Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Lord Pannick and Lord Rooker

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I cannot support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I declare an interest: I have given advice to a number of newspapers on press regulation issues.

There are different views on the wisdom or otherwise of Section 40 and of Leveson part 2, but the merits or dangers of press regulation should not be allowed to determine the issue before the House today. It is very simple. There are two reasons. First, the Bill is vital to national security. This House has spent hours in Committee and on Report improving the Bill’s contents in a non-partisan spirit. Whatever views noble Lords may have on Section 40 and on the failure yet to implement it, that is no justification for the passage of this important Bill to be held hostage by those who wish to further the cause of Section 40. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that this is not about whether the amendments are within scope—plainly they are—the point is whether it is justified to hold up a Bill of this nature, a Bill about security, to advance a point of view on press regulation.

The second reason why I cannot support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, is because whether or not to implement Section 40 is now the subject of a 10-week consultation. I simply cannot understand the objections to the Government having a 10-week consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, says that it should be 12 weeks; perhaps it should and perhaps it should not, but that is not a substantial point. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and those who agree with her can argue their case about Section 40 and Leveson during the consultation. It is quite indefensible to hold up this vital Bill when the issue about which the noble Baroness is concerned—perhaps rightly—is the subject of active consultation.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, yesterday, I watched the Secretary of State when she delivered the Statement—the first time I have seen her at the Dispatch Box. I did not see the debate later, but I watched the Statement and all the questions on it. I got the impression that she was really threatening the press about Section 40. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, referred to this in another context. I was struck by the number of Conservative Members of Parliament who I would say are people of substance—they were there when I was there; they have been there a long time—who basically threatened IPSO. They made the point that there has to be a different, cheap system of adjudication before going to court. That is what I felt they were pushing for. They will not vote for that today or tomorrow; they will wait for the end of the consultation. I have supported both the noble Baroness and Leveson on more than one occasion, but I think that we should stick to the main issue today, which is Royal Assent for this Bill. I personally do not intend to vote to stop Royal Assent.

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (Criminal Courts Charge) Regulations 2015

Debate between Lord Pannick and Lord Rooker

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I have just received an email from a friend who is a magistrate. I shall not say where because these days one cannot do that. It is worth putting on the record. He writes:

“Courts are closing in great numbers with another 90 about to be closed and there will be more after this. Defendants and witnesses now have to travel great distances. Some cannot afford it so plead guilty when they may not be. Also, it has removed the fundamental right of citizens to be tried by their peers as the cost of the criminal court charge is so high and beyond most defendants’ means, so they are pleading guilty. It has removed the need of the CPS to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. Not many well-off people appear in court so it is the poorest who are being hit with a double whammy”.

That is the view of a serving magistrate sitting on the Bench today.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, on this subject, I am on the side of the two Jeremys: the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and Jeremy Bentham. In 1795, Jeremy Bentham wrote:

“The statesman who contributes to put justice out of reach … is an accessary after the fact to every crime”.

For Bentham, such a law tax was a denial of justice. These regulations are a denial of justice, and they are a denial of justice for the two reasons given by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Marks. First, because the sums involved—£150 up to £1,200—may well encourage innocent people to plead guilty, and, secondly, because the magistrate or judge has no discretion to vary the charge by reference to the circumstances of the offence or the offender—in particular, the offender’s means.

I will add a further point. There is a much fairer and more lucrative way forward for a Lord Chancellor who wants to help balance the books by imposing a court charge. Let the Lord Chancellor give the judges and magistrates a discretion to charge much higher court fees to defendants who are convicted of serious crimes and who can afford to pay. The drug dealers, the bank robbers and the fraudsters can be charged the true cost of their occupying the courts for weeks in trials that end in convictions if the judge or magistrate in their discretion thinks that it is appropriate to do so. The regulations could then give the courts a proper discretion not to impose on the small fry charges that may well induce guilty pleas from innocent people and may well result in the imposition of orders for payment from people who cannot afford them. If the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, wishes to test the opinion of the House on these regulations, he will certainly have my support in the Division Lobby.