Charging Orders (Orders for Sale: Financial Thresholds) Regulations 2012
Lord McNally Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Charging Orders (Orders for Sale: Financial Thresholds) Regulations 2012.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the purpose of this draft order is to introduce a financial threshold of £1,000 for the enforcement of charging orders by an order for sale where the charging order was made to secure the payment of money owed under an agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. A charging order made in such cases may not be enforced by way of an order for sale where the amount owing, including interest, is less than £1,000.
Before I go into greater detail about the order, let me briefly provide background on charging orders and orders for sale. When a creditor has not received payment for a court judgment, they may apply to the court to enforce that judgment. They have several enforcement options open to them, including applying for a charging order on a debtor’s property or asset. While the majority of charging orders are made against property, the provisions themselves also cover land and stocks and shares.
The purpose of the charging order is to secure the debt. It does not, in itself, lead to repayment of the debt until the debtor sells their asset. The creditor may also choose to pursue other enforcement options or make a further, separate application for an order for sale. This application seeks the court’s permission to enforce the existing charging order by ordering the sale of the property, or other asset, either immediately or at some point in the future if a suspended order is made.
Both the application for a charging order and the further application for an order for sale are always listed for hearing before a judge and so are subject to case-by-case judicial discretion and case law. In each case the judge will consider, among other things, the proportionality of the debt as set against each of the parties’ assets and commitments; whether—if it is a property in question—it is the primary residence of the debtor or a secondary residence or a commercial property; who else may reside within the property, including children; the balance of rights between the creditor and the debtor; and whether the debtor should be granted additional time to pay, resulting in a suspended order.
Evidence shows that under the existing arrangements only a very small proportion of charging orders—some 0.5%—result in an order for sale, and some of these may be suspended orders. This is in part due to the fact that the process of applying for, calculating potential equity in and administrating the sale of a debtor’s property is economically risky for creditors. This, together with case-by-case judicial discretion, means that it is very rare for debtors to lose their homes as a result of a charging order.
With that background, I turn to the reason for the regulations before us today. Although it is indeed very rare for debtors to lose their homes as a result of a charging order, it is important that the Government ensure that all appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure that this does not happen as a result of what might have originally been relatively small, unsecured borrowing. The coalition commitment to introduce a threshold for orders for sale applications reflects this. However, it is also essential that protection for debtors is balanced against the rights of creditors. The Government believe that responsible creditors who are owed money and have gained a judgment in court have the right to enforce that judgment. Without effective enforcement we risk jeopardising the authority of the courts and public confidence in our justice system, as well as there being a negative impact on the economy if lenders are not confident that they can recoup money that is rightly owed to them.
Following extensive public consultation, we intend to introduce a £1,000 financial threshold, as set out in the draft regulations. While this differs from the £25,000 threshold set out in the coalition agreement, it was concluded to be the most appropriate level at which the necessary balance between the rights of debtors and the rights of creditors could be most effectively struck. While stakeholder opinion was, perhaps predictably, split between creditors and debtors, there were other groups who also held strong opinions—for example, the legal profession and the judiciary.
A number of arguments against a high financial threshold, or even any threshold, were given. With a high threshold, such as £25,000, there is a risk that creditors may seek to recover their debt by initiating bankruptcy proceedings as an alternative to enforcement. This would be a more draconian outcome for debtors than an order for sale. As many noble Lords will be aware, bankruptcy often results in debtors losing their homes, whereas the protections which are already in place within the enforcement system—and which will continue to be in place if these draft regulations are approved—protect most debtors from losing their homes.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for that constructive response. I know from our exchanges during the Crime and Courts Bill of his long-standing interest in this area and I understand why he continues to probe on the matter. The Government remain committed to providing more protection for debtors and we are taking appropriate action to ensure that that happens. When we debated this on the Floor of the House, and again today, the noble Lord pointed out that the coalition agreement talked about a £25,000 limit and we now talk of £1,000. I suppose that the honest answer is that that was the outcome of the consultation. We now feel that the balance of what we wanted to do is better met by the guideline of £1,000 rather than £25,000, not least because we were advised that the higher limit could steer creditors more in the direction of bankruptcy solutions, with the impact that I indicated on house ownership, rather than a settlement under these regulations.
We were also very much influenced by the judiciary, which believes that a very low threshold, with a great deal of judicial discretion, provides a far more guaranteed protection for the creditor than the protection afforded by a higher level—
Lord McNally
For the debtor, yes; I am sorry.
With these things it is always a matter of judgment. The judgment that we have come to, and the level we have set it at, is the result of consultation, with the aim of striking a right and proportionate balance that will give power and flexibility to the judiciary and a degree of protection for the lower levels of debt.
The noble Lord asked about early enforcement of parts of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Following the Solving Disputes consultation paper we implemented Section 93 of the TCE Act. It closes an existing loophole, providing a greater degree of security to creditors and encouraging debtors who are in financial trouble to make more reasonable yet affordable offers to pay.
The Government consulted on introducing this section in 2010 in their Solving Disputes in the County Courts paper. Some 74% of respondents supported its introduction, arguing that it offers protection both for creditors, for whom a charging order is often the only effective long-term solution to recovering a liability, and for the debtor. By commencing Section 93 of the Act we have given creditors a certain ability to convert unsecured loans to secured loans. I am sorry—I had better clarify that. One of the criticisms that has been made is that we have given creditors the ability to convert unsecured loans to secured loans by extending the use of charging orders in this way. We do not believe that that is true. Charging orders are used to secure an unpaid judgment debt, not a loan. Legitimate judgment creditors who have obtained a valid judgment through the courts should have the right to enforce the judgment by the most appropriate means available.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify a couple of matters. He referred to the order allowing charging orders to be applied for, but is he aware that under the regulations enacted last October it would be possible to do that without the debtor having at that stage defaulted? That would seem to convert an unsecured loan into a secured one.
My second question relates to responses. Am I right in thinking that the balance of responses reflects the fact that most of those responding were creditors rather than debtors, their representatives or organisations interested on behalf of debtors?
Lord McNally
My Lords, the balance reflected the interests of the responders. The noble Lord is quite right: the creditors had one set of priorities and those speaking out of concern for debtors had others. That is the nature of consultations, as the noble Lord will be aware. I also pray in aid the strong view of the judiciary that it wants to retain as much judicial discretion as possible. In my remarks I listed the clear considerations that a judge takes and the fact that these matters come before a judge.
On the issue of whether it is pre-emptive, as it were, under the measures that we took last October, as I explained, it gives debtors who are in financial trouble the opportunity to make more reasonable and affordable offers to pay. The noble Lord appears to be saying that adjustments can be made only after disaster has struck, but that is not my reading. If I am not right in my interpretation I will write to the noble Lord. However, it seems to me that it provides an opportunity to intervene in a constructive way when people are running into difficulty.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. However, as I understand it, the order does not require the debtor to be in any difficulty or to have made any default at all before the charging order can be applied for. That does not mean, of course, that the order for sale would automatically follow, but it is a precursor to that and can arise even before any default has taken place. We are unable to take this much further today, but I invite the Minister to look at the situation in due course.
Defamation Bill
Lord McNally Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
“(b) the defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest.”
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, this is the first opportunity for me to associate myself with the apology that my noble friend extended to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and I do so. The noble and learned Lord has indicated that we can move on, but perhaps I should say that when one of the observers of this Committee asked me the other day what my intention was, I felt a little like Metternich’s reaction when Talleyrand died: “Well, what does he mean by this?”. I repeat again for the benefit of the Committee that my objective is that by the end of the Committee, we will be able to bring forward a better Bill. That is the only intention I have. I have no secret orders or red lines. I want a Bill that clarifies the law, gets the balance right between reputation and freedom of speech and puts the law in a better place than when we started this journey. I am, of course, absolutely grateful to the many noble and learned Lords who are contributing to our deliberations. I would only urge on them this humility: the noble Lord, Lord Browne, made the point at the beginning of our debate that British libel law—or the English law of defamation, I am being corrected—is not in good repute. That is why we are bringing forward legislation. I humbly say that the various judgments over the years have not brought us to a good place. That is why we are here and that is my sole intention.
As someone who has some knowledge of the history of the trade union movement, the trade union solidarity show by my learned friends is very impressive, but I hope that we will get a Bill—to take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd—that the textbooks can take guidance from and that will give people some better clarity and assurance. However, as people always tell me, even when we have finished our work, it will be tested by a judge and we may then find out how good it is. That is my mission statement and I hope we can all join in that. I will certainly make sure that we try to respond to the points raised in Committee and that we have a Committee stage that gets the Bill into good shape. People have been telling me that Clause 4 is the heart of the Bill, and getting it right will be the test of how good a Bill it is. The fact is that we have tried in this process and been advised on several responses—particularly as to whether we should have lists or general principles. I should make it clear that I will listen carefully to the legal and other expertise around the table on whether we have got this right. In this approach, I am considering not only legal opinion but I want to be sure that academics, scientists and the general public know what we are about and where the thresholds are that we are trying to set.
In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment 16 and 21. These amendments respond to concerns that were expressed during the Second Reading debate in this House and in the other place about the way in which the public interest defence in Clause 4 is currently articulated.
At Second Reading, a number of noble Lords were concerned that Clause 4 as drafted might not adequately reflect the current law in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year in Flood v Times Newspapers. Some noble Lords also took the view that including a non-exhaustive list of factors to which the courts can have regard in considering the defence could risk creating a rigid checklist approach and add to the evidence that would need to be gathered and to the expense of running the defence.
From a different perspective, some stakeholders have called for a radical shift in the clause towards the interests of defendants by introducing a requirement for the claimant to show malice in order to secure any remedy beyond publication of an explanation or correction. Let me say at the outset that the Government do not believe that this approach, which changes the burden of proof, would provide appropriate protection for people who have been defamed.
However, we are grateful for the many contributions that have been made to the debate in this House and elsewhere, and we accept that the clause can be improved. Our amendments make changes which recast the defence in a number of respects. First, Amendment 14 replaces the requirement for the defendant to show that he acted responsibly in publishing the statement complained of with a requirement for him to show that he reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest. Consideration of whether a publication was “responsible” involved both subjective and objective elements. “Reasonable belief” also does this, but we believe that it brings out more clearly the subjective element in the test—what the defendant believed at the time rather than what a judge believes some weeks or months later—while retaining the objective element of whether the belief was a reasonable one for the defendant to hold. The courts will need to look at the conduct of the publisher in deciding that question.
Amendment 21 inserts a new subsection requiring the court, in considering whether the defendant’s belief was reasonable, to make such allowance for editorial judgment as it considers appropriate. This expressly recognises the question of editorial discretion which has featured in recent cases, in particular in the Flood judgment. Although this provision is likely to be most relevant in journalism cases, it has been drafted in a way that does not limit it to that context.
Amendment 16 removes the list of factors which the clause currently invites the court to consider. This is a difficult issue. Although we do not believe that the courts would apply the list of factors, based on those in Reynolds, as a checklist, we have responded to strongly expressed concerns that the use of a list may be likely to lead in practice to litigants and practitioners adopting a risk-averse approach and gathering detailed evidence on all the factors listed, in case the court were ultimately to consider them relevant.
Lord McNally
I would have to take advice on those matters. In a room full of lawyers, I am not going to make comments ex cathedra, ad hoc, on the hoof, or whatever description they might say. Why not ask your questions? By the time I come to reply I might even give you an answer.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and sympathise with his predicament. In the light of what he has said, and as we have an opportunity to discuss this at a further stage, I will not move Amendment 15 at this time.
Lord McNally
My Lords, my first thought is about the wish that Sir Brian Neill, having just been released from hospital, should follow closely our proceedings. If you are, Sir Brian, please switch off. It is not conducive to recuperation.
I said at the beginning that this clause is at the very heart of the Bill and the contributions have been extremely useful. Since noble Lords have been dishing compliments around, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for the attitude that he and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, have taken. Of course, in our system, the job of the Opposition is to oppose, and we understand that. However, I think that the more we can produce a Bill that is the result of all-party work and contributions, the better we get something that sticks. This is not an area for party games. When there is a campaign such as the Libel Reform Campaign, it is sometimes tempting for opposition parties simply to espouse the campaign and go down to the last with them. I appreciate where the noble Lord, Lord Browne, has been willing to tell the campaign that it cannot deliver. As we keep on saying, we are trying to get a balance between the right to free speech and the proper protection of reputation. If I can send a message to the Libel Reform Campaign, it is not to indulge in an exercise in impossibilism. We are trying to get this right. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and others who have had these responsibilities know, for every concession I make and every amendment that is carried, I have to write to Cabinet colleagues, not all of whom are as enthusiastic about reform as perhaps I am. That is the nature of things, and the way that this Committee is approaching it is helpful in that respect.
As to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, has just said that he does not support it. I fear that that is part of the dilemma. However, I will think about it. As a layman, I tend towards thinking that there is nothing intrinsically wrong in writing the bleeding obvious into a Bill. I understand when people say, “Well, it’s covered in another Bill or elsewhere in this Bill et cetera”, but it is reassuring if the public can read very simply what we intend.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, made the point that within the Bill there are a suite of defences. It is also worth reminding ourselves—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, has just reminded us of it very clearly—that in the end we will be subject to interpretation by judges. We had a short debate yesterday about it, and that is what the separation of powers is all about. Of course this will be tested, and that is the challenge to the work we do. We will have a look at the phrase, “all the circumstances”. We have quite a long time until we meet again, and perhaps we can have some further talks about it.
Lord Mawhinney
Before my noble friend leaves this point, who are the Cabinet Ministers who fail the McNally test of enthusiasm?
Lord McNally
I will publish them on the MoJ website. Even better, I will tweet them. No, I will not. Now I am trying to run through in my head who they are.
It is interesting that the recently departed Solicitor-General, who was and is a practising libel lawyer, thought that this was entirely irrelevant, unneeded and so on, and argued very strongly against it. He felt strongly about it, although that is not the reason why he is now an ex-Solicitor-General.
Lord May of Oxford
Would the Minister’s decision have been difficult if a huge sum of money had hinged upon it?
Lord McNally
I was just going to pay the noble Lord, Lord May, a compliment. When he spoke about the fact that some of our colleagues are noble and learned, I was thinking that that goes with the rations, whereas I think that he is extremely learned, and that goes with reputation. I am not sure who he was thinking would take such a sum of money.
Lord May of Oxford
It is a question of solving the Simon Singh problem. However well we draft the legislation, if the hurdle is not high enough to justify—
Lord McNally
This is interesting. There is a suite of protections in this legislation, and I want to test it. I have had Simon Singh say to me, “Oh, this wouldn’t have protected me”. First, I have been here long enough to realise that you cannot draft law for one particular case, nor can you deal with particular circumstances that may have ratcheted up. However, what I want to do, and I mean this absolutely sincerely—I look particularly at the noble Lords, Lord May and Lord Bew—is to be able to meet senior academics and scientists and for them to say, “Yes, this does help”. This is the process that we are going through now. I hope that what the noble Lord, Lord Brown, referred to as the suite of protections that are built into the Bill will give a lot more protection to what we are doing.
To clarify the editorial matter, editorial discretion is not just about editors. The courts have used the term to refer to matters of judgment about how a story is presented, its tone and its timing. The courts recognise that there may be legitimately different views about this and that some allowances may be necessary but we do not think that publishers’ discretion is any clearer. Under the Government’s amendment, the courts will already need to look at the reasonable belief of the publisher. The reason we also proposed amendments referring to “editorial judgment” was to put this in the Bill to respond to concerns that we were not sufficiently reflecting Flood. It is better to use the language of Flood. At the same time, I can assure the Committee of our view that the term “editorial” is not limited to editors or newspapers. It is a more flexible term that leaves it open to the court to develop as necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, wanted a clarification of “reasonable belief”. That phrase brings out more clearly the subjective element of what the defendant believed at the time, while retaining the objective element of whether the belief was a reasonable one to hold. I hope that that clarifies the matter; I shall read through it a few times myself over Christmas.
However, let us also be clear. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, referred to us introducing a liberalising defence, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, made this point. Yes, we are lifting the bar or moving the goal posts, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, helpfully explained as regards his thinking in the Flood judgment. There is a lot of talk about attempts to shackle the press; a lot of it is misguided. However, Clause 4 is a genuine attempt to strengthen freedom of speech and should be seen as such. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, among others, raised important issues about the public interest. It remains the case that it will be for the court to determine the first limb of the test; that is, whether the statement complained of was, or formed part of, a statement which was a matter of public interest. Again, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, helpfully let us into his thoughts on this matter.
That is a matter that we must think of. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, explained to us what the responsible journalist does in these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, rightly reminded us of the question of what to do when the intention of the publisher or owner is to destroy a reputation. Do we give impunity to that? That is why, when our friends in the Libel Reform Campaign come close to asking for a blank cheque, I have to say that we cannot give it to them. We also have a responsibility, as well as a recognition that there is irresponsible publication.
We are moving on to new media, and my noble friend Lord Lucas will be pleased to know that that is another hospital pass that I have left for my noble friend Lord Ahmad. I would say to Twitterers the Twittering equivalent of “caveat emptor”: “Twitterer beware”. Twittering is not beyond the law. We somehow got the idea that new media is a law-free area. People are going to find that it is not.
Lord McNally
The Earl of Erroll
I intervene with great temerity given this incredibly legal provision. However, as an outsider, I cannot understand why the courts should not be allowed to determine whether or not someone has behaved responsibly. If a large organisation is involved, it should have to verify the information or take some reasonable steps before repeating an appalling slander, libel or whatever it may be. I cannot see why we should restrict the courts’ ability to look at all the circumstances by retaining the relevant measure. Therefore, I support Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
Lord McNally
My Lords, when both the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, tell me that we are getting this matter wrong, I have to think very hard. However, I shall respond to it and then provide some further thoughts.
Amendment 19 is a government amendment and is grouped with Amendments 18 and 20, as we have heard. Amendment 19 makes drafting changes to bring the provisions on reportage, which were previously in subsections (3) and (4) of the clause, into one subsection in order to improve the overall clarity of the clause. It makes changes to refer to the test of “reasonable belief”, to which I spoke in the previous group of amendments.
“Reportage” has been described by the courts as,
“a convenient word to describe the neutral reporting of attributed allegations rather than their adoption by the newspaper”.
Clause 4 is intended to catch the core elements of reportage as articulated by the courts. These are that where the defendant publishes an accurate and impartial account of a dispute between two or more parties, the defendant does not need to have verified the information reported before publication. This would not, however, absolve the defendant from the need to satisfy the court that, in all the other circumstances of the case, it was reasonable to believe that the publication was in the public interest.
Amendment 18 would remove the provisions relating to reportage. Conversely, Amendment 20 would extend their application. We do not consider that removal of the reportage provision altogether would be desirable, as is proposed by my noble friend Lord Lester in his amendment. As I indicated in speaking to Amendment 14 in the previous group of amendments, for the operation of Clause 4 generally, in assessing the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief that publication was in the public interest, the court will be looking at the conduct of the publisher. Often that will include examination of the steps the publisher took to verify the information. We would not want the clause’s silence on the matter to suggest that there may in future be a need to verify in reportage cases whereas now there is not.
However, nor do the Government think it right to extend reportage more widely, as is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, in Amendment 20. We consider that it should, as now, be limited to circumstances where the claimant is a party to the dispute. The reason that we adopted this approach is because if the claimant is a party, for the account to be “accurate and impartial”, his side of the story would be likely to have been reflected in the published article. On the other hand, where the claimant is not a party, that would not necessarily be the case. We believe, on balance, that where the claimant is a third party, the defendant should have to satisfy the court that in all the circumstances of the case it was reasonable to believe that publication was in the public interest. This should properly include consideration of steps taken to verify, should the court decide that is relevant. That point was made latterly by my noble friend. On this basis I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
I am not sure which noble Lords made the accusations that the amendment will cause confusion, is unnecessary because the common law is already developing or overly restrictive, but I shall look at those criticisms. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment and that he and the noble Lord will allow the government amendment to stand. I will look very carefully at this amendment, and the points that have been made. I give an assurance that I will take another look between now and Report.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. The criteria in Clause 4, as it now stands, are objective public interest and reasonable belief, and I simply do not understand why those criteria are not sufficient to deal with reportage publication, as with any other publication. I am not clear as to what we are trying to save by putting these words in and I quite understand the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, which does accord with developing common law. All of this is unnecessary and I enthusiastically withdraw my amendment, knowing that all this will be thought about during the Christmas holiday of the noble Lord, Lord McNally.
Lord McNally
“( ) If the statement complained of was, or formed part of, an accurate and impartial account of a dispute to which the claimant was a party, the court must in determining whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that publishing the statement was in the public interest disregard any omission of the defendant to take steps to verify the truth of the imputation conveyed by it.”
Lord McNally
“( ) In determining whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest, the court must make such allowance for editorial judgement as it considers appropriate.”
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Lord McNally Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I raised the issue of bailiffs at Second Reading. I followed it up with a Written Question which asked when the Government would respond to consultation. I was told, as I have reminded the House before, that it would be some time in the autumn. Autumn is now safely past us and we do not yet have a response. I spoke in Committee and subscribed to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on Report. I would have been very happy to subscribe to today’s amendment had it not been for the fact that there were already four signatures on it, which would have left me as a fifth wheel on the coach of the noble Baroness.
I strongly support her amendment because it is important to get some movement here. As my noble friend Lady Smith has pointed out, the Government have introduced three substantial new proposals to the Bill at a late stage. Two of them were at least subject to the recommitment procedure, and followed consultations—consultations, incidentally, which began after the consultation closed on the whole issue of bailiffs, on which the Government consulted last winter and spring. The third amendment, which deals with self-defence, was of course tabled two days before Report, with no apparent consultation with anybody at all beforehand.
I entirely subscribe to and share the views of noble Lords who believe that the Minister is absolutely genuine in his concern about this matter, but why has it taken his department so long to consult all relevant bodies? There was an extensive consultation period; seven months have now passed. What further consultations, if any, have taken place—that is a legitimate question to ask—and with what result? The Minister indicated, in answer to previous questions, that he hoped that there would be a response by the end of November. We are now past that date, and there is still nothing to be seen. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, has pointed out, time is not running out completely, but it is running out fast against a particular deadline.
Incidentally, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, will consider another aspect of the coalition agreement, to which I have made previous reference during the passage of this Bill, namely the part of that agreement which indicated that the Government would introduce a threshold of £25,000, below which it would not be possible to obtain charging orders. On the first day back in January we will have in Grand Committee regulations prescribing a £1,000, instead of a £25,000, threshold. No doubt we will have an opportunity to debate that on a subsequent occasion.
In respect of this matter, the noble Baroness’s amendment is, as she put it, almost the least that could be done to get some progress quickly on this matter. If the Government do not accede to this request and if we are looking to another Bill to come forward—I do not know how many Ministry of Justice Bills we can expect to see in the next Session of Parliament—it clearly will take a long time. In the mean time, as other noble Lords have pointed out, there will be the potential for substantial suffering on the part of far too many people—not merely adults because children would be affected as well, including children in the most vulnerable and difficult of circumstances. It is simply unforgiveable that the department has let down the Minister, which is the fair way to put it, in progressing this matter. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to accept the noble Baroness’s amendment. If not, I certainly shall advise my colleagues on these Benches to join her in the Lobby.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, perhaps it will at least allow the Whips to send out the necessary message that I can make no commitment to the noble Baroness beyond what I have said in meetings and at various stages of this Bill. I will briefly try to explain why not. I have listened to this debate and I have listened to the concern of the House. Yes, the House can send messages but, in truth, the matter is being dealt with. I note that my noble friend Lord Lucas said that the matter had been being discussed for the past 33 years and that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, referred to merely the past 20 years. Therefore, I am not too apologetic that the department is taking a little time to take this matter forward.
The consultation paper sets out the objectives, including providing more protection against aggressive bailiffs while spelling out the need for effective enforcement; a fair, transparent and sustainable costs regime that provides adequate remuneration; and minimising excessive regulation on business while ensuring effective protection for the vulnerable. That is the balance that we are trying to get right.
In previous stages of the Bill, I have outlined that the Government are clear that aggressive bailiff action is unacceptable. We remain committed to bringing forward reforms which will protect the public from this and ensure that enforcement action is proportionate. We have a firm commitment in the coalition agreement to effect this and we will not falter. The Government understand that bailiff action can be, by its nature, a deeply unpleasant experience for those in debt. We also understand how this can be exacerbated by unnecessarily aggressive and threatening behaviour by some bailiffs. Those who are subject to bailiff action are often the most vulnerable people in society, as has been repeated on a number of occasions in this debate. We will not stand by and allow them to be subject to needless bullying, which can have a very real and significant effect on their well-being.
However, as I have highlighted previously, the Government are looking to tackle problem bailiffs in a number of ways. These are set out in the wide package of proposals within our Transforming Bailiff Action consultation paper. This package of proposals will focus on the root causes of many complaints. Among other proposed reforms, it will improve clarity so that everyone knows where they stand by stipulating when and how a bailiff can enter a property, what they can take and, not least, what they can charge.
The noble Baroness’s amendment will not address these issues, nor will it supply debtors with an independent complaints process which will meet their needs. The Legal Services Act contemplates a service relationship between professionals, such as solicitors and their clients, which is not present between bailiffs and debtors. Under this amendment, debtors would not be able to complain to the Legal Ombudsman because the bailiff is not providing them with a service as required for complaints under the Act. It is therefore neither appropriate nor sensible to try to force the regulation of bailiffs into this framework which is not constructed to address the circumstances in question.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
Yes, I remember those arguments well. The issue is to what extent the Government—the Executive—should have an interest in this matter. I think that the arrangements that were introduced protect the independence of the Supreme Court and the judiciary, and I would not want to change them.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I often think how well served we are by the depth and richness of the judicial talent that serves here in the House of Lords. I often think it, but perhaps not tonight.
This has been an interesting debate, full of mea culpas. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, cannot quite remember how he let this through the committee on which he was serving; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, must have nodded when it went through; and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said that the previous Government did not get it perfectly right. The fact is that this is an Act of Parliament carried by the previous Administration. I was very pleased to find out the intentions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, at the last minute, although they did not really surprise me, but it seems strange that we should be discussing this.
Let me make my position perfectly clear. One of the things of which I am most proud in my parliamentary life is the steadfastness with which the Liberal Democrats delivered the votes in this House to carry through the reform that delivered us the Supreme Court. I have been a strong believer in the Supreme Court from that time—I think a little ahead of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, in devotion to the separation of powers—and that should stand in the record about my attitude to this amendment.
Of course it is possible for your Lordships to send strong messages to the other place. Let us remember that very shortly another place will be debating this Bill. However, I urge noble Lords to ponder whether it is the best way to send such a message. The Lord Chancellor can read, and I will make sure that part of his Christmas reading is the Hansard of this debate, but negotiations are going on. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, asked whether the discussions have run into the ground. No, there has been discussion at official level in the two weeks since this issue was raised, and the letter that was quoted was from the Lord Chancellor to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, pointing out that the Government are still considering this matter.
Let me clarify for the record that the Government do not have any concerns about the accountability of the UK Supreme Court. While there is no doubt that the Executive has a legitimate interest in the effective and efficient administration of all courts—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, made very eloquently—the Government fully respect the independence of the judiciary and our duty to uphold that independence.
The amendment tabled reflects concerns about the present arrangements concerning the appointment of the chief executive, the staffing arrangements for the court and the ramifications of those arrangements for the independence of the court. This is a matter of great constitutional importance—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I emphasise that it is a matter of great constitutional importance, so when the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, with the impetuosity of a young solicitor says, “Why can’t this be handled?”, it is because it is a matter of great constitutional importance. It has been raised by a former president of the Supreme Court. It has been raised today by former high office holders—Attorneys-General, Lord Chief Justices and other Supreme Court justices. Nobody is underestimating its importance. However, I most humbly say—I am beginning to learn how lawyers manage to insult each other with the most exquisite politeness—that on a matter of this constitutional importance, where the Lord Chancellor of the day is saying that he is in negotiations and discussions with the president of the Supreme Court, it is not particularly helpful for this House to pass an amendment on the hoof in this way.
Lord McNally
I do not wish to pre-empt or shorten the debate, but it might help if I were to say something here. I hope that my noble friend Lord Marks will withdraw Amendment 6 as it is overtaken by the subsequent amendment. I will respond first to my noble friend’s Amendment 7, which seeks to apply a tipping-point principle to appointments to the UK Supreme Court.
The Government’s position has always been that a tipping-point principle should apply to the Supreme Court and we believed, as he said, that the tipping point in Section 159 of the Equality Act 2010 already applied to such appointments. However, as my noble friend Lord Marks explained, there could be a contrary legal view and I can see that there may be merit in the argument that this matter should be put beyond doubt. Therefore, I am happy to say that my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor is content for me to take this amendment away for consideration with a view to returning to the matter when the Bill goes to the other place.
Amendment 8 concerns whether the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice should be under a statutory duty to encourage judicial diversity. Following the debate on this issue on Report, I agreed to discuss the matter further with the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice in order to reflect the strength of feeling expressed by the House. Amendment 8 is in response to that further consideration.
There is much agreement in the House about the importance of a diverse judiciary that more closely reflects our society. There is also agreement that strong leadership is needed to bring about this change. Amendment 8 helps achieve that leadership by giving a clear declaration of the importance of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice promoting diversity. Therefore, as I explained, in view of the reasons and undertakings I have given, I hope that my noble friend Lord Marks will withdraw Amendment 6 and will not move Amendment 7. I commend to the House Amendment 8, relating to a diversity duty, and I thank the Constitution Committee and other noble Lords who made the case so strongly for an amendment of this sort. I emphasise again that I will take away Amendment 7 for suitable representation in the other place.
Baroness Jay of Paddington
My Lords, my name is not on this amendment but I have spoken several times on this subject during the course of the Bill. I welcome the Minister’s further discussions with the Lord Chancellor, and the government amendment. As he said, it reflects the Constitution Committee’s considerations of this matter which, as he mentioned in the discussion on a previous amendment, have been going on since the beginning of this year. I am delighted that he has taken the view that he has and that he is proposing Amendment 8.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the Opposition are delighted to join in this outbreak of consensus and congratulate the Minister on a very statesmanlike response.
Lord McNally
Given those interventions, I wish only to quote somebody who never made it to this House and say that this is not the end of the beginning. I knew that I would get that wrong, but noble Lords know what I mean—it is the end of the beginning. Of course, the person I am quoting rehearsed these things much more than I do. However, I hope that this is the start of a real drive for diversity. Those who have just contributed to the debate have played a major part in that. However, as we sometimes find in other debates in this House, there is battle still to be joined in this area.
Lord Beecham
Perhaps the Minister would care to fortify himself before these debates in the same way that Mr Churchill did.
Lord McNally
“Encouraging diversity9A In Part 6 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (other provisions relating to the judiciary) after section 137 insert—
“137A Encouragement of diversity
Each of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales must take such steps as that office-holder considers appropriate for the purpose of encouraging judicial diversity.””
Lord McNally
My Lords, we are soon to be passing the three-hour limit for these debates at Third Reading. A reoccurring theme in all the debates on the Bill has been the straying into what I would describe as Second Reading speeches and an attempt to rerun cases that have been made. I respectfully say to the House that if this is going to be the norm, we may well have to talk to the Opposition about how we handle Third Readings. I am not talking about whose amendment it is, I am talking about the usual channels. If we continually have complete reruns of debates, it does make business management extremely difficult. Sometimes I think that noble Lords overemphasise winning votes in this House; making things happen. I actually think that what has the greater influence is the well argued debate rather than the vote, but perhaps that is because I am getting used to being beaten at this Dispatch Box.
We had an informed and extensive debate about female and young adult offenders on recommital and Report. I would also say that sometimes the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, make it sound as though nothing has happened in the past 17 years. Successive Governments have grappled with this, and certainly during my term of office I have fought very hard to put the specific problems of female prisoners to the forefront. I fully accept the points that were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I am disappointed that the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, thinks that nothing has been done with her report. We expect to publish in January, and I make no apologies for the delay; I would rather get something right than meet an artificial deadline. I hope that when we publish in the new year noble Lords will see the work that Helen Grant has been carrying out with the support of the Lord Chancellor. As I have said before, do not belittle the fact that a Conservative Lord Chancellor has openly said that he sees the necessity of giving priority to women prisoners, as he said today at Questions in the House of Commons. Hopefully in the new year we will put that strategy into place, and I am sure that we will have a good opportunity to debate that.
Equally with young adults, it is not a matter of carving out from one Government to another on this. I read the report that was published today about young people in care with a sense of collective shame at how these things are being dealt with. However, as those who have previously had those responsibilities know, it is often a matter of convincing colleagues in government, and finding resources when there is competition from other departments that have equally strong arguments. I do not think there is any doubt that we believe that the rehabilitation of both groups is important. We strongly agree with the arguments that have been employed, and that is why we are already investing significant effort and resource to ensure that female and young adult offenders receive the right support.
In the previous debate, I gave examples of the many projects, including those in Lancashire, Durham and Derbyshire, that trusts are running for female offenders. For young adults, likewise, many probation trusts are already coming up with innovative approaches to supporting this group. For example, in London the trust is working on an imaginative project by which some staff will work in both the youth offending team and the trust. This is to ensure that the transition between the youth and adult estate works effectively. In the east of England, probation staff have been developing closer links with leaving care services to ensure that the particular needs of these young adults are being met.
I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will recognise the Government’s strong commitment to providing the right support for women and young adult offenders. There is agreement across this House that we need to do so. What we are debating is the mechanism for delivering that support, not whether we should deliver it. It is important to be clear here that the projects I mention have not been centrally imposed. They have been delivered from the ground up, by committed and passionate staff in probation trusts, to respond to the needs of women and young adults in the area.
Local innovation is critical if we are to have effective services for these groups. I believe the system we already have strikes a good balance between local innovation and central support. I do not believe that a statutory duty is necessary to deliver this.
The relationship between NOMS and probation trusts already gives a framework that ensures these groups are prioritised. For example, trusts are already required by the NOMS Commissioning Intentions document to make appropriate provision for women in the community. Trusts are currently discussing their proposals for services for female offenders in 2013-14 with commissioning experts at NOMS, and will be challenged where these do not appear to be sufficiently robust.
Similarly, I have already mentioned on Report that the operating manual on unpaid work requires that women should be allocated to work placements which take account of their needs. This sets out a presumption that female offenders will not be required to work alongside male offenders.
On young adults, our current system balances local delivery with central support. As with female offenders, trusts are required by NOMS to commission or deliver an appropriate range of services to address the causes of young adults’ offending. To support this, NOMS has provided trusts with information on the specific needs of young adults that will help them and other providers take an evidence-based, effective approach to tackling re-offending. This system allows for local decision-making on how best to meet the needs of these groups.
In short, I wholeheartedly agree with the arguments that noble Lords have made about improving outcomes for female and young adult offenders. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that NOMS and probation trusts are already taking a tailored approach to supporting them. However, our focus should be on supporting local areas to make further improvements. The system that we have already allows for this. Creating new statutory duties for trusts is not the right way to bring about the improvements that we want for these two groups.
In light of these assurances, I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will agree not to press their amendments. Perhaps I may give just one little bit of encouragement to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. Yes, we did have lots of talks about restorative justice, and restorative justice is in this Bill, but getting it into the Bill took lots of talks between and within departments, letters to various Cabinet committees et cetera. Some of these things take time, but there should be no doubt that young offenders and women offenders are on the Government’s radar. Ministers at the MoJ, and particularly my colleague, Helen Grant, are working very hard to make progress in these areas. With those assurances, I hope that noble Lords will agree not to press their amendments.
Lord Woolf
My Lords, I thank those who have spoken in favour of the amendment and all those who have taken part in this debate, and I thank the Minister for his response. I hope that he will accept from me that I have no reservations in accepting that he sincerely believes what he has just said to the House.
However, there is a difference between the approach of the Minister and that which I was urging upon the House. I say that the situation with regard to women in the criminal justice system is one where there is a crying need for there to appear in the statute something which speaks of Parliament’s concern.
I have great sympathy for my noble friend Lady Corston in her feeling of frustration at a lack of action in respect of her report, which was welcomed so warmly. It seems to me that, in view of the issue between us and because the Minister has not sought to identify any possible prejudice that could come—
Lord McNally
I can only make one last appeal to the noble and learned Lord. Does he really think that it will advance one inch the cause that he espouses if we have a Division at this point, where people who have not been in the debate will come in and be told, “Oh, you’re voting in favour of women or voting against women.”?
Lord McNally
It is no use saying “shame”. There is no division between us, and to suggest that there is does not further the cause.
Lord Woolf
Well, of course, I listen very attentively to what the Minister says, but perhaps he will forgive me if I bring the agony to an end by indicating that, as I see it, there is nothing in the proposed provision which can harm the Government’s good intentions. I think that there is a difference of view here: between those who feel that the statute should contain a statement of recognition of the special position of women in the criminal justice system and those who do not. In those circumstances, I seek the opinion of the House in respect of my amendment.
Magna Carta: 800th Anniversary
Lord McNally Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mitchell
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I confess to an error I made, because the date should be 15 June, not 18 June.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, I understand there are a lot of anniversaries in 2015. We plan to celebrate the 800th anniversary of the sealing of Magna Carta in June 2015. Work is being co-ordinated by the Magna Carta 800th Committee of the Magna Carta Trust, an independent organisation chaired by Sir Robert Worcester. I keep in close contact with the trust and its plans.
Lord Mitchell
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Some interesting things are happening, but maybe we can do even better. The late Lord Denning called the Magna Carta,
“the greatest constitutional document of all time—the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot”.
The great charter is the very essence of what we are as a people. Its octocentenary should be celebrated with all pomp and international ceremony. I have a suggestion for the Government. Why not exhibit all four remaining original documents in one location? It would be the first time that they have come together since they were sealed at Runnymede in 1215. Maybe that location should be here, in Westminster Hall. Why not invite the world to London to celebrate this magnificent anniversary and all it stands for?
Lord McNally
My Lords, I am sure that Sir Robert welcomes all suggestions. That sounds like a very good one. In addition, a lot of work is being done, not least by the towns and cities of the United Kingdom which have historic relations with the Magna Carta, and in other parts of the Commonwealth and English-speaking world. The noble Lord is right: the 800th anniversary will be a great celebration and work is well under way to make it so.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, is the Minister aware that at about the same time or maybe sooner, what might be called a maxima carta will be signed and sealed, upholding the rights of 2 billion citizens across the entire Commonwealth network? Will he ensure that when it is signed, quite shortly, it also gets appropriate commemoration and possibly full approval and validation in this House?
Lord McNally
Again, I sincerely hope so. I also know that the Magna Carta committee is determined that the celebration of the 800th anniversary will be a Commonwealth celebration, since Magna Carta means so much to so many Commonwealth countries.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield
My Lords, as Archbishop Stephen Langton largely wrote the Magna Carta, and as the freedom of the church to serve the nation is such a prominent theme in the great charter, will the Government approach the right reverend Prelates Archbishops of Canterbury and York to see how church and state might work happily together on this important anniversary?
Lord McNally
Most certainly. However, as a resident of St Albans, I understand that the Magna Carta was much drafted in the Abbey of St Albans. One of the advantages of the charter may be illustrated by the fact that celebrations are planned in St Albans, Bury St Edmunds, London, Canterbury, Oxford, Hereford, Salisbury and Durham. It seems to have been a rather peripatetic document, with quite a few claims to authorship. However, I am absolutely sure that preparations to be part of the celebrations are already well in hand in Lincoln and Salisbury, led by the cathedrals in those two great cities.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it might be appropriate if this House cleaned the figures of the signatories to the Magna Carta? That would be a nice gesture, would it not?
Lord McNally
For one minute, I thought that I was going to be dragged into Scottish politics. My brief tells me that Scotland did not sign the Magna Carta—neither did King John, before anyone corrects me on that. Every time we have this Question on the Order Paper, another good suggestion comes forward. I must say that the suggestion of the cleaning is an excellent one.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, does the Minister accept that although, at the request of King John, three months after the sealing of Magna Carta, the charter was annulled by His Holiness the Pope, it nevertheless remains one of the most noble documents of human history, representing as it does the interface between principle and power and, indeed, the challenge of the rule of law to raw authority; and that, in that respect, it has much in common with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights?
Lord McNally
I like the definition of the late Lord Bingham, which was that the great thing about Magna Carta was not so much the absolute political detail—yes, it was repealed about three months afterwards—but that it remained part of the DNA of this country for 800 years. People know what we mean by Magna Carta. When Eleanor Roosevelt announced the UN Declaration of Human Rights, she said that it was a Magna Carta for all mankind, and “all mankind” did not need a translation; she knew what it meant. I share the views of the noble Lord about the European Convention on Human Rights.
Defamation Bill
Lord McNally Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I was not going to speak until I heard the noble Lord, Lord May, just now. He is identifying one of the main problems that the Bill is designed to tackle—it arises in the other parts of the Bill—on the way one approaches the defence of truth, honest opinion and privilege. The Bill seeks to take care of all of those. The cost matters are being dealt with separately and are very important.
All we are concerned with here is the initial hurdle to get rid of the trivial cases. We must not set the hurdle too high, because that would be unfair to claimants; nor too low, because that would be unfair to publishers. My own view is that one word in the English language is better than three. For that reason, I hope that the Government will stick to “serious” rather than giving the judges the headache of deciding how “serious” differs from “substantial”. They are perfectly capable, it seems to me, of interpreting an ordinary word in the English language. In that respect, I agree with my noble friend Lord Faulks.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, I shall begin with my usual disclaimer. I am not a lawyer. As I often say about my friends in this House who are lawyers, we are in their debt because if we had to pay them we could not afford them. We get the benefit of considerable legal expertise. The only problem is that it does not always point in the same direction. Nevertheless, it is welcome—as is the approach of the various groups that have become involved in this Bill. I pay tribute to my colleague and noble friend Lord Lester, who launched us on this path with his Private Member’s Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, and his group, who in the pre-legislative scrutiny committee were extremely thorough. I also pay tribute to the Opposition, who played a very constructive role, and the various lobby groups that have come in. As has been said, it is a task of achieving balance.
I am grateful for the comments made about my own attitude. I take the view, particularly on this Bill, of President Harry Truman, who when asked whether the Marshall plan should be called the Marshall plan or the Truman plan said that it should be called the Marshall plan, as it is amazing how far you will get if you share a little of the credit.
I want to share the credit because my sole aim and intention in taking this Bill through is to leave us with a piece of useful legislation which will address some of the problems to which the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford, has just referred of us having an unwelcome reputation for libel tourism, and to address some of the unfairness of costs.
As my noble friend Lord Lester indicated, we will be returning to this matter but I draw the Committee’s attention to my letter of 10 October, which is in the Library of the House and informs noble Lords that we were referring the matter of costs to the Civil Justice Council, an independent advisory body chaired by the Master of the Rolls, to advise us on this matter by the end of March 2013. As Members of the Committee may have noticed, the Government have subsequently announced that they have accepted Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendation that cost protection should be extended to defamation and privacy cases. Therefore, one of the matters which has been commented on most often, costs, is being addressed as this Bill moves forward. Whether we get the balance right is a matter for—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am sorry to interrupt but I am trying to be helpful to my noble friend. I think that he just referred to a letter of 10 October.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am most grateful, because I have a letter from 8 October.
Lord McNally
It was my fault. I thank my noble friend for drawing my attention to that. I hope that that sets a pattern whereby his interventions will be entirely helpful—as they always are. Before I dig deeper, I should turn to the amendments before us. In the light of requests from a number of noble Lords for information on what the serious harm test is intended to encapsulate, it may be helpful for me to explain as fully as possible the Government’s thinking behind Clause 1.
The introduction of a serious harm test reflects the Government’s view that there is merit in legislating to ensure that trivial and unfounded actions do not proceed. It is the first time that there has been a statutory threshold of this nature in defamation proceedings. In the draft Bill, we consulted on the following provision. It said:
“A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause substantial harm to the reputation of the claimant”.
In formulating this provision, we examined a series of cases over the past century in which the courts have considered the question of what is sufficient to establish that a statement is defamatory. A recent example is Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd, in which an earlier House of Lords decision on Sim v Stretch was identified as authority for the existence of a “threshold of seriousness”. In Jameel v Dow Jones and Co, it was established that there needed to be a “real and substantial tort” in the jurisdiction for a claim to be able to proceed. The claim which failed that test was struck out as an abuse of process. The “substantial harm” clause aims to encapsulate the tests applied in these and other cases. Our view at that point, which we expressed to the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, was that this would reflect and strengthen the current law. Establishing in statute a substantial harm test for the first time would give this requirement a new prominence and would help to discourage trivial and unfounded claims being brought.
In its report, the Joint Committee on the draft Bill took the view that a stricter test was appropriate and that,
“a threshold test that focuses on the seriousness of the allegation would raise the bar in a meaningful way and give greater confidence to publishers that statements which do not cause significant harm, including jokes, parody, and irreverent criticism, do not put them at risk of losing a libel claim”.
It recommended a test of serious and substantial harm.
Lord Mawhinney
Two things seem to be beyond dispute. One is that powers already exist for the courts to exercise their judgment over timing and that costs are escalating beyond the ability of most people to turn to the law for the defence that they are entitled to expect from the law. Given that those are both facts that I know my noble friend is relying on, how can he explain that not changing the first is likely to address the second?
Lord McNally
First, I have already pointed out that my noble friend’s concerns about costs are being addressed in parallel with the Bill. Secondly, as we go through the Bill, we need to look at it as a cohesive whole. There are other factors and proposals that deal with some of the problems he is concerned about. It may help the Committee, and the way that I want the Committee to work—we are in the Moses Room and so we will not divide at the end of these debates—if I say that I will listen very carefully to the contributions made by Members, look at the legal advice, whether unanimous or conflicting, and take the advice of my advisers. I see that as the best and most fruitful way of using this Committee. At this stage, I am trying to give the Committee an idea of the Government’s thinking thus far and what the background is to any particular proposal. That is not the final word on these matters, although it should not be taken as an encouragement that there is a concession in the offing. As an old hand, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, approves of the balance and that it will encourage my noble friend Lord Mawhinney, although not too much. We will see how these debates unfold.
The courts already have the power under Rule 3.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules which permits them to strike out all or part of a claim where there is no reasonable ground for bringing it or they consider it to be an abuse of process. The courts are very familiar with that power, and we have no doubt that they will use it more when this is in place.
Other lawyers have said to me that this will all be tested in the courts. Indeed it will but, to answer a point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, we are trying to lift the hurdle but are consciously trying to keep the balance right in what we are doing. I hope that noble Lords will be prepared to withdraw the amendment in accordance with the procedure for Committees in this Room. To take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, once people have had a chance to look at Hansard and at our thinking on any particular area, if they want further clarification, I would be very happy to talk to them. I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, with all respect—a phrase that lawyers use when they have no respect—to all noble Lords and noble and learned Lords and to the Minister who boasts that he is not a lawyer rather than disclaims that he is, the most important contribution to our short debate, for which I am very grateful, was by the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford. He reminded us that we are changing the law and that will significantly affect the way in which lawyers, be they judges, barristers or solicitors, work in advising. We have set ourselves the task of trying to make the law in this area clear to affect the way in which people behave. Most of those people are not lawyers, and nor should they have to be lawyers in order to understand the limits of behaviour that will put them at risk.
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who knows that I have an enormous degree of admiration for him, his response to the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford, was—I hate using this phrase—technically correct, but it missed the point. The point I am trying to make in this part of the debate is that we have an opportunity to give an explanation of what we think we are achieving here. We have a perfect example in this short debate because of the very concise and helpful interventions by a number of lawyers about just how that could be confused. I am extremely grateful for that. In a simple sentence, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, supported my amendments and then made well made point that was not in any way undermined by the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, because neither he nor I—and I support his amendment for the purpose that I explained—think that judges are incapable of doing this. We know that judges are capable of looking at this test and applying it to the facts, having listened to the legal argument. We know because—although I have never practised in England, I have had to bone up on the procedure—there is a process whereby the issues in dispute become apparent by the process of pleading and the exchange of arguments and facts. I do not think that any of us have any doubt that judges will be able to do that.
Actually, if that is the point at which decisions are made in relation to the tests that we set, we will have failed because we want these decisions to be made much earlier in the activity. We do not want people to have to go to the court at all, if that can be avoided. We do not want people to have to run off to very expensive lawyers who are capable of doing what we lawyers have just done in this debate, which is taking the advice of a former Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who we all admire, which is that there is a distinction between “substantial” and “serious”. However, we had a very clear, lucid and believable explanation of why “serious” includes “substantial” from the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, using his experience and practice in the law. He was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who said that this simpler, one-word test is the most appropriate way to move forward because the justice system can cope with it much better.
Lord Scott of Foscote
My Lords, perhaps I may add to what has been said. The inability to bring an action for defamation on behalf someone who is deceased does not prevent action being taken to prevent repetition of the untrue allegations that are being made if it can be shown that their repetition is likely to cause a breach of the peace. I came across such a case when I was a barrister and was once instructed to do something to stop lies, as I was told, being told about a deceased public figure. I said that defamation was not a runner but that one could get an injunction, not damages, to stop a repetition if there was a real likelihood of a breach of the peace. However, for that purpose, one had to get the consent of the Attorney-General. I applied to the Attorney-General, who refused to give his consent, and that was the end of the matter.
Lord McNally
My Lords, again we are indebted to my learned friends for enlightening this debate. Dealing with the reputation of the dead is a difficult matter. I recently had to answer a Question in the Lords about a pardon for Dr Alan Turing, and I answered by referring to the strict letter of the law as it now stands. I then found that someone had added a line to my entry in Wikipedia that stated that I was strongly opposed to giving a pardon to Alan Turing.
The issue is very difficult. As my noble friend Lord Hunt said, I saw Mr and Mrs Watson, and anyone who meets them cannot but be moved by the grief that they continue to feel. When I saw them in October 2010, the draft Bill was already starting its slow process down the slipway, and I suggested that they give evidence to the public consultation, which subsequently involved the pre-legislative scrutiny committee. Mr and Mrs Watson gave evidence and argued that the Government should allow proceedings to be brought in respect of defamed homicide victims. However, they were the only respondents who raised this issue, and neither the specific issue of defamation of homicide victims nor defamation of the dead more generally arose in evidence to the Joint Committee.
However, as has been said, the Watsons, who live in Glasgow, have raised this issue in Scotland, where it is a devolved matter subject to Scottish Law. The Scottish Government published in January 2011 a consultation paper, Death of a Good Name—Defamation and the Deceased. Analysis of that response has been published by the Scottish Government, but they have yet to indicate whether they are minded to propose any change to their law in this area.
I say again, as I said to Mr and Mrs Watson, that they should also cling to the judgment of the judge. That is the most sound and tested opinion of their daughter’s reputation, and it was clear and unequivocal in a way that I had hoped would have given them some of the comfort that they sought. However, I can imagine—and it does not apply just to famous people—that when things are said about loved ones after their death it must be extremely hurtful to those who have been close to them. Perhaps I should gently lob the ball back to my noble friend Lord Hunt in the hope that the handiwork he is undertaking in terms of a media response to Lord Justice Leveson and a regulatory body with teeth that bite might be an area where the teeth might bite if the media behave in the way that the Watson family suggested.
However, this amendment seeks to change the law in relation to the rights of representatives of deceased persons to bring defamation actions. It is not a provision for the avoidance of doubt. It is a long-established principle of common law that a deceased person cannot be defamed because reputation is personal. A defamatory statement about a deceased person accordingly does not give rise to a civil action for defamation on behalf of his or her estate. Relatives of the deceased also have no right of action unless the words used reflect on their own reputation. That reflects the central principle in civil proceedings generally that a claim for damages can be brought only by the person who has suffered the injury, loss or, in this case, damage to his or her reputation as a result of an act of omission of another person.
The Government believe that there will be significant difficulties with attempting to allow representatives to bring defamation actions on behalf of deceased persons. For example, in the event of defamation proceedings being brought by a representative of the deceased person, it would not be possible to bar that defendant from using the defences that exist to a defamation action. That would result in arguments over the truth of negative allegations about the deceased’s character, which inevitably would be distressing for their family and which could not be put to proof by questioning of the deceased.
Also significantly, this amendment does not propose to put any time limit on the period after death during which such an action would be brought. That potentially creates huge difficulties for historians wishing to engage in historical analysis and debate, especially given that there is no definition of representatives, which means that it would not necessarily need to be a close family member who brought the action on behalf of the deceased person. That could lead to a situation where a historian published a biography of a significant historical figure many years after that person’s death. He could be sued by a law firm or an individual with no close tie to the deceased person who was the subject of the potentially defamatory statement.
In the second subsection of the amendment, it is not clear to which individual the serious harm would have to be caused nor is it immediately apparent how a defamatory statement could cause a breach of the peace. However, it is because of the very serious legal and practical difficulties that I have already highlighted that the Government cannot support this amendment. For all those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that the BBC and the police are investigating the Savile matters, and I think that I should leave it there for the moment.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, I have said before that I am amazed how often when I ask about a certain thing in the Ministry of Justice, they say, “Well, they do this better in Scotland”. I do not know whether that is a tribute to the quality of Scottish law, but it will be interesting when it is faced with the very real dilemma of where you draw the line. The noble Lord suggested a year or so, but wherever the line is drawn, there will be those who are just on the other side of it. It is a difficult dilemma, and you cannot but feel sorrow for the grief of those who are affected by it. I think that the Government are right to hold the line where it is but, as ever, we will keep an eye on other examples.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, although I am sure Lord Mawhinney will respond, as he moved this group, I shall make one point on the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Browne. If a company was attacked on its ethical role, that would also show in its share price—those of my generation might remember Barclays selling arms to South Africa. This would not necessarily affect sales, but it could still substantially affect a company’s financial position because its share price would be affected. There are other ways of measuring financial loss, and this is similarly the case with very small companies. If a very small shop of the kind found in Kentish Town was accused of having rats in the cellar, that would immediately lead to a drop-off in the number of people shopping there, and therefore I think that would count as substantial loss. Concerning the specific drafting, once the Minister has accepted that he will move his own amendment on the arguments we have given, I am sure his officials will make sure that the drafting is perfect.
Lord McNally
I have known the noble Baroness so long that I know when she is tempting me into sin. However, this has again been a very useful, very helpful debate. I confess that when I started out on this one of the things I wanted to do was to address the problems that have been faced by academics and others in making legitimate criticism and legitimate comments. Having listened to a large number of individuals and interested parties, there is no doubt in my mind that this law can have a chilling effect, and it is used very ruthlessly to stifle debate. I hope that we can do something to address this as we progress this Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has obviously been very kind to me, because she did not point out that when I gave evidence to her committee I said that in my opinion corporations should not be allowed to sue. The then Lord Chancellor, Ken Clarke, took me into a quiet room, sat me down and, with the persuasiveness for which he is renowned, convinced me that corporations do have reputations and what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, described as an ethical identity. This is a serious point, which has come out in the debate. As we go through the Bill, we are continually trying to get the balance between defending reputation and defending free speech. They are continually in our mind.
Regarding costs, I again point out to the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, although he clearly has doubts about the way these things are done in government—I do not know whether that comes from personal experience—that we have tasked the Master of the Rolls with the job of looking at this matter within a specific timescale: by next March. Since then, we have had a clear statement by the Prime Minister that the Government accept the recommendation by Leveson that there should be a cost-transferring system in defamation. Any powers of influence I have will be used to try to ensure that this is not go into the long grass. I am quite sure that the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, will understand the urgency and the expectation that comes from the work with which he has been tasked.
Lord Mawhinney
I am grateful to my noble friend. I understand the point that he makes and he understands that part of the purpose of the Committee is—as we cannot vote—to put a little encouragement in front of him to think again. Regarding that, will he tell the Committee what the Government have said to Lord Dyson that they wish to see covered in the recommendations that he brings forward in March?
Lord McNally
In terms of what was actually said to Lord Dyson, if it is on the record somewhere, I will make it available to the Committee by next Wednesday. There is lots of clustering behind me. Even after two and a half years, I am still in awe of what happens behind the Minister.
The Civil Justice Council has been asked,
“to identify whether there are meritorious actions for defamation and privacy, which could not properly be brought or defended without some form of costs protection … if so identified, to advise … in which types of cases (or stages of cases) some form of costs protection should apply; and … what options for costs protection might be considered, with their advantages and disadvantages”.
Since then, there has been the added rider of Lord Justice Leveson’s opinion that cost QOCS should be applied to defamation cases. Therefore, I am sure that my noble friend’s scepticism will be noted by Lord Dyson and he will see that eyes are on him while he does this important work. Likewise, on the question of process, I refer to my letter of 10 December on early resolution—I think that this time I have the month right. We have asked the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to consider in the new year:
“The main issues which we consider should be determined early where they are matters of dispute are: Whether the statement is defamatory (including whether it satisfies the new serious harm test) … What the actual meaning of the words complained of is … Whether the words complained of are a statement of fact or opinion”.
The letter continues:
“We propose to seek the Civil Procedure Rule Committee’s agreement to provisions enabling either party to make an application for a ruling on any (or all) of the three issues listed above at the time of service of the particulars of claim (or at any time thereafter)”.
I hope that those changes in procedure will address this problem that has been highlighted as part of the issue. When I met Simon Singh, he mentioned to me that these issues of definition ran up the costs long before the case got to court. We are not going to cure everything, but if we can tease out of the system delays that work against individuals, rack up costs and cause this chilling effect, we will certainly be going in the right direction. I believe that on inequality of arms, the chilling effect, costs and early resolution we are in the right ballpark, as our American cousins say.
Corporations are a matter where we will listen to the Committee, but I must tell the Committee that in other places and parts of government there is strong resistance to conceding on this point. Let me provide the Government’s position. We recognise the concerns that lie behind Amendments 4 and 8, and the arguments that have been made by the Joint Committee and others in favour of restricting corporations’ right to sue in defamation. However, the Government believe that in this area there is a difficult balance to be struck. Clearly, businesses are often powerful and it is undesirable that they should be able to bully individuals or organisations with much more limited means by bringing, or threatening to bring, defamation actions, simply in order to stifle debate. Equally, we must recognise that businesses have genuine reputations to protect. They can be subject to unfounded or spiteful allegations that harm not just the management but shareholders and employees. This Bill seeks to make it harder for corporations or wealthy individual claimants to intimidate defendants with limited resources, but without removing their ability to seek redress where their reputation is genuinely damaged. The new test of serious harm will provide an effective deterrent to trivial and vexatious claims, regardless of who the claimant is.
It is also important to bear in mind the fact that corporations are already unable to claim damages for certain types of harm, such as injury to feelings. This means that to satisfy the serious harm test, they are likely in practice to have to show sufficient actual or likely financial loss. The serious harm test and other provisions in the Bill, such as the simpler and clearer defences and the removal of the right to jury trial, together with the accompanying procedural changes that we propose will reduce the cost and complexity of proceedings to the benefit of anyone trying to defend a case. In this context, the Government do not consider that the introduction of a permission stage for corporations would be appropriate. As part of the procedural changes that we are proposing, the court will be able to deal with the key issues in dispute at as early a stage as possible. An additional permission stage for corporations would almost certainly add to the costs involved.
Importantly, we have recently announced our intention to introduce cost protection measures in defamation proceedings. I referred to them as regards the Civil Justice Council. This will help address concerns in respect of cases involving an inequality of arms and will ensure that claimants and defendants of limited means are not deterred from bringing or defending defamation claims where the other part is a corporation, newspaper or individual with substantially greater resources. All told, we consider that this represents a fair and balanced approach that gives defendants of limited means significantly better protection than they currently enjoy and lessens the likelihood of intimidatory tactics being used against them, while also ensuring that corporations can still bring legitimate claims where their business reputation has been seriously harmed by unfounded allegations.
I have no objections at all to my noble friend Lord Mawhinney continuing to prod me on these issues, but I believe that the approaches we have made to the Master of the Rolls and the Civil Justice Council are the best and quickest way of addressing them. However, his continuing scepticism will be a spur to us all.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Most of what the Minister has said is extremely persuasive, and certainly his criticism of Amendment 8, to which I have added my name, is understandable. With reference to Amendment 4, which is much less detailed, if, instead of just saying,
“unless its publication has caused substantial financial loss”,
it said, “has caused or is likely to cause substantial financial loss”, whereby the proposed new clause would read,
“The Statement is not defamatory”,
and so on, that would do little more than restate the existing common law. Would the noble Lord and his team consider something that would set out in the Bill the actual common law position without debarring corporations or creating new hurdles for them?
Lord McNally
Once again I shall use my ultimate defence: I am not a lawyer, so I am not going to say yes on the hoof. I also wonder whether the words “substantial financial loss” covers reputation, as was referred to by my noble friend Lord Phillips. However, as I have said throughout our debate, I am listening. When I go back to the Ministry of Justice, I will certainly sit down with my officials and talk about the points that have been made and ask whether any of them can substantially help what is still my objective, which is to deal with the real problems such as those that have been set out by the noble Lord, Lord May, and other noble Lords. These represent evidence of how, on the one hand, corporations can bully, intimidate and chill, while, on the other, they may have reputations that can and should be defended. That is the balance that we seek to strike. I will look at what my noble friend has suggested, and I look to my noble friend Lord Mawhinney to retain his scepticism, but to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mawhinney
I accept without reservation the determination of my noble friend the Minister to face the real issues that surround this legislation. There is no doubt or scepticism in my mind about that. I am grateful to colleagues for what has been a good debate. Perhaps I may say to my noble friends Lord Faulks and Lord Phillips, and to the noble Lord, Lord May, that broadly I agree with everything they said. The committee decided very early on that we were not constituted to draft legislation. We did not have the ability, skills or the knowledge to do so and we did not think that that was what we were being asked to do. I accept that all three speeches made the point that the drafting could be improved.
How it is improved is, of course, a matter for the Government, not for the committee because the other thing that we were very careful to insist on was that we were not making the law but simply offering advice to the Government, and they would in due course present to Parliament what they thought the law should be, and Parliament would decide whether it agreed with the Government. Therefore, in all three cases, without going into the details of what was said, I accept generally the points that were made. I hope that my attitude of hitting the big issues and leaving the Government to do the drafting and fill the smaller cracks is the right way to proceed, although I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for his phrase about wanting to encourage companies to re-enter the world of ethics. I am sure that he was speaking for the whole Committee when he said that.
I declare an unusual interest in that I am a life member of the Association of University Teachers. That interest is not often required to be mentioned. However, I mention it specifically in relation to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman. As one of those who were subject to his leadership, I want to put on the record how excellent that leadership was. That qualifies him and what he said to be taken seriously by this Committee. I hope that the Minister will reread the noble Lord’s contribution several times.
I could not agree more with my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill that certain things should be statutory and on the face of the Bill and that others should not be statutory and therefore not on the face of the Bill. I learnt through many a happy hour spent on the committee that case management was one of the things that should not be put on the face of the Bill, so I entirely agree with my noble friend. However, I have a caveat which he did not mention but which I should like to add to what he said: namely, we have to be confident that case management will be addressed non-statutorily and will be changed. I use the verb “changed” deliberately because the evidence was submitted to our committee over and over again that case management issues drove up cost, caused delay and huge irritation, and separated perhaps millions of our fellow citizens from the protection of the law. That is the case management that we have at the moment.
I am not being particularly critical and I do not have the skill or the knowledge to say what aspects of case management need to be changed but my committee was adamant that case management must be addressed. I add a rider. We did not suffer from delusions of grandeur. We did not believe for one moment that this was a penetrating shaft of light into our consciousness that had not occurred to anybody before. Indeed, if the Minister pushed me, I could probably find bits of evidence to support that statement.
That brings me back to reflections on Mawhinney’s scepticism. It is not arbitrary and capricious. It has a history, although not necessarily one that is identified with me personally. Our committee was delighted when it came to the conclusion, not least through the Minister’s personal efforts, that he wanted to take this subject seriously. I think that on the very first page of our report we welcome the fact that we thought he was taking it seriously because so many of his predecessors had danced round this maypole and then gone home and not taken any serious steps. So the Minister already has lots of brownie points in the bag. What we need to do now, with all good will, is to help him get across the finishing line. In reflecting what has been said on this amendment, I think that that will be helpful. Particularly at this time, we all recognise that there is a balance to be struck between defamation and taking measures that might inhibit economic growth, with all the benefit that that would produce.
However, I refer the Committee back to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. It was he who introduced the concept of ethics, which is relevant to this conversation. I say to the Minister, we would all be saddened if there were nothing in the Bill that talked about corporations and their responsibilities. I mentioned earlier that we had a long debate about the values of codification as against writing new statute. The reason that we saw importance in codification from time to time was—a point made earlier by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord May, but if I am wrong, I hope to be forgiven—that ordinary people ought to be able to read the law of the land and understand broadly what it means.
The common law is hugely important but way beyond the understanding of the normal citizen, in terms of its actuality and potential change. It may therefore fail in some respect an important element of transparency that should characterise our laws. That is not—I repeat “not” in front of my noble and learned colleagues—an attack on the common law. This report does not attack the common law, which is hugely important in the way that we are governed and in the judgment, character and integrity of our judges. However, this is a case whereby putting some codification in Bill would send a message that corporations have responsibilities and that we are not impressed at the way that some of them occasionally discharge those responsibilities.
With that encouragement, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord May of Oxford
I commend very highly subsections (5)(c) and (d) of the new clause proposed under Amendment 7. This is the first mention that I have come across—although I have not read every word—of “public interest”. As many noble Lords will know, there has been a lot of pressure from many sectors of the outside community that the Bill does not do enough in looking at public interest as an offsetting factor. As regards subsection (5)(c), I wonder whether the words “complained of” are “a statement of fact or opinion”. If they are a statement of fact, it seems to me that, defamatory or not, or financially injurious or not, a fact is a fact and no one should be liable for stating a fact. Yet—I am becoming parrot-like in repeating again and again—I can give many examples where people have had huge pressure on their time and been put to ludicrous expense in defending a matter of fact. I hugely welcome those two proposals.
Lord McNally
My Lords, again, I want to be able to think about and to look at the arguments that have been deployed. As I have said, I am not so experienced in the law as to know where this balance is, particularly on case management. I know that the Select Committee and a lot of the evidence given by individuals and organisations as this Bill progressed emphasised that good case management was part of the key to dealing with early resolution and the problem of cost. Whether it is wise or even proper to try to write these matters into an Act of Parliament rather than trust the judiciary to deal with these matters, certainly I look forward to a meeting with the Master of the Rolls early in the new year and to talk to others about this.
In the mean time, let me put on record the responses to these two amendments. Amendment 5 would make it compulsory for the parties to use a form of alternative dispute resolution before a defamation claim could come before the court. The Government are firmly committed to reducing the costs of defamation proceedings and to resolving legal disputes by techniques other than litigation wherever possible. The overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules puts the onus on courts to encourage and facilitate the use of alternative dispute resolution, and the Pre-action Protocol for Defamation already requires parties to consider some form of alternative dispute resolution, including mediation or early neutral evaluation.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, I was loath to interrupt the Minister while he was in full flow, but if I have understood properly the point that he made, there is an unwillingness on the part of the Government to try and compel anyone to go through any other process if that person concludes that the only process they really want to go through is testing the case in a court, with all the consequences. Part of the argument is that by forcing people to go through another process, it might indeed add to the costs of the entirety of the case, rather than potentially to manage and reduce those costs.
If I have understood that argument properly, have the noble Lord and the Government considered whether some independent advice could be given, as is sometimes suggested in, for example, matrimonial cases, whereby people are guided as to whether proceeding through the court is likely to be helpful or appropriate, rather than just plunging in? I suggest that that would be done at relatively minimal cost and might be significantly beneficial.
Forgive me for putting this at any length at this stage in the debate, but one of the reasons why that might be beneficial is that on occasions—and I have seen this—you find that you are dealing with people whose normal place of residence is overseas. They are not United Kingdom nationals and may, none the less, be representatives of significant pools of wealth or of large corporations. They tend to say that they may not be able to follow our legal practice particularly carefully but they have great confidence in the ability of our courts to take on cases and deal with them. By that stage, those people are then on one course, rather than another, with considerable costs, rather than otherwise—and I understand the point that has been made about management of processes in order to reduce costs. I ask the Minister and the Government to consider whether there is some way not of compelling people to take a particular course of action but to seek advice about the likelihood of one route working more successfully than another.
Lord McNally
Again, because I am not a lawyer, I will take that away and take advice on it. As regards wealthy individuals who want to test their cases before British judges, although we have been talking about judicial case management, we have a judiciary which is world renowned for its integrity and impartiality and we should not forget that. However, I will take that matter away.
Lord Faulks
Before the Minister finally sits down, I hope that I may ask him one further thing. This is something which I think arose out of Second Reading, and is consistent with what the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, said about trying to minimise expenditure: that is, the possibility of having these defamation actions heard in the county court as opposed to the High Court, which would automatically reduce the cost.
Lord McNally
Again, I will take that matter back. The noble Lord may be interested to know that my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor who, like me, is not a lawyer, is much attracted by that idea. It is certainly worthy of consideration. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is no longer in his place but if he and his colleagues come forward with some robust self-regulation for the media, mediation may well find its proper place in that area as well. A balance needs to be struck between the extent to which you can force mediation and the extent to which it can be readily available. I will certainly look at the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, I thank the Minister for putting on the record the Government’s reaction to these amendments. I understood the point made by my noble friend Lord Faulks, although I am not sure that I entirely buy it. Speaking on behalf of the committee, by putting forward these alternatives in this way we were trying to make the point that if something is on the face of the Bill it is not part of case management; it has to be done before case management actually starts. That goes back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, made, which we had in mind: that is, the possibility of something that is a lot quicker, a lot cheaper and which can speed up a solution one way or another. My noble friend Lord Faulks is right: it could be an expensive addition. I want to encourage him to believe that it does not have to be that way. Clearly, both of us would want the “does not have to be” rather than the “might be”.
I say to my noble friend the Minister that if the problem is simply one of legal requirement, I am guessing that my colleagues on the committee would settle for early resolution, whatever the form in which it was framed in order to make it happen. The early, quicker, cheaper resolution—where cheaper does not mean inferior—was sought by the committee but, more importantly, by all those who gave evidence to the committee. When my noble friend gives definitive responses to some of these issues on Report, I hope that he will bear in mind the perhaps totally unfair perception which might linger that it is more important to the Government not to do anything that might cause even a tremor in the judiciary than to look for positive ways to solve the real problems to which he committed himself. Because I believe that he has committed himself to those real problems, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I may have been rather hasty in saying that the Lord Chancellor is in favour of county courts, but I am going to rush back to the MoJ and tell him to get it on the record quick because there seems to be so much support for them. It is an interesting point and again I can see the value in the recommendation as just read out by my noble friend Lord Mawhinney. Along with other matters, I will ponder on it. I did not say that we could not legislate for case management, but I want to hear the arguments. As for my noble friend’s suggestion that the Lord Chancellor might be afraid of doing this because of a fear of offending the judiciary, that is not something I have heard said about the Lord Chancellor very often in recent weeks.
Amendment 6 deals with the issue of strike-out. It would put a new strike-out power into the Bill that would require the courts to strike out actions that do not meet a certain threshold unless the interests of justice require otherwise. We do not consider that there is any need for this provision. As I indicated when responding to Amendment 3, the serious harm test in Clause 1 and the new early resolution procedures will ensure that the court has at the forefront of its mind the need to make sure that trivial and unfounded claims do not proceed. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, anticipated, I will also argue that the courts already have a power in Rule 3.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules which permits them to strike out all or part of a claim where there are no reasonable grounds for bringing it or they consider it to be an abuse of process. The courts are very familiar with that power, and we have no doubt that they will use it more in defamation cases once the new higher threshold is in place. As I have said before, one of the aims of this Bill is to make the law simpler, so unnecessary duplication such as that proposed in this new clause would conflict with that aim.
As we have explained in the note recently provided to Peers, we intend to make changes through the Civil Procedure Rules to ensure that the key preliminary issues are determined at as early a stage in the proceedings as possible. Where the question of whether the claimant has suffered or is likely to suffer serious harm is in dispute, this is one of the main issues that the court could be asked to consider under the new procedure. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I shall do my best to get my words in the right order, something that I am learning to do every day in your Lordships’ House. I thank the Minister for a response which to a degree I anticipated when moving the amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for complicating quite considerably my deliberations on this issue. I think I understood his point about the absence of the serious harm test in his Bill, and I know that the Government have prayed that in aid as part of the reason it is not necessary to provide for a strike-out procedure in this Bill. I shall also interrogate the Lugano Convention argument to see whether it has a significant effect on the existing rules of court that the Government are also praying in aid as part of their argument for why this is not necessary.
I thank the Minister for the detail set out in his response, and as I have said before, I am willing to have faith in an holistic approach in our deliberations, as it has become known. If we can have some transparency in the other elements of the holistic approach and be satisfied that they will meet our collective desire to offer the opportunity for people to reach early resolution in disputes of this kind in an affordable way and in a timescale that makes sense in relation to the issues, I am content to beg leave to withdraw my amendment. However, I am sure that we will come back to this issue later, if not in the form of an amendment, at least as part of our further debate.
Charging Orders (Orders for Sale: Financial Thresholds) Regulations 2012
Lord McNally Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [HL]
Lord McNally Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Lord McNally Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, I wonder if my noble friend will give way. I want to intervene now because what I am going to say will help the shape of the debate. I realise that my noble friend and a number of noble and learned Lords may wish to contribute. I in no way want to cut short or pre-empt that debate, but I hope that my comments will establish the context for them to comment on what the Government intend to do.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, told us, we considered a similar amendment to this in Committee in July. I said that the Government were sympathetic to the concerns raised about the offence of scandalising the judiciary but we wished to consider the issue further and to consult others. In particular, before moving to reform or abolish this offence, we wished to consider whether such a step could result in a gap in the law or have an unwanted side-effect.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, told us, in this we had the benefit of the work of the Law Commission, which was and is currently reviewing the law on contempt of court. As the noble Lord said, it kindly brought forward the element of its review considering scandalising the court and published a paper for public consultation in August. The commission considered three options in its consultation paper—to retain, abolish or replace the offence—and it has concluded that the offence should be abolished without replacement. Its analysis was in-depth, examining the human rights aspects and considering the arguments for and against the various options.
The consultation closed in October, and the commission published a summary of responses last month and a summary of its conclusions yesterday. I was pleased to see that several noble Lords responded with their views, and that members of the judiciary and other legal professions were also well represented. Of 46 responses, some from organisations, 32 were in favour of abolition. The remainder expressed a variety of views, most favouring a replacement offence, but I note that only two favoured retaining the offence in England and Wales, at least for now.
We have also noted other views, such as those expressed by noble Lords in Committee, and have concluded that it is right that this offence should be abolished. We therefore support the amendment. However, we also noted the Law Commission’s observation in its paper that:
“It may be necessary to clarify that the abolition of this offence does not affect liability for behaviour in court or conduct that may prejudice or impede particular proceedings”.
We support that view that abuse of a judge in the face of the court, or behaviour that otherwise interferes with particular proceedings, should remain a contempt. The new clause includes a provision that will ensure such behaviour will remain subject to proceedings for contempt of court.
In contrast to the amendment we debated in Committee, which extended to Northern Ireland, this amendment applies to England and Wales only, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, explained. In July, I said that we would be consulting the devolved Administrations; noble Lords must remember the criminal law is a devolved matter in both Northern Ireland and Scotland. Scandalising the judiciary is also a common law offence in Northern Ireland. As I have said, we consulted with the Minister of Justice, David Ford, who has confirmed that he does not wish the Westminster Parliament to legislate on behalf of the Northern Ireland Assembly on this offence. Similarly, the Scottish Government have also confirmed that they do not wish us to legislate on their similar common law offence of murmuring judges. Given that this is a devolved matter in both jurisdictions and under the terms of the Sewel Convention, we wish to respect the wishes of the Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Assembly in this matter.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lester and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for bringing this matter before the House. The Government are happy to support this amendment, and through it the abolition in England and Wales of the offence of scandalising the judiciary. I hope that my intervention at the start of the debate does not prevent other noble Lords and noble and learned Lords from making observations on where we are and where we are going.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I echo the remarks made by the Minister and by other noble Lords. We are entirely supportive of the amendment, and glad that the Government have agreed to take matters forward in the way that the noble Lord indicated.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I will clarify a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The Justice Committee in Northern Ireland recently agreed to proceed with an amendment to its Criminal Justice Bill that would see this offence repealed. I am sure that the words uttered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, about his own experience will carry great weight. However, this is a devolved matter for Northern Ireland.
Lord Woolf
I also urge the Minister to do what has just been urged by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. It is the judge’s most important duty to ensure the fairness of the trial. However, the problem identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, is one that the judge simply cannot tackle himself. There needs to be hands-on assistance of the sort she indicates. Therefore, for the same reason, I ask the Minister to give careful consideration to this.
Lord McNally
My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has just told us, it is the duty of the courts to ensure that defendants receive a fair trial. It therefore may be necessary to make particular efforts in the case of defendants whose understanding is limited. To some extent it will fall to the defendant’s legal adviser, or to the judge, to help meet the needs of these vulnerable defendants. From time to time courts have asserted the right to grant such defendants the assistance of an intermediary.
Statutory provision has in fact already been made in Section 104 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 for certain vulnerable defendants to be eligible for assistance from an intermediary when giving evidence. A defendant would benefit from this provision where their ability to participate effectively in the proceedings as a witness is compromised by a significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning; or where they are suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983.
The Government made a decision to defer implementation of Section 104 until full consideration could be given to the practical arrangements and resource implications. Although there are no immediate plans to implement these provisions, we are continuing to monitor the situation and the resource implications of doing so. However, as I said earlier, judges have on occasion granted the use of an intermediary to assist vulnerable defendants to ensure a fair trial. In fact, guidance on the process for appointing intermediaries for defendants was issued nationally to all courts last year.
Furthermore, Part 3.30 of the Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction also provides guidance on a range of other types of support that a court may wish to offer, including that at the beginning of the proceedings the court should ensure that what is to take place has been explained to a vulnerable defendant in terms they can understand. Secondly, a trial should be conducted according to a timetable which takes full account of a vulnerable defendant’s ability to concentrate. Frequent and regular breaks will often be appropriate.
I have listened to what my noble friend said and to the interventions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I do not want to raise expectations as I am not sure whether I can get clearance to take this forward at Third Reading. However, I assure my noble friend that, as I have said, we are continuing to monitor the situation and are looking at the practical arrangements and resource implications of bringing in Section 104. I certainly agree to take this measure away. If I cannot bring it back at Third Reading, I will write to the noble and learned Lord, the noble Lord and my noble friend to explain why I cannot do so and what we are doing to keep this matter under review. I hope that, with those assurances, my noble friend will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
My Lords, I am heartily grateful to the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord who have supported what I had to say. That support, coming from two such distinguished sources, means a very great deal to me. I hope that the Government will also pay heed to it.
I heard what my noble friend the Minister said. It is moderately cold comfort. There is none the less the possibility of further recognition of what remains quite a major injustice that is built into our system. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally
“Self-defenceUse of force in self-defence at place of residence
(1) Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (use of reasonable force for purposes of self-defence etc) is amended as follows.
(2) Before subsection (6) (force not regarded as reasonable if it was disproportionate) insert—
“(5A) In a householder case, the degree of force used by D is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be if it was grossly disproportionate in those circumstances.”
(3) In subsection (6) at the beginning insert “In a case other than a householder case,”.
(4) After subsection (8) insert—
“(8A) For the purposes of this section “a householder case” is a case where—
(a) the defence concerned is the common law defence of self-defence,(b) the force concerned is force used by D while in or partly in a building, or part of a building, that is a dwelling or is forces accommodation (or is both),(c) D is not a trespasser at the time the force is used, and(d) at that time D believed V to be in, or entering, the building or part as a trespasser.(8B) Where—
(a) a part of a building is a dwelling where D dwells,(b) another part of the building is a place of work for D or another person who dwells in the first part, and(c) that other part is internally accessible from the first part,that other part, and any internal means of access between the two parts, are each treated for the purposes of subsection (8A) as a part of a building that is a dwelling.(8C) Where—
(a) a part of a building is forces accommodation that is living or sleeping accommodation for D,(b) another part of the building is a place of work for D or another person for whom the first part is living or sleeping accommodation, and(c) that other part is internally accessible from the first part,that other part, and any internal means of access between the two parts, are each treated for the purposes of subsection (8A) as a part of a building that is forces accommodation.(8D) Subsections (4) and (5) apply for the purposes of subsection (8A)(d) as they apply for the purposes of subsection (3).
(8E) The fact that a person derives title from a trespasser, or has the permission of a trespasser, does not prevent the person from being a trespasser for the purposes of subsection (8A).
(8F) In subsections (8A) to (8C)—
“building” includes a vehicle or vessel, and“forces accommodation” means service living accommodation for the purposes of Part 3 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 by virtue of section 96(1)(a) or (b) of that Act.”(5) In subsection (9) (section intended to be clarificatory) after “This section” insert “, except so far as making different provision for householder cases,”.
(6) An amendment made by this section does not apply in respect of force used before the amendment comes into force.”
Lord McNally
My Lords, I was going to say that these were technical amendments, but I am advised that they are not.
It would be terrifying to be confronted by a burglar in your own home. Mercifully, it does not occur very often, but when such a situation arises most people would say that the law should be on the side of the householder. After all, they are the ones who may have been woken up in the dead of night, made to fear for their safety or the safety of their loved ones and compelled to use force to protect themselves in traumatic circumstances. If householders end up being arrested, prosecuted or convicted after injuring a burglar, this can give rise to a public perception that the criminal justice system does not support the real victims in all of this. These amendments are designed to shift the balance of the law further in favour of householders to ensure that they are treated first and foremost as the victims of crime.
The current law, as clarified in Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, already says that people can protect themselves or others, prevent crime or protect property using force that was reasonable in the circumstances as they believed them to be. However, it also says that the use of force which was disproportionate in the circumstances will never be reasonable. This means that a householder who has acted honestly and instinctively to protect himself or his loved ones from an intruder could end up being prosecuted if his actions are deemed to have been disproportionate when viewed in the cold light of day. The Government feel strongly that householders, acting in extreme circumstances to protect themselves or others, cannot be expected to weigh up exactly how much force is necessary to repel an intruder. There may be a fine line between actions that are proportionate in the circumstances and those which might be regarded as disproportionate. The Government think householders should be given the benefit of any doubt and that Section 76 of the 2008 Act should be amended accordingly. As long as householders have done only what they believed was reasonable in the circumstances, it should not matter if those actions were disproportionate when viewed with the benefit of hindsight.
I am aware of criticisms that these changes will amount to a vigilantes’ charter; the Government do not accept that argument. All we are saying is that if householders act in fear for their safety or the safety of others and in the heat of the moment use force which is reasonable in the circumstances but seems disproportionate when viewed in the cold light of day, they should not be treated as criminals. Force which was completely over the top—grossly disproportionate, in other words— will still not be permitted.
This is not about saying that it is open season on any intruder. It is rather saying that the law will look benevolently upon any householder who, faced in his own home with the terror of someone he believes to be a trespasser, acts in a way that is reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be, even if the force used was disproportionate.
Noble Lords will note that the amendments are limited to householders defending themselves or others from intruders in their dwellings. The Government believe that attacks by intruders in the home cause the greatest public concern. Our home is our haven and refuge—a place where we have every right to feel safe. That is why the Government believe that householders deserve special protection. However, the provision also extends to shopkeepers who live and work in the same premises and Armed Forces personnel who may live and work in buildings such as barracks for a period of time.
We recognise that there are a range of other circumstances in which people might be required to use force—for example, to defend themselves from attack on the street, to intervene to stop crimes being committed or to protect their property. The new provision does not extend to those situations, but the current law on the use of reasonable force will continue to apply in those circumstances.
I recognise that some noble Lords might have a feeling of déjà vu as we debate these measures. We are returning to an area of the law that has been debated twice in recent years. While previous Bills clarified important aspects of the law on the use of force, the current proposals would make material changes to strengthen the rights of householders when defending themselves or others from intruders. Critics have said the changes are unnecessary because the current law provides adequate protection and householders who have defended themselves from burglars are hardly ever prosecuted. Clearly the Government take a very different view. Each case is different. Although the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute householders involved in recent cases, such as those in Leicestershire and Manchester, there might be occasions in the future where law-abiding householders benefit from these important provisions. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
No, I want to speak now if that is all right. Thank you. Burglary is a serious crime and a particularly distressing one. The forced invasion of one’s home adds a further dimension to the effect on its occupiers. I suspect several Members of the House will have shared my experience, at least in part. My home—which, incidentally, was built by the father of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, to whom I apologise for anticipating in this debate, for reasons that I shall give later—has been burgled and my office has also been burgled once. Fortunately, little damage was done; even more fortunately, no one was present at the time. Where the householder or other occupant is present, the impact of the crime transcends distress and, too often, becomes traumatic.
I say at once that we welcome the extension of the present law to non-residential premises, such as those of shopkeepers, to which the Minister has referred. However, in relation to domestic premises, while absolutely affirming the right of residents to defend themselves and their property, we have doubts about the Government’s proposals. The amendments have been spatchcocked into the Bill at virtually the last minute, almost, it would seem, as an initiation rite performed by the new Lord Chancellor. Unlike the proposals on community sentencing, we have not had the opportunity of a general debate under the recommittal procedure. I propose therefore to treat the debate on these amendments as, in effect, a Second Reading debate, which is why I sought to speak now rather than later.
Burglary is an offence against the person as well as against property, because a break-in destroys the victim’s peace of mind by violating the safe haven of their home. The householder is not in a position to exercise calm, cool judgment. The householder is entitled to use reasonable force to get rid of the burglar; and, in measuring whether the force is reasonable or not, you are not doing a paper exercise six months later:
“You have to put yourself in the position of the man or woman who has reacted to the presence of a burglar and has reacted with fury, with anxiety, with fear”.
These are not my words—although I concur with them—but the words of the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, commenting on the recent case of two men jailed after raiding a remote cottage, when they were blasted with a shotgun. What is significant is that his words reflect the present state of the law. Although the victims in that case were questioned by police, their Member of Parliament, Alan Duncan MP—not, I think, generally known as a bleeding-heart liberal—said:
“The police did a very good job and investigated as thoroughly as they had to when a firearm is involved”.
The first question is what the government proposal adds to the present state of the law, as enshrined by the Labour Government’s Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 and the present Government’s clarification, embodied in Section 148 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, passed only a few months ago. In my submission, it adds only confusion. It purports to allow the use of disproportionate force but not grossly disproportionate force. Can the Minister define, or even better exemplify, the difference between the two, especially bearing in mind the words of the Lord Chief Justice? What difference, if any, in his view would the amendment’s wording have had, for example, on the case of Tony Martin, who shot dead a burglar? What does the Minister make of the statement by Michael Wolkind QC, who represented Tony Martin? He said:
“The law already recognises that people react in a certain way in the heat of the moment”,
and argued that the law does not need changing.
The second element that the proposal might add to the Bill is, paradoxically and obviously unintentionally, a heightened risk to home owners. A study in Texas has demonstrated that the notorious “stand your ground” law, promoted by the US gun lobby and enacted in several US states, has led to more injuries and deaths being inflicted on householders and others by criminals, rather than fewer. Anyone who watched the recent TV programme on “stand your ground” would surely hesitate before opening the door to similar unintended consequences here, even allowing for the radically different gun culture that is such a blemish on American society.
There are other questions to be asked. Have the Government consulted the judiciary or the police on the proposed changes? If so, what responses have they received? If they have not consulted them, why not? Have they conducted an impact analysis? Your Lordships might think that a particularly fitting term in this instance for an assessment of the consequences of legislation. What is the evidence that the present state of the law, as defined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, is inadequate? The Minister has circulated what purports to be a fact sheet. Your Lordships might think that that document contains precious few facts and no evidence on which to base the Government’s proposals.
My right honourable friend Sadiq Khan sought information by means of Parliamentary Question on the number of home owners arrested or charged after defending their property against burglars since 1994. The answer was:
“The information on arrests is not collected centrally … It is not possible to match the arrests data to any subsequent outcomes”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/10/12; col. 641W.]
The Guardian recently reported, after a review by the CPS, that there were all of seven cases—I repeat, seven cases—between 1990 and 2005 in which a householder was prosecuted. In other words, there is simply no evidence to suggest that the problem the Government purport to be addressing is significant in terms of numbers, whereas it is clear that neither the police nor the courts are going to fall over themselves to prosecute householders who react in the way described by the Lord Chief Justice.
Is the Minister suggesting that where serious injury or death is inflicted on a burglar—or even someone such as the man featured in a recent BBC radio programme who was thought to be a burglar but was apparently just a confused man trying unsuccessfully to enter what he thought was his own home—the police should not investigate the situation in a proper manner, not least in the interests of those whom they interview? I wait to see not only what answers to these and other questions emerge from this debate but what transpires when this Bill goes to the House of Commons.
I have no doubt that the Lord Chancellor will seek to portray himself as the champion of the victims. It is a pretty hollow claim on the part of a Government who are both alienating and cutting the police force; undermining community policing; presiding over the reduction of community support officers, who provide invaluable back-up to front-line policing; and savagely slashing or altogether removing compensation for the victims of crime by their changes to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Those changes, I might add, were forced through the House of Commons by the process of mugging several Conservative members of the relevant committee, including John Redwood MP, a senior former Minister, and substituting placemen in the form of Parliamentary Private Secretaries—not much consideration for victims of crime in that context.
I repeat that we are at one with the intention to protect the householder and punish the burglar. We remain to be convinced that the Government’s proposals are sound in law and safe, from the perspective of the very people they are supposed to protect.
Lord Martin of Springburn
My Lords, I speak as a layman who has represented communities in which the whole family cannot go out for a night’s entertainment because someone has to stay in for fear of being burgled. Like many noble Lords, I know what it is like to be burgled. You feel terrible when your home has been broken into. What worries me about the provision in this amendment is that in some historical cases firearms have been used. If this amendment is passed, many people who do not want their house to be broken into again will take precautions. In the countryside, people have firearms certificates for vermin and for recreational shooting, and I know that there are some firearms certificates in the city I represented because I had to sign certificates to say that the holder was a good, decent person. With this amendment, some people will want the same protection as someone living in the countryside and will apply for a firearms certificate just in case. That is a worry. There is a big difference between someone living on a small farm having a firearm and someone living in a tenement where it is much more dangerous.
I know from my experience in another place that Ministers, some of them the holders of the highest offices in the land, indulge in sound bites. They say to the press, “People are entitled to protect their homes”. Of course they are entitled to protect their homes, but we cannot have a situation where we give a licence to someone who will decide that he is going to take a shot at a burglar and will say that it was proportionate or that he did not think about it at the time.
Part of this amendment relates to Armed Forces accommodation—barrack rooms. We are talking not about shotguns but about far more lethal firearms. A soldier could say, “I was defending myself, and that’s why I shot this intruder”. I speak as a layman. I have no experience of standing in a court and putting a case or of listening to a case, as some noble Lords have, but I think this amendment is bad news.
Lord McNally
My Lords, this has been a very thoughtful debate, and people of great experience have put their views forward. I shall try again to explain where the Lord Chancellor is coming from and to reassure noble Lords on some of the points that have been made.
In bringing forward this amendment, the Lord Chancellor wants to clarify the situation and reassure the general public. Although the last contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Martin, was not in support of my proposal, it made the point that we are trying to deal with ordinary people dealing with situations in their lives. I understand lawyers making their points, but it is important that we see this from the public’s point of view. Although some recent cases have not led to prosecution and conviction, as I said, there may be cases in future which will benefit from the additional protection and clarification we are providing. Let me be very clear again, following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Martin, said, that this is not a vigilantes’ charter. In this country, there are still extremely strict rules about the possession and storage of guns which would still apply.
This is an attempt to recognise that people confronted by burglars, and acting in fear for their safety in the heat of the moment, cannot be expected to weigh up exactly how much force might be required. In these extreme circumstances, we think they should have greater legal protection. It is certainly not a licence to kill, whatever the circumstances. People will still be prosecuted if the use of force was unreasonable in the circumstances. The use of grossly disproportionate force will never be reasonable.
It will be for the courts to determine in each case what is disproportionate or grossly disproportionate. We want to make clear though that householders, who cannot always be expected to be thinking clearly if they are confronted by an intruder, will not be treated as criminals if they use a level of force which in the circumstances as they believed them to be is reasonable but turns out to have been disproportionate. We are clear that it is not open season for vicious attacks on anyone, even an intruder.
Let us also be clear, if somebody has been killed or seriously injured, an arrest may be necessary for the police to investigate thoroughly. A revised code of arrest for the police—PACE Code G—came into force on 12 November 2012 with new guidance on the circumstances in which an arrest may be necessary. The guidance also encourages the police to consider whether voluntary attendance at an interview might be a practicable alternative to a formal arrest. The changes we are making to the law will complement the improvements made to PACE Code G.
We are not changing the fundamental premise that a person can only use force that was reasonable in the circumstances as they believed them to be. The law on the use of force in other circumstances, for example, to defend oneself on the street, to prevent crime or to protect property will remain unchanged. We are trying to rebalance the law so that householders will not be thought of as criminals but, as I said at the beginning, quite properly as victims.
I am assured that we believe that the amendment is compatible with the ECHR and that we have recently published a memorandum in support of that view which I will put in the Library of the House.
Listening very carefully, I again pray in aid although I am not saying he is in support of this particular amendment, the Lord Chief Justice, who caught the mood behind the amendment at his press conference in September. He was reported as saying that,
“I am not talking about individual cases, but I know of cases, and I do read the newspapers occasionally”,
where,
“it looks as though the householder is the criminal”.
He then pointed out the circumstance of a householder facing a burglar.
“You are probably very cross and you are probably very frightened—a mixture of both—and your judgment of precisely what you should or should not do in the circumstances cannot, as another predecessor of mine (Lord Lane) said, you cannot measure it in a jeweller’s scale”.
The realisation that in such terrifying circumstances you cannot measure it in a jeweller’s scale led the Lord Chancellor to conclude that it would be better to clarify the law in a way which he believes will be more reassuring to the householder and give better guidance to the court.
Lord Pannick
Before the Minister sits down, have the Government consulted the Lord Chief Justice and the judiciary on this matter and, if so, what has been their response to the amendment?
Lord McNally
The amendment is a government amendment, and the Government stand by the amendment.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
My Lords, I add my voice in agreement with much of what has already been said. What my noble friend Lady Hamwee did in drawing our minds back to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in particular was very helpful for the purposes of sentencing. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, speaks words of wisdom and we should pay serious heed to him. He pointed out that the overarching requirement of a sentence should be decided by the judge on what is appropriate. Ultimately, I suppose that it follows that it should prevent reoffending and if the punitive element fails to meet that test it is worthless. As was made clear when we debated this in Committee, every community order is a form of punishment so the punitive element that the Government seek is de facto present. Anything additional intended to be somehow more punitive for its own sake is unnecessary, except possibly as a political gesture, and it will fail the test of reducing reoffending anyway. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said in Committee, it is also “profoundly unattractive” as an idea. I liked that term very much.
The Minister has got it wrong if he believes that this is what the British public want to see happen. Indeed, there is ample evidence to show from polling that what the British public want from sentences, particularly expressed by those who have been victims of crime, is that it does not happen again. Retribution or vengeance is not sought. The Government maintain that the caveat of “exceptional circumstances”, when a specifically punitive order can be dispensed with, is tightly defined. Yet we have just spent the last 20 minutes realising that nobody can define what it is sought—the definition cannot be pinned down. This was emphasised by the noble and learned Lord who found in the past that use of “exceptional” caused nothing but confusion—he said so eloquently. For the large number of offenders for whom there is an additional punitive requirement, this may be inappropriate and even increase the likelihood of breach and so on.
The reality of a purely punitive requirement on its own principally represents the Government’s gesture of what Chris Grayling said was putting punishment back into sentencing. That is what it comes down to. It interferes with the freedom of sentencers to set an appropriate sentence based on the facts. That is a serious deficiency. We undermine judicial discretion at our peril. It also fails to safeguard those defendants with particular support needs, whether those are mental health, health needs, learning difficulties, drug addiction et cetera, to name but a few. Of course, the fact is that it is precisely this range of such support needs that represents the norm in the prison population. They are not exceptional at all—exactly what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, just said.
To impose a punitive requirement when the offender has these difficulties without also addressing the problems constructively would clearly be unjust. I could go on further but I will finish by saying that there was very important and interesting work done for the Government by Helen Bewley. She concluded that in fact punishment probably means a curfew, a fine or unpaid work. Her work demonstrates that punitive requirements on their own have no impact at all on the likelihood of reoffending but simply reduce the number of reoffences committed. The most effective outcome was from a combination of supervision with another requirement, with a punitive element added on. If the Government themselves acknowledge the risk that undermines the very rationale for such punitive orders, particularly if used on their own, how on earth can their use in every community order possibly be justified? Indeed, the likelihood instead is more offending, breaches and a generally less safe society—the very antithesis of what is intended.
Lord McNally
My Lords, sometimes I think that debates in this House are like two flotillas of ships passing in fog and not noticing each other. Most of the debate we have heard tonight we heard at Second Reading and in Committee. I can only again express my surprise at noble Lords who I know are deeply committed to this area of the criminal justice system. We have a situation where a Conservative Prime Minister expresses his complete commitment to the concept of community sentencing and a Conservative Lord Chancellor commits himself entirely to the concept of rehabilitation and bringing those ideas into legislation. We have now had three long debates on these issues; I will again try to explain where the Government are coming from but, in the terms that noble Lords have put it, I fear I will fail to convince them again.
The concept of punishment is part of—not separate or left on its own from—what I believe is a very worthwhile package put forward in a flexible way that fully respects the independence and judgment of the court. We keep to the word “exceptional” because without it there would be the opportunity to ride a coach and horses through what we are trying to do, which is to create a tougher system of community sentences that will produce greater public confidence. Let me put that in context: in March, when these proposals were first announced and the Prime Minister announced his support for the concept, Mr Sadiq Kahn, Labour’s Shadow Justice Secretary, said,
“Cameron cannot claim these measures as his own. We support community sentences that effectively punish and reform appropriate offenders because we were legislating on tougher community sentencing long before David Cameron”.
It really is not fair to start trying to split the points that have been made about judicial discretion, which is there, nor are these free-standing punishments. It has been suggested that Part 1 of Schedule 16 is totally unnecessary and counterproductive to achieving the rehabilitation revolution. It has been suggested that there is no evidence to support requiring courts to impose punishment on offenders as part of community sentences. It is on the basis of such arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is again proposing that we do away with Part 1 of Schedule 16 entirely.
We are also considering Amendment 113GA. This would specify a list of requirements that courts might include in a community order as the punitive element. I am tempted to remind the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that, as I have said before, the Labour Party has claimed to have punishment in community orders as part of its programme long before David Cameron became a convert.
The evidence that underpins the provision comes from victims and members of the public. Time and again, surveys have found that victims and the public see punishment as a critical purpose for community orders to deliver. I will quote only two of many. An ICM survey of victims of non-violent crime, carried out for the Ministry of Justice in 2007, found that punishment is seen as the most important part of a sentence, followed by payback to the community and then rehabilitation. More recently, research on community orders carried out this year by Victim Support and Make Justice Work found that victims,
“believe strongly in punishment and public protection”,
as the purpose of sentencing.
However, the evidence shows that the public are not confident that community orders are effective at delivering that punishment. For example, a survey carried out by Policy Exchange in 2010 found that 38% of the public perceive community orders to be soft, and a further 22% believe they are “weak and undemanding”. Similarly, the Opposition’s 2008 review of crime and justice found that the public saw community orders as a soft option, and that 90% of the public agreed that community orders should involve paying back to the community.
I remind noble Lords, as I did when the House last considered these provisions, that many of those given community orders have not committed minor offences. Some will have narrowly avoided custody. Some will have caused significant physical or mental trauma to victims through assaults. Others will have caused financial or emotional damage through theft, burglary or fraud. As a matter of principle, this Government believe that offences serious enough to cross the community order threshold should result in punishment. That is a principle with which I believe victims and the public would entirely agree. However, I do not believe that the existing community order framework gives victims and the public confidence that community orders effectively punish offenders. That is the reason we are introducing this provision.
I turn to the second concern that noble Lords have raised, which is that the provision will put the rehabilitation of offenders at risk. This will allow me to respond to the Amendment 113GB, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, which would disapply the imposition of a punitive element if the court believed that this would reduce the likelihood of preventing reoffending. Again, I will start from what victims and the public say. Of course the public do not want community orders to focus solely on punishment. The research by Victim Support and Make Justice Work, for example, found that neither victims nor the public wanted punishment to exclude efforts to rehabilitate and reform offenders. There are two important points I want to make here. One is about the public legitimacy of community orders. If the public are not confident that community orders are effective at punishing offenders, we cannot expect them to support our efforts to make them more effective at rehabilitating offenders. The second is that the public clearly recognise that this is not an either/or question. Community orders need to tackle the causes of reoffending but they also need to provide punishment. It is entirely possible for them to do both. For that reason I would argue strongly against the suggestion that a focus on punishment will prevent us from delivering improvements in reoffending rates.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Lord McNally Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
My Lords, in her report a few years ago my noble friend Lady Corston drew attention to the reality that existing provisions, both in prison and in the community, are largely geared to male offenders and the needs of male offenders. The Corston report called for separate services, locally available, geared to the needs of women offenders in order to reduce as far as possible the disruption to family life and the impact on children The needs of their children and families have a considerable bearing on the ability of women offenders to attend programmes and avoid breaches of the order, and on the effectiveness of those programmes in having a positive impact on reducing reoffending. My noble friend’s report also drew attention to the number of female offenders in prison who had been, or were, the victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse, which are not normally issues that have to be taken into account by providers of services, or addressed by the skills they have to provide for male offenders.
A recent joint inspection report on alternatives to custody for women offenders highlighted the lack of women-specific provision for unpaid work and offending behaviour programmes, though it also said that women-only provision where available was often very successful. Investment in credible and appropriate alternatives to custody for women is essential. Programmes should be specifically designed for female offenders and address their needs. As well as reducing reoffending, community sentences designed specifically for women should help reduce the rate of breach as they should be capable of better fitting with women’s needs and responsibilities.
Schedule 16, dealing non-custodially with offenders, actually makes no specific provision or reference to women. The amendments seek to address these concerns by ensuring that probation trusts are required to make appropriate provision for the delivery of services to female offenders that will include provision for women to carry out unpaid work and participate in programmes designed to change offending behaviour with the particular needs of women in mind. I hope the Minister will accept this group of amendments and recognise the significant gap created by the absence of specially tailored arrangements for dealing with women offenders, most of whom, as has already been said, have committed non-violent offences, and whose sentences if they end up in prison can lead to the break-up of families, with potentially disastrous consequences for all concerned, not least the children who can end up having to go into care.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, we are fully aware of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made in closing. One of the special factors about women in the criminal justice system and in prison is that the impact of their incarceration is an impact not only on themselves but also on their children and their families. For that reason, the Government have taken the Corston report of 2007 very much as the template of their approach to women. I have benefited from having a number of conversations with the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, over the past couple of years about the implementation and carrying forward of the report. I know that my colleague Helen Grant has also met the noble Baroness to discuss these issues.
It is interesting to note that the Government accepted 40 out of the 43 recommendations in the Corston report and made a range of commitments across government departments to take them forward. There have been real improvements in the past five years under successive Governments, including significant investment in women’s community centres to address holistically the underlying causes of women’s offending such as drug and alcohol addiction, mental health issues and histories of abuse.
The female prison estate was reduced by 400 places with the closure last year of HM Prison Morton Hall. We have about 4,000 women still in prison. However, the cross-government strategy includes: piloting and, subject to business case approval, rolling out liaison and diversion services in police custody and the courts by 2014; the piloting of drug recovery wings for drug and alcohol-misusing prisoners at three women’s prisons—New Hall, Askham Grange and Styal—and the development of intensive treatment-based alternatives to custody for offenders with drug or mental health problems, including four women-only services at Wirral, Bristol, Birmingham and Tyneside. In addition, there is the implementation of particular provisions in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 with regard to remand and breach, which are expected to reduce the number of women in custody, and the delivery of the Home Office-led Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls, which will address the high levels of abuse experienced by female offenders. The commissioning of women’s services, including women’s community services, has been devolved to local probation trusts to ensure that provision is integrated into local services. This year’s £3.78 million of funding is now embedded in NOMS’ community budget baselines to allow for continued support of provision for women.
As I indicated in Committee when we last considered the issue, I fully agree with noble Lords that it is important that the criminal justice system is properly responsive to the needs of female offenders. I share the view that it is also essential that we take account of women’s experiences and needs. That is why I am pleased that the National Offender Management Service is still rolling out the Women Awareness Staff Programme, currently with a focus on training the trainers, so that they can provide support to staff and voluntary and community sector partners working with female offenders. This covers issues such as self-harm, relationships and abuse, and is complementary to the Women’s Aid best practice framework, Supporting Women Offenders Who Have Experienced Domestic and Sexual Violence.
I am also pleased to confirm that the National Offender Management Service has been working to develop the evidence base around what works with female offenders. Over the coming year, this work will support the strategic approach to female offenders as set out in the National Offender Management Service’s Commissioning Intentions discussion document, published in October of this year. All probation trusts are required by the National Offender Management Service’s Commissioning Intentions document to make appropriate provision for women in the community to address factors associated with their reoffending, using third sector and private sector services, where appropriate.
The National Offender Management Service has also published information on the specific needs of women to support the commissioning of relevant offender services for this group as part of the commissioning round for 2012-13. Already probation trusts across the country are coming up with innovative, new approaches to working with women that reflect the local situation. There are many good examples of women-only provision in the community. For example, Nelson Probation Office in Lancashire has a women-only reporting day. In Durham in the Tees Valley, the trust provides women-only reporting centres in each of the six local delivery units, with community based support and childcare provision located at these points. In Derby, there is a women-specific programme addressing violent behaviour.
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
My Lords, this group consists of three government amendments that, if not technical amendments, are certainly not controversial. Amendment 114 is intended to remove uncommenced elements of Section 67 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and make a minor consequential amendment to the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
I know that it might seem odd for this House to be considering again a provision that was debated so recently both here and in the other place, but it is right for us to do so. This amendment repeals provisions in the LASPO Act that, if brought into force, would mean that the courts could consider a case where an offender has breached a community order without reasonable excuse and allow the order to continue unchanged.
Having reconsidered their position, the Government do not think that it is appropriate for offenders to breach their community order and not face any sanction at all. We must ensure that both offenders and the public have confidence in community orders and take them seriously. Offenders will not take their order seriously if breaching does not have consequences. If an offender breaches a community order, we believe that a court should be able to take one of the three following actions: make the order more onerous; revoke the order and resentence for the original offence; or impose a fine. The last option allows the order to remain unchanged, while at the same time imposing a penalty for the breach. The courts did not have this power until it was included in the LASPO Act 2012. I am sure noble Lords will be pleased to know that it was brought into force on 3 December.
The Government believe that this revised framework provides the courts with the right options for dealing with failures to comply with community orders. It will still give the courts different options to tailor responses to breaches to individual offenders. However, it will also ensure there is a sanction of some sort for any offender who is found to have breached. Accordingly, on further consideration, we now believe that there is no good case for allowing offenders who fail to comply with court orders without a reasonable excuse to receive no penalty.
Amendment 114 also corrects a technical error in Section 150 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This section was amended by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, which prevents a court from making a community sentence where a mandatory minimum sentence for the new aggravated knife possession offences in the LASPO Act apply. The LASPO change inadvertently prevents the court from giving a 16 or 17 year-old a youth rehabilitation order, which is the youth equivalent of the adult community order for these offences. Amendment 114 corrects this technical error so that the new provisions work as they were originally intended to. Without this amendment, were the court to decide to set aside the mandatory minimum, it would not be able to give a youth rehabilitation order and would therefore have no option but to give a lesser penalty such as a referral order or a fine.
Amendments 113H and 113J are of a technical nature. The intention is to allow for the transfer of community orders and suspended sentences to Northern Ireland, where an order containing location monitoring under the new electronic monitoring requirement is made in England or Wales but the offender lives in, or is planning to move to, Northern Ireland. It is already possible to transfer existing orders to Northern Ireland, so this provision merely extends that capability to the new location monitoring provision that we are introducing in the Bill. Although location monitoring is not currently available in Northern Ireland under existing contractual arrangements, this will be addressed in the retendering of the contract in 2013. This provision will therefore enable appropriate cases to be transferred when the operational arrangements are in place in Northern Ireland. The transfer will be possible only where the court is satisfied that the appropriate arrangements are in place. This means that the tag will be capable of being fitted and the offender’s location will then be able to be monitored. If the court is not satisfied that the necessary tracking technology is available, the court in England and Wales will not be able to transfer the order.
Noble Lords will have noticed that the provision covers Northern Ireland but not Scotland. This is because at the moment there is no statutory provision for the imposition of tracking as a requirement in Scotland. If and when the time comes that Scottish courts can impose location monitoring as a requirement, we will bring forward legislation enabling the transfer of orders, including such requirements, from England and Wales to the Scottish jurisdiction. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I rise slightly diffidently to ask a question about Amendment 114. I am not sure that I fully understood what the Minister said, though I am sure it is my fault. At one point I thought he was saying that the effect of Amendment 114 was to take out from LASPO an obligation to deal with breaches and insert instead a power to deal with breaches and give the court the opportunity to make its own mind up, but then I thought I understood him to be saying the opposite, that the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that where there is a breach of a community order the court is obliged to impose some penalty. I would be grateful if he would clarify that.
Perhaps the Minister could also clarify how it comes about that we are asked to amend LASPO quite so quickly and whether or not the passages that would be amended—indeed, removed—by this amendment were debated. I have no recollection as to whether or not they were, but it would be good to know if something that was debated, for example, in this House is now being removed in this way at 9.45 pm on the penultimate day of Report.
Lord McNally
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is long enough in the tooth to remember other times when Governments have taken a second look at relatively recent legislation.
To clarify, Amendment 114 will remove uncommenced elements of Section 67 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The provision being removed would have empowered courts dealing with a breach of a community order to allow the order to continue unchanged. Not commencing the provision means that the court must make the order more onerous, resentence for the original offence or fine the offender for breach. In lay man’s language—which is the only language I can use, because I am a lay man in this—in the Government’s opinion, the LASPO Act left an option that they now wish to change, which is that breaches of the order could have gone unpunished. We do not think that that is a sensible way of getting people to take the orders seriously and therefore this amendment empowers the courts to make the order more onerous, resentence for the original offence or fine the offender for breach.
Lord McNally
“(4) pIn paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 9 and paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 13 (pre-conditions for imposing requirements where offender will be living in Northern Ireland) before the “and” at the end of paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) in the case of an order imposing an electronic monitoring requirement within section 215(1)(b)—(i) that any necessary provision can be made in the offender’s case under arrangements that exist for persons resident in that locality, and(ii) that arrangements are generally operational throughout Northern Ireland (even if not always operational everywhere there) under which the offender’s whereabouts can be electronically monitored,”.(5) In paragraphs 3(3)(b) and (4) and 13(b) of Schedule 9 and paragraph 6(3)(b) and (4) of Schedule 13 (references to the pre-conditions) for “and (b)” substitute “to (b)”.
(6) In paragraph 4(3)(d) of Schedule 9 and paragraph 9(3)(d) of Schedule 13 (disapplication of section 218(4)) for “subsection (4)” substitute “subsections (4) and (9)”.
(7) In paragraph 17 of Schedule 13 (reference to the pre-conditions) for “and (b)”, in the second place, substitute “to (b)”.”
Lord McNally
My Lords, I am not sure I shall be able to help the noble Lord, Lord Rosser; he asks lots of questions, most of which do not have a great deal to do with the Bill but have a lot to do with the Government’s declared intention to reform the probation service. We have certainly made no secret of that; indeed, he will be familiar with our consultation paper, Punishment and Reform: Effective Probation Services. He will be aware that this was the first step in determining our approach to how reform is delivered. Further consideration is under way to determine how best to meet the requirements of a probation service that delivers rehabilitation outcomes. We are in the process of carefully considering the way forward and will announce further details of our plans shortly. As I indicated previously, we will be keen to engage with probation staff, representative groups and all those who can make a contribution to the success of this important area of work.
It is interesting—I think I have explained this before to the noble Lord—that the reason why the powers to do all this are not in this or any future Bill is because they are within the powers of the Offender Management Act 2007. During the passage of that Act, there was a debate on the merits of parliamentary scrutiny when establishing, amending and dissolving probation trusts. In the Bill as originally published, no parliamentary procedure applied to the power in Clause 5(1) to establish, alter the name or purpose of, or dissolve a probation trust. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee noted that precedents existed for that, but felt that it lacked sufficient information about how trusts were to be established to make a recommendation about its appropriateness in this context. The committee therefore drew the matter to the attention of the House. In light of the debates on this subject, the previous Administration accepted on the floor of the House that this important power should be subject to parliamentary procedure. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, asserted that the affirmative procedure would be excessive but tabled a government amendment introducing a negative procedure, which was accepted by this House. On that basis, the Government believe that the parliamentary scrutiny set out in the Offender Management Act 2007 is adequate and we share the view taken by the previous Administration that the affirmative procedure would be excessive. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for that reply. He started off seeking to suggest that the issue raised in the amendment is not really relevant to this Bill, but it certainly is. The Bill seeks to make significant changes to community sentencing and the delivery of those services will be dependent on an effective and properly resourced probation service. It will not be particularly easy to deliver those changes in relation to community sentencing—of course the changes also cover restorative justice and the role of rehabilitation in reducing reoffending—if at the same time it is the Government’s intention to, metaphorically speaking, turn the probation service upside down. That must clearly be a relevant issue in the Bill. Is the probation service geared, both at the present time and in future, to delivering the objectives and changes that the Government wish to make in community sentencing?
The Minister made reference to the 2007 Act. I appreciate that it is his prerogative if he wishes to express an alternative view, but I do not think that the kind of transfer or apparent transfer of responsibilities away from the probation service that seems to be envisaged at the moment was envisaged at the time of the 2007 Act. Obviously, it is the potential implications of what the Government may be putting forward that have led to this amendment calling for the affirmative procedure to be used. I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to give any assurances at all about the extent to which the existing probation service will continue in being. He has not been able to give any assurances about what responsibilities may or will not be transferred away from the existing probation service. Indeed, put bluntly, he has not really been prepared to say anything at all, which will certainly do nothing to damp down some of the concerns over what the Government’s real intentions are. I appreciate that the Minister is not going to say any more so I have little alternative but to leave it at that. I beg leave to withdraw.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Lord McNally Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, this amendment raises the issue of charging orders. Noble Lords will be aware from the debate in Committee that the power to prescribe the minimum amount above which a charging order may be made already exists in Section 94 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. It makes provision for the Lord Chancellor to make regulations that a charging order may not be made to secure a sum of money below a certain amount. It remains the Government’s intention not to exercise this power. There are several reasons for that.
The Government are committed to providing the right level of protection to genuinely vulnerable debtors. However, we must not do that at the expense of the effectiveness of the civil justice system. We have a duty to ensure that creditors have reliable methods available to them to enforce their debts and charging orders are a legitimate and proportionate option for them to pursue. It is essential to remember that a charging order does not compel a debtor to sell their property. That can be achieved only through an order for sale. Most creditors never apply for orders for sale; only 0.5% of the creditors who have applied for a charging order go on to place an application for an order for sale. Nevertheless, the Government have ensured that there are effective safeguards in place for debtors who are subject to such an order.
In November this year, following a public consultation on this subject, we laid before Parliament draft regulations which set a £1,000 financial threshold for orders for sale relating to Consumer Credit Act cases. These regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure so there will be a separate opportunity for your Lordships’ House to consider those. Responses to the Ministry of Justice consultation on solving disputes in the county court in 2010 indicated that £1,000 was the most appropriate threshold. Respondents to the consultation felt that a higher threshold would risk pushing creditors to seek more draconian methods of recovering their money, such as bankruptcy proceedings, which would expose debtors to a significantly increased likelihood of losing their homes, an outcome that none of us would wish to see.
We must also remember that orders for sale are subject to judicial discretion. The court must take into account all the circumstances of the case before deciding whether to make an order. That provides essential protection against disproportionate action. The consultation showed that a high financial threshold for the making of an order for sale would restrict judges’ discretion in individual cases—for example where a debtor has all their assets tied up in property including investment properties or stocks and yet owes a number of small debts to multiple creditors. It may be equitable to grant an order for sale to release some of that capital.
With the new order for sale regulations in place, creditors have the assurance that they can recover what is owed to them while debtors are not in danger of disproportionate enforcement action. The Government believe that these regulations are proportionate and an effective approach to achieving the necessary delicate balance between creditors and debtors. They therefore do not plan to introduce a financial limit on charging orders. In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, that is a very disappointing response, which echoes the response given by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, in Committee in July. Neither she nor the noble Lord have explained why the coalition agreement, which is very explicit in terms of laying down a £25,000 threshold for an order for sale, which of course follows on from a charging order, has been abandoned. The noble Baroness said:
“In terms of the coalition's commitment to a threshold for orders for sale at £25,000, evidence in the consultation did not support a £25,000 limit”.—[Official Report, 2/7/12; col. 542.]
But we do not know—at least I do not know—what that evidence was and from where it was derived. It was presumably from the creditors. I cannot imagine that there would be significant evidence from those who owed money or those who advise those who entered into consumer credit arrangements who were in difficulties suggesting that £25,000 was too high a limit.
Furthermore, at the last count, the Government were at least contemplating a £1,000 limit. That is much too low in my submission but even that has been abandoned without any explanation. The Government are falling over backwards to help creditors in this position—many of them are not the most desirable organisations operating in the financial services world—at the expense of the worry and disturbance that can be caused to borrowers and their families and ultimately to the taxpayer, because in so far as these orders are enforced, homelessness and all the other social consequences will follow which will be a burden for the taxpayer.
It is extremely disappointing that the Government have caved in to pressure from the industry at the expense, I repeat, of very vulnerable people and the taxpayer at large. But as it is clear that the Government are not disposed to make any move consistent with their original policy, I feel obliged to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally
“Disclosure of information to facilitate collection of fines and other sums
(1) Schedule 5 to the Courts Act 2003 (collection of fines and other sums) is amended as follows.
(2) Paragraphs 9A to 10 (disclosure of information by Secretary of State to court officer to help court decide whether to apply for benefit deductions etc) become Part 3A of the Schedule.
(3) Accordingly, after paragraph 9 insert—
“Part 3ADisclosure of information, and meaning of “relevant benefit” etc”.(4) In the heading before paragraph 9A, after “Disclosure of information in connection with”, insert “making of attachment of earnings order or”.
(5) For paragraph 9A (power of Secretary of State to disclose information to help court decide whether to apply for benefit deductions) substitute—
“9A (1) The Secretary of State or a Northern Ireland department, or a person providing services to the Secretary of State or a Northern Ireland department, may disclose social security information to a relevant person.
(1A) Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, or a person providing services to the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, may disclose finances information to a relevant person.
(1B) The disclosure authorised by sub-paragraph (1) or (1A) is disclosure of the information concerned for the purpose of facilitating the making, by the relevant court or a fines officer, of any of the following—
(a) a decision as to whether to make an attachment of earnings order in respect of P,(b) a decision as to whether to make an application for benefit deductions in respect of P, and(c) such an order or application.(2) In this paragraph—
“finances information” means information which—(a) is about a person’s income, gains or capital, and(b) is held—(i) by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, or(ii) by a person providing services to the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in connection with the provision of those services,or information which is held with information so held;“social security information” means information which is held for the purposes of functions relating to social security—(a) by the Secretary of State or a Northern Ireland Department, or(b) by a person providing services to the Secretary of State, or a Northern Ireland Department, in connection with the provision of those services,or information which is held with information so held.(2A) The reference in sub-paragraph (2) to functions relating to social security includes a reference to functions relating to any of the matters listed in section 127(8) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (statutory payments and maternity allowances).
(3) In this paragraph “relevant person” means a person who is appointed by the Lord Chancellor under section 2(1) or provided under a contract made by virtue of section 2(4).”
(6) In paragraph 9B(1) (limits on onward disclosure)—
(a) for “9A(3)” substitute “9A”, and(b) for the words after “making” substitute “, by the relevant court or a fines officer, of such a decision, order or application as is mentioned in paragraph 9A(1B).”(7) In paragraph 9B(2)(b) (use of information otherwise than in connection with decision mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)) for “as is mentioned in that sub-paragraph” substitute “, order or application as is mentioned in paragraph 9A(1B)”.
(8) In paragraph 9B(3) (disclosures that are not unlawful)—
(a) in paragraph (a) (disclosure in accordance with order of a court etc) after “order of a court” insert “or of a tribunal established by or under an Act”, and(b) in paragraph (b) (disclosure of information previously lawfully disclosed) after “disclose” insert “or use—(i) any information which is in the form of a summary or collection of information so framed as not to enable information relating to any particular person to be ascertained from it, or(ii) ”.(9) In paragraph 9B(5) (offence of wrongful use or disclosure of disclosed information punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding level 4) for the words from “liable” to the end substitute “liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment—(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or(ii) to a fine, or(iii) to both;(b) on summary conviction—(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or(ii) to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or(iii) to both.”(10) In paragraph 9B after sub-paragraph (5) insert—
“(6) Sub-paragraph (5)(b) applies in relation to offences committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (general limit on power of magistrates’ courts to impose imprisonment) as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.
(7) A prosecution for an offence under sub-paragraph (2) may be instituted only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”
(11) Omit paragraph 9C(2) and (4) (meaning of “benefit status” and “prescribed”).
(12) In paragraph 9C (interpretation etc of paragraphs 9A and 9B)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1) for “This paragraph applies” substitute “Sub-paragraphs (3) and (3A) apply”, and(b) after sub-paragraph (3) insert—“(3A) “Relevant court” has the same meaning as in Part 3 of this Schedule.
(3B) In paragraphs 9A and 10 (as in the provisions of this Schedule which extend to England and Wales only)—
“fines officer” has the meaning given by section 36;“P” has the meaning given by paragraph 1.”(13) Paragraphs 9A, 9C and 10, as amended by the preceding provisions of this section, extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland (as well as to England and Wales).
(14) Accordingly, in section 111(1) of the Courts Act 2003 (subject to subsections (2) and (3), Act extends to England and Wales only) after “(3)” insert “and to section (Disclosure of information to facilitate collection of fines and other sums)(13) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (extent of paragraphs 9A, 9C and 10 of Schedule 5)”.”
Lord McNally
My Lords, I think that we all agree that the kind of issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, are of concern. The problem hitherto has been insufficient unanimity as to what should be done about bailiffs. It is vital that our proposals strike the right balance between providing effective enforcement and protection for the vulnerable in society, while not imposing unnecessary burdens on business. However, the Government have brought forward a significant programme of reform, focusing on addressing the power of bailiffs, the fees they charge, and better regulation.
I share noble Lords’ concerns about the inappropriate behaviour of some bailiffs and the unnecessary distress that this can cause to those who already find themselves in an often difficult and distressing situation. I assure the House that the Government remain committed to bringing forward effective proposals that protect the public by ensuring that bailiff action is proportionate. However, the need to protect debtors from the aggressive pursuit of their debt must be balanced against the need for effective enforcement. A workable means to enforce the payment of debts and fines is essential to both the economy and the justice system. Without assurance that it is possible, with due process, to recoup money from debtors unwilling to pay, it would be too risky for creditors to lend, and the effectiveness of the courts would diminish.
As the noble Baroness is aware, the Government launched a public consultation on bailiff reform in February this year, which set out proposals aimed at improving clarity so that both debtors and creditors know where they stand, strengthening protections for the vulnerable and ensuring that individuals can collect the money owed to them. Any regulation of bailiffs must comply with the general principles of regulation: it must be proportionate, accountable, consistent, transparent and targeted. While at its heart it must provide protection for consumers, it cannot do this by placing an undue burden on business. If we do not find this balance, we risk replacing one set of concerns with another.
As we indicated in the consultation paper, the Government’s preferred option is not to introduce an independent regulator. The Government’s response will address this in more detail, but we have received no new evidence to suggest that the creation of an independent regulator would be a proportionate response to the concerns that have been raised about the practice of some bailiffs. In addition, regulation costs money. Regulation would necessarily impose a cost on the enforcement sector and, as a result, the industry would recoup the cost through fees, with the risk of the cost being passed on to debtors.
The proposals set out in the consultation paper are intended to work as a package. Reforming the fee structure, addressing the powers of enforcement agents, tightening certification and introducing competence criteria and specific training will tackle the majority of abuses by rogue bailiffs. We need to make sure that the profession attracts the right people and that they can demonstrate they are fit to do the work, which will include providing a satisfactory CRB check and undertaking the necessary training. Bailiff standards must improve.
Since a bailiff on the doorstep may be the first time a person has had to face their financial situation, any training needs to cover not only what they can and cannot do but how to handle what could be very vulnerable people. It is important that they know how to assess the situation and decide which cases should be referred back to the creditor for their specific instructions on how the matter should proceed. That is the answer that the noble Baroness asked me to put on the record: where the bailiff faces a situation where they believe that they are dealing with a vulnerable person, they should refer back to reassess how matters should proceed. The consultation paper covered the issue of vulnerability and training, and I am working with Helen Grant MP, who has responsibility for these reforms, to ensure that full consideration is given to the level of CRB check, and the content, level and length of training a bailiff will need to undertake.
We are aware that reform in this area has been long and widely awaited. This subject attracts a great deal of interest and very diverse views. We have a responsibility to ensure that we have fully evaluated these views and taken them into account in our response. Many of the issues that have been raised today were either explored in the consultation or provided in a response. As I have explained, it is essential that our reforms maintain the value of enforcement while protecting those who find themselves in debt. This is a delicate balance and we need to make sure that we get it right.
The consultation response is being finalised and will be published in due course; I am afraid that that is as good as I can do on that. All that I can say in defence is that tomorrow we are having the Autumn Statement. I understand the impatience, which I share, and we will push ahead. In the mean time officials are working with all stakeholders to ensure improvements continue to be made in this area. Once the response has been published, we will work closely with stakeholders to deliver its recommendations. I hope that, having had the opportunity to raise the issue, the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw her amendment and await the Government’s proposals.
The Earl of Listowel
Before the Minister sits down, is it appropriate at Report to ask him one brief question? Does he expect pregnant women and mothers with children under the age of two to come within that criterion of vulnerability?
Lord McNally
I hesitate to respond to what is clearly a very emotive situation as laid out by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. There is danger in all of these cases—and even the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, fell into it—of using illustrations in an emotive fashion. We are trying to get a balance. I suggest that what you are saying and the assurance that has just been given by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, come within some assessment of vulnerability which will require further guidance. This is not me laying down the law from the Dispatch Box. I am trying to make a common-sense assessment. I regret that I cannot start responding to various speculations in advance of the publication of the work that we have done.
Baroness Meacher
I thank the Minister for his response, but I have to say that it is deeply distressing that we are having this debate when we do not really know what we are talking about. We do not have even the response to the consultation. We do not know what the Government’s plans really are. We should be having significant amendments debated and completed at Report stage, yet we cannot do that.
Will the Minister make clear whether the consultation response, or indications about the key points in it, could be made available to us before Third Reading? That is one important point. Secondly, I hope to have a meeting with Helen Grant and obtain some information from her. I would like to reserve the right to bring something back at Third Reading, hopefully on the basis of some rather better information than we had today. As Lord Beecham said, I am aware of this matter going on for 20 years. I was involved in the bailiff issue 20 and indeed 30 years ago, when I worked at the CAB. It is not new. It is overdue and we are in grave danger of having too little too late. Will the Minister say whether he can produce some information before Third Reading.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I can only say that I can in due course—in so many different ways, in due course.