Arbitration Bill [HL]

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Second reading committee
Tuesday 19th December 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I too, I think in common with all your Lordships, very much welcome this Bill. It is plain from the Law Commission’s report that it is the product of a great deal of hard work on the parts of the Law Commission itself and those who responded to its papers in the course of this process.

The result is a compact measure that seeks to amend the Arbitration Act 1996 in 15 distinct respects. I do not think that anything in the Bill is controversial. On the contrary, the proposals will all contribute to the improvement of the law of arbitration in England and Wales in the various ways that the Minister explained in his helpful introduction. Our thanks must go to all the members of the Law Commission who contributed to this process and to His Majesty’s Government for finding time to bring the Bill before us. We very much hope it will achieve its results before the next election.

At first sight, the best guide to what has been going on might be thought to be found in Appendix 3 to the Law Commission’s final report, which sets out for the reader a list of all the suggestions that have not been taken forward. No less than 54 such suggestions are listed. I thought that this was perhaps quite a good indication of the amount of interest among practitioners that this project has generated. However, my sense of excitement was somewhat dampened when I read in paragraph 3.3 that almost all these suggestions were raised by only one consultee, and that there was, indeed, no widespread clamour for reform in respect of the various suggests that that consultee put forward. On the other hand, the consensus was that the 1996 Act works well, as indeed it does, and that root and branch reform was not needed or wanted. What was looked for, instead, was some updating and refinement of what we already have. Indeed, this is essential if we are to ensure that England and Wales remains the jurisdiction of choice for the resolution of international disputes.

The fact is that there is a very competitive market out there in the wider world. We must keep our heads in front. We do not want to lose our place to others in the Middle East and elsewhere, who are marketing their services vigorously to attract as much business as they can. That is why the work that the Law Commission has done in bringing this Bill forward is so important and so much in the public interest.

Leaving Appendix 3 aside, a word should be said about the work done by some very experienced practitioners in Brick Court Chambers, including my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann. I should mention that, although I am a door tenant there, I was not one of those practitioners. They worked to persuade the Law Commission to include a provision in the Bill about the law applicable to the arbitration agreement. I understand that what is now Clause 1 was not in the first draft of the Bill, but it is good to see that the Law Commission was persuaded that there was a need to clarify the rules as to its determination.

As the Minister mentioned in his introduction, the position in Scotland is set out in Section 6 of the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010, which provides that:

“Where (a) the parties to an arbitration agreement agree that an arbitration under that agreement is to be seated in Scotland, but (b) the arbitration agreement does not specify the law which is to govern it, then, unless the parties otherwise agree, the arbitration agreement is to be governed by Scots law”.


There is currently no such provision in the Arbitration Act which precedes this Bill. On the contrary, as the law stands in England and Wales, no necessary inference can be drawn that by choosing an English seat, and with it English law as the law which governs the proceedings in the arbitration, the parties also, by implication, have chosen English law as the law which governs the arbitration agreement itself.

The need for clarity was rendered all the more pressing by the decision of the UK Supreme Court in Enka v Chubb in 2020. In that case, it was held that the question as to the law applicable to the agreement was to be determined by applying English common law rules for resolving conflicts of laws. According to those rules, the law applicable to the arbitration agreement was the law chosen by the parties or, in the absence of such choice, the system of law with which the arbitration agreement was most closely connected.

The reasoning in that case—it was a majority decision, as mentioned earlier—was perfectly orthodox, but it seemed to open up issues which, in this context, were best avoided. It was argued that the better view was that where there was no agreement, the law to be applied to the arbitration agreement should be the law of the seat of the arbitration. That simple solution is what is now provided for in new Section 6A(1) of the 1996 Act, which is set out in Clause 1 of the Bill. This provision achieves the clarity that is needed, in line with the position in Scotland.

However, new Section 6A(2) adds a rider to what is set out in Section 6A(1), which perhaps need to be clarified. It states that:

“For the purposes of subsection (1), agreement between the parties that a particular law applies to an agreement of which the arbitration agreement forms a part does not, of itself, constitute express agreement that that law also applies to the arbitration agreement”.


The words “of itself” beg the question: what do they mean? What do they envisage as necessary to displace the default rule that, where no such agreement is made, the law to be applied is the law of the seat of the arbitration?

These questions arise because it may be said that the wording of subsection (1) is perfectly clear in itself; it already uses the word “expressly”. We are told there that the law applicable is

“the law that the parties expressly agree applies to the arbitration agreement”.

What, then, does subsection (2) add to what is already provided for in subsection (1)? Indeed, do we need that provision at all? I hope that, at some point, clarity could be given as to the reasoning behind subsection (2) so that we fully understand how it interacts with what is already set out in the clearest language in subsection (1).

That point aside, the wording of the other provisions in the Bill, all of which are very welcome, do not seem to me to give rise to any questions. I hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading in due course and as soon possible, and I wish it well as it proceeds through its remaining stages in this House and in the other place.

Jurors: Mental Health Impact

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think that I can add to my earlier Answer that the Government are currently considering all options. Roughly 100,000 people serve on a jury every year; most, as I have just said, find the experience interesting and informative, and the Government will keep this under close review.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, it is helpful to see what happens in Scotland. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service provides specialist assistance in cases of particularly violent and distressing crimes. It is available in the court. It is available to jurors, who may not realise, even given the warnings that have been referred to, that the scenes they are going to have to view repeatedly as a juror as the evidence goes on are particularly distressing. Will the Minister have a look at what happens in Scotland and perhaps follow its example?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I will gladly look at what happens in Scotland—I believe there is a service provided through NHS Lothian. I am not sure I can undertake to follow a Scottish example; Northern Ireland has a counselling association associated with its employee assistance programme. We are exploring a number of options.

National Security Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

With respect to him, the Minister is quite right: the application of ex turpi is very uncertain. There is a great deal of authority, and it is difficult to predict in particular cases whether they are going to rely on it. However, if there is going to be a statutory scheme then I return to my point: it needs to be a lot clearer so judges know how they are supposed to apply it.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I wonder if I may add a thought. One of the words that strike me in Clause 83(5) is “must”. If I were a judge at first instance, I would have to explain my decision, so I would have to say that I had applied my mind to the various factors. Having looked at the factors, I am still left in the dark as to what principle I should apply. I can look at them and understand them, but why should they affect the award? I do not think a list of factors is needed if the Government can explain the principle that should be applied. Is it that a kind of quasi-immunity should be given because of these various factors—some sort of overriding principle in favour of the Government’s security measures and so on that should be applied? I cannot devise that myself, but a list of A, B, C and D is not going to be helpful. We already have the factors there; it is the trigger, what the principle is that leads to the decision that the damages must be reduced, that is important. Otherwise, a first-instance court might say, “I’ve considered the factors and I can’t see any reason why the damages should be reduced”, and an appeals court will say, “Well, that’s perfectly right”, and we are left without any significant advance in this legislation. I hope I have made my position clear. I do not like lists of factors very much, but I like to have guidance as to principle.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I can say that the principle is certainly not for the judge to be asking himself, “Should I be protecting the Government or the security services from actions for damages?” I am not drafting the Bill, and I will further consider the matter, but I would imagine that it is something like how far the claimant brought the situation on himself. That would be an ex turpi causa or contributory negligence type of consideration. However, I do not want to pre-empt the discussion any further, standing on my feet thinking aloud, because I hear what is being said: we want further precision as to how the courts are to go about this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, on that last point, I would need some notice of that question. It is not a point that I have so far had to consider.

It is the case that the court would have to be satisfied on the civil standard that that the claimant had been involved in terrorist wrongdoing. In accordance with normal statutory principles of construction, there would have to be some nexus between the United Kingdom and the terrorist wrongdoing. It is hard to imagine a case in the UK courts where there was terrorist wrongdoing without any nexus to the UK. That is as far as I can go.

I will see if I can get a bit further, if your Lordships will permit me. As far as the general position is concerned, when I said the Government wanted to say that the UK was not a soft touch, I meant that the provision makes it clear that in civil proceedings against the security services of the United Kingdom one has to be aware that the judge will consider whether the damages should be reduced. That is all I meant by that. I did not mean to say, and I do not think I can reasonably have been construed as saying, that the intention was to protect the security services from unwarranted claims for damages. The underlying principle is, I think, that if a terrorist person has brought it on himself then that should be considered, but let me reflect further on the relevant questions that noble Lords have asked.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

Would the Minister consider the wording in Clause 83(4)(a) that says there

“need not be a causal connection”?

You can find that there is a connection, but it need not be a causal connection. I can understand that if there were a causal connection then one might get around to thinking that the damages should be reduced but, if there is not a causal connection, why should you consider a reduction in damages at all? That is one of the reasons why I am looking for a principle that gets over the point that a causal connection is not necessary. What else is there?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

The causal connection point is to do with whether there are national security factors in the first place. As to general question of what the court is to do, and whether we should have further guidance or precision in statute, that is perhaps a matter that we will need to come back to on Report to see whether we can get any further clarity.

Remote Observation and Recording (Courts and Tribunals) Regulations 2022

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, the statutory instrument before us regulates the remote observation of court and tribunal proceedings across our justice system. Essentially, this instrument builds on the very positive experience of remote observation during the pandemic and extends and makes permanent powers that were originally contained in the emergency coronavirus legislation.

The instrument was made using the “made affirmative” procedure on 28 June 2022. It is fair to point out that the scrutiny committee of this House has been somewhat critical of the use of the “made affirmative” procedure in this case, as distinct from the normal draft affirmative procedure. My understanding of what has happened is that the enabling legislation, which is the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, was already delayed in Parliament. The department felt that we should move away from the emergency legislation as soon as possible. The emergency legislation then in force in any event did not cover certain tribunals, including employment tribunals, the Court of Protection and certain other jurisdictions, so the decision was made to press on using the “made affirmative” procedure. None the less, the comments of the scrutiny committee have been duly noted and I have reminded the department of the importance of ensuring full parliamentary scrutiny of all legislation, including legislation such as this.

The Committee will be aware that, at the outset of the pandemic, our courts and tribunals moved swiftly to holding hearings remotely using audio and video technology. I can take this opportunity to pay tribute to HMCTS for its work in enabling that to happen and the principle of open justice to be maintained.

The legislation permitting remote observation was very well received, especially by court reporters, legal bloggers and others who do valiant work in reporting what happens in our justice system. It allowed the courts to offer, in effect, the digital equivalent of the public gallery.

The Government have therefore taken the decision to make remote observation a permanent feature of our justice system and expand it to all our courts and tribunals, save for the Supreme Court and certain devolved courts and tribunals, and to any type of hearing, whether remote, in person or hybrid. The order is made, with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals, by the Lord Chancellor.

The overall aim is to strengthen the transparency, openness and accessibility of the justice system. It is hoped that it will also have the incidental effect of strengthening the sometimes struggling profession of court reporting by providing modern, digital solutions, although public galleries of course continue to be available.

Various safeguards are contained in the enabling legislation which prevent participants making unauthorised recordings or transmissions of the proceedings. It is important to note that at the heart of the provisions is the principle of judicial discretion. It will be for judges, magistrates, coroners and tribunal members to decide on a case-by-case basis whether to provide transmissions of proceedings to members of the press and public.

This does not enable indiscriminate broadcasting or live streaming of proceedings, although that occurs in certain jurisdictions, such as the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. It enables transmissions of proceedings to be made to individuals who have requested access and have identified themselves to the court or, in certain circumstances, to designated live-streaming premises. There is no obligation on judges to allow transmissions to be made to remote observers during a traditional in-person hearing, but it is hoped and assumed that this technology will greatly facilitate access to justice for many. Around 7,000 hearings a week now rely on audio and video technology. That is one of the reasons why this statutory instrument was brought forward as early as it was. The Government seek to strengthen and support the principle of open justice and to increase the accessibility and transparency of our justice system as part of our wider programme of modernising that system.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I am sure this instrument will be widely welcomed. As the noble and learned Lord has explained, this builds on experience, which it is good to do, in two beneficial ways: it is making a temporary arrangement permanent and it is spreading the technological discretion right across the whole system, which is a very good idea. One does not want gaps in an exercise of this kind.

I have a point to raise on the detail of Regulations 3 and 4, simply to try to understand how this system will work. As the noble and learned Lord has explained, this will be an exercise of a discretion. Regulation 3 gives two very sensible matters on which the court must be satisfied, particularly sub-paragraph (b) on technological arrangements and so on, before the discretion is exercised. I have no problems with that, because it is very obvious that this needs to be done. I imagine that, if the court is being invited to exercise a discretion, it would be up to the advocate asking for it to provide the material the court needs to be satisfied with the points set out in Regulation 3.

Regulation 4 is trickier. It is a list of very sensible points which we are told the court must take into account. This is another example of something that has been happening over the years; in the Judicial Review and Courts Bill in particular, there was a list of things that the court must take into account, which caused some concern—some said the word “must” was wrong because it opened the door to criticism of the court if it perhaps failed to take something into account that it should have done. That problem lurks under Regulation 4. How will one be satisfied that the court has taken all these points into account without the court going through the entire list and saying that it has looked at sub-paragraphs (a) to (f)? Have the Government any thoughts on how this will work in practice? Is it simply to be assumed when the court exercises discretion that it has done this, or should it be transparent and laid out in some kind of understandable practice that these points will all be addressed and that the public will be told why and how the court has been satisfied on them?

I raise this not to tease the noble and learned Lord; it is just that somebody, somewhere, might start complaining that, let us say, sub-paragraph (a) has not been taken into account because the magistrate or the judge did not say so. One needs to be a bit careful with these lists to be sure how the thing will actually work in practice. I simply throw that out for the noble and learned Lord to consider. Maybe a definitive answer cannot be given today, but somebody needs to think about it, and maybe guidance needs to be given to those who are exercising the discretion so that they do not fall into a trap.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we support these provisions. They will replace and extend the temporary emergency provisions included in the Coronavirus Act 2020 which allow for certain proceedings to be observed remotely and recorded. We believe in the principle of open justice and think this goes a step towards that and should be welcomed for that reason. However, we are aware that sometimes legal proceedings are very sensitive and painful, and attending a court or tribunal can be a difficult experience for people. For that reason, decisions regarding which types of proceedings should be broadcast or available to different people to observe should not be taken lightly. I am very aware that different jurisdictions will have different considerations in that respect.

Just for the record, I sit as a magistrate in the family, youth and adult jurisdictions, and I sat all the way through the coronavirus pandemic. I started off in the family jurisdiction doing court hearings by BT MeetMe and we graduated to MS Teams. We were making extremely difficult decisions which we felt we had no alternative but to make because of the circumstances which we found ourselves working in as a court.

Of course I agree with the objectives behind this statutory instrument, but I wanted to make one substantive point on the level of technology in these courts. It is highly variable between jurisdictions. When one is dealing with litigants in person, it is not unusual for them to be trying to do things on their mobile phones. Sometimes they have poor signal and all sorts of handicaps if they are trying to take part in court proceedings remotely. In my experience, when a court is 100% remote —that is, everybody is remote—it can be made to work. However, it is more difficult when it is hybrid—when some parties are in the room and others are not. Whether it is fair to go ahead with a hearing is ultimately a matter for judicial discretion, but certainly in my experience, hybrid hearings in various jurisdictions can be detrimental to people who are not physically in the room, and the court needs to be aware of that when it is deciding whether to go ahead with a case. Nevertheless, having said that, we welcome this statutory instrument and we will be happy to support it when it is put to a vote.

Covid-19 and the Courts (Constitution Committee Report)

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I was a late arrival to this inquiry by the Constitution Committee. I did not become a member until all the evidence had already been heard and the committee was considering its report. I was able to contribute a little to the discussion, having had some experience of court procedure and some awareness of the problems the pandemic had created for all court users, but the bulk of the work had been done by others. That enables me to say, without the risk of too much self-congratulation, that this is an excellent report. It has been brought to life very well by our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton. It owes much to her skill and leadership, and to the work of the staff of the committee and to the many witnesses who gave evidence.

There is no doubt that the suddenness of the lockdown created severe problems. Much of this was because the justice system already faced significant challenges due to underfunding, as the noble Baroness pointed out. I look back to the cuts we faced in Scotland as long ago as the 1990s, when I was the Lord Justice General. They started with a request, shortly after I entered office, that we should cut our expenditure for that year by 2%. That was an incentive to cut out what was wasteful and we were able to do as we were asked, but it became increasingly difficult to maintain standards as the same request to cut expenditure was made of us year after year. We were being made to do more with less. What was the case for the system in Scotland was also such in England and Wales.

So there is a warning here, which the noble Baroness has issued and I endorse, and that experience needs to be taken very seriously. The fact is that underfunded systems are much less resilient to the kind of shock that was caused by the pandemic. But there is a bright side to this: like all shocks to the system, the pandemic was an impetus for the development and application of new ideas and the acceleration of improvements, some of which were already under way. The aim of this report was to explore what should and could be done as we seek to learn from that experience. The committee looked at the impact of the pandemic across the justice system and it made many recommendations.

The report was published on 30 March last year. The Government’s response, by the then Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland QC, was issued on 28 May 2021. It was as good a response as we could have hoped for, as it covered the issues that we raised in commendable detail. However, as so often happens with these debates on reports, time has slipped by. Here we are, debating it some nine months after we received the response. This means that some of the information that was given then needs to be updated. I am sure the Minister will want to do that and I very much look forward to what he has to say.

I will concentrate on just a few points—first, managing the backlog. It was inevitable that the business of the courts would be interrupted by the lockdown and especially by the impact of the need for social distancing in the conduct of criminal trials. This impacted the whole handling of business in courts, which are usually attended by many people in close proximity to each other. This meant even more delays in cases coming to trial, even more increases in the time spent on remand, with all that that entails for the detainee, for whom remand is often a miserable existence, and risks to the quality of evidence.

The Government said in their response last May that, given that at that time the courts were still operating within these constraints, their indicators on current levels of timeliness were positive. That was the message we were given then. I conducted a search of the latest edition of Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly, from July to September 2021, which was published in January this year. It shows there was a continuing recovery in some areas, including a timeliness decrease in the magistrates’ courts of 5%.

The position in the Crown Court seems very different. The median age of outstanding cases had increased by 50% on the previous year. Around 23% of cases had been outstanding for a year on more, up from 15% in the third quarter of 2020. The statistics for the last quarter of 2021 are not yet on the website, but it would be helpful if the Minister could bring us up to date. I hope there has been some improvement and that priority has been given to custodial cases to reduce time spent on remand as far as possible.

Secondly, there is the use of remote hearings. A study of the HMCTS website shows that much has been achieved and full advantage has been taken of the available technology. As far as I can see, there is a lot of online guidance now on how to manage the various systems. I also welcome the guidance the Lord Chief Justice recently gave about how to conduct remote attendance by advocates in the Crown Court. This will help to maintain consistency in this area of practice.

But what is being done to help those who do not have access to online guidance—the disadvantaged elderly, the disabled, or those who are less able to understand what is on offer? We noted in our report, at paragraphs 279 to 280, that the then current plans to collect data on the protected characteristics of court users lacked “clear deadlines or targets”. Is that still the case? Are the data, always so crucial to proper planning, being kept up to date?

Then there is the need for more accommodation to reduce the backlog. It is good to see that the number of Nightingale courts is to be expanded by making available 30 more such places spread around the country. Some are being closed, but more are being opened. Can something be said about whether these facilities are enough to cope with the demand and why, as we are being told, they are to be available only until March 2023? Can we be assured that they will be available after that date if the backlog has still not been cleared?

Lastly, there is the question of remote jury trials. The provisions in Part 13 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill—to enable criminal jury trials to take place if the judiciary thinks it acceptable—are controversial, but the report shows that such trials have been taking place in Scotland. It was impossible to accommodate juries in the accommodation that was available in the courtrooms there because of the need for social distancing. Of course, juries in Scotland are 15, not just 12.

Two possible solutions to the problem were rejected, as I believe they were in England and Wales. The first was to dispense with juries altogether during the period of emergency; the other was to reduce their size. It was decided that the jury should sit in a remote location, usually a cinema, while all the other participants, suitably spaced, were in the courtroom. It was decided that the judge should be there in the courtroom and not with the jury. Some people, particularly in this jurisdiction, have objected to this on the ground that the judge and jury should never be separated, but even a judge cannot be in two places at once. The most important thing is for the judge to be in the courtroom, where the witnesses are and where the trial is being conducted by the advocates.

I have been assured by the Lord Justice Clerk, Lady Dorrian, that the Scottish system has been working well, to the satisfaction of all participants. There is no question of the remote trials that the Bill is providing being used other than in exceptional circumstances, but the experience in Scotland is of some assistance. Are the Government continuing to pilot remote trials, as the report recommended in paragraph 220? If so, what conclusions are being drawn? In particular, is attention being paid to the issue that caused some concern of where the judge should sit under the new system, if there is a need to preserve social distancing? As I said, it seemed to work well in Scotland, with the jury sitting remotely from the judge and the judge being in the place where he or she most needed to be.

I am sure the Minister will agree that bringing the courts system under scrutiny, as the committee sought to do in this inquiry, has been beneficial. Of course, there remains the question of whether the system will be given the resources it needs to achieve the level of performance we would all like to see and to give it the resilience that it requires, but that, I suspect, is a matter for another day.

Barristers Leaving Criminal Practice

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, we think that these changes will be a systemic change in legal aid: 3.5 million more people will be eligible for legal aid in magistrates’ courts and 2 million more people will be eligible for civil legal aid. We think that will help the Bar generally. Our other plans—for example, having more online hearings—mean that barristers are not spending money on travel and that a barrister can, for example, drop their children off at school and then attend a hearing 200 miles away.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

The Minister has just mentioned travel. Has any thought been given to reimbursing barristers for the cost of travelling to and from the courts in which they are to appear, particularly in the case of junior barristers, for whom a substantial part of the fee is taken up simply by the cost of travelling to and from the court?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

The noble and learned Lord is absolutely right. We do look at the cost of travel for barristers. As I have just said, we hope that increased online hearings will mean that travel costs are essentially reduced to zero, with more money therefore going into barristers’ pockets. That is something that we are looking at. We have constant discussions with the judiciary on that. Ultimately, however, whether a hearing is heard in person or online is a decision for the judge, not for Government Ministers.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 21st February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, this is an area of complexity and difficulty and I think the difficulties are added to by the content of the Bill as the Government have brought it before us. It was not broken and it was not necessary to fix it in this respect. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has just explained how the previous use of common-law powers has dealt with this matter perfectly satisfactorily.

I share with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the dislike of anything that lessens the clear impact of the threat of judicial review on the public service. I say threat not because I am hostile to members of the public service but because it is a necessary discipline that things must be done within the law and they know that, if they are not, what they are bringing forward could well be nullified in the courts. The severity of judicial review is important to its role as the discipline for the rule of law.

There are, however, cases which do not fit easily into this pattern and which make an element of retrospection attractive. I think of licensing measures of various kinds—measures that render lawful things that would otherwise be unlawful. There are quite a lot of them in the area of game shooting, for example, and one caused quite a stir over the last couple of years: the power to shoot a predator bird if it is likely to enter an area where it would disturb the wildlife in a site of scientific interest which is subject to protection. In a recent example, there was indeed the threat of an action which did not take place in the end but which led Natural England to accept that its regulations were defective.

In those circumstances, you have people who have behaved in good faith and—they thought—lawfully, who, when the court in a judicial review determines that the action is not within the law, are left in a rather difficult position. You may say that nobody is going to prosecute them once it becomes clear that the law had been nullified. The case may already have started. However, in the real world, having been found to have acted unlawfully, even unwittingly, is not a good position to be in and not one that an employee wants to find themselves in. It presents some difficulties which I think Amendment 6, from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, attempts to address in so far as it affects regulations and delegated legislation. I will be interested to hear him set it out more fully and the Minister’s response to it.

That qualification—that we should remember the interests and concerns of people whose actions could unwittingly be rendered unlawful—is only a limited qualification to what, in my view, is the fundamental reason to object to what the Government are proposing, which is that the full rigour of the effects of judicial review should be something that the public service is always aware of.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I find myself in the same position as my noble friend Lord Anderson and I would like to add just a few words to what he said.

One of the points made in the Explanatory Notes—and I am looking at paragraph 21—is that:

“The diverse circumstances of possible cases make it difficult to assume that any one remedy or combination of remedies would be most appropriate in all circumstances.”


My noble friend Lord Pannick invites us to address subsection (1), read together with subsection (4). If one asks oneself what these provisions are driving at, one has to bear in mind that there is a whole range of diverse circumstances, some of which may affect private individuals very much indeed; in which case, one would be very concerned that their remedies were not being cut out. Other cases deal with administration and circumstances where individuals probably are not affected at all, but the good administration or even the security of the country is very much at stake when a quashing order is made.

I hope I can be forgiven for coming back to the case of HM Treasury v Ahmed in 2010, which I was involved in. I mentioned it at Second Reading and when I was addressing this subject at an earlier stage. It is worth dwelling on that case because it is an illustration of a circumstance where the clauses that are under attack by these amendments could be valuable. It was a case where the Treasury had pronounced an order to give effect to our international obligations under the United Nations Act 1946, designed to freeze the assets of suspected terrorists. That was our international obligation and, understandably, the Treasury made the order. But when the case came before the Supreme Court, it was pointed out that there was no parliamentary authority for such an extreme measure. The Supreme Court unanimously decided that the order should be set aside.

I suggested in the course of the hearing and, indeed, at the end of my speech—the leading speech in the main case—that we should suspend the effect of the order to give time for the Government to remedy the situation in order to avoid the terrorists dissipating their assets. The risk was that the banks that were holding the assets under the order that was under attack would release them under demand from the terrorists. Clearly, that would not be desirable.

I was overruled by six to one for a reason which, I think, demonstrates why these provisions are needed. My noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood was in the majority of the six against me so perhaps he can explain more fully what their reasoning was. As I understand it, they were saying that if you quash the order you are declaring what the law always was; in other words, the Treasury order was of no effect at all—that was the effect of the order—and, as I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, said, it would indeed undermine the effect of the quashing order to suspend it because it would be suspecting that there was something wrong with the decision to quash the order.

I could not understand that and I still cannot understand the sense of it. Indeed, one of the broadsheet papers, having spotted what was going on, asked: has the Supreme Court gone mad? I remember that certain people were rather discomfited by that but it was a very strange thing to do because there was no question of the banks releasing the money. But it was just as well to suspend the order so that they would be comforted by the fact that we were not actually making the order until Parliament had come in and produced a proper remedy to sort it out.

There you are. If you look at subsection (4), the “impugned act” was this order and what I wanted to do was to, in effect, allow the impugned act to be maintained—or, as subsection (4) puts it, “upheld”—so that the matter could be corrected. I cannot see anything objectionable to exercising the power in subsection (1)(b) in a circumstance of that kind. I wish we had had that power available to us at the time. It would have made my life a good deal easier in our discussions. It was not there and any idea that the common law could do that had really been exploded by the decision of the majority.

There is a problem and it would arise time and again if people were looking at the majority decision. There are, or could be, cases where for the protection of the public and in the interests of good administration the possibility of suspending the effect of the order so that the impugned act is regarded as valid until the defect can be corrected will be valuable. I suggest, with great respect to my noble friend, that it would be unwise to remove these provisions from the Bill.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I feel I have to rise at this juncture. I supported Clause 1 at Second Reading and continue to do so today. Like other noble Lords who have spoken since, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I suggest, puts the case against the clause altogether too high. I say that Clause 1 and the powers that it confers on the judiciary valuably would add to the judges’ discretion, their powers to do justice not just to the claimant in a particular case but on a wider basis. I, too, was in the Spectrum case—Lord Nicholls’ case with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and others—and it was not a case in which we thought at that stage and in that context we should exercise this power, assuming we had it, to develop the law.

I am going to disappoint the Committee because I have insufficient recollection—I shall come back to this on Report, I promise or threaten—to deal now with the point from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. But I see the force of what he says and, in a rather different context, I, too, wish to reminisce. I go back even further, a quarter of a century, to a case called Percy v Hall. It was so long ago that Mr Keir Starmer was the second junior with a very white wig. It was a case about by-laws in respect of Menwith Hill, a listening post, a secure station for GCHQ and the Americans, and the by-laws, not surprisingly, precluded public entry.

--- Later in debate ---

Do not give the judges the power to say everything going backwards is fine. That is for the legislature or the Executive to sort out, not the judges. Give the legislature or the Executive the time to sort it out by a suspended quashing order, but do not give the judges the power to set the law to one side for the past. That is not their role. Their role is to determine whether or not the Executive have acted in accordance with the law. Their job is to hold them to the law, not to free them from the law. So, my strong objection is to proposed new Section 29A(1)(b), which is very much a remedy too far.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

The noble and learned Lord was kind enough to refer to the case that I was referring to. However, I was suggesting that the court should have power, in effect, to direct that the order made under the United Nations provisions be treated as valid until Parliament could introduce a measure giving authority to the making of the order. That is indeed what happened afterwards; Parliament had to remedy the problem and some time was needed to allow it to do that.

The banks were holding on to the money; of course, they were not going to release it unless it was demanded by these suspected terrorists, but had they demanded it, it might have been quite difficult for the banks to refuse to release some money. My point was that something should be done to prevent that happening. The last thing one wanted was to give these terrorists the opportunity to make off and dissipate all the assets that had been protected by the order made under the international obligation.

The problem that the noble and learned Lord is grappling with is that there is a huge range of circumstances in which these provisions may come into effect, some of which, I quite agree, would be offensive. I would hope that the courts would be sensible enough not to exercise the power. There are various provisions later in the Bill, which we will discuss and which might be better removed to preserve the court’s flexibility. The question is whether the power should be there at all. My point was that, yes, it should be there because there can be cases where the interests of good administration, and possibly national security, require the possibility of doing that to prevent the event—or whatever it was that the defective order was designed to prevent—taking effect.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

New subsection (1)(a) deals with that point. The effect of the order stood until the Supreme Court set it aside, and everybody would accept that that is the position. If the Supreme Court had had new subsection (1)(a)—which it could have—it could have said that the order freezing the money continues for six more months and in six months’ more time it is then quashed. That is my understanding of a (1)(a) order: the quashing order means getting rid of the restraint on dealing with the money and does not take effect until the date specified in the order.

If the Supreme Court had said, “This order stands until six months’ time”, and a bank had then been approached and told, “Excuse me, the terrorists want their money now”, the answer would have been no because there would still, in effect, be a restraining order. It would have dealt with the problem that the noble and learned Lord posits; I think Clause 1(1)(a) would have dealt with it.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I recommend that the noble and learned Lord refers to Treasury 2 because I made exactly the point that he was trying to make and I was overruled by the others. They said, “You can’t do that”, and they would not make the suspended order. We are in Committee and we cannot prolong the discussion, but that is the problem that I was faced with. I tried to do exactly what the noble and learned Lord suggested but I was overruled. That is the problem that I think the Government are trying to address; the Minister will correct me if I am wrong.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I enter this discussion with some trepidation. Nevertheless, it raises very important points of principle, which have been essentially analysed in the last few minutes and the last few exchanges. As we have heard, the effects of Amendments 1, 4 and 5, in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Ponsonby, would be to remove from the Bill the power to make a quashing order prospective only. That is the problem: it is prospective only. We are not arguing for the removal of the power to delay. I will come back to that in a moment, but I start from the position that I agree entirely with the analysis of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that a (1)(a) order could solve all the problems outlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson.

I venture to suggest that it is significant that when the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, considered its recommendations for this type of order, it recommended only the power to delay, not the power to validate past unlawful action in the way that a quashing order made prospective only would do. Our amendments are premised on the proposition that, when the courts find that an Act, or a decision or regulation of any organ of government, is unlawful, it should not then be able to decide only to quash it with future effect. As the amendment’s explanatory statement puts it, and as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, explained, the proposed power would thereby validate

“what would otherwise be quashed as unlawful”,

and unlawful for all purposes. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, emphasised the provisions in proposed new Section 29A(4) and (5) for the all-embracing effect of a prospective-only quashing order.

New subsection (4) makes it absolutely clear that the impugned act—which is ex hypothesi an unlawful act because a quashing order is being made—is to be upheld in any respect in which the provision under new subsection (1)(b) prevents it being quashed. That has no flexibility. If the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—as well as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, as referred to in his speech—are seeking flexibility, a (1)(a) order is not the way to do it. Our Amendments 1 and 4 do not seek to debar a court on judicial review from permitting either officials to put right a decision taken unlawfully by remedying the unlawfulness or, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, Parliament to alter unlawful regulations without the need to wield the blunt instrument of a quashing order immediately.

We suggest that the power to suspend by delaying the quashing order eliminates that risk. It mitigates the risk that a quashing order would have the effect of indiscriminately overruling all government action, for example a regulation, without distinguishing between what was lawful, or ought to be lawful, and what was unlawful. We say that enabling a decision to take effect on a delayed basis would enable the law or the government action to be corrected so as to regularise the unlawful government action. So, the quashing order, if it took effect immediately, would be senseless, but it must stand once the delay is over, to deal with the past unlawfulness. It deals with the Ahmed point, as suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and it is a far cry from the courts permitting past unlawful action to go uncorrected.

The prospective-only quashing order power undermines the central principle on which judicial review jurisdiction is based: government action is required to be in accordance with law, and if it is not in accordance with law, it will be corrected. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, sensibly conceded in her speech that there may be conditions or limits but they can all be dealt with by the power to delay. A crucial point that a prospective-only order ignores is that “corrected” means corrected for everyone; that is, all litigants, future and potential, even those who have not yet brought cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I shall say just a few words. It is very strange that there is nothing in the Explanatory Notes to explain why this presumption is in the Bill at all. I have searched the notes for guidance and can find nothing. That point aside, I stress the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton about the danger that lurks in proposed new subsections (9) and (10). If one is sitting in a court trying to work one’s way through the various phrases set out there, they create a number of traps—and certainly opportunities for the disaffected litigant to challenge the decision. There are value judgments to make about what is “a matter of substance”; you must address your mind to what is meant by the phrase “adequate redress”; and you must find whether there is a “good reason” for doing or not doing something. These are all things you must face up to, and you must explain yourself, because it is all qualified by the words “is to do” or “must do”. A judgment that is going to stand up to scrutiny in the Court of Appeal will have to work through all those phrases and explain what decision the judge has taken in order to support the decision that is ultimately made.

This remedial tool is being encrusted with so much stuff that it is almost unusable. It really is ridiculous to overwork to this extent the amount of directions being given to the judge. It is not necessary, it is bad legislation and it is extremely dangerous. It is not a remedial tool at all; the Government are trying to create something in their own interest, as has been pointed out already, and make it as difficult and dangerous as possible for judges to use this tool. It should certainly not be legislated for in this form. Therefore, I strongly support the removal of these two subsections.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I feel tempted to respond to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Beith. It is absolutely true that this particular form of words does not find its way into our report in any way. That, of course, does not necessarily mean that it is a mistake to include it in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, gives a choice that is not very inviting: either this is a mere surplusage, in which case it should go, or it is potentially something that an inexperienced judge might get wrong or feel compelled by to make an order that he or she would not otherwise want to make. I wonder if that does not slightly overstate the case. I should say that I am not wholly convinced of its necessity, but I do not think it anything like as damaging as has been described.

After all, before you even get to the question of whether the court is to make a quashing order, a considerable number of hurdles have to be surmounted, as do a number of considerations which we have canvassed during the course of the debate. So, if the “interests of justice”, or whatever term that the judge directs himself or herself to, have allowed them to reach the conclusion that it is not appropriate to make a quashing order, this question of a presumption, whether it is a weak or a strong one, simply does not arise. Of course, the judge can also simply say, “Well, I take into account subsection (9), but I don’t see a good reason for making the order”, having regard to whatever it might be. I do not see it as quite the same hurdle race that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, described it as.

I will listen carefully to the Minister on why it is in there. I do not think it particularly harmful, but there is, as it were, enough here to allow the judges to do what is fair without necessarily including this particular presumption.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I will say a few words about the provisions in Part 1 of this Bill as I have had some experience of the issues raised by both clauses in it.

I refer first to Clause 1, on quashing orders. The Minister was kind enough to refer to the case of Ahmed v HM Treasury. In that case, the Supreme Court held that an Order in Council made under the general wording of the United Nations Act 1946 freezing the assets of people suspected of terrorism should be set aside because such an extreme step should be taken only with the express authority of Parliament.

I found myself in a minority of one against six in holding that our order should be suspended to give time for the matter to be corrected before the assets were dissipated. Those against me said that to suspend the order would undermine the credibility of the decision we had taken, but I found myself unpersuaded by that argument. In the event, Parliament was able to pass emergency legislation in time, but it was a close call. I think it would have been easier for me to carry the rest of the court with me if the power to hold that the quashing should not take place until a later date had been written in statute. There are, no doubt, other examples of situations where the power to do this would be desirable.

I am inclined to agree too with the proposal to enable the court to provide a prospective-only remedy where it holds that an order should be quashed. I gave a judgment some years ago in which I indicated, in agreement with Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, that I was in favour of that remedy. We were dealing in that case with a common law rule, but the flexibility that this provision offers in the case of the quashing of orders made by the Executive, under which decisions of all kinds may already have been taken, is to be welcomed. But I share with others some concern about the wording of Clause 2(9), where the word “must” appears. Much will turn on the precise meaning of that word in the overall context, but one has to be careful. One should not deprive victims of the illegality of an effective remedy; there may be situations where that would be unjust. There is a question of balance here, which is best left to the judiciary, taking case by case.

Turning to Clause 2, I was a member of the panel of the Supreme Court in the Cart case, which it seeks to reverse, and I wrote the leading judgment in the Scottish case of Eba. In holding that decisions of the Upper Tribunal should be open to judicial review, we set the bar as high as we could when we were defining the test that should be applied. I appreciate that there may be a question as to whether the Government are right in saying that experience has shown that our choice of remedy has not worked, although the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has given us much of what was in his report to indicate that that is the case. If that is so—and I am inclined to follow the noble Lord—it seems to be time to end this type of judicial review.

We would, in the result, be returning to the original recommendation by a committee chaired by Sir Andrew Leggatt, to which I referred in my judgment in Eba: that the appeals system should be used and that judicial review should be excluded. Some support from that recommendation can be found for making this change.

I add two other points. First, to describe the provision in Clause 2 as an ouster clause seems just a little bit too strong. It is reversing the decision in Cart and, taken in its context, the wording has to be as clear as it is to make it clear that there can be no return to the Cart decision. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said, the Clause seems tailor-made to the context. It is certainly very far removed from the ouster clause in the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill, in the context of the use of prerogative powers which causes some of your Lordships concern.

The second point relates to the extent provision in Clause 47(6). Coming from Scotland as I do, I tend to look at these clauses to see how much of the Bill I need read. If I am told that a part does not apply, then I need not trouble with it. The problem in this case is that one finds that Chapter 1 of Part 2 deals with criminal procedure, none of which applies in Scotland at all. I wonder why Clause 47(6) does not say so; it is saying, in effect, that it applies to Scotland. That really does seem to be a very strange way of legislating. There may be points to be made about Chapter 2 of Part 2 as well. I would be grateful if the Minister could assure me that the issue we have already discussed will be looked at again, in case some correction should be made.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I do not share the concerns that have just been expressed. It seems to me that Amendment 104E makes it very clear what the mischief is; it is making it a condition of access to accommodation that sexual services are provided. We all know what that means, and juries will know what it means. It is a real mischief and it needs to be addressed. If the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, divides the House on Amendments 104E and 104F, he will certainly have my support.

However, I have concerns about the drafting of Amendment 104F. My concern is that in several places it uses the concept of “arranging” an offence—not simply facilitating the offence but arranging or facilitating it. I do not really understand what the difference is and what is added by “arranging an offence”. I am not myself aware of other contexts where that concept has been used. It is a very vague concept and, I think, a rather undesirable one.

I am also troubled by proposed new subsection (3)(c) of Amendment 104F, which makes it an offence if a publisher is informed that its actions

“had enabled the arrangement of or facilitated an offence”

and it then

“failed to take remedial action within a reasonable time.”

All that is extremely unclear and uncertain as to the ingredients of the offence. No doubt that can be dealt with at Third Reading if others share my view. I emphasise that I support the amendments, but I draw attention to those matters that cause me concern.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I have one point to add to what has been said by my noble friend Lord Pannick. The word “publisher” troubles me a bit. It is not defined in the amendment, and I am not quite sure what that word is directed to. Is it somebody in business as a publisher or somebody who simply publishes something, describing the activity rather than the trade? The amendment would be improved if something was said in it as to what exactly is meant by the word “publisher”.

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I speak briefly in support of Amendments 104E and 104F, in the name of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. In doing so, I declare my interest as director of Generation Rent.

Predators online attempt to coerce men and women to exchange sex for a home by exploiting their financial vulnerabilities. They have used the economic effects of the pandemic as a marketing technique. This is already a crime, and it is not a new crime, but there has only ever been one charge for this offence, and that was in January last year. However, back in 2016, Shelter found that 8% of women had been offered a sexual arrangement. Two years later, its polling estimated that 250,000 women had been asked for sexual favours in exchange for free or discounted rent, and its more recent research showed that 30,000 women in the UK were propositioned with such an arrangement between the start of the pandemic in March 2020 and January 2021.

This is a crime that goes on, openly and explicitly, through adverts on online platforms. Despite the adverts being clear in their intention, they go unchecked, are placed without consequence and are largely ignored by law enforcement and the online platform providers. The fact that there has only ever been one charge for this crime shows how inadequate the law and CPS guidance are in this area.

The victims of this exploitation have been failed. As my noble friend said, for a victim to get justice, they need to be defined as a prostitute for a criminal case to progress, which is a huge deterrent that has to be changed. The online platforms—that is what I believe is meant by “publisher”—allow this crime to be facilitated, and they must have action taken against them. That is why I very much support the amendments tabled by my noble friend.

In closing, I pay tribute to the honourable Member for Hove in the other place for his campaigning on this issue, and the many journalists who have kept this issue on the agenda, including the team at ITV, whose research I understand helped to lead to the one charge for this crime that there has ever been. No one should ever be forced by coercion or circumstance to exchange sex for her home. There is a housing emergency in this country. It continues to hit new lows—so low that sexual predators can deliberately take advantage of people’s desperation to find a home. For me, Amendments 104E and 104F are an opportunity to protect some of the country’s most vulnerable renters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for pursuing this important matter, and to the Minister for his engagement on a number of occasions with those of us who support the noble Baroness and are concerned about this. During those discussions, I expressed the view that it is striking that there is such a radical difference of view between the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, with her enormous expertise in this area, and civil servants as to how the system is working in practice. I therefore suggested to the Minister that one way forward in this important area would be for him to agree that there should be an independent assessment—an independent inquiry—of an outfacing nature that can rely on the expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and others in order to inform the department as to the way forward. That seems to be a constructive way forward, and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to say that the department is prepared to do that.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I too pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Coussins for the determination with which she has pursued this argument. As a user of the court, it is crucial to have complete confidence in the interpreter. Most of us do not have the complete gift of language—which perhaps my noble friend has—over a wide range of languages. You have to rely on the interpreter; confidence in what the interpreter is doing is crucial to the way the proceedings are conducted, so the highest standards should be aimed for. I must say, I am surprised that it is taking so long for the advice my noble friend has offered to be accepted and put into practice.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Lords Hansard - part one & Report stage
Wednesday 15th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I do not want to re-enter an old argument but, in Committee, I was almost embarrassed when the Minister pointed out that I was completely wrong about mandatory minimum sentences. Not being a lawyer, I thought that I had made some sort of legal error, but apparently not. Clause 102 will lead to gross injustice for anyone who is convicted of these offences, except in exceptional circumstances. That is revealed by the very clever wording of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, which contrasts those exceptional circumstances with a much preferable

“contrary to the interests of justice”.

These amendments bring justice into play rather than pure, unmetered punishment. I and my noble friend will be supporting the amendments.

The deterrent effect of these minimum sentences would still be in play, but there would also be the freedom that, when justice requires, a person is not given one of these mandatory sentences—so the Government can still hold their “tough on crime” stance and even call this “crime fortnight” while justice is still served—although it would be good if they could admit their own crimes sometimes.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I will say a few words in support of Amendment 82A dealing with short custodial sentences. The value of this amendment is that it places greater emphasis on alternative disposals, which fits in with what I thought was the Government’s policy of trying to rehabilitate offenders. Sending people to prison for a short period is counter- productive. One knows what happens in prisons. To send people for a short sentence is wasteful of public money. If there is an alternative to a custodial sentence, then it should be adopted. The proposal made in this amendment has a great deal behind it.

As for the other issues, speaking as a former judge I tend to support what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has said. If I was faced with the choice of words, I would find it easier to work with the Government’s wording than the wording proposed in the amendments.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, I agree with much of what has been said. On Amendment 82A I reiterate what has been said, and I hope will be said later, about primary carers. We know the damage short sentences do to families. We also know that close to half of those leaving custody go on to reoffend within a year of their release, but two-thirds of those sentenced to less than 12 months go on to reoffend.

This is not pie in the sky; if we look at Germany, which performs better on virtually every metric including reoffending, they imprison a far smaller proportion of the population and sentencers have to make two assessments before sentencing. First, they have to show that a community sentence is inappropriate and, secondly, they have to say that a short sentence will suit the need better. I commend Amendment 82A.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the support that I have had for my Amendments 71 to 78 from Members of the House and for all the contributions to this important debate. I am also grateful to the Minister for his response. However, when one analyses it, what he was saying about discretion cannot survive a proper reading of what is meant by “exceptional circumstances”. Certainly, it is the case that authorities have analysed exceptional circumstances, including the Court of Appeal authority of Nancarrow that he mentioned.

Nevertheless, the nub of it is that “exceptional circumstances” means circumstances that are very unusual, and what the Minister did not address was my point that there are many situations which in general experience are commonplace, and the circumstances are common- place, but where it would nevertheless be unjust—contrary both to the judges and to any normal sense of justice—to impose the minimum sentence. Because the circumstances are not exceptional, the judge would be bound to impose that sentence.

In answer to the points of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, of course it is the case that judges are daily addressed on the basis that they should take an exceptional course of leniency, and it is not surprising that, as a recorder, he has been asked to take that course many times. However, that does not mean that he has been asked to find that circumstances are exceptional. It is interesting that the test for the sentencing guidelines and departing from them is “contrary to the interests of justice”, and not a requirement that there should be exceptional circumstances.

On the matter of policy, I respectfully suggest that the answer to the Minister’s point was comprehensively expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. He used the word “wise”. It may be that the Government are entitled to legislate in this way, but is it wise? The Minister said that there was a difference between “wise” and “constitutionally proper”. The point I am making is simply that, although it may be a matter of policy in the sense that the Government can have the policy and can legislate—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, Parliament can do what it likes—the question is: is it bad policy? We say that it is bad policy because it forces judges to do what they would not otherwise do, having regard to the interests of justice.

In respect of the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, of course it is right that it may be easier to apply a test of exceptional circumstances, because the authorities are so clear, but the point about the interests of justice, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, picked up in Committee, is that sentencing decisions are difficult.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. My point is that I would be drawn into arguments with myself about policy in deciding whether to do what Parliament has asked me to do. I am afraid that, as a judge, the constitutional position is that I have to accept what Parliament has laid down. I do not like minimum sentences; they are a very blunt instrument, and I can think of cases where I would not want to be driven down that road. But that is not my position as a judge. I have to follow what Parliament has said, but I have leeway with the phrase which has been inserted in the Bill. That is my point.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I understand that point. It is very rare that I disagree with the noble and learned Lord, but it is still the fact that what Parliament decides, judges must implement. If they decide that there is an exceptional circumstances test, that is far more limiting than an interests of justice test. That is my point and I will close on it—except to say that the default position under my amendment is to accept minimum sentences and simply to allow the judges to depart from those sentences where it is just to do so, having regard to all the circumstances. I do not believe that there has been any answer presented to that central position, on which I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.