Universal Sustainable Development Goals

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Suttie on obtaining this debate and on the excellent and thoughtful way in which she introduced it. I shall focus on the 16th sustainable development goal which is to:

“Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels”.


What progress has there been that can be reported in integrating that development goal into domestic policy? There is some good news. My first point is about the Bribery Act 2010, which is currently undergoing examination by a Select Committee of which I am member. The proceedings are televised and available in print. Your Lordships will be delighted to know that witness after witness says that the Bribery Act has been a great success and provides a gold standard for the world. There are problems and bits and pieces about it that we are examining, but the general thrust is that the Bribery Act is a way in which we can show the world how to tackle bribery and corruption, so that is a very good thing and one in which we can be a model for the world.

The second thing we can be proud of is that we retain our strong and independent judiciary. When my noble kinswoman Lady Walmsley was concerned about the environment in Madagascar last year, I was concerned about the judiciary. It was quite extraordinary that if you wanted your case listed, you had to pay an official to get your case into the list. It was extraordinary that if a judge went from outside the capital to the countryside to deal with problems and cases that occurred in country courts, he had to pay his own expenses, and Madagascar is four times the size of the United Kingdom. There are grave problems with the judiciary and its independence in many parts of the world, but that is one thing of which we can be proud and which we can report to the world.

However, there are problems. The first—the difficulty in recruiting judges—was outlined by the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, last Tuesday in evidence to the Commons Justice Select Committee. He said that successive cuts to the justice system and dilapidated court buildings have undermined morale among the judiciary. He is concerned about the mood across the judiciary in the wake of the long history of underfunding of the court system and cuts to remuneration. He said that the courts are currently having problems recruiting High Court judges. It is true that judges were offered a 2% pay increase in 2018-19, their biggest pay rise in 10 years. That is almost as meagre as the £5 we received recently. However, many younger judges were badly hit by changes to the judicial pension scheme three years ago, and consequently the remuneration for being a High Court judge, or indeed any judge, is not as great as it was. Who would exchange the freedom of the Bar for the constraints of the judiciary and its hierarchical structures for remuneration of that sort?

When it comes to access to justice, I have to point to legal aid. Sir Patrick Hastings, Attorney-General in the Attlee Government—his name re-echoes in Gresford, where he appeared for the mine owners in the Gresford Colliery disaster inquiry—introduced the Legal Aid Bill in the Commons in December 1948. He said:

“It is the charter of the little man to the British courts of justice. It is a Bill which will open the doors of the courts freely to all persons who may wish to avail themselves of British justice without regard to the question of their wealth or ability to pay”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/12/1948; col. 1.]


On Tuesday, the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, pointed to the fall in legal aid, and in so doing echoed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, the former head of the UK Supreme Court, who said in 2017:

“It is all very well for us to sing the praises of our legal systems, to congratulate ourselves on the high quality of our judges and lawyers, and to take pride in the popularity of the common law in international business. But we have a serious problem with access to justice for ordinary citizens and small and medium-sized businesses”.


Back in 2010, the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition Government made deep cuts in public services to help reduce the UK’s deficit. The Ministry of Justice was one of the departments hardest hit; it was not protected in any way. At that time it had a budget of £10.9 billion to administer the courts, legal aid, prisons and the probation service. By 2017 the budget was down to £7.6 billion and for 2019-20 it is projected to be £6.38 billion. That is using Treasury public expenditure tables in real terms. That is a fall of more than 40% in funding for the legal system of this country. The result is that, frankly, it is impossible to make a decent living at the Bar in certain areas of law: criminal law, family law and so on. Ultimately, there will be a knock-on effect in the recruitment of high-quality people to the judiciary.

I am not proud of those cuts to legal aid. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke a moment ago about the cuts of that Government—the suppression, as he put it, of various environmental programmes. We were told at the time that austerity would last until 2015, by which time the deficit would have disappeared. How wrong we were. However, I am proud of the Modern Slavery Act and of the equalities Act, which indicated Lib Dem involvement in that Government. The UK Government’s Global Fund to End Modern Slavery supports work to end the terrible exploitation of vulnerable people, including women and children. The UK became the first donor to the Global Fund to End Violence against Children and contributes funds to tackle online child sexual exploitation. So there are positive signs.

We face dangers in our society in the area that the 16th goal refers to. On money laundering, the British Government’s own anti-corruption strategy, published in December 2017, said:

“The UK’s role as a global financial centre is important to the country’s prosperity but can also be exploited by criminals. The 2016 National Strategic Assessment of Serious and Organised Crime notes that the UK is one of the most attractive destinations for laundering the proceeds of grand corruption and that professional enablers and intermediaries play a role in this. The National Crime Agency estimates up to £90 billion of illicit funds are laundered through the UK each year”.


That is a disgrace and something we need to tackle immediately.

The second danger, as I see it, is that of drugs, not merely in London but throughout the country, such as in my home town of Wrexham. Incidentally, Wrexham has received an accolade from Quentin Letts; talking about Jacob Rees-Mogg’s press conference this week, he said that the “diversity count” of the people who held it,

“was as low as Wrexham on a wet Friday night”.

I wondered: what had we done? Anyway, around two years ago, Mr Gavin Rodda, a bus driver, started noticing an increase in drug use and homelessness at the bus station in Wrexham. Spice and Black Mamba, synthetic cannabinoids that have also become rife in Britain’s prisons, were still legal at that time. A blanket ban on those has been put through but the drugs are still widely available. Mr Rodda said that addicts in Wrexham say they can buy Black Mamba for £5 a gram, which is cheaper than heroin, crack cocaine and even a packet of cigarettes. This hits at the fundamental basis of our country.

I should have liked to address your Lordships on the overseas interventions into British politics that we are facing, but I see that my time is up.

Operation Conifer: Sir Edward Heath

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I of all people cannot be in any doubt as to the feelings of this House on this matter. I agree that former Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath occupied a prominent position in public life, but I think I have outlined on several occasions why the Government do not feel that they should be the body responsible for carrying out a review. Any review or inquiry, should one be carried out, should be the decision of the PCC.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the Answer of 1 November to my Written Question in which I asked whether any of the 40 complainants in Operation Conifer had applied for compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The Answer was that:

“The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost”.


Does she agree that it is precisely that sort of information that an independent inquiry would find very pertinent in considering the motivation of the complainants?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is right that an inquiry may well look into such a matter but, as I have just outlined, an inquiry is a matter for the police and crime commissioner.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 29th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

Of course I agree with that, but in my view, and as I thought I made clear, the test of recklessness is entirely appropriate in this situation. If, for example, somebody preaches a sermon while being aware of the risk that he knows or should expect may radicalise another into killing citizens such as Lee Rigby, that to me is a proper protection of our society and the responsibility of the Government. I do not see why that should not be criminalised. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is an expert on recklessness so I shall give way to him.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

I rise only to criticise the use of the term “should expect”. It seems to introduce an objective test when, as he said earlier, it is subjective.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

When I referred to the noble Lord as an expert on recklessness I was not making a personal slight. I believe that he appeared in the case of Caldwell, which for some years has been overruled, so he knows the law on this. But in my view, a person who makes a statement of that kind, knowing of the risk of it being taken up by a radicalised Islamist or right-wing extremist, should expect the force of the criminal law to fall upon them. That is all the Government are seeking to do. On this clause at least, in my view, the Government are meeting the legitimate expectation of citizens subject only to my reservation about Amendment 5, which I would suggest the Government should consider carefully.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 9th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, in his welcome to the noble and learned Lord and former submariner, Lord Garnier. I have a wonderful picture of the two of them as adolescents together discussing football and human rights over a pint. I welcome the noble and learned Lord’s strong expression of his belief in the rule of law and of freedom of expression. I am sure that we shall hear a lot more from him about that.

There are many aspects of this Bill that we shall no doubt consider in Committee, but I will confine myself to three. First, I consider Clause 1 to be unnecessary and a disproportionate interference in the right to free speech. Secondly, I want to emphasise the importance of private consultations with legal advisers. Thirdly, I have some comments about the proposed designated areas offence.

Clause 1 penalises the expression of an opinion or a belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation. The state of mind of the accused must be that, in expressing that opinion, he is reckless as to whether a person is encouraged to support that proscribed organisation. There is already an offence, under Section 12(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000, of inviting,

“support for a proscribed organisation”.

As for hate preachers, Section 12(3) of the 2000 Act reads:

“A person commits an offence if he addresses a meeting and the purpose of his address is to encourage support for a proscribed organisation or to further its activities”.


The same words in that legislation appear in the Bill before us, so what lacuna does this new offence fill? It adds “reckless” to “purpose”, but “reckless” is a word that has caused difficulties in the past in defining its meaning.

Back in 1981, I argued the case for a Mr Caldwell against the Metropolitan Police Commissioner before the Judicial Committee of this House. Caldwell had in a drunken moment broken a window and set fire to a hotel. The flames were quickly extinguished and no serious damage was caused, but he was charged with the aggravated criminal damage offence of being reckless as to whether life was endangered. His defence was that he had been so drunk that he had given no thought as to whether life would be endangered and was therefore not reckless. The issue was whether recklessness should be judged objectively or subjectively. The problem with the subjective test is that the prosecution has to prove the defendant’s state of mind—that he foresees the risk of harm. The problem with the objective test is that it criminalises those who genuinely did not foresee a risk of harm, including young children, people whose mental capacity is impaired and indeed drunks. Lord Diplock in the Judicial Committee, contrary to my argument in favour of a subjective test, held that the defendant was reckless if he had not given any thought to a risk which he should have appreciated. At that time, the committee plumped for the objective test. It was not until 2003, in the case of R v G and Another, that my argument succeeded and the Judicial Committee, in a rare exercise of its powers, overruled Caldwell and decided that the subjective test was appropriate. The case involved two 11 year-old boys who had set fire to a wheelie bin; the fire spread to the roof of a Co-op store and caused £1 million worth of damage. They had given no thought at all to the risk that might be involved by what they did.

So what does “reckless”, under its current definition, mean in the context of Clause 1? It means that the prosecution will have to prove that the defendant foresaw the risk that the person to whom his opinion or belief was directed would be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation but nevertheless went on to express it. What does that add to the current criminal acts of speaking or writing with the purpose of encouraging or inviting such support? The use of “reckless” does not catch a person who does not realise the effect of his words on the listener or reader of a column. The test of recklessness is no longer objective.

Simply expressing your opinion is not enough, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle’s apt quotation from Elizabeth I pointed out earlier. A person at Hyde Park Corner can say, “I believe in Scottish independence, and I think the best way to achieve this is through Scottish Dawn”, which is a proscribed organisation; perhaps that could also be said by someone from a Wee Free pulpit. That person would not be committing an offence under the proposed clause; he is merely opening the window into his soul, as Elizabeth I put it. If what he says is an invitation to join Scottish Dawn, he would commit an existing offence under Section 12(1) of the present Act. If his purpose in so speaking is to encourage listeners to join Scottish Dawn, it is already covered by Section 12(3) of the existing law.

My noble friend Lord Marks set out a number of tests, one of which asks, very appropriately, what mischief the clause is aimed at. In the Choudary case, the Court of Appeal considered whether Section 12 of the Terrorism Act offended against the European Convention on Human Rights. The court said:

“When considering the proportionality of the interference, it is important to emphasise that the section only prohibits inviting support for a proscribed organisation with the requisite intent. It does not prohibit the expression of views or opinions, no matter how offensive, but only the knowing invitation of support from others for the proscribed organisation. To the extent that section 12(1)(a) thereby interferes with the rights protected under article 10 of the Convention, we consider that interference to be fully justified”.


Clause 1 seeks to punish the expression of an opinion with up to 10 years’ imprisonment. I suggest to your Lordships, as I will argue in Committee, that it is a disproportionate interference in the right to free speech protected by Article 10.

I turn to legal professional privilege. Paragraph 26 of Schedule 3 mirrors Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act. Under paragraph 23(1) of Schedule 3, there is the right to consult a lawyer “privately … at any time”, but paragraph 26(1) states:

“A direction under this paragraph may provide that a detainee who wishes to exercise the right under paragraph 23”,


to consult a lawyer privately may, if the direction is made,

“consult a solicitor only in the sight and hearing of a qualified officer”—

that is, an eavesdropping officer. That direction may be made by a senior officer in certain circumstances, such as interference with evidence or the alerting of a person who is suspected of having committed an offence but has not been arrested for it. Maybe a tiny minority of legal professionals pass on illicit information—there are rogues in any profession. If caught, they will go to prison and be struck off or disbarred. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about the suggestion made in the other place of an approved panel of lawyers being set up to advise people detained under the Bill. I fully support that. I look forward to hearing more about it.

If criminal lawyers want to make a successful living, they need to get the truth from their client. There must be a firm platform on which to base a defence. Initially, the client might not be open with his own lawyer. He might tell lies through consciousness of guilt, fear or a misplaced desire to cover up for somebody else. Perhaps he says he cannot remember. But when his own lawyer rubs his nose in the evidence, the story frequently changes. It should be remarked that, of the cases that appear in the Crown Court, between 60% and 70% plead guilty, very largely due to this activity carried out by the defendant’s own lawyer. It is obvious that this sometimes subtle, sometimes vigorous process cannot take place in the presence of someone listening in from the investigating authority. The provision that appears in this schedule, as it appears in Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, is contrary to the public interest in the wider sense.

I remember being in the Court of Appeal when we lost an appeal in a murder case. Afterwards, my client turned to me and said, “Well, now I’ll tell you the true story”. He gave me an account entirely consistent with the prosecution case, which would have provided him with a defence, but he had not told me and there was nothing I could do about it. It is important for people to realise that defence solicitors and barristers need to have professional privilege to see their client privately to carry out the sometimes rough interrogation of their own client, which can lead only to the proper result.

Finally, on Clause 4 on designated areas and the reasonable excuse defence, your Lordships should remember that, although the Minister, Ben Wallace, now says that a reasonable excuse will,

“cover persons entering or remaining in the designated area … for the purpose of providing humanitarian aid; to carry out work for a foreign government … or the UN; to work as a journalist; or to attend a funeral of a close relative”,

he said:

“It would be for the defendant to demonstrate that the defence applied. Once a defendant has raised the defence the burden of proof (to the criminal standard) to disprove the defence would rest with the prosecution”.


That is right, but there has to be some evidence to support the defence. It cannot be raised simply by argument, so a burden is placed on the defendant in these circumstances to explain why he was in the designated area. I agree with Rowan Popplewell of Bond and with my noble friend Lady Hamwee that there should be a system of pre-visit authorisation of people who wish to visit designated areas for a particular purpose. Nothing could be simpler to arrange and it could avoid unnecessary prosecution of a person.

There is much further to discuss as the Bill goes through.

Paradise Papers

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

The noble Lord is right that we have been looking at this for a long time, but we have also been acting for a long time. Since 2010, we have introduced almost 100 measures that have raised £160 billion in tax revenue. That is more than the combined health budget for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. We have one of the lowest tax gaps in the world—certainly the lowest on record in this country. We have been working very hard and taking this very seriously and will continue to do so.

As regards the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, again, this has been taken very seriously. Just two weeks ago at the joint ministerial council, the Prime Minister stressed the importance of this. We already have central registers in four of those authorities, including the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Gibraltar. Montserrat and Anguilla will have registers by April of next year. The Turks and Caicos Islands have been particularly affected by the hurricane, so they have been given a little extra time, but we are very clear that action needs to be taken.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, the Council of the European Union, meeting in Brussels a week last Monday, issued its blacklist of tax havens. Its conclusions reveal that a number of British dependencies and overseas territories on the grey list have entered into commitments with the EU to implement tax good governance principles. Specifically, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Guernsey, the Isle of Man and Jersey have undertaken to address concerns about their tax regimes, which produce profits without real economic activity. Do the Government support the EU in this initiative, and will they impose the same sanctions on non-compliant countries after Brexit as the EU proposes?

[Lord Bates]

We certainly support the work that ECOFIN has undertaken in producing this report. We have been at the forefront of the whole process. We recognise the statements on, and identification of, those jurisdictions that are co-operative. That is an important point to stress: none of the Crown dependencies or overseas territories was listed as non-co-operative; they were all on the co-operative list. Areas in which the Council wants activity to take place have been identified, and we fully support that.

Wales: Economy

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jones. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if, in the course of my remarks, I put in a plug for north-east Wales as well.

First, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Randerson on her new position. I am delighted that she is working with a Secretary of State for Wales from Rhosllanerchrugog, which perhaps may pull the whole balance of Wales a little further to the north. Rhosllanerchrugog is very dear to my heart. I recall fighting the 1974 election and hearing that there was a young Liberal branch in Rhosllanerchrugog. So I set out to find it; it was within the constituency I was fighting. And there it was; it had been formed in 1905 and had not been added to since. However, the ladies concerned were delighted to sit in the rooms that we acquired in the village and dispense tea to all their friends. Rhosllanerchrugog was the home of politicians, musicians and educationalists. It was once said that every primary school headmaster in Denbighshire came from Rhosllanerchrugog. It was worse than the masons. However, that was the nature of the village. It was in an industrial setting. There were 11 collieries in the area when I was a boy. There was a steelworks at Brymbo which produced far better quality steel than the huge sprawl of Shotton steelworks down in Deeside, to which the noble Lord referred. It was a centre of industry and of culture and I hope that it will become so again.

I would like to draw attention to the final report of the city regions task and finish group that was set up by the Welsh Assembly Government under Dr Elizabeth Haywood and which reported last July. The group felt that a city region approach in Wales could deliver larger and more efficient labour markets, larger potential markets for goods and services because of the concentration of activity and transport costs savings, and a greater exchange of knowledge, ideas and innovation. Recommendations were therefore made in that report for the establishment of two city regions in south Wales. The main factors considered were critical mass; traffic flows; community identification; and existing structures of governance. It was recognised in the report that Welsh cities contribute less to the economy than cities elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I am disappointed that the group was unable to recommend a city region encompassing Chester, Wrexham and Deeside. I concede that community identification would be an issue if one put Wrexham and Chester together. However, they are only 12 miles apart.

Economic flows often overlap existing local authorities and create a sub-region or city region. Such a region should reflect economic reality and not political or administrative boundaries, including the boundary between England and Wales. The two communities of Wrexham and Deeside alone, despite the advocacy for Deeside from the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and for Wrexham from me, would not have the critical mass. But the sub-region which was rejected, including Chester, is very closely linked. It would give rise to a population of nearly 500,000. One has to wonder whether the existence of the Wales/England border was a factor in the group’s conclusion. After all—perish the thought—such a region would require input not just from Cardiff and the Assembly Government, but from Westminster itself.

In north-east Wales there are strong cross-border commuting inflows to Airbus, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jones, referred, and to the Flintshire and Wrexham industrial estates. There are outflows to major employers on the English side—Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port and to all the small businesses which depend upon it. Wrexham is a major retail centre. It also has large companies in its industrial estate and many SME businesses, which have thrived. When the collieries and the steelworks closed, the leatherworks departed and the brewery shut down, one felt that there would be nothing left. However, the investment into the area has been very constructive and positive. Deeside, with its enterprise zone, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jones, referred, is a very significant centre for manufacturing. Chester is important for services, tourism and retail. There are two excellent universities at Glyndwr and Chester. The former, Glyndwr, focuses on servicing the industries in the area: for example, precision optical glass at St Asaph. I am pleased to hear that the college at which I lectured on Deeside will be combined and form a greater group in that area as well.

Transport links are good. I agree that the electrification of the railways serving the Wrexham area—the Birkenhead to Wrexham line—should be carried out as soon as possible to connect with the electrified railway system in Liverpool. It is a recognised priority. If there is a need for building up investment in large projects, that is one that would bring a great deal of benefit to the area. The automotive industry creates 9,000 jobs at Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port and at Toyota on Deeside. It is another area of expertise which the two universities of Chester and Glyndwr do and should address.

We also have the problem with the border. The group recommended that the Welsh Government—and, I suggest, my noble friend—should look at the cross-border relationships that have developed and work between Danish Copenhagen on one side and the Swedish city of Malmo on the other. The two countries combine to produce an economic entity that is very effective. Aachen, Maastricht and Liège also co-operate in economic development. Three countries are involved there: Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium. We have a similarly great opportunity to bring regions together. The chief executive of Cheshire West told the group that a “sharper focus on the art of the possible” was needed because of the border between England and Wales. That put it very well. We should not regard the border as something that prevents constructive economic development of the region. In north-east Wales and in Chester we face competition from the city regions that are being developed both in Manchester and Liverpool. Something needs to be done—and done soon—involving both the United Kingdom and Welsh Assembly Governments.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

Amendment 147A is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. I do not take issue with the principles set out in Amendment 147ZC, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, except that I question the term, “undue prejudice”. I wonder whether filming should be permitted if it might cause any prejudice, but that is a minor point.

I am pleased to see the government amendment providing for the affirmative procedure; it will give us the opportunity to debate the extension of the subjects that can be broadcast. I have no doubt with my amendments that the Government intend to see how it goes, limiting the items as they have described. The two paragraphs listed in our amendment may look less than the Government had proposed for the initial—experiment is perhaps too loaded a term—experience of filming, recording and broadcast, but my noble friend Lord Thomas corrected my drafting and said that the term “judgments” covered everything that was needed in the first paragraph. However, this development seems to me to be so significant that I am not convinced that it should not be stated in the Bill and that any extension of it should not be the subject of primary legislation.

I agree with those who predict pressure from the broadcasters for an extension so that there is livelier material for the 6.30 news and so on. Even “Today in Parliament”, admirable though it is, chooses the livelier and racier exchanges, and that is entirely understandable—it seeks to balance those with the important items that get discussed in both Houses, and it has half an hour to do so. When one is looking for a clip of only a few seconds, one is bound to want something that will grab the audience’s attention. Of course, a wider understanding of the justice system must be a good thing. I do not want to sound too paternalistic, but there must be a danger that an extension that popularises and simplifies would lead to a loss of subtlety and complexity. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws—who has far more experience of the courts than I do—spoke powerfully about this at Second Reading.

At Second Reading I mentioned the issue of counsel playing to the gallery. It occurs to me that others may do so as well. The experience of the riots last summer, and what came out regarding the behaviour of some of those who were charged and what was prompting them, has made me wonder whether people in that situation might themselves seek to use proceedings that were broadcast in order to continue the political statements that they were making. The Government always say that we must beware of the lack of legislative opportunities but, as we generally get a criminal justice Bill each year, that does not necessarily seem to be the best argument.

When we have secondary legislation—I acknowledge that there have been improvements in the reporting by departments of consultation that has taken place before secondary legislation comes before your Lordships—it is likely that there will be a variety of views on the details of the extension and the parts of court proceedings that would be covered. These will be difficult to deal with because of the inability to amend secondary legislation. My general point is that this is so important a step that it should require the closest consideration.

As ever, when one looks at one’s own drafting immediately before standing up to speak to an amendment, one sees the faults in it. I should perhaps have included the word “only” after the phrase,

“an order may be made”,

but this is Committee so I hope that your Lordships will not hold that against me. I do not regard approval of the very limited recording that is currently proposed as amounting to approval in principle for recording and filming in court to such an extent as to avoid the need for the consideration, on the basis of primary legislation, of an extension to this.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, I support my noble friend in the amendment that is also in my name. She referred to people using television for their own purposes. There has been an example of that recently in Norway, where your Lordships will recall that a defendant has made every use that he possibly could to carry his message to the public. Your Lordships may think that that is an example of the sort of thing that we wish to avoid.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, was somewhat caught today by the two back-to-back Statements and was due to preside over the important recognition of the anniversary of the 7/7 massacres. Consequently, she is not able to be here to promote her Amendment 147AA. She has no problem in relation to the higher courts and neither do I—there is no reason why the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court should fear exposure to the cameras—but she is concerned, and I share her concern to a considerable degree, that the sentencing remarks can possibly lead to problems, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee has just pointed out.

I have no doubt that sentencing remarks would be used only in high-profile cases with salacious details or where celebrities were involved. It would not be long before there was pressure, when sentencing remarks were made, for the camera to show the face of the defendant as he received his sentence or, even worse, the faces of the victim or their families at that critical moment about which I spoke at Second Reading. I am very concerned about that. We must avoid the business of the court being made entertainment for people. Criminal court is a very serious matter and the parameters must be considerably restrained. I support the amendment in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I welcome Clause 22. Broadcasting will enhance the public understanding of our justice system, which in general works efficiently and fairly. It is important that members of the public are able to see that this is so through modern means of communication. As is often said, justice should be seen to be done.

There is also, of course, the possibility that allowing the cameras in may illuminate areas of court proceedings that are in need of reform. I entirely agree with what has already been said about the fundamental undesirability of cameras showing the evidence or, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, the reactions of witnesses or victims at any stage of the court proceedings. I am sure that the Minister’s intention is to have regulations that would prohibit any of that, and I look forward to hearing what he says about why that matter should not be addressed in primary legislation.

I am a bit concerned by the final words of Amendment 147ZC, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, which say that filming would not be permitted if it would cause “undue prejudice” to any person involved in the proceedings. I can well understand that a defendant in a notorious case, in which there was a very strong argument for broadcasting the sentencing remarks, may say that to single him out for broadcasting would indeed involve prejudice. It would be most undesirable if people were able to present such an argument.

I am very concerned about Amendment 147A in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. As I understand their amendment, it would prohibit the broadcasting of any part of the argument in, for example, the divisional court or the Court of Appeal, despite the fact that the issues raised may be of considerable public importance. If that is the noble Lords’ intention, that seems highly undesirable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I reiterate that the Opposition support the thrust of the Government’s policy. We are glad that the Government have accepted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee about requiring the affirmative procedure. We share the Government’s view that it is important to develop understanding of the judicial process and to promote public confidence in the justice system to which, in our view, their proposals would contribute.

The Minister referred to a triple lock. There is, in fact, a quadruple lock because, as she said in the latter part of her reply, the judge or tribunal can determine what can be shown on the occasion of the trial. That is fundamentally important. We all agree with the horror expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, at the prospect of anything like the Norwegian experience being replicated in our courts. It is clear that that would not happen under these proposals. However, I hope I will not be accused of scandalising the judiciary if I point out that it is not necessarily just the parties to a case that might play to the camera. There was a Judge Pickles—I do not think he was related to the Secretary of State of the same name—who acquired a certain reputation for playing not to the camera but to the media during his judicial career and, emphatically, afterwards. I do not think any of our present judges would follow that course. I am sure they would resist the temptation to do so.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I hope that we do not get to the American situation where lawyers come out on to the steps of the court and make submissions about the way the case is going and so on. That is something that the profession should stop. I do not know that it is necessarily a matter for the Government.

[Lord Beecham]

I entirely agree with the noble Lord but, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, the profession would be in a position to stop that at both levels. It would clearly be very undesirable for that to happen. It is clearly also incumbent on the media to behave responsibly, but we expect that of the media and all too often find them wanting in that respect. However, I think the framework here would be adequate to deal with that situation.

I am caught between two views of Amendment 147ZC. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would prefer that the word “undue” was removed so that the amendment would read,

“filming shall not be permitted if it would cause prejudice to any person involved in the proceedings”.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would prefer all reference to prejudice to go. That suggests that perhaps my formulation is better balanced than either of the other propositions. Fundamentally, how far to permit broadcasting will be a decision for the judge taking into account the interests of all parties present. We have to have confidence that the judiciary will discharge that duty.

It seems to me that there ought to be some guidelines on the way that this is approached, perhaps embodied with the wording of the amendment or something of an improvement upon it. Perhaps the Government would wish to consider that matter when we come to Report. In the mean time, I think there is broad support for these proposals, which we welcome, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach]

The noble Lord is being a bit unfair towards Charles Dickens himself. I may be wrong about this, but I think he put the expression, “The law is an ass”, in the mouth of Mr Bumble in Oliver Twist. He is hardly the most sympathetic character in the whole of Dickens.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I shall add that he was saying it in the context of a married woman, who had no separate identity in those days. She was regarded as a part of her husband.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I do not know if my noble friend is agreeing with the proposition, but in these more enlightened days we would all agree that the law on that particular aspect was an ass.

[Lord McNally]

I live and learn. I shall make the point, though, that the phrase, “The law is an ass”, is used more widely than just in terms of the marital relations referred to by my noble friend Lord Thomas. But I digress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

If there is anybody I take even more notice of in these matters than my noble friend Lady Linklater, it is my noble friend Lord Dholakia. I will take away that suggestion. As I said, we are looking at the question of expenses in helping to grease the wheels of better liaison. If my noble friend’s suggestion is feasible, I am sure that we can take it forward. I will certainly take it away and think about it.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, I would be interested if the Minister could encourage the presiding judges of each circuit around the country to carry out an audit of what the situation is in their particular circuit. The presiding judges have a great deal of influence and control over the way that the judicial system works within their bailiwick. Requiring each presiding judge to be in charge of such an investigation is a better way to go about it than starting from the centre—from London—and working outward.

[Lord McNally]

I am not sure what my powers are in instructing, advising or making requests of presiding judges. I suspect that the present Lord Chief Justice might start breathing down my neck. I note what my noble friend has suggested and I will take that back to think about.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Woolf]

I apologise—I should have given the Deputy Chairman that opportunity. Perhaps I may continue with what I was saying about the possible misinterpretation of the amendment. If I understood the noble Baroness correctly, she said that one of the shortcomings of the present draft is that it does not take into account the situation of the victim, who must of course consent before he can take part. The whole core of the first subsection of the amendment is to give the victim the opportunity—I emphasise that word—to participate. It is absolutely of the essence of the amendment that the victim must consent.

I have not taken part in many of the debates, but I have the strong impression as I have listened to parts of debates—and a significant part of this one this afternoon and evening—that there is a danger that we are putting off everything until another time. We will find ourselves in exactly the same situation. If noble Lords wish to spend the time that the legislation deserves by examining it in detail, it is like a dash of cold water for amendment after amendment to be turned down when, for example, as far as drafting goes, the matters outstanding are well capable of amendment in a few minutes by a meeting with the Bill team.

There is a serious point at stake which goes to the heart of the legislative process. We have too much legislation but when legislation is introduced we must examine it with care. We must not lose the opportunity, by delaying tactics, of making amendments that can properly be made. I beg to move.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I support the noble and learned Lord. I was surprised to hear the Minister say that it is very important that the victim should consent. Amendment 177DAA states that,

“the court may remand the case in order that the victim shall be offered the opportunity to participate”.

It does not say in any sense that this will be imposed on the defendant.

[Baroness Northover]

I refer noble Lords back to the concluding remarks that I made. I fully understand that amendments may not be phrased quite as we might wish but I hope that I addressed the principles. We are very supportive of restorative justice. I gave reasons why we feel that we want to take this further forward and see it in practice before building it into statute. My noble friend Lord Carlile anticipated that I might say something like that, and I expect that the opposition Front Bench thought likewise. We can continue to discuss this. We accept the principles and wish to take it further forward. Whether that means that it will go into statute is another matter. I hope that on that basis the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I beg to move.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, my name is attached to this amendment.

My neighbour’s wife was parking her car in the car park nearest to the Wrexham Council offices some months ago and she put the sticker, which cost her 80p, on the windscreen but it fell on to the seat. It was still visible there but those who were collecting in the area decided that this was in breach of the regulations, so she was charged £40. A certain amount of correspondence took place with Wrexham Council, as you might imagine—indeed, the ticket was produced—and it was pointed out that there was no need for this, but nothing happened.

In the end, a magistrates’ court warrant was issued, after a lot of argument, and it was enforced. By this time, the 80p that had been paid for the sticker had become £450. The bailiffs alleged that they had been to the premises on a number of occasions. There was no sign of them having done so and the people concerned were in throughout the period, but that is what they said, and they charged an extra fee for every attendance at the property. There was absolutely no control over what they were charging. Of course, as has been stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, they said that a distress warrant cannot be withdrawn. Indeed, on a bailiffs’ website that I have just looked at, they say precisely that, that it is impossible to withdraw a warrant once it has been made.

I decided to look at the case that the noble Baroness referred to, the MacRae case at Hereford and Worcester Magistrates’ Court in 1998. According to the judgment that I read, the procedure was based essentially on publications in 1990 and 1992 of the Home Office’s best practice advisory group on fine enforcement and relied substantially on a computerised fine enforcement system. When an offender is in default and has not contacted the court to request more time to pay, the court issues a final demand. If there is no response to that, the computerised system produces a draft distress warrant, which passes through certain manual checks to ensure that there are no known circumstances that would make it inappropriate to issue the warrant. MacRae decided that once that computer has produced the distress warrant and one or two people have looked at it, that is the end—the bailiff can do nothing about it.

The noble Baroness referred to Section 142 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. That was the response received from the Ministry of Justice. Section 142(1) states:

“A magistrates’ court may vary or rescind a sentence or other order imposed or made by it when dealing with an offender if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to do so”.

So there is power, which is contrary to what was said in MacRae and to what appears on current websites by bailiffs, and which is in accordance with the advice given in the case to which the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred.

However, there is confusion. My neighbour eventually paid up the £450 because his wife and children were in tears. Rather than keep that scene of distress going on, he produced his chequebook and paid up. What is happening is that people are being bullied on the doorstep. This amendment would put that right. It would make it clear and would clarify what is currently wrongfully being done, in my submission to your Lordships, by bailiffs.

The amendment states that a warrant of enforcement may be suspended or withdrawn but very importantly it states that a,

“person enforcing a warrant … shall be paid a single fee”.

There would not be any of these ghost returns clocking up the fees for every attendance at the property. The amendment makes specific provision for those who are in a vulnerable position and are not in a position to stand up to these bailiffs when they come round to collect. That situation has been a disgrace. This is an opportunity for the Government to put it right and clarify what the law is so that we all know what should happen and what the proper procedure should be. I support the noble Baroness in her amendment.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, a powerful case has been made for this amendment in two powerful speeches from noble Lords. We look forward to the Minister’s response.

Insurance: Gender Discrimination

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to a number of very difficult decisions that had to be taken. We are disappointed by the ruling. The previous Government made written representations and we made oral representations, but the judges unfortunately decided that by 21 December 2012 it will be illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender. It is clearly undesirable to treat people unfairly because of their sex. However, financial services providers will be allowed a period in which to make the changes. We are encouraged that people have supported our drive for equality. Unfortunately, things such as this make our task much more difficult. I am pleased to say that the insurance industry has adopted a can-do attitude to this ruling, and I am sure that we will do our very best as a Government to assist it.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, what steps have the Government taken to discuss this judgment with the insurance industry in order to prevent profiteering? Why has my stepdaughter's motor premium gone up now, when there will be no difference until December 2012?

[Baroness Verma]

My noble friend raises another very important issue. We cannot dictate to insurance companies how they should make judgments on how their premiums should be costed. However, we are working closely with insurance companies and the financial services sector to ensure that they do not roll out unfair premiums on the back of this ruling.