeat it now—sexual offences in the family environment are appalling. The offence of a father—it is often the father, rather than the mother—sexually attacking, which I think is the right word, his own son or daughter, who are as young as 14 years-old, is absolutely appalling. It is beyond most of our comprehension that any father would do that—it is certainly beyond my comprehension.

The important thing here is the value of the prohibited steps order made in the family court, because that can be carefully fashioned to the particular needs of a family. Therefore, it is welcome that the family court has this provision. The use of this prohibited steps order is most valuable for the protection of children and spouses in the family.

I am a little puzzled by the provision in Clause 3, and I ask my noble friend the Minister to reply to this, under which it is obligatory, within the circumstances set out, for a prohibited steps order to be made. I would be grateful for guidance—I am sorry I have not researched this—on whether the power to make a prohibited steps order is a matter of discretion by the Crown Court, or whether it is the situation that a prohibited steps order can be brought into force only under the drafting of Clause 3? I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could answer that.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I will make a few observations. No one can doubt the revulsion towards sexual offenders who have attacked their own children or have the potential to do so, but there are two practical points that we must bear in mind.

First, the criminal justice system and the criminal courts, and the family justice system and the family courts, have been starved of resources by both Governments—there is no doubt about that. When sentence lengths are increased by both parties, we end up with a situation in the prisons that is a crisis. In deciding what orders to make in this kind of case, it is of paramount importance to have regard to the resource implications. It is no use saying that there is money for this. There is not. The courts system is starved, and the result of that is victims suffering in a whole host of other cases by the tremendous backlog. Both this Government and the last Government are responsible for the position into which the courts have been placed. When we look at this, please have regard to resources.

The second point, a point made by the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Meston, is that it is important that we get correct the balance as to what the Crown Court is to do and what the family court is to do. I am not sure, having listened to this debate, that that is a matter that has been sufficiently addressed. The one thing you cannot have—because it is a waste of resources and does not deploy expertise correctly—is the lines not clearly drawn. I hope very much that, before this comes back, there will be the opportunity for those who have day-to-day responsibility in the judiciary and the Courts Service, together with the ministry, to be sure that we have got the most effective and efficient use of resources and the right kind of drawing the line. It is very difficult, but we cannot ignore the bankrupt state of the courts. It is a regrettable fact, and we must not make the mistake we have made in relation to sentencing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government understand that the aim of this group of amendments is to ensure that the children, who are at the heart of these cases, are protected. We share that objective, but these amendments may cause more problems than they are intended to solve. The amendments are all intended to be made to legislation, either proposed or already enacted, which deals with slightly different situations—convictions for certain serious sexual offences, children conceived as a result of rape and where one parent has been convicted of the murder of the other. However, all these pieces of proposed or enacted legislation have one thing in common. They are not intended to be additional punishments or to replicate—far less, replace—the experience and expertise of the family court. They are intended to protect children who are caught up in these very serious situations as quickly as possible.

In each of these three situations, the Government have identified issues in which the crime for which the relevant person has been sentenced is so serious, with them usually serving a long prison sentence, that it is relatively straightforward to conclude that a prohibited steps order will be in the best interests of the child. These proposals allow the Crown Court judge automatically to restrict the exercise of parental responsibility at the time of sentence. At the moment, following sentence the remaining parent must apply to the family court to do the same thing, but this inevitably takes time and causes distress.

It is known that some perpetrators use their parental responsibility to continue to exercise control, even though they are behind bars. In relation to a parent serving a life sentence for the murder of the other parent, it is axiomatic that there will be no other parent to make the application. What this legislation does not do is automatically restrict the exercise of parental responsibility in all cases forever. The defendant who has had it restricted can apply to the family court to have it restored. It does put the onus on them to do so. These provisions merely provide a quick and convenient method of protecting children and victims. However, restricting the exercise of parental responsibility is an extremely serious thing to do. For this reason, the Government must give serious consideration to how to balance the competing principles that are involved.

Against this background, I turn to Amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 22 and 27, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. They seek to broaden the offences that are within the scope of this measure and reduce the minimum sentencing threshold from four years. The Government believe that any individual who poses a serious risk to children should not be able to exercise their parental responsibility. For the avoidance of doubt, I make it clear that the Government’s view is that parents do not have rights. The only rights are those of the child.

However, to create a power allowing the automatic restriction at the point of sentence, we must be sure that to do so would be in the best interest of the child. That is why we have set the threshold at sentences of four years’ imprisonment. In our judgment, if the behaviour of the defendant is sufficiently serious to warrant a sentence of four years or more, it is safe to assume that it would be right to restrict the exercise of parental responsibility. We have set it at four years because this is already a threshold for seriousness used for other purposes in criminal sentencing. For certain offences, including sexual offences, an offender who is sentenced to four or more years serves two-thirds rather than a half of their sentence in prison. It already recognises the particular seriousness.

This pre-existing legislative provision is why we have chosen four years as the indicator of seriousness. If we were to lower the four-year threshold, we could risk moving away from where we can be sure that restricting the exercise of parental responsibility will always be in the best interests of a child into territory where it is less clear. Equally, we must ensure that these measures are not in contravention of a person’s human rights. In particular, we need to ensure that any interference with a person’s right to private and family life under Article 8 of the European convention is a justifiable and proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim. We have set the threshold at four years for serious child sexual offences as we are of the view that, given the risk of harm to children, this intervention is justified.

That is not to say that the parental responsibility of offenders who have committed sexual offences, whether against their own child or someone else’s, but have received a sentence of less than four years, cannot be restricted. In those cases, an application can still be made to the family court, which is best placed to consider all circumstances, including what is in the best interests of the child.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised a number of issues about shortcomings in the family court. With the greatest of respect to her, this is perhaps not the time and place to expand on those, though they are of course serious points. As I think the noble Baroness knows, I have responsibility for family justice policy within my department, so these are issues that perhaps she and I can discuss on another occasion.

When we met, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, asked about appeals, and it has been raised again today. I promised him a reply. In cases where there is a successful appeal and an offender is acquitted or the sentence is reduced below four years, the Bill provides a clear process for the review of the prohibited steps order. The relevant local authority will be under a duty to make an application within a very short time to the family court, so that the family court can consider, exercising its expertise and experience, whether the prohibited steps order imposed by the Crown Court should be varied or discharged.

I turn now to Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. The offence of having sexual communications with a child carries a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment, so this could not be added to the list unless the requirement of a four-year minimum sentence were removed.

I turn now to Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, put her name and has spoken. This would expand Jade’s law, which provides for the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility in cases where one parent kills the other. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness wish to amend the legislation so that it includes cases of attempted murder. I am grateful for being told that that was at the suggestion of the Victims’ Commissioner, Claire Waxman, for whom I have the utmost respect.

I entirely recognise that, in order to be convicted of attempted murder, what the defendant has done will have been truly horrific—after all, a defendant can be convicted of this only if they had the intention actually to kill—and nothing I say is intended to minimise that. But I repeat what I said earlier. The automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility is not intended to punish the defendant, far less to act as a mark of societal disapproval. It is about children. I repeat that Parliament must be satisfied that restricting the exercise of parental responsibility will be in a child’s best interests.

The sad but determining factor in these killing cases is that the child is going to have only one parent left, and that parent will usually be serving a life sentence. There is no other comparable situation. Where the defendant did not succeed in murdering the other parent, although they intended to do so, they will usually be serving a long sentence, but there will be a surviving parent. In most cases, the surviving parent will be able to make an application to the family court if one is felt necessary. This lessens the need for an automatic referral to the family court.

It would also be difficult to justify why, if attempted murder were included, other serious criminal offences such as Section 18 wounding, which also carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, were not. Your Lordships should also be aware that adding a further measure into Jade’s law at this point will risk delaying its implementation, which has already taken a lot longer than the Government would have wished.

I have been asked for the reasons for that, and I will give them as quickly as I am able to. It is a complicated situation, but this is a unique piece of legislation. There is no existing process that we can import or learn from. There has been significant engagement with various partners that will be involved in the delivery of Jade’s law: local authorities; the Crown Prosecution Service; the National Police Chiefs’ Council; and His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service. The Government also have to make changes to criminal and family procedure rules, and we also have to develop broader guidance for practitioners and families. But we are on it. We must bring Jade’s law into force as soon as possible to protect the children who need it most. We must be cautious about doing anything at this stage that could extend this process.

As with the measures we are bringing in through this Bill, officials are developing a robust system to measure how Jade’s law works in practice. We want to understand how it works in practice, and from there we can properly consider whether other changes can be made to it. For all these reasons, I invite your Lordships not to press these amendments.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

If I understood my noble friend correctly, the protected steps order can be made only if Clause 3 is activated, and there is no discretion in the Crown Court to make a prohibited steps order in other circumstances, particularly where the offence did not, as drafted, carry a four-year imprisonment. In fact, I think my noble friend then said that parents can apply to the family court for the protected steps order. I find that rather awkward. Surely, when the Crown Court has all the facts in front of it and is in a position, therefore, to make a prohibited steps order, it should do so because it has the necessary knowledge. Of course, the prohibited steps order could be adjusted in a separate application to the family court.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The short answer to my noble friend’s question is that he is right: there is no discretion. The reason that there is no discretion is because, in fact, the Crown Court is the one court that does not have all the experience and all the knowledge—it will not have Cafcass reports or anything like that. It is simply making an automatic order when there is a certain level of seriousness that has been reached. It is for the family court to consider all the important factors in other cases about whether such an order is in the interests of the child. The Crown Court judge does not have the expertise, and it will cause delay. I have said it once before today—I may have already said it twice—the one thing the criminal courts do not need is any further delays.

Victims and Courts Bill

Lord Hacking Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I will say a few words in the gap; I have notified the clerk. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, because I spoke in the gap very recently just before he was about to speak. I ask for his tolerance.

I did not put my name down for this debate, because I thought other speakers would cover all the essential features. The Minister did a marvellous job to cover all the major issues in the Bill in her opening speech, so I was right about that. Led by the Minister, this House has done very well to cover all the major points of the Bill. However, while I sat and listened to this debate, my attention was drawn to Clause 3, in which the Crown Court is under a duty to make a prohibited steps order where a serious sexual offence has been committed. Effectively, that means that contact is prohibited between the offender and the damaged child or their family. When one contemplates it—for example, when a father commits a vile sexual offence on a son or daughter—one can see exactly why the introduction of this offence in Clause 3 is to be greatly welcomed.

However, my concern is the stipulation that the offender must have had a life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of four years or more. Surely this clause should be drafted differently; it should be when a sexual offence has taken place and the offender has been convicted for that. There is a loosening up in new subsection (5), which states that the prohibited steps order can still be made when

“the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal, or … the sentence is reduced, on appeal, so that it is no longer a life sentence or a term of imprisonment … of 4 years or more”.

There is a loosening up. It seems that the straightforward principle is that, when an offender has been convicted of a serious sexual crime, it should be sufficient to trigger the right of the Crown Court to introduce prohibited steps.

I end by saying that this is a very difficult area. I am heavily involved in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, in which there is a provision preventing a parent, under certain circumstances, having contact with the child. In that case, the party who approached me explained that the father is the offender but he has not yet been convicted because the DPP’s decision has not yet been made to make that conviction. There is always a difficulty of proof when a young child has been molested. I wonder whether this provision should not be further extended when there has not been a conviction.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise in support of all the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge. I signed two of the offences in relation to the time-limit extension, and therefore I share the noble Baroness’s pleasure that the Government have effectively accepted that principle and brought forward their own amendments as I understand it.

The noble Baroness’s other amendments, it seems to me, are worthy of an equivalent response. I need not repeat the reasons for this, because her speech was so comprehensive and clear. I will just say that, in a still relatively short period of time, not just in this Committee but in this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, has raised herself to one of the leading human rights campaigners in this country. Let that silence all those who think that relative youth is a disqualification for being in your Lordships’ House.

With that in mind, and as a brief reminder of the two new sections of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that are really down to the campaigning of the noble Baroness, I wonder if my noble friend the Minister, in her reply to the group, could give the Committee some insight into the timetable for implementing what will be, I believe, Sections 66E and 66F of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. These are the new offences of creating, and of requesting the creation of, sexually explicit deepfake images without consent. These were passed in the Data (Use and Access) Act earlier this year, after a great deal of sweat, toil and solidarity from around the House for the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will be keen to get these implemented as soon as possible. In the light of frustrations expressed in earlier groups about the speed of implementing these policies, I wonder if we could hear on that.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I enthusiastically join my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti in praising the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. I was in the House—it was on a Friday—when she first moved her Private Member’s Bill. The Minister then was the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and he promised that the Government would review and come to the assistance of the noble Baroness. What she is doing now is quite amazing, with a number of very detailed amendments. I will hold myself here to await what my noble friend the Minister will say in reply, but I do hope she will be very positive.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to add my voice to the praise for the noble Baroness, Lady Owen—me too—and to put on record my support. I believe the noble Baroness did such a detailed, forensic laying out of her amendments. I would just like to make a couple of points.

During the passage of the Online Safety Act, we had a lot of discussion about an ombudsman. It was very much resisted. At the same time—in the same time- frame as that Bill took place—I was an adviser to the Irish Government, who put in an ombudsman. I think we are missing something. It was a very big part of the previous discussion about chatbots and so on in an earlier group. I very firmly agree with what the noble Baroness said as she laid out her amendments: we really need a way of alerting the regulator to what is going on, and it is not adequate for the regulator to have only an emerging harms unit that is waiting for us to fill in a form, which is the current state of play. I leave that with the Minister as a problem that needs solving.

Crown Court Criminal Case Backlog

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my new colleague, my noble friend Lady Longfield, on her maiden speech and give her a very big welcome to your Lordships’ House.

I rarely speak in Thursday Back-Bench debates, for I fear that I do not have the necessary expertise. I am not sure that I have the necessary expertise for this debate, but, long ago, I practised as a young barrister in the Courts of Assize and the Courts of Quarter Sessions—later the Crown Courts—in the 1960s and 1970s. At that time, I was not aware of any backlog at all of criminal cases waiting for trial, but it is now a big problem. As is recorded in the briefing notes provided by our Library, 73,205 criminal cases were awaiting trial in September of last year.

A Bar student, who was my guest last night, told me that he worked recently in the Birmingham Crown Court, which has 12 courts altogether but only three ushers. The result was a great underuse of those courts. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, made that point in relation to other courts, and I endorse all that he said. Clearly, something is wrong.

The great difference between those days of long ago, when I was in practice at the Bar, and these days, is the length of trials. Murder trials then seldom went over a week and were often much shorter; now they are double or treble the time, or even longer. It is exactly the same with other criminal trials. Indeed, a colleague who works on civil matters told me the other day that he could not make further commitments because he was about to start a trial that was scheduled for a year. That was quite unheard of in those days of long ago.

It is very difficult to cut down the length of criminal trials—it will be perceived that there is too much at stake for both the prosecution and defence—but we have to play our part in reducing this terrible backlog. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, identified in his excellent opening speech, greater efficiency in court processes could be of real help.

Prison Capacity Strategy

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord was not present at the start of the debate and therefore, according to the Companion, should not be speaking.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

Go on, let him speak.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

No.

Arbitration Bill [HL]

Lord Hacking Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 6th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly add to the thanks, with one exception, that the Minister gave this morning. I give particular thanks to Professor Sarah Green and to the clerk of the Special Public Bill Committee, Joey Topping, who, in the short timescale into which everything had to be compressed, did an outstanding job.

I thank the current Leader of the House and Chief Whip for getting this back when we did not get it through last time, despite their enormous efforts. They really deserve immense commendation, as does the Minister, for having put up with lawyers seeking to build perfection on perfection—something that I am sure many in this House feel inappropriate. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, who really smoothed over some of those difficulties but did not quite get the time for matters I suspect he did not even contemplate, bringing this so speedily to a conclusion.

I will make two more general points. First, as I did not have the opportunity to thank the Senior Deputy Speaker and Duncan Sagar for getting us a bit more time in the Special Public Bill Committee—because the matter moved so quickly—if it is permissible under the rules of the House, I express on everyone’s behalf our thanks for the small change to the procedure. It should make a huge difference, because the more time there is for clever lawyers to think of points in the committee, the speedier it is to get the Bill through the House—something I hope will appeal to the business managers.

Secondly, I have a hope for the future. This morning has reminded us, if we needed any reminding, of the need to remain highly competitive. This is a good day for England, Wales and Northern Ireland—I leave Scotland out because it has its own system. We have brought our law up to date. We must find a means of doing this very rapidly, as we must keep English law— I say English law deliberately—attractive and at the forefront of use internationally, for the benefit of our whole economy.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I give personal thanks to the Minister for his very kind words to me and more general thanks to the Government for pressing forward with this Arbitration Bill. It is very befitting that the Government should have championed this Bill through, as they are at the moment, because it was a Labour Government 46 years ago who brought forward the arbitration reform that brought about the 1979 Act.

I join other noble Lords in thanking the prominent members of the Special Public Bill Committee and the prominent Members who took part in debate in this Chamber for all their contributions. I also thank the Ministers, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, and—I keep calling him my learned friend—my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. Special thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, who quite excellently presided over the Special Public Bill Committee, and to all the supporting officials.

Particular thanks should also go to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and I am sorry he is not here to receive them. When he was the Minister, it was he who referred the arbitration issues to the Law Commission. That really was the beginning of the recent story on the Arbitration Bill.

This Bill is not as fundamental as the 1979 or 1996 Acts, but it deals with some very important issues. Perhaps the most important is Clause 7, giving power to arbitral tribunals to make summary awards. Those of us who practise in the courts—I am looking across the House at the moment—are well familiar with Order 14 proceedings, and this introduces into the arbitration world the Order 14 summary judgments.

It also clears up issues relating to the seat of the arbitration, arising after the unfortunate division in the Supreme Court in the Enka Insaat case, with two Supreme Court judges on one side and three on the other. I would have preferred new Section 6A(2) not to have been included, because I believe it complicates that issue, but none the less it is there, and I am very happy to support the Bill in that condition.

However, there is unfinished business. I suggest that the corruption issue should have further consideration. We know that the ICC has a commission on this and we must wait to hear what it says, but it is certainly a matter that needs further attention.

Other matters should have consideration, including expedited hearings and dealing with the length of written submissions, which sometimes stretch over 100 or 200 pages and argue every point under the sun. There is also the use of third-party funding and the question of what disclosures should be made, as well as the power to order parties into mediation, which is used successfully in litigation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Yes, this is Third Reading.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I am sorry if I am taking a little time; I hear the Deputy Chief Whip. But it is important that we should look to the future and realise that this Bill is unfinished business.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I simply associate myself, on behalf of these Benches and as the previous sponsor of this Bill in the previous Government, with the thanks that have been given to the entire team, not only to the special committee and its chair but to the civil servants who have supported the work. I thank the Government and the Minister himself, who worked very hard in the special committee, collaborated very closely with the previous Government and myself and has, as has been said, managed to bring the Bill forward again with remarkable speed. As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said, of course there is always unfinished business and we must look to the future, but we now have an extremely good base on which to do so.

Arbitration Bill [HL]

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th September 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hacking]

1: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“Safeguarding against fraud and corruptionIn section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (general duty of the tribunal), after subsection (1)(b) insert—“(c) safeguard the arbitration proceedings against fraud and corruption.””

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, before I address my amendment, I would like to express to your Lordships complete support for this Bill. I had the honour to be a member of the Special Public Bill Committee, so ably chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. I sat through all the hearings and then sat with my co-members of the committee throughout our deliberations.

Perhaps I can do no better in expressing my support for the Bill than to quote from the Explanatory Notes. Paragraph 6 reads as follows:

“The intent of the Bill is to further the principle found in section 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996: to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense. Thereby, the aim is to fulfil the policy objective of ensuring that the Act is fit for purpose and that it continues to promote the UK as a leading destination for arbitrations”.


I now move to my amendment and, as I do so, I express thanks to my learned friend—or rather, my noble friend—the Minister. Unfortunately, he does not take the “learned” with his name, although he is very learned. I am very grateful to him for his letter to me of 15 August on the corruption issue. I have read the entire contents of that letter and express gratitude without reserve, but I am afraid to tell your Lordships—for reasons that I will now develop—that the reply in this letter is not complete.

First, we must look at the extent of corruption and I am afraid that it is bad news. There is the Nigeria case and the judgment of Mr Justice Robin Knowles on 23 October 2023; nobody in this Committee knows more about that case than the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, KC, who took the role of a senior counsel throughout the long hearings before Mr Justice Knowles. The fact is, however, that in the arbitration proceedings resulting in that case, there were two very distinguished English arbitrators—former judges of the High Court—who made a very large award of $11 billion. Because of the corruption that was found by Mr Justice Robin Knowles, that very large award had to be set aside in its entirety.

Moreover, this is not the only case where corruption has evidenced itself. The charity under the title of Spotlight on Corruption has identified three recent cases in which serious corruption was found. There was the Mozambique case before the UK Supreme Court in September 2023; the Steinmetz case before the ICSID tribunal in Paris in May 2022; and the BSG case before the LCIA in April 2019. So this is a serious problem and I remind your Lordships of what I said at Second Reading: that I have had experience as an arbitrator in commodity arbitrations relating to Ukraine and Russia, where corruption was most evident, often with the bribing of officials to obtain export licences.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for welcoming me to my current position; I am very glad that he has 20/20 eyesight and is looking at these matters so closely. I am also thankful to my noble friend Lord Hacking for initiating this debate. He said very clearly when he introduced his amendment that he supports the Bill, and I am grateful for that. He is again raising the issue of protecting the arbitral process against corruption, and of course that is extremely important. Having considered this very carefully, the Government’s position is that our framework already provides a robust regime and that no law reform is necessary. A tribunal, like a court, must always guard against fraud and corruption, and I will explain what mitigations our existing regime already provides.

Under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1996, the tribunal is already under a duty to “act fairly and impartially”, and to

“adopt procedures suitable to the circumstances of the … case”.

An arbitrator who is corrupt would fail in their duties under Section 33. Furthermore, the arbitrator’s appointment can be revoked by the parties under Section 23, or an arbitrator can be removed by the court under Section 24. An arbitrator who acts in bad faith loses their immunity under Section 29 and can be sued.

When arbitral proceedings are tainted by fraud or corruption in the arbitral process, any arbitral award can be challenged in court under Section 68 for serious irregularity, as indeed was successfully done in the recent case of Nigeria v P&ID, which we heard about earlier. Indeed, the reason why arbitral corruption is currently a talking point is that the court identified corruption and prevented abuse in that case. Arbitral awards can also take account of corrupt conduct and deprive a corrupt party of any arbitral award which is sought to permit fraud or corruption. It would be unenforceable as contrary to public policy under Section 81. It is possible for an arbitrator to publish their award and denounce the fraud publicly. In ruling an award to be unenforceable, the court can also publish its judgment publicly. The scheme under the 1996 Act is sufficient and has not revealed any deficiency in practice.

The Government oppose legislative reform here precisely because it is unclear what additional benefit it would provide over the current regime, which provides both parties and arbitrators with routes to challenge and address corrupt conduct, as well as duties on the arbitrator to ensure fair and proper proceedings. A new, untested measure may simply introduce uncertainty for both parties and arbitrators.

The 1996 Act and the modernising impact of this Bill are designed to ensure robust and efficient arbitral proceedings. Our framework provides this balance and well equips the tribunal and courts to deal with corruption. The Government will continue to support the sector’s efforts on arbitral corruption. We will keep track of initiatives that are under way, such as that of the ICC anti-corruption task force, to which a number of noble Lords referred, and engage with the sector to push for the swift adoption of best practices as they are developed. I hope that this explanation reassures my noble friend and that he will withdraw his amendment.

To go a little further, as noble Lords are aware the previous Government wrote to leading arbitral institutions seeking views on the mitigations that are currently in place and whether more are needed. I understand that responses were received from the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the International Chamber of Commerce, the London Court of International Arbitration, the London Maritime Arbitrators Association and the Grain and Feed Trade Association, in addition to the Law Society and the Bar Council.

All those institutions mentioned mitigations they had in place against corrupt conduct. None expressed support for amending the Arbitration Bill to strengthen anti-corruption. In addition, concerns were raised that a one-size-fits-all approach would be ineffective and risk unintended consequences. Nigeria v P&ID was raised as a highly unusual case where the court effectively performed its proper role in setting aside the award. Where a role was suggested for the Government, it was in ensuring that the courts continue to be equipped to provide checks in cases put before them, as they did in the Nigeria case, and to engage in discussions with the sector and promote its work combating corruption.

The noble and learned Lords, Lord Bellamy and Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, raised the issue of the letters and whether they could be published. I am unable to share those letters. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, can see the letters that were responded to when he was a Minister, but they were written specifically to him in that role. I would not necessarily be able to see those letters, which would create a difficult situation. I understand that a couple of letters came in when the new Government were formed. But I can say with complete confidence that the substance of those letters was explained and explored within the letter that I wrote to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, which is in the public domain. I am confident that if I was wrong somehow in asserting that the substance was inaccurate, those various bodies would be able to draw that to my attention. I am confident that the substance of the letter I wrote on 15 August is completely accurate. I hope that noble Lords will accept that.

A number of noble Lords spoke of their reasons for opposing my noble friend’s amendment. They said that it might well be duplicative, unnecessary and problematic in various ways, which they explored. I have to say that I agree with the noble Lords who made those points.

In closing on one point, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, asked about relevant arbitral bodies being given a nudge regarding corruption. They are of course perfectly able to do that. It would be beneficial, and maybe they should remind themselves that they have that responsibility to give a nudge if they suspect corruption in particular cases. So, having said all that, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, it is my intention to withdraw my amendment, but perhaps I could say just a few words after a fairly long debate on it. First, I thank those noble Lords—there were several—who accepted the principle that I sought to express. It was nice to have that support but, as was very clear, not one noble Lord accepted my amendment. Therefore, I am not exactly in a strong position to press it now, or indeed on Report.

I did not realise when I cited three cases put before us by Spotlight on Corruption that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, was counsel on every one. So he has extensive knowledge—greater than that I gave him credit for in my opening words.

One thing that has been missed in this debate—it was the first point I made—is that I wanted us, by legislation, to set out our standard. I described the first importance of my amendment as putting a flag in the ground so that the world may know that, in arbitration proceedings where England is the seat of the arbitration, we will not countenance corruption and fraud. I still think that is an important point.

I did not know when I got up to speak that there would be such a formidable line of noble and learned Lords alongside me, including the former Lord Chief Justice, who has not actually spoken but who has a devastating commitment to good argument, so I am not inviting him now to make any interventions because he will make some argument that will totally defeat what I am trying to say.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, said that he thought my amendment was impractical, and of course arbitral tribunals do not have the power of investigation. The point I was making was that, at the commencement of the arbitration, the arbitral tribunal could speak to both counsel and the parties who should be present at the inaugural meeting and remind them of the seriousness of rooting out any corruption or fraud. I also point out, as a former counsel and solicitor, that when you take instruction from a client, and statements from clients’ witnesses, you have a lot of opportunity to know what is going on. So there is a role for counsel and the parties in rooting out corruption, and that is why I thought it useful to have this revision.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said that the committee—which was so well chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas—had not reached any view about corruption. There was in fact a reason for that. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, is listening, but we received these two reports from Spotlight on Corruption at his instigation, and his view, and that of the committee, was that under the timetable we were working to, this was too big an issue for us to take on. That is why we made no pronouncement on that subject.

My Front Bench is getting a bit restless, but I am sure that there will be plenty of time to consider the next amendment. I rather get the feeling that there will be an intervention now in Committee on the Arbitration Bill and we will debate another excitement. I am withdrawing this amendment, but I hope that noble Lords have heard and agree that this is a continuing matter. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for his promise to keep this under review—and may it continually be kept under review.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Arbitration Bill [HL]

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th September 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hacking]

2: Before Clause 10, insert the following new Clause—
“Award of costsIn section 61(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (award of costs), for the words from “costs should follow” to the end substitute “a reasonable amount of the costs of the successful party should be paid by the other party or parties, but account should be taken of costs incurred by the successful party which were unnecessary or excessive in whole or in part and which should not fall to be paid by the other party or parties.””

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I will pause for a moment to allow Members of the House to leave, so that only those taking part in this Committee remain. I look to my right with some caution, because when I stood in support of my Amendment 1, I was unaware of a bank of noble and learned Lords on my right-hand side—there were three of them. Now there is only one: the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffman, who is sitting in his place. He told me over tea that the reason he is remaining is to oppose my next amendment. He opposed my Amendment 1 with some fierceness, and now he is staying back to oppose my next amendment.

This amendment goes back 28 years to the passage of the Arbitration Bill in 1996. I then objected to the introduction of the principle of “costs following the event”, which was in general usage in the English courts when the successful party was seeking costs against an unsuccessful party or parties. It was generally thought then that the event meant the winner won the costs, but Mr Justice Bingham—later Lord Bingham, Lord Chief Justice and then a senior Law Lord—said that was not right. It was in a case called Re: Catherine that Mr Justice Bingham said we should look at which party was responsible for what costs, and that the costs order should accordingly be made. My argument was that this obscure phraseology went against the drafting of the whole Bill.

Noble Lords who remember those days and now look at the Bill may remember that there was much praise for Mark Saville, later the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, who was chairman of the DAC that drafted the Bill—assisted by the secretary of that committee, the young barrister Toby Landau, and the wonderful parliamentary draftsman Geoffrey Sellars. The joy of the 1996 Act is that you can read it, passage by passage, in its clear, logical way and its clear, logical language. What a contrast that is to so many Bills that come before us—the detail and complication of many clauses cause most of us to put cold towels around our heads before we have a chance of understanding what is meant. I am not sure what the phraseology was then, in 1996, of the rules of the Supreme Court or the county court—in other words, the White Book and the Green Book—but I know now what the rules are in the new CPR. In particular, CPR rule 44.2(2)(a) says that

“the unsuccessful party will … pay the costs of the successful party”.

That is in the clearest possible language, so why should we continue to inflict upon the international community these ancient words of “costs following the event” when they are not used anywhere else? Why do international parties have to seek out the meaning? I am not suggesting that my drafting is perfect—indeed, noble Lords who have been looking at the Marshalled List will note that I made a mistake and had to re-draft—but it can all be quite simply done without any delay. For example, my drafting could be put in front of the rules committee of the Supreme Court, which can be consulted, as can the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the London Court of International Arbitration, the ICC and so forth. There is no cause for delay. If the drafting of my amendment is thought to be worthy of improvement, I accept that, but can the Minister—and this is the second time I am asking him, almost imploring him after the response I got to my earlier amendment—keep an open mind and not leave this strange phraseology of “follow the event” in Section 61(2) of the Arbitration Act?

[Lord Hoffmann (CB)]

My Lords, I greatly regret that the noble Lord should have cast me as his personal nemesis, particularly since it is entirely desirable that an arbitration tribunal should have the power to do what he said Lord Bingham did in the case to which he referred; that is, to distinguish between the cost of issues on which people have been successful and those on which money has been spent and on which they have been unsuccessful. However, the tribunal has such a power already.

I am sure that my friend the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, would recognise that in the end the power to award costs is entirely a matter for the discretion of the tribunal. It can take into account whether it thinks the party has spent too much or whether it has succeeded on this or that issue. All these issues can be taken into account. What it says that is salutary—this is something which attracts persons to come to London and have arbitrations under English law—is that in the ordinary way, if you have not spent too much and not lost on some issues, if you have won the case you will get your costs. That is a very attractive thing to offer to people who are about to launch an arbitration.

We have in the 1996 Act a time-honoured formula which everybody knows. They know exactly how it works and I really see no advantage in substituting a new formula, when nobody quite knows now how it is going to work.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I might read out from Rule 44.2 of the CPR. It says that

“the general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party; but … the court may make a different order”.

There is then considerable further guidance on the assessment of costs in the remainder of Rule 44. I can say, as a non-lawyer, that I think that is pretty clear. I note the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, made about having some sympathy with the language used, but the language which I just quoted is quite straightforward.

My noble friend Lord Hacking said that he was imploring me and he called the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffman, his nemesis. I might be my noble friend’s nemesis as well, because I will be arguing to reject his amendment. Of course, I thank him for tabling it. It is right that it is common practice that arbitrators already have great discretion on this matter under Section 61 of the 1996 Act. The Law Commission has made no recommendations for reform of Section 61, so we believe there is no reason for having a reform that may introduce some level of uncertainty, which we do not believe is necessary.

The previous arbitration Acts of 1889 and 1950 simply provided that costs were at the discretion of the arbitrators but the 1996 Act then provided the current default rule, which mirrored the position in the rules of the Supreme Court, which were the court rules then in force. Although the language has changed with the CPR now in force, the underlying principle is still the same. The CPR, and the RSC before them, take the view that costs should follow the event as a fair default rule. Section 61 allows arbitrators to depart from that rule as appropriate. In substance, therefore, Section 61 already allows the arbitration tribunal to award whatever costs it thinks fair.

The Law Commission received no representations from stakeholders that Section 61 was causing any difficulties in practice, and it is unusual to change the language of an Act if there is no change in principle. Indeed, it is possible that the amendment could be interpreted as a new, untested principle. In the light of this, I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the current arrangements and would suggest that no amendment is needed. I therefore invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I intend to withdraw this amendment but perhaps I could say a short word before I do that. Of course, I have to do it because I have no support from anybody; I am doing no better than I did 28 years ago. I still say that this is unfortunate terminology and that it would be much more sensible if we brought the description of what decision should be made by the tribunal on costs into modern language, but if noble Lords like this ancient phrase of following the event they can chase around and look at Mr Justice Bingham’s judgment in Re: Catherine and so forth.

So I am in no better position than I was 28 years ago. However, there is one point I would like to make, which the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, correctly made when he drew attention to Section 55. He could have drawn attention to Sections 62, 63, 64 or 65, because all of them deal with various provisions that are applicable to the cost issues that the tribunal faces. I respect and agree with that. I agreed with it 28 years ago and I agree with it now, but I still think it would be much nicer if we dropped this strange phraseology of costs “following the event”.

Arbitration Bill [HL]

Lord Hacking Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 30th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that I am standing up at the right moment. I have been advised by the Table, as the only Back-Bencher available to speak in this debate, that this is the moment that I am allowed to intervene as a gap speaker. Unfortunately, I am also advised that I have to keep to the strict rules of the gap and a Whip is already showing four fingers to me, which I think indicates four minutes. All I can do is to hope that the Whips will be kind, because I was a full participant in the Special Public Bill Committee on this Bill and took part in the many thorough and detailed sessions that we had within that committee.

I am going to break away for a moment to give tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, who was our excellent chairman, and also to tell your Lordships that the noble and learned Lord is sad not to be here today and has asked me to express his regret for his absence.

I will therefore concentrate on the corruption issue. This has become important since the judgment of Mr Justice Robin Knowles in the Nigeria case. He gave his judgment on 23 October 2023. Suffice it to say that in that case, two very distinguished English arbitrators came to the conclusion that there should be an award of no less than $11 billion US against the Federal Republic of Nigeria. When this came before Mr Justice Robin Knowles, in a judgment lasting 140 pages, he set the whole of this large award aside on the grounds of corruption.

In the committee, we received submissions from Spotlight on Corruption but had no time to examine this important issue further. I am therefore asking the Minister to convene, before Committee, a special meeting to be attended by the Law Commission, by noble Lords who take part in the Special Public Bill Committee, and other noble Lords, to consider the issue of corruption and whether we should address that in Committee. This is a very important issue, and I cite from a distinguished international arbitrator who says:

“Corruption is today one of the greatest challenges facing international commerce and has serious detrimental effects on markets, efficiency, and public welfare”.


I know that from my own days as an international arbitrator, when I arbitrated a number of commodity cases relating to Ukraine and Russia. Corruption was evident all the time, and we had to be very careful in reaching our decision.

Of course, this can be pushed over to another day for another arbitration law reform, but they come very few and far between. There were 17 years between the 1979 and 1996 Acts, and it has now been more than 20 years since the 1996 Act, so I suggest that this should not be pushed over to another arbitration reform Bill; it should be addressed now and in committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My noble friend would have heard my worry that the opportunity for arbitration reform is an opportunity that does not arise until a number of years have passed. Can he give any assurance that, as corruption is a serious issue—I think he recognises that—this Government will support this further investigation into corruption and whether any legislation relating to arbitration law should be brought in, and fairly swiftly?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

We are always open-minded about addressing problems. We need to scope out the true extent of the problem, which is why I have offered to write to noble Lords about the responses that we may have received—I do not know the answer to that—to the letter written by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, when he was the Minister concerned.

I turn to other points. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, was very gracious to me in his opening, and I thank him for that. I certainly intend to behave as a Minister as he behaved when he was a Minister, and to consult with colleagues across the House to try to make sure that we focus on the real issues of difference between us, rather than any other matters that may distract us. I will take a leaf out of his book about how I conduct myself in trying to achieve that.

The noble and learned Lord asked about the possibility of carryover for uncontentious Bills between Parliaments. I will bring that comment to my noble friend’s attention. I do not know what the reaction will be, but it seems a sensible idea to me.

The second point the noble and learned Lord made concerned the choice of seat. I had a discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, about this very issue, and my opening speech referred to it. I agree that we should have confidence in our judges, and perhaps some extra words can be added to the explanatory notes to reflect the position. We have undertaken to look at that.

The noble and learned Lord also raised an issue concerning Clause 13. I will have to write to him about that as well, as I am not sighted of that issue.

In conclusion, this Bill achieves a balance. It neither seeks to fix what is not broken, nor does it sell short the potential of our jurisdiction. Growth is a fundamental mission of this Government, and this Bill plays its part. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate, and I look forward to interacting with them as the Bill progresses.