Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [HL]
Lord Mackay of Clashfern ExcerptsTuesday 3rd March 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 View all Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 2-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Committee - (2 Mar 2020)
Member’s explanatory statement
This would extend the minimum legal period for a divorce from six months to one year (with the additional six weeks between the conditional and final orders).
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I understand that the question to which this clause is an answer was in the consultation and that the answer in consultation was 12 months, whereas here it is six. I just wonder what superior knowledge the Government had in mind in going to six months when the consultation seemed to say 12.
I have had some experience in this area, 20-something years ago. When I proposed the 1996 Bill, I put in 12 months—that is what I am asking for now; I am nothing if not consistent—but on that occasion Parliament decided that it should in fact be 18 months. Putting it up by six months is something with which I am fairly familiar, so I invite my noble and learned friend to explain the situation.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, this amendment more than doubling the period before conditional order seems to be based on the proposition that the law obliging people to stay married for longer will either help children or encourage more reconciliations. In the debate on Amendment 2, speakers on all sides of the House demonstrated the fundamental commitment of us all to the welfare of children, who—as we all agree—suffer badly from family breakdown and its consequences. The noble and learned Lord spoke eloquently on that. For all the reasons given by many noble Lords in the earlier debate, I agree with those who have said there is no basis for saying that the children’s interests would be best served by denying or delaying divorce to one or both parties to a marriage who have determined on a divorce.
As for the second proposition, that keeping unwilling couples tied into a failed marriage for a longer period may lead to more reconciliations, the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary. The decision to divorce is a hard one, rarely taken lightly. Of course, changes of mind occur. Separated couples often get back together—sometimes successfully and sometimes not, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, pointed out earlier—but in every such case they make the decision to reconcile willingly, not because they are obliged by law to try to do so. In some cases, of course, divorced couples even remarry each other. Again, that step is open to couples after divorce and is dependent on free will, not obligation.
Once the decision to divorce has been made, forcing parties to stay married for longer than is necessary to confirm that decision serves no purpose. Enforced delay rarely leads to reconciliation. It extends the unhappiness and uncertainty. It infringes on the parties’ autonomy, preventing them making decisions for themselves, arranging their new personal lives and futures, making safe and secure arrangements for their children and organising their family finances. It also—most significantly, I suggest—extends the hostility between the parties, who are frequently embittered by divorce proceedings and whose embitterment starts to heal only when the divorce is finalised and they go about the business of joint but separate parenting or building new, separate lives. This Bill is all about reducing bitterness by removing fault from the actual process of divorce.
The Government have proposed a 20-week period—reflecting other jurisdictions, such as New York and Finland—as appropriate for the confirmation of the decision to divorce. No period will ever be perfect to the week, but my belief is that the 20-week period to a conditional order is about right and is supported by the evidence. I commend the Government for choosing it.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, when the Government consulted in 2018 on the Bill’s proposals, a number of headlines suggested that we were introducing quickie divorces; indeed, in some quarters, that misapprehension may linger. However, in a sense, we are putting an end to them. Under our reform Act, applicants cannot apply for a conditional order until at least 20 weeks have passed from the start of the divorce proceedings, along with the current six weeks between conditional and final orders, and that is a minimum period. Of course, progression from one stage to the next will never be automatic.
Applications for divorce are increasingly made online and the Government’s updated impact assessment, which was published last April, projected that, under these reforms, on average we would be adding between nine and 10 weeks to the divorce process based on the expected impact of full implementation of online divorce. So we are certainly not reducing the overall time for the average divorce. Indeed, at present rather more than 80% of divorces take place sooner than the timescale set out in the Bill.
I acknowledge that there is no magic number as far as this timing is concerned. A single divorce law must work for everyone and, in introducing the new minimum period before conditional order, we have carefully considered what period would most effectively help applicants consider the implications of divorce and allow couples to reach an agreement on practical matters without unduly lengthening the process. That is the purpose of the minimum period. It is certainly not intended to be punitive in any way.
The question then arises: why six months overall rather than a year or even a month? The Government have reflected on the different views put forward during the consultation and, at that time, some key organisations broadly supported six months as a reasonable period to meet the emotional and practical needs of divorcing couples. However, they also noted that there could be problems if that period was longer. Indeed, a period substantially longer than at present could unduly delay necessary financial arrangements, for example, and it would be particularly unhelpful if a couple had already been separated for a long period of time before the application is made. We therefore made the judgment that six months strikes an appropriate balance that allows a better opportunity for parties to adjust and a reasonable period for them to consider the implications of the step that they are taking.
As I say, there is no magic number. It is a case of exercising judgment and we consider that the period of 20 weeks, together with the six-week period, is appropriate in the circumstances, and we would not propose to extend that period by way of amendment to the Bill. In these circumstances, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, of course it is a matter of judgment. I had to do the judgment some time ago. The other angle which has to be taken into account is that when the divorce proceedings are finished, parties are apt to lose interest in their responsibilities under the marriage that has been terminated. I have seen that as a matter of fact from time to time. For example, fathers who desert find it very difficult to remember to pay the necessary support money to the deserted lady. That kind of thing can be made worse if the divorce has been completed before all the financial matters have been settled. However, I agree that this is a matter of judgment, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I support this amendment on the basis that it is not right that the length of the notice should be determined solely by the applicant. The present definition of the start of the application is settled by the rules of court. It would be a good idea if the rules of court committee examined this matter because if it is willing to change the present rule to a rule that accommodates the need to make sure that the respondent has received some kind of notice, either as a deemed service or as an actual service, at the start of the proceedings, that would be satisfactory. It would also be satisfactory if it were left to the rules committee because who knows what difficulties might arise? Nobody can forecast every possibility. If it was with the rules committee it could make the necessary adjustment later without recourse to Parliament. It is good idea that the rules committee decides this question. I think that is the best answer to it.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
The provisions of Amendments 7 and 17A clearly relate to an important aspect of matrimonial proceedings; namely, the financial settlement. The amendments seek to ensure that there are no discussions about such financial settlements for 20 weeks unless both parties agree. However, does this not illustrate the need for legal advice to be available to the parties, or at any rate to at least one of the parties, in the situation of a divorce? I understand that attempts were made to amend the Bill in that respect, but it was ruled that it was not possible to do so. However, will the Minister undertake to look again, or to persuade his colleagues in the Government to do so, at the issue of providing legal aid for matrimonial matters, particularly of this kind, where one party may well have insufficient resources to procure the necessary advice in this important area of the consequences of a divorce?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I very much support Amendment 20, which the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, spoke to. Not very long ago, I got a fairly impassioned letter from a gentleman I knew who had recently been involved in a divorce. He said that one of the great difficulties in approaching that, which he found by no means easy, was that it was not easy to find out what was likely to happen in relation to finance, and that it was extremely difficult to guess. The reason for that primarily is that the present structure involves a very large amount of judicial discretion. Those of your Lordships who have had the experience of prophesying how a judge will react will understand the difficulty that you encounter with that kind of thing.
Discretion, as I think Lord Bingham said, is a departure from the rule of law, because the discretion becomes the rule not of law but of the judge’s wisdom or lack of it. I remember the old judge in the Court of Session when I first went there: Lord Carmont. He used to say that if you give a thing to a man’s discretion —he was not thinking of women at that time—you commit it also to his indiscretion. The limit of discretion is quite wide.
I thought about trying to do something about this in 1996, but I concluded that it was too difficult to try to mould it to what I was trying to do then. It is probably right that it should not be attempted as part of this Bill. On the other hand, it is mightily necessary to get on with it and get a framework that can be used in the majority of cases. It is true that some discretion may be required—you do not want the framework to be too rigid—but you want it to be fairly clear that this is the way the thing will work unless there are special reasons requiring the exercise of judicial discretion.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 19A is in my name. One of the headline Conservative Government commitments in the relatively recent past was abolishing the couple penalty. The couple penalty, noble Lords will recall, was the unintended fiscal incentive for a couple with children on low to modest incomes not to live together or marry because of the benefits that would be lost. Abolishing this was a headline Conservative manifesto commitment in the 2010 general election. At that time the Government’s primary concern with respect to marriage was the removal of obstacles to marriage, whereas today, their focus in this Bill seems to be on removing obstacles to divorce.
In this context, I have tabled this amendment for two reasons. First, I think that as the Government engage with this new task, it would be wise to pause to reflect on the progress made in relation to the earlier task of abolishing the couple penalty. Given both the importance of removing the couple penalty to help couples commit, and the potential for easier divorce to inflame the commitment problem in the presence of an ongoing couple penalty problem, it would be premature to prioritise making divorce any easier until we have dealt with the couple penalty problem.
Secondly, we must understand the impact of the couple penalty on divorce itself. If a couple on low or modest income manage to marry despite the couple penalty, they will none the less feel the negative impact on their marriage in that, if they were to terminate it, they would experience some fiscal benefits. For this reason, it is very important that we understand the impact of the couple penalty on divorce rates.
The main mechanism identified by the Government for addressing the couple penalty was the marriage allowance. A fully transferable marriage allowance was proposed by the Centre for Social Justice, commissioned by the Conservative Party and chaired by the right honourable Iain Duncan Smith MP in 2007, and adopted by the then Conservative Party leader, David Cameron.
Some upper- and middle-class people scoffed at this proposal, stating sarcastically that they got married for love. The idea that anyone would fall in love for fiscal reasons was plainly nonsense, and the suggestion that the purpose of the couple penalty was to assist in this regard only helped demonstrate just how out of touch with reality the wealthy scoffers were.
The point was simply that, when a couple fall in love and decide that they want to be together, they have a choice about what form their relationship should take. If formalising their commitment through a “till death us do part” marriage commitment would cause them to lose benefits, they would be more likely to formalise their relationship in some other, less stable way.
The point of dealing with the couple penalty was that, if the tax and benefit design had the unintended consequence of making it harder for couples on low to modest incomes to formalise their commitment through marriage, with all its benefits for adult and child well-being, the couple penalty was a bad thing and should be removed. However, at the beginning of the 2010 general election campaign, Mr Cameron explained that a fully transferable allowance could not be afforded immediately and that we would start with a provision allowing a non-earning spouse to transfer 11.6% of his or her allowance to an earner spouse. He added that he wanted the allowance to be increased and that he was sure that in the course of the Parliament it could be.
The marriage allowance was not actually introduced until the very end of the Parliament, in 2015, and then only as an even more meagre 10% allowance. It has continued to be just 10% ever since. At 10%, the marriage allowance is so small that it barely makes any impression on the couple penalty, which remains very considerable. In this context, we must assume that the couple penalty continues to act both as an obstacle to entering marriage and as a pressure for divorce.
As the Government have moved on to prioritising helping people to leave marriages with greater ease, there is now an urgent need for them to address the couple penalty problem in order both to remove an obstacle to marriage and to remove a strain on marriages that we must assume provides a fiscal incentive for divorce. If the Government want to get this Bill through, they would be well advised to use the Budget to significantly increase the marriage allowance in order to be seen to balance their efforts to help people to leave marriages more quickly with efforts to strengthen marriage.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I put my name to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Farmer with the view that, if it is easy to produce those results, it might be quite wise to do so.
So far as the amendment of my noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich is concerned, I noticed that he said that the Bill was intended to remove an obstacle to divorce, but I do not really think that that is a fair way to describe it. As far as I am concerned, the Bill deals principally with an unnecessary irritant to the relationship between divorcing parties. It does no good: it does not establish fault or anything of the kind; it just creates the possibility of renewed ill feeling as a result of a rehearsal of what one party to the marriage thinks about the other party. That is often not particularly flattering and certainly not particularly comforting, and removing it does not seem to remove an obstacle to divorce at all.
Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill
Lord Mackay of Clashfern ExcerptsMonday 24th February 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020 View all Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 99-I Marshalled list for Committee - (21 Feb 2020)
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I have some difficulty in understanding what exactly the amendment is trying to achieve. I have the greatest respect for all four noble Lords who have tabled the amendment, but to take the point on Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, I do not think that the amendment meets the terms of the article. It seeks to address the position when the sentence was imposed, whereas Article 7 refers to the situation at the time when the act that gave rise to the criminal offence was committed. It is worded in such a way that the individual should have been aware at the time of his conduct what sentence he was likely to receive. The amendment does not address that, as it is not addressed to that point in time. On Article 7, it misses the point, and does not achieve anything.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said that the convention was a sideshow. That brings me to the other point, which I think I do understand, on the value of retaining the Parole Board at halfway through the sentence, partly for the reason that changing the system for those who have already been sentenced seems instinctively rather unfair to them. It also has a value in getting the Parole Board in as early as possible, because the longer it has to assess the element of risk, the greater the possibility that it can achieve something useful at the end. To shorten it, which seems to be the effect of the Government’s amendment, reduces the opportunity for the board to get into the depths of the mind of the individual and to see what it can do about the risk. If that is the purpose of the amendment, why not have the same rule for everybody? It is accepting the Government’s amendment for the newcomers—those who have not yet been sentenced. It would be more logical to apply the same rule throughout.
That goes back to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, when he asked what the change from a half to two-thirds would achieve, given that the Parole Board will be involved anyway. If it comes in halfway through, there is no question of the prisoner being released until it is safe for them to be released, which could well be right up until the end of the sentence imposed by the judge. Logically, it would be sensible to have the same rule for everybody, rather than split it up. The other point, which is worth emphasising, and perhaps an answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, is that a great deal has been said about automatic release, but it is not unconditional release. This point was made very effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, when describing the deficiencies of the Parole Board system.
When the original scheme was devised with release subject to conditions, it was understood that these conditions meant something. I remember cases in which I was involved where people were returned to custody because they had breached their conditions. It was not just a day in custody; they were in for a substantial time until it was regarded as appropriate for them to be released again. In the case of life prisoners, sometimes they went backwards and forwards because they had breached conditions, and they went back in again. This is what we have lost, I am afraid. It bears thinking about that the release halfway through is not unconditional; it is a conditional release subject to the licence terms. That has a bearing on whether this is something that attracts the Article 7 attack in any event. For the reasons I have indicated, I am slightly puzzled by the amendment, and I am not sure that I would support it.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I will not apologise to your Lordships for not speaking at Second Reading. It is, rather, a matter for congratulation—noble Lords have not had to listen to me twice.
The situation is one of severe crisis in respect of the damage that has occurred as a result of the release of persons described in this Bill. That is a matter of the utmost importance for Her Majesty’s Government, because if any human right is vital it is people’s right to be protected against danger, by their Government. That danger has been illustrated vividly by these two incidents.
I do not imagine for one minute that anyone thought that the man involved in the London Bridge incident was going to do anything like that. One of the people murdered was doing his best to look after him and to bring him into ordinary life in a good way, yet that man was struck down. I do not believe it is possible to discern who is dangerous and who is not, because the problem with this type of danger is that it is not necessarily there when the man or woman is originally sentenced. It is danger that, to a great extent, seems to have arisen as a result of the experience in prison, and that is most unfortunate.
On the other hand, if you had an opportunity to ask somebody to change his mind, you may find it difficult if he has a religious persuasion. The people trying to get rid of this danger in prison are finding that it is very difficult to succeed and mightily difficult to know when, if at all, the attempt has succeeded. The concentration therefore has to be on the circumstances in which one of these people is released. One way of dealing with that, to get a bit of time, is to postpone the release. That is what is done in the move from half to two-thirds. Of course, there is still a third of the sentence left.
The second point that has been made clear is that there is a substantial number of convicted prisoners up for release quite soon. The Parole Board’s investigations are quite substantial, and I do not believe it would be possible for the board to deal with a large number of these satisfactorily in a very short time. We have to remember the decision the board is going to take. Personally, I would not like to be a member of the Parole Board taking that responsibility. I am glad to say that there are people who do that and who have the skills to do it properly. On the whole, the Parole Board’s decisions have been pretty well received. One or two—I remember one in particular—have been by no means well received, but generally they have been. So it is important that it gets a proper opportunity to carry out its task.
The rule is to be that when the two-thirds is up, the prisoner is released or not according to whether the Parole Board is satisfied that it is safe for the person to be released. That seems the best possible solution to a mighty difficult problem. However, it is only a temporary solution, because when the sentence is fully served, the person is to be released in any case, without anything from the Parole Board. That matter must be dealt with in the Bill that is to come. In the meantime, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I cannot see any justification for dividing up the original division with this amendment. The Bill would be better without the amendment.
Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Bill [HL] (Law Commission Bill)
Lord Mackay of Clashfern ExcerptsTuesday 11th February 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, it gives me the greatest possible pleasure to follow the excellent maiden speech of the noble and learned Baroness—which, of course, having known her for some time, I expected to be of the highest quality.
This Bill forms part of the extremely valuable consolidation procedure. For a short time, I had the honour of being the chairman of the consolidation committee, but I was saved from continuing in the role by being appointed Lord Chancellor. I discovered that, of all the committees which serve Members of both this House and the other place, the difficulty of convening a quorum for the consolidation committee was the probably the highest. That suggests to me that the process of consolidation is not as precious, or perhaps as fully understood, as it should be. That is because, unless we have reasonable consolidation, our statute book will become less and less intelligible.
I had the honour of being a member of the Scottish Law Commission for a time, and like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, I was the Minister for the Law Commission during my time as Lord Chancellor. I think that it was a marvellous institution which was set up by Lord Gardiner, with a certain amount of query from some lawyers, as is usually the case if you make an improvement, and the result has been absolutely excellent. One of the features of the Law Commission as I knew it was that it usually had the services of a parliamentary counsel, then detached from the ordinary office in Whitehall. I suspect that the parliamentary counsel involved in this Bill was seconded to the Law Commission.
In the past I have had a little experience of the relationship between the Law Commission and Her Majesty’s Government. One of the features of the criminal law of England and Wales is that it is principally statutory law and not all of it is absolutely at the peak of modernity. In fact, it is extraordinary how old some of the essential provisions that are in day-to-day use are. When I was concerned in these matters, there was a move to codify the criminal law. A certain office of state had responsibility for the criminal law and was reluctant to see anything of the kind happen—but somehow the Law Commission managed to start a procedure for codifying the criminal law. It was eventually able to excise a bit that seemed reasonably attractive to the office in question—but, so far as I know, it never got any further.
We have here an example of modifying and modernising the process for sentencing, as has been pointed out. We are not able today to give effect to my noble friend Lord Bates’s sentiments, which I very much share. It is not part of this Bill, which is concerned only with the sentencing process. It deals with it in a very effective way; it could not possibly do it simply by a consolidation Bill. This pre-consolidation Bill is able to make the corrections that, when fitted in, will bring in a sentencing code that will be absolutely excellent. I hope—I feel certain this will be the case—that there will be many fewer unlawful judgments from now on. Even judges can make mistakes, but the chances of mistakes in this situation are very much reduced.
The noble and learned Baroness pointed out in her maiden speech how much she values the judiciary of this country. As it happens, I was coming from Inverness last night on a plane that was a little later than it might have been if the weather had been different, and I was talking to a gentlemen who was much in business and somehow knew my line of life. He began to talk about the judiciary and said, “I have had experience of many countries and of employment law in many countries. The unique feature of the United Kingdom is the absolute honesty of the judiciary.” It is an extremely precious quality, and I honestly am not absolutely certain that it is fully appreciated in every quarter as it should be.
It is extremely important that the status and remuneration of the judiciary, including pensions, should match that very big quality. It is not that they are paid for honesty, but they are employed and continue to be employed because they are honest. Sometimes some statutory instrument comes along and their termination appears, but it is nothing at all to do with any fault in them. It is simply what some mistaken people in the past have brought in as the ultimate age for service. This is an extremely important matter. I certainly believe that that quality is in a way preserved by this Bill, which will help honest judges get the answer that is right.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [HL]
Lord Mackay of Clashfern ExcerptsWednesday 5th February 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, in view of my having introduced the Family Law Act in its previous form, it will not surprise your Lordships that I entirely support this Bill.
I think that I understand the nature of marriage and in my long-ago youthful days I took part in quite a number of defended divorce cases. The idea that these were conducive to saving marriage, elevating its status or anything of that kind is absolute nonsense. I was involved in one divorce case that attracted a great deal of notoriety at the time: the Duke of Argyll against the Duchess. Those of your Lordships who are old enough will remember that it was anything but helpful to the cause of marriage.
It is important to realise, as is obvious, that marriage involves two people and that their continued working together is essential for the continuation of the marriage. The idea that a marriage can continue when one party has lost interest in it is a complete fallacy. The marriage stops, in effect, if one of the parties acts in such a way that they no longer perform the marital obligations. As I have said, the idea that anything can come out of a defended divorce seems extraordinary; I shall be very interested to hear if anybody taking part in this debate is able to say that they have been involved in a defended divorce which, in the result, had good effects for the parties to the marriage and for any children.
It is essential that some detail of this Bill should be looked at in Committee; it is not my purpose today to do that, because this is Second Reading, which deals with the principles of the Bill. I could not be otherwise than in favour of removing the idea that divorce is based upon fault—it is a completely superfluous idea, really, in the present situation. There have been very few, if any, judicial adjudications on that subject in recent years. One was a very unproductive case that I think has in some ways stimulated the need for this Bill. There should be time for both parties to know what is going on. The question of when the case starts is therefore quite important. There is no full definition in the Bill and, as has been pointed out, that service could be quite late is a somewhat dangerous aspect, which can easily be changed in Committee.
Another general point, which is also a subject for Committee, is that marriage in our generation—I am talking about those who are younger as well as the generation to which I belong—is subject to severe stresses, or very severe stresses in some cases. One of the most common is finance, though there are others also: interest in other people and all that kind of thing. These things can bring about problems in marriage. I think that very few people who have been long in marriage can say that there has never been any problem of any sort whatever. It is important, therefore, that the state provides help in that situation. The Bill that I put forward in the past, which became an Act of Parliament, provided for state help. Most of the provisions are still in place and can therefore be utilised.
Something that I think may be dealt with later in more detail is that, although at the very last minute it can look pretty hopeless—my experience has been that if it gets to almost the last minute, it is very difficult to save the situation—the statistics show that about 10% of the cases in which a petition has been lodged never go forward to completion. That suggests that about 10% of these are settled in some way. It is important to use every possible opportunity to try to save a marriage, and therefore it would be very useful, for example, to look to introduce knowledge and information about that at the very last stage and of course before. They should not give up until the last minute.
That is really all I want to say. I should mention that the Christian Institute sent me a kind letter explaining its attitude to this Bill and that it was sending it to me knowing that I did not agree with what it was saying. I expect we will hear some of that later, but the real point is that scripture, with which I am reasonably familiar, requires a code of conduct for those who observe it but also provides for civil law which may deal with another situation. Moses was dealing with a particular situation, our Lord said, in relation to the problems of divorce in his day. We have a duty to do that, whatever our view may be of the sanctity of marriage, which I strongly believe in. I also strongly believe that it is best for all of us if we can observe it and keep it. I have the great blessing, due to the long-suffering nature of my spouse, of having been married happily for 62 years.
It is also my privilege not to stand any longer in the way of the maiden speech to which we are all looking forward.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill
Lord Mackay of Clashfern ExcerptsWednesday 15th January 2020
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 16-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (15 Jan 2020)
Lord Woolf (CB)
My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, would like to speak first, I would welcome that.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
I do not particularly wish to speak first, but in view of the noble and learned Lord’s invitation, I will make my brief contribution. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, I have a fair amount of experience in this area of European law and the modification of existing judgments—I sat in the House of Lords when it set aside a previous judgment. It is extremely important that we consider the principle that has to lie behind this. The present situation is that EU retained law has been made part of the law of the United Kingdom unless and until it is modified by Parliament in due course. When passing the previous withdrawal Act, we placed a number of restrictions on that power for Ministers in various areas relating to human rights and so on.
From what I read in the newspapers as these things developed, my impression was that the Government were anxious that the power to modify or depart from EU judgments would be better given to a wider set of courts than the Supreme Court, and the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland on criminal matters, as had been done in the withdrawal Act. I can see that it may be part of overall policy that it should be rather wider than the present law would permit. However, it is important that whatever method is used, it is one that will prevail across the whole of the United Kingdom. Therefore, to give the power to do this to, for example, the Inner House of the Court of Session, would have the effect that it would apply in Scotland but not in England and Wales directly, nor in Northern Ireland. There would be a degree of difficulty in that. That is why, in my view, this power should be in the Supreme Court. As we all know, when the Supreme Court gives a judgment, it is a judgment for the whole of the United Kingdom. It is important to emphasise that the name of the court is the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
If it is desired to give the power to a wider section of the courts, the way to do so is to specify which courts they are. The example given by my noble and learned friend is one possibility, but it is for the Government to decide how wide they wish to be. However, it is important that the courts should not have the power to ultimately decide; it should be required to refer the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can modify the burden that that would involve by a lead process, leaving it free to dismiss a case where it was thought there was nothing in it. One possible line is for the lower court to give a judgment which might ultimately help the Supreme Court, but I do not know whether that would always be necessary. The important thing is that any court that has this power would have it only as a way of referring the matter to the Supreme Court.
I was thinking of putting forward an amendment to this effect, but I thought it probably better to leave it until we have had a chance to discuss it. I have reached the conclusion that, as a practical matter, if we in this House can persuade the Government to change, it is likely to be effective; whereas if we do not persuade the Government to change, it may not be effective, with results that we may not altogether approve of. My main effort in this is to try to persuade the Government that a system along the lines I have proposed would be perfectly acceptable and workable, and would embrace all the courts that it needs to embrace.
Lord Woolf
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for preceding me because he is in a unique position to give advice to the House on this issue. I only intervene to add to what has already been said because I want to stress the importance of the issue. There is an old saying that hard cases can make bad law. This may be a hard situation for the Government but they are in danger of making very bad law indeed. Why they are in danger and why they would be wise to think very carefully again before they ask for this to be implemented is apparent from the careful steps that were taken back in 2005 when I was still one of the chief justices—to whom the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, referred—who are present before your Lordships.
At that time, changes were being made which went to the root of the constitution, and the courts were concerned that they could be severely damaging to our unwritten constitution. As a consequence, the then Lord Chancellor and I—then Lord Chief Justice—came together to make a concordat to try to deal with those difficulties. It was recognised that one of the underlying principles of our common law and constitution was the separation of powers, and what was being done in 2005—which affected the position of the Lord Chancellor in relation to the courts—was trespassing on the principles that had existed hitherto. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, was well aware of these principles when he was Lord Chancellor and a member of the Government. The role that the Lord Chancellor played at that time was to ensure that the important balance—which explained how we managed to continue without a written constitution—succeeded, which it did remarkably well.
As I see the situation, what my noble and learned friends and my noble friend Lord Anderson have been saying to your Lordships is that this proposes a change in our law that would undermine the proper observation of the rule of law in a most critical way. I suggest that for this House to allow that to happen without protesting in the clearest way would be very undesirable indeed. I feel confident that if the Government look at this matter again and bear in mind the speeches made to this House today, they will see how it can be dealt with. However important Brexit is, it must not be allowed to create a precedent that could be followed hereafter, as has been suggested, which would damage our situation.
I hope we will always be able to continue in this country without a written constitution. However, if we let what is proposed go through with saying it should be amended, we will create a situation where that will not be possible. We should pause before doing so.
Lord Keen of Elie
It is not a question of having policy areas in mind. We want to take forward a consultation process that will enable us to arrive at an appropriate conclusion as to how we should look at EU case law as a part of retained EU law after the implementation period has expired.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I understand that the first part of the amendment may be reasonably accommodated within the answer given to the previous question about separation of powers. I cannot see how the second part can be accommodated—formulating the question the court has to decide in deciding whether the previous decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union should be followed.
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect to the noble and learned Lord, we seek to consult on the appropriate test to be applied in taking this matter forward. We intend to do that in consultation with the senior judiciary.