Legal Aid

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord said that Section 10 is working effectively. Will he give further consideration to the recommendation of the Low commission, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, that the application process for Section 10 is much in need of simplification? Will the Government act on the concern expressed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights about the lack of training for Legal Aid Agency employees who are responsible for making decisions about Section 10?

[Lord Faulks]

The Government are aware of the JCHR’s concern about the lack of training. I have been reassured that the employees are appropriately trained and aware of their responsibilities. In terms of the forms, I give the same answer that I gave before, which is that the matter is kept under review. It is believed that the forms are perfectly within the capabilities of solicitors to understand. If one of these forms is inadequately filled in, you are told, whereas with some forms in other contexts you never know which box you failed to tick.

Criminal Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Pannick]

That this House regrets that the Criminal Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 restrict the availability of legal aid, advice and assistance in prison law cases (SI 2013/2790).

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, another week, another set of legal aid regulations to regret. These regulations will severely limit the availability of legal aid advice and assistance in prison law. I shall mention four examples of issues for which legal aid advice and assistance will no longer be available by reason of these regulations. The first is Parole Board proceedings for indeterminate sentence prisoners—ISPs—where the Secretary of State refers the case before the expiry of the minimum term for advice on a move for the prisoner to open conditions, and also where an ISP is removed from open conditions and the Minister seeks advice from the Parole Board on a return to an open prison. This will no longer be covered. The Parole Board itself said in its written evidence to an inquiry on this subject by the Joint Committee on Human Rights that because most prisoners require a period in open conditions before the Parole Board can be satisfied that they are safe to release:

“There is in consequence, a great deal at stake for prisoners at these reviews”.

The need for high standards to be applied at such hearings, in the interests of the prisoner and in the public interest, is obvious, and because of the impossibility of prisoners representing themselves effectively at such hearings and problems such as how to manage a prisoner cross-examining a professional witness giving evidence about the prisoner’s conduct in prison, the Parole Board told the Joint Committee in its written evidence that it believed the proposal to remove legal aid,

“is very likely to impede our attempts to deal with cases fairly, promptly and effectively”.

It is very surprising that the Secretary of State should have proceeded with the changes despite the concerns expressed by the Parole Board.

The second example of decisions which will be excluded from legal aid is decisions to place or keep a prisoner in Category A—that is, prisoners assessed to be a high security risk—which of course affects prison conditions. A third excluded category is the allocation of places in mother and baby units. Vulnerable women will be denied access to legal advice on whether they should be separated from their babies. A fourth example is decisions on removal from association—that is, segregation decisions. One could give many more examples.

What are the justifications offered by the Secretary of State for denying legal advice and assistance in such important matters, even if all other eligibility criteria are satisfied? The main answer given by Mr Grayling, the Secretary of State for Justice, in his oral evidence to the House of Commons Justice Select Committee on 3 July 2013 is that the difference between him and his critics was “ideological”—his word. Indeed, he used that word three times in as many minutes in response to questions on this matter. The report of the evidence is published as HC 91. Mr Grayling told the Justice Committee:

“I do not believe that prisoners in jail should have the right to access legal aid to debate which prison they are put in”.

He went on to say that they should not have the right to legal aid to raise other questions about their treatment, with limited exceptions.

This is to reverse 35 years of progress in the approach adopted by the legal system to the treatment of prisoners. The modern era of prison law began in 1978 when the Court of Appeal required fair disciplinary proceedings for those alleged to be involved in the Hull prison riots. Since that decision, our courts have repeatedly made it clear that administrative decisions in prison must comply with basic standards of legality, procedural fairness and rationality.

The application of legal standards to decision-making within prisons has immeasurably improved the quality of those decisions and ensured greater transparency and accountability. No one, with the possible exception of the Secretary of State for Justice, could doubt the public benefits in enabling prisoners to hold prison authorities to basic standards of legality and fairness or the indispensable contribution which has been made in this respect by legal aid. That a Secretary of State, and indeed a Secretary of State for Justice, should now, for so-called ideological reasons, wish to reverse such developments is very much a matter for regret.

Mr Grayling’s second point is that legal aid is not needed because the internal prison complaints system and the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman will provide redress where appropriate. Without legal assistance a prisoner is simply not going to be able to make his or her points effectively and speedily by reference to the applicable legal requirements. Unhappily, many prisoners lack basic skills of literacy or suffer from other problems which impede their ability to present an effective grievance. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, Mr Nick Hardwick CBE, echoed these concerns in his evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as recorded in paragraph 174 of the Committee’s seventh report.

As the Law Society has pointed out in its helpful briefing on this Motion, at present many complaints are simply, effectively and speedily resolved by a solicitor’s letter setting out the legal position to the person taking the decision. The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman can only make recommendations and provides a much slower method of seeking redress than a solicitor’s letter. The ombudsman, Mr Nigel Newcomen CBE, told the Joint Committee on Human Rights that he was concerned about the Government’s proposals, in particular because his office was unable to cope with the expected increase in workload.

These regulations will not even save public money. The cost of maintaining legal aid in ISP cases before the Parole Board, for example, is minimal, and the cost of ISPs remaining unjustifiably in closed conditions when they could safely be allowed to move to open conditions is high. The Howard League for Penal Reform has pointed out that the Ministry of Justice has put the cost of dealing with each complaint to the ombudsman at £830, which is more than three times the £220 fixed fee for a solicitor doing this work under the legal aid arrangements.

In the Supreme Court last April, in the case of Osborn v the Parole Board, reported in volume 3 of the 2013 Weekly Law Reports page 1020, paragraph 72, Lord Reed stated for the court that,

“procedures which involve an immediate cost but contribute to better decision-making are in reality less costly than they may appear”.

I suggest that the Minister conveys the suggestion to the Secretary of State for Justice that the words of wisdom of Lord Reed should be displayed on Mr Grayling’s desk in very large letters.

These regulations will do enormous damage to the rule of law in prisons and there is no justification for them. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I, too, regret that the Government are taking this course and regret profoundly what was said by the Secretary of State for Justice, Mr Grayling, in describing the differences between those who supported the maintenance of legal aid and those who were agin it. It is as though it is not enough to go to prison and lose your liberty, and experience the deprivations that we know imprisonment means, so we are looking for other ways to punish.

I will speak specifically about women. As we in this House all know, women in prison are very largely those who have experienced abuse or domestic violence. They are often in prison because of serious social problems, they have mental health problems, and often have problems of addiction. The panoply of problems that they have do not make them people who will be well able to represent themselves in trying to get their rights in prison.

I will mention the issue of mother and baby units. In the past I have been involved in such cases, where a woman seeks to prepare for an application to have her baby remain with her, and has to secure supportive evidence, expert reports, and so on. It is impossible for a woman to do that without the help of a solicitor. Representations have to be made in relation to any refusal to offer a woman a place in a mother and baby unit, and I can assure noble Lords that that is sometimes done—and not done—for the best of reasons.

Women sometimes make applications for temporary release when something disastrous is happening at home with other children; they seek a temporary licence so that they can spend time at home. Many female prisoners are their children’s primary carer. We know that 55% of women in prison have a child under 16 and wish to make use of that release on temporary licence when they have emergencies at home. I know from experience that the application of the release on temporary licence policy is frequently misapplied by prisons, and women who are eligible are incorrectly refused. Legal help is vital to them for making their application, making representations, drawing on supportive evidence, and so on, but it is no longer available.

Disabled prisoners often have real problems about the suitability of their accommodation or other services they need, and need legal help to acquire them. Mentally ill prisoners do not get legal help to deal with many of the attendant matters that go along with convincing the authorities of the seriousness of their problems, whether that is on the depressive scale or as regards behaviours that clearly show disturbance, but which often bring them into dispute with the authorities in the prison. There are often arguments about the capacity of such women. They present with difficult and challenging behaviour which is often met with a strong disciplinary response from the prison so that they are awarded extra days as punishments, when in fact mental health is the problem. As extended prisoners, women often have the date of release set further and further away because of their behaviour, but that behaviour is due to their mental ill health.

In those sorts of cases you need to have the representation of someone who is legally qualified to help take the appropriate course and find the appropriate expertise to support applications. The Government’s response is that prisoners should use the internal complaints procedures—the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, described the inadequacy of that. The process of appealing to the ombudsman is often slow and does not give the remedy that is sought. Add to all that the poor educational attainment of most women in prison and the situation is hopeless.

Before this debate a Member of this House said to me, “Are you speaking in the legal aid debate?”, to which I replied, “Yes”. He said, “You know it’s hopeless”. My response to that was that it may be hopeless, but I hope that by having this debate some members of the Government will feel shame. I am speaking of the most vulnerable today. I hope that a feeling of shame will enter into discussions among the Government and between the coalition partners about the impact of this on the lives of some of the most fragile people in our society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

I cannot I am afraid give an exact date for that, but I shall take back the noble Lord’s concern and I will write to him when I have information. Of course, it is a matter that will be taken very seriously at the Ministry of Justice.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for doing his best to defend this sorry set of regulations. The Government are very fortunate indeed to have his services on the Front Bench. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and who have explained with clarity and force why the regulations are wrong in principle and damaging in their consequences.

The Minister may have noticed the embarrassing lack of support for these regulations on the Benches behind him, and indeed anywhere in this House tonight. Before the Minister’s speech, your Lordships heard 15 speeches—I have been counting—all of them regretting these regulations and all highly critical of them and of the purported justifications for them. Noble Lords who have spoken tonight have reflected the widespread concern about the regulations that exists outside this House.

The Minister’s main argument, that the internal complaints system and the ombudsman system are an effective substitute for legal assistance and advice, is simply contrary to the advice of the Parole Board, the inspector of prisons and the ombudsman. It is contrary to court judgments over the years. It is contrary to the experience of all those who have spoken tonight, apart from the Minister. Indeed, it is irrational, given the lack of literacy, the youth, the immaturity and the mental health difficulties of so many prisoners, let alone their obvious inability to identify and present the issues that arise in their cases.

I ask the Minister to send a copy of today’s Hansard to the Secretary of State tomorrow morning, to ask the Secretary of State to reflect on the nature and strength of the concerns that have been expressed tonight from the broad experience and expertise that so characterise this place, to draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the absence of any support for these regulations outside his own ministry and to ask the Secretary of State to think again about this important matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion in my name.

Motion withdrawn.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Pannick]

94E: Clause 161, page 128, line 5, leave out from “shows” to “(and” in line 6 and insert “conclusively that the evidence against the person at trial is so undermined that no conviction could possibly be based on it”

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 94E addresses a genuinely difficult problem—that is, the proper test that should be applied to determine whether a person should receive compensation for a miscarriage of justice. Since this is Report, I should report that the debates in Committee demonstrated general agreement, which I share, that the Government are entirely correct to include in this Bill a statutory definition of those cases where compensation should be paid for a miscarriage of justice to secure greater certainty in this area of the law.

I should also report that the Committee stage debates established that there are strengths and weaknesses in each of the two options before the House. The approach adopted in Clause 161 is that compensation should be paid only if a new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was innocent of the offence of which he or she was convicted. The alternative option in my amendment is that compensation should be paid only if the new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that the evidence against the defendant at trial,

“is so undermined that no conviction could possibly be based on it”.

The amendment has the considerable benefit of using the test which was formulated and applied by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers—the then President of the Supreme Court, who I am very pleased to see in his place—at paragraph 55 of his judgment for the majority of the Supreme Court in the Adams case. That paragraph, on page 48 of the Supreme Court document, Decided Cases, states that the test, which is now in the amendment,

“will not guarantee that all those who are entitled to compensation are in fact innocent. It will, however, ensure that when innocent defendants are convicted on evidence which is subsequently discredited, they are not precluded from obtaining compensation because they cannot prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt”.

I also draw attention to what was said in the same case—the Adams case—by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead—who I am also very pleased to see in his place—in support of the test of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips. At paragraph 97 of his judgment, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said that if a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that the prosecution evidence was so undermined that no conviction could possibly be based on it, then it is right in principle that compensation should be payable even though it is not possible to say that the defendant was clearly innocent. The noble and learned Lord pointed out that a person against whom there is no sufficient admissible evidence to secure a conviction should not be subject to the criminal process in the first place. Therefore, if a new or newly discovered fact fatally undermines the prosecution evidence, it is right in principle that compensation should be payable. These arguments, and others, persuaded the Joint Committee on Human Rights that Amendment 94E would be an appropriate amendment to the Bill.

A third noble and learned Lord, who I am also happy to see in his place—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood—dissented in the case of Adams with three of his colleagues in the Supreme Court. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, was concerned that—I summarise his concern, no doubt wholly inadequately—the test applied by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Hope, would result in some defendants who were not in fact innocent receiving compensation. My concern with that approach —which is essentially the approach adopted in Clause 161—is that it has never been the role of Ministers or courts in our system of criminal jurisprudence to pronounce on the innocence of those accused of crime. If the state cannot prove guilt, the defendant is not guilty, irrespective of whether he or she is in fact innocent. Our law—the common law—applies a test memorably stated by the distinguished American advocate, Edward Bennett Williams.

He was asked whether Alger Hiss, who was imprisoned for espionage in a notorious case in 1950, was guilty. Mr Bennett Williams replied:

“He should have gotten off”.

I am very doubtful indeed of the wisdom of Clause 161 in requiring Ministers to pronounce on the innocence of people whose convictions have been overturned, especially when the court of criminal appeal, when quashing a conviction, makes no such statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I am reluctant to go into the particular facts of the Sally Clark case. Indeed, during the debate there have been somewhat different interpretations of that material. Of course, one hopes that if the evidence was available at the outset there would be no trial, no one would be charged, or at least a defendant would be acquitted.

This is a narrow but important provision where new facts have come to light. Of course, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, said, a number of defendants have their convictions overturned on appeal in time—this is out of time—who may have spent considerable periods in custody, unjustifiably as it turns out. This is a narrow area. The question of the presumption of innocence goes to whether or not they are guilty of an offence, but this, which I hope answers the noble Baroness’s question, is entirely concerned with eligibility for compensation—a different matter altogether. We, the Government, consider that the amendment—this is not in quite the same form as the amendment tabled in Committee—will provide, as is apparent from a number of cases before the courts, for further protracted and expensive litigation.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, accepted at the outset when moving the amendment that this was a difficult issue on which distinguished legal minds had expressed different views. Your Lordships have heard some of those distinguished legal minds and have expressed themselves in writing at considerable length. There is no easy answer to this question. Attempts have been made to formulate a test. A test was formulated by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and those supporting him in Committee. We have a slightly different test today. I do not decry the elegance of the amendment, nor the thinking behind it but I suggest that the Government’s proposal in the Bill has the advantage of clarity, simplicity, straightforwardness and it does not offend the presumption of innocence. In those circumstances I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, this has been an informed and interesting debate on what the Minister rightly describes as a very difficult question. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly to the Minister for his conspicuously careful and fair analysis of the issues before the House.

However, the Minister’s eloquence cannot remedy the defects that we have been debating for more than an hour and a half in Clause 161. First, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, said, when the Court of Appeal has quashed a conviction it is simply wrong in principle to require the defendant then also to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he or she is innocent. This is incompatible with the presumption of innocence, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said this afternoon.

The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked the Minister if there are any other contexts in the criminal law in which a defendant is required to prove his innocence. The Minister’s response was that Clause 161 does not offend against the presumption of innocence, but the answer to the noble Lord’s question is that there are no other contexts in our law in which a person is required to prove his or her innocence.

I understand the concern expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, which repeated—none the worse for that—the dissent that he gave in the Supreme Court in the Adams case. However, the answer to the noble and learned Lord was given in that case by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, at paragraph 116. The noble and learned Baroness, who cannot be in her place today because she is a serving member of the Supreme Court, said:

“I do sympathise with Lord Brown’s palpable sense of outrage that Lord Phillips’ test”—

that, of course, is the test in the amendment—

“may result in a few people who are in fact guilty receiving compensation … I say ‘a few’ because the numbers seeking compensation are in any event very small. But Lord Phillips’ approach is the more consistent with the fundamental principles upon which our criminal law has been based for centuries. Innocence as such is not a concept known to our criminal justice system. We distinguish between the guilty and the not guilty”.

That is the answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood.

There is a second defect in Clause 161 to which, with respect, the Minister has no adequate answer. It would require the Secretary of State to decide on the innocence of defendants whose convictions have been quashed. To require the Secretary of State to perform that role when no court has done so would be to impose a complex and contentious role on Ministers in cases which are among the most sensitive.

[Lord Faulks]

When someone has had their convictions overturned, the Secretary of State would, as the noble Lord will realise, have the benefit of the Court of Appeal’s reasoned judgment to assist him.

[Lord Pannick]

As the noble Lord well understands, the Court of Appeal will not have pronounced on innocence. To require the Secretary of State to decide not only whether there has been a miscarriage of justice because of some new or newly discovered fact, but whether, in truth, the defendant is innocent, will inevitably lead to protracted litigation which will simply prolong the pain and suffering caused by the miscarriage of justice which led to the quashing of the conviction.

As King Lear said, “That way madness lies”. It is that way madness lies for the Secretary of State and for the defendants, although not of course for the lawyers who will benefit considerably from Clause 161. I cannot accept that the amendment is any less clear or any more likely to produce litigation than Clause 161. Amendment 94E raises an important issue of principle. It seeks to enact the test of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, for the Supreme Court in Adams. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, tabled an amendment seeking to abolish the defence of marital coercion. The Government agreed to return with a view on that matter on Report and, accordingly, we have tabled these amendments.

As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, explained in the earlier debate, it is currently a defence to all criminal offences other than treason and murder for a wife to show that she committed the offence in the presence of, and under the coercion of, her husband. The defence is an historical one. It was introduced in England and Wales by Section 47 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925, which abolished the previously existing presumption that a wife who committed any offence except treason or murder in the presence of her husband did so under his coercion and that she should therefore be acquitted. For these historical reasons, the defence applies only for the benefit of a woman married to a man.

Time has moved on. The circumstances in which the defence made sense no longer pertain. It is now an anachronism, and we accordingly agree that it can be consigned to history. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for raising this issue and he can rightly take the credit for this overdue reform. I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I am very pleased that the Minister has responded so positively to the amendment which I tabled in Committee and thank him for it. As he said, prior to 1925, the law contained a presumption that a wife was coerced by her husband. The Minister said that time moves on, but Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, the great 19th century authority on criminal law, described this area of the law as “irrational”. In 1922, the Avory committee recommended abolition of any special rule for wives and so did the Law Commission in its 1977 report. Therefore, it could not sensibly be suggested that law reform in this context has in any way been rushed.

It was of course this area of the law to which Charles Dickens referred in Oliver Twist. When Mr Bumble is told that,

“the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction”,

he replies:

“If the law supposes that … the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor”.

I am delighted that this truly idiotic provision of English law is at long last to be abolished.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I join in the welcome to the Government’s acceptance of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It is nice to have a touch of harmony in these proceedings. I entirely support the abolition of what is clearly an archaic and now defective provision.

However, an issue perhaps needs to be addressed. We have now abandoned, rightly, the law of marital coercion, but there is a question about the operation of the law of duress. That of course applies only in limited cases where extreme violence or even death are threatened by one person against another; if that other then conforms with instructions given under such a threat, there may be a defence. Those would be very extreme circumstances, but there is some concern about the position of—usually but not necessarily exclusively—women in a situation of, for example, domestic violence and abuse of that kind. They might be prevailed upon to commit or assist in committing an offence by a threat obviously much less severe than is required by the law of duress. I wonder whether the Government might look at that, or invite the Law Commission to do so, to see whether there is a case for providing a safeguard for those who may be virtually compelled to take action without this rather archaic background.

In addition to or perhaps separately from that, perhaps some consideration might be given to those who have responsibility for deciding whether to charge or to proceed with the prosecution—or, following a prosecution, to impose sentencing—in situations where, as I say, without the extreme requirements of the present law of duress it is nevertheless apparent that pressure and threats of violence or worse have been brought to bear upon the weaker party in that situation. They might not be parties living together; one can envisage other circumstances. Perhaps that matter might be looked at. Having said that, we certainly support the amendment and are glad that this anomaly will be dealt with.

Costs in Criminal Cases (Legal Costs) (Exceptions) Regulations 2013

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I add my welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, to the government team. He brings to this role expert legal knowledge, very considerable practical experience, excellent judgment and a concern to promote the values of the legal system, qualities that have not noticeably been displayed over the past three and half years by those responsible for making decisions in the Ministry of Justice. I hope that the Secretary of State will listen to the noble Lord’s advice and take advantage of the expert legal advice and assistance that he will be providing—indeed will be providing, as I understand it, in the best traditions of the Bar, on a pro bono basis.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for promoting this debate. I share his concerns about the exclusion of borderline cases from the scope of legal aid. The concern I have is that many of the leading cases in which the law has been developed in the public interest over the past few years have involved claims which, because of the disputed legal principles, could not have been said to have a 50% chance of success. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, mentioned examples of such legal aid cases, including one in which I acted for the claimants. That was the case of Debbie Purdy, which was the subject of the last judgment of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships’ House before the creation of the Supreme Court in 2009. This was a case in which judgments were delivered by two noble and learned Lords in their places today: the noble and learned Lords, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Hope of Craighead,

The Appellate Committee held that that the DPP had a duty to publish guidelines about the circumstances in which he would prosecute for assisting a suicide. Those guidelines have made a valuable contribution to justice in a difficult area of the law. It could not have sensibly been said that the claim brought by Debbie Purdy was other than borderline. Legal aid was accordingly granted under the law at the time. When these regulations are implemented, as I think they now are, legal aid will simply be unavailable for such a case.

For legal aid to be able to fund such cases serves the public interest. The Minister told the House today that the removal of borderline cases from the scope of legal aid will save £1 million a year. Such a modest saving cannot begin to justify the damage that this change will do to the ability to develop the common law. The Minister’s other point was that taxpayers’ money should not be spent on cases that a private-paying citizen of reasonable means would not wish to pursue. The defect in that reasoning is that a private-paying citizen may well wish to pursue a case that has only a 30% or 40% chance of success if it raises an issue of enormous importance to them.

There is a further point in answer to this defence of this change. It is a point that was made by Richard Drabble QC in his excellent response to the consultation on this issue. He pointed out that when the Government respond to judicial reviews in cases such as that of Debbie Purdy they do not simply ask themselves whether they have a 50% chance of success and, if not, decline to be represented in the court proceedings; the Government very properly take account of the importance and complexity of the case and often fund a defence even though their legal advisers cannot say that there is a 50% chance of success. These are not the cases mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, where further investigation may provide an answer; they are cases where it is inherent in the nature of the case that they are borderline and you cannot say that there is a 50% chance of success.

Why should the legal aid scheme adopt a different and narrower approach to legal aid for claimants than the Government adopt for themselves in deciding when and how to resist judicial review claims? The Government’s reasoning leaves entirely out of account the nature of the cases that will now be excluded from legal aid and the public interest in ensuring that the law is determined and applied only after proper legal argument on both sides. For these reasons, I very much regret these amendment regulations and I hope that the Minister, if he is unable to say so today, will be able to advise the Secretary of State that further thought needs to be given to this important matter.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lords, Lord Bach and Lord Pannick, on two grounds. The first is the generous but completely justified welcome that has been given to the arrival of my noble friend Lord Faulks on the government Front Bench. Indeed, I am encouraged that he has a record of questioning the reduction of legal aid, particularly in criminal cases. I urge him to do another piece of pro bono work, a tutorial for his ministerial colleague in another place, Mr Shailesh Vara, on understanding simple statistics and understanding something about legal aid.

The second ground on which I agree entirely with those who have already spoken is in my support of the regret Motion introduced very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and illustrated with customary cogency by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. However, I want to turn to the criminal regulation. I do not support a criminal regulation that means that somebody who has perfectly reasonably obtained the advice of a good solicitor and senior counsel can only, without exception, recover costs at legal aid rates if he wins the case. It may be best if I give a real illustration.

A retired butcher of about 70 years old was charged with some very serious sexual offences, including rape, against a young girl of about 12 years old who was the daughter or granddaughter of a neighbour. He instructed a good solicitor. The good solicitor said to him that he could instruct counsel on legal aid but his preference would be to instruct more senior counsel, leading counsel, but that would not be covered by legal aid. Not surprisingly, the 70 year-old retired butcher asked for advice as to his prospects if he took either part of the respective advice. He was advised by the solicitor, perfectly reasonably, that his best prospects were to have the more experienced counsel from the very beginning, so leading counsel was instructed.

As it turned out, in the event, there were a number of complex legal points and some factual issues. After the matter was dealt with with a good deal of care by the solicitor and leading counsel, the case went to the Crown Court where it was dropped at the courtroom door. One of the reasons why it was dropped was that it transpired that he could not have committed one of the most important offences alleged against him because he was out of the country at the time, an issue which involved very complicated inquiry, including issues of the admissibility of evidence obtained from abroad. Thus, he avoided a trial and a potential sentence of upward of 10 years’ imprisonment and he was able to return to his family and home. He had paid for the advice by borrowing money from his grown-up children and by mortgaging his home.

Before your Lordships think about six-figure sums for the fees involved, they were nothing like so high. It was well understood by the solicitor, who drove a hard bargain, and by counsel, who knew perfectly well that their fees were subject to assessment if they were too high, that reasonable fees would have to be charged, and they were. Total costs in the case amounted to a middling five-figure sum. He applied for his costs before the Crown Court judge, before whom the case was dropped—accepting an acquittal, by the way—and the judge thought it entirely reasonable that he had obtained the advice of leading counsel and a good solicitor and he was awarded his costs out of central funds. What is unreasonable or unjust about that? He acted on legal advice, what he did was perfectly reasonable, a good result was obtained and the costs of a trial were avoided, which would probably have been higher than what was paid out of central funds to the solicitor and leading counsel.

What is proposed in criminal cases now is that someone in that position will be able to recover at best only a half, probably a third, of those costs. The retired butcher, therefore, having been acquitted in a prosecution brought unjustly, would have been some tens of thousands out of pocket. Do we really want to countenance a criminal justice system like that? I do not.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with the speeches that have been made this afternoon. Clause 151 should not be included in the Bill unless it is amended in order to restate current law, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, suggested. There are three reasons for that. The first is the reason about which the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, spoke; namely, a defendant does not have to prove innocence at trial. It would be contrary to basic principles to require the defendant to prove innocence in order to obtain compensation for a wrongful conviction. Even the Scottish verdict of not proven, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred, does not, as I understand it, require the defendant to prove anything at all.

The second point is the practical one, which is as important as issues of principle in this context. The point was made at Second Reading by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and made this afternoon by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws. It will often be very difficult indeed for an innocent person to prove their innocence: the evidence may simply be unavailable. It is very unfair that they should be unable to secure compensation for the miscarriage of justice.

The third point is that the approach adopted by Clause 151 breaches the European Convention on Human Rights because it contravenes the presumption of innocence in Article 6.2 of that convention. All 17 judges of the Grand Chamber of the European court stated this on 12 July in the case of Allen v United Kingdom, a case about compensation for miscarriages of justice. It was a unanimous judgment, which found that there was no breach of the presumption of innocence, but an important part of the court’s reasoning, at paragraph 133, was that the courts of the United Kingdom,

“did not require the applicant to satisfy Lord Steyn’s test of demonstrating her innocence”.

That is the test that was stated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, in the case of Mullen in 2005—found in 1 Appeal Cases, page 1—in the Appellate Committee of your Lordships’ House. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, took the view that Section 133 did contain a proof of innocence test. That approach was not adopted by the Supreme Court later, in the Adams case.

Clause 151 now wishes to introduce the approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn. It would be a quite remarkable step for Parliament to enact legislation now which contravenes a clear and recent statement in a unanimous judgment by the Grand Chamber of the European court, a step which should be taken only in the most exceptional circumstances, where some fundamental principle of English law is at stake. That is not the case here: we are not dealing with a clause that seeks to maintain some fundamental principle of English law. Indeed, to the extent that fundamental principles are at stake, they are those explained by previous speakers in this debate and which Clause 151 will frustrate and breach.

I will make one other point. At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who I am very pleased to see in his place today, said he was concerned about a case in which the conviction was quashed because of an abuse of process by the prosecution. However, my understanding of the Adams judgment in the Supreme Court is that compensation is not, in any event, payable under the current law in such a case. The Supreme Court describes such cases as category 4 cases:

“Where something has gone seriously wrong in the investigation of the offence or the conduct of the trial, resulting in the conviction of someone who should not have been convicted”.

The Supreme Court said very clearly that such cases do not, under current law, confer a right to compensation.

At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, said that Clause 151 is designed to introduce certainty into the law, but Section 133 already has a clear meaning, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, explained. The Government intend to change that meaning; I hope they will withdraw this clause before Report.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Pannick]

19: After Clause 153, insert the following new Clause—
“Marital coercion
The defence of marital coercion for a wife charged with an offence other than treason or murder is hereby abolished.”

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, at the end of March, the Ministry of Justice stated that the Government were considering whether to ask Parliament to abolish the defence of marital coercion. That was after the defence was unsuccessfully relied upon by Vicky Pryce at her trial in March for taking speeding points on behalf of her husband, Mr Chris Huhne. I have tabled this amendment to find out when the Government hope to come to a conclusion on this matter.

Given the time, I shall deal with it briefly. Members of the Committee will know that Section 47 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 contains a special defence for a wife who is charged with any criminal offence other than treason or murder. It is a defence for the wife to prove that the offence was committed in the presence of and under the coercion of her husband. No such defence applies to husbands for offences committed in the presence of wives. The defence cannot be claimed by a live-in partner of either sex, by the partners to a same-sex marriage or a civil partnership, by other family members who may live in the same household, or by employees. The defence does not apply if the husband is 100 metres away when the crime is committed. Neither wives nor any other person need this defence, because of the defence of duress and the ability to mitigate by reference to relevant circumstances. The existence of this special defence has repeatedly and consistently been criticised, including by the 1922 Avory Committee and by the Law Commission in its 1977 report, which concluded that the defence was not “appropriate to modern conditions”.

I hope that by Report the Minister will be able to tell the House that the Government agree that Section 47 is unnecessary, arbitrary and should be repealed. I beg to move.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, for the sake of brevity, I hope that on Report I will be able to do just that.

[Lord Pannick]

I am very much obliged to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 19 withdrawn.

Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations 2013

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, one way of cutting legal aid is to take areas of law out of scope, which is something that this Government have done with a vengeance. As this House knows very well, social welfare law has been potentially destroyed by Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. However, there is another way to do the same thing, and that is to cut the number of people who can obtain legal aid in those areas of civil law—and there are precious few of them—which are still in scope; for example, mortgage possession and eviction cases, community care cases, mental capacity cases and some domestic violence cases as well. By these regulations that we are debating tonight, which my regret Motion deals with, Her Majesty’s Government have excluded many who could claim legal aid previously. Is that a fair or just thing to do, particularly at a time of hardship and austerity for so many people? That is my point.

Before 1 April, any person in receipt of means-tested welfare benefits—for example, income support or guaranteed state pension credit—would qualify for legal aid on both income and capital. They were described as being passported. A quick decision could be made, which was easy to administer for the Legal Services Commission as was, the providers of that legal advice and the clients themselves.

Now the Government have put into place radical changes. The regulations require a capital test as well as an income means test: if a person has more than £8,000 capital, they are denied legal aid. Interestingly, under welfare benefit law, that sum is £16,000 and if they have anything less than £16,000, they would still qualify. My first question to the Minister is: why the difference? The welfare benefit system also ignores the value of a person’s main dwelling but in these regulations the value of their main dwelling is taken into account. Therefore, my second question is: why is it taken into account under these regulations but not under welfare benefit regulations?

Of course, there is a disregard of £100,000 for any equity and £100,000 for any mortgage. Do the Government deny that many people who own homes with mortgages and some equity will not qualify for legal aid? The state has recognised in the benefits system that these people cannot easily, or at all, access their capital because it is tied up in the property that they have. Why will that not apply in these cases too? My case is that this will affect a large number of people’s access to some sort of justice. Her Majesty’s Government estimate 4,000 people will be affected. The belief of many outside is that that is an unbelievably small figure and that there will be many more in practice. This is simply unfair.

There is also a need for a general discretion to disregard income and/or capital where it was or is equitable in all the circumstances. In the 2000 regulations, there was a general discretion to disregard where it was equitable in all the circumstances. There has been no evidence of abuse of those regulations in that way. Why is it not in these regulations? We all know cases, perhaps involving mental capacity or disability, where justice demands legal help by way of legal aid. But because of the inflexibility of these regulations there is, to coin a phrase, no way out. There is certainly no way out with the exceptional funding scheme, which perhaps now should be called the very rarely exceptional funding scheme because it is not relevant to cases that are still in scope. Section 10 of LASPO is there for areas of law now out of scope. I fear the fact that there is no flexibility, and that the £8,000 capital is such a ridiculously low figure, shows that the purpose of these regulations is not to advance justice but to restrict it—not to help people sort out their legal problems but to make absolutely certain that they cannot.

In 2009, when austerity had already begun, the Labour Government did not reduce eligibility for legal aid in social welfare law; they increased it by 5%. We recognised that at a time of economic difficulties, it is crucial to ensure that people get quality and inexpensive legal advice to sort out their legal problems rather than go without any access, with the consequences that everyone knows; namely, that problems multiply and magnify until often in the end the state has to pick up the pieces arising out of problems with debt, welfare benefit mistakes and loss of employment. That decision by that Government was not a soft-hearted decision: it was based on a realisation that not only is access to justice right in principle; in this instance it saves the state money. It is not rocket science; it is just something that this Government do not get.

I look forward to the contributions of other noble Lords in this debate and to the Minister’s reply. I ask him on this occasion please to address the debate itself. When I was a Minister, like him, I had to undergo from time to time debates where the government policies that I was trying to defend were attacked from start to finish by practically everyone who spoke. It is not a comfortable position but I would argue that there is still a duty on Ministers to answer the debate being heard at that time. I do not think that the Minister did himself justice last Thursday in the debate that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, began, but I know that he can. Anyone who heard him at Question Time today dealing with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and others will know that he is an experienced and skilful performer in this House. Therefore, I ask him to deal with the issues that are raised in this debate and not just read out his speech.

There are already cases of people not getting legal aid when they should. That is a consequence of so much social welfare law being taken out of scope. There are also cases of people who have legal problems in areas that are still in scope but as a result of the regulations that we are debating tonight they are not able to access justice. That is a bit of a scandal. The Government should think again about these regulations and I hope that the House will agree with me that they are, at the very least, to be regretted. I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for moving this Motion. Over the past three years he has played an essential role in identifying with forensic skill and great eloquence the defects in the series of measures that this Government have brought forward to limit legal aid in our society. The noble Lord has repeatedly pointed out, accurately and with some degree of force, that legal aid is a vital cement in our civil society. There is no point whatever in this place conferring rights unless people have the opportunity to vindicate them. It would be a great shame if there were further reductions in the ability of persons other than the wealthy to vindicate their rights by legal process.

The essential defect in these regulations is their treatment of the capital sums owned by persons who are otherwise eligible for legal aid. I cannot understand why the regulations apply different criteria to capital from the criteria that are applicable in welfare law. Regulation 8(2) provides that any person with more than £8,000 in capital will be denied legal aid, even though welfare benefits law provides that persons qualify for means-tested benefits even though they have up to £16,000 of capital.

There is a further discrepancy in that the welfare benefits system ignores the value of a person’s home. These legal aid regulations will disregard only £100,000 of equity in property, under Regulation 39; and £100,000 of any mortgage, under Regulation 37. The inevitable result is that many people who own their own homes will be excluded from legal aid, even though they cannot in practice access the capital.

All this is very unfortunate, given that the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act has already reduced the scope of legal aid so that it is now skeletal. I am very concerned that even within the much reduced scope of legal aid under that Act, people who have no income and who are therefore eligible for welfare benefits will be unable to obtain legal advice and assistance. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, there is a vital need in the regulations for more flexibility.

The Minister will no doubt tell us, as he usually does, that funds are limited and that economies are needed, but to adopt criteria, as the regulations do, which are more onerous than the criteria applied to welfare benefits is simply irrational and fails to understand the vital function of legal aid itself as a welfare benefit for the needy in our society. My essential question for the Minister is this: why are the criteria for capital in these regulations different from, and more onerous than, the criteria for welfare benefit law?

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, I shall speak in support of my noble friend Lord Pannick and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who is also my friend but not technically my noble friend. I want to put the regulations in perspective and to inquire whether the Government realise the pressure that these calculations will place on other parts of our society. I will mention just two issues.

This Government and their predecessors have pushed very hard to widen house ownership in the past 20 or 30 years. It has been successful. Ownership, of modest homes, has spread to all corners of society. To include their value in the assessment of legal aid places an unfair burden on a modest number of the population who have striven to own their own home. Not only that, but having owned one’s own home one now finds that it has to be sold to pay for one’s care in old age. It may have to be sold to raise money if one has the misfortune to be involved in expensive litigation. Not only that but, heaven forbid, it might even come to a mansion tax. In other words, one is putting much too much pressure on that wide swathe of population that owns a home of relatively modest value. They might have bought it for a five-figure sum years ago, but they will now find their house in that more than £100,000, and then £8,000, asset rank, depriving them of legal aid. The assessment costs will bite into the limited funds that are available for legal aid, because given the way in which the legislation is drafted, assessing whether someone is eligible for legal aid will involve quite a complicated process.

Legal Aid

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Monday 3rd June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, when I first answered Questions on legal aid more than three years ago, the first point I made was that legal aid was a system devised to help the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. It follows that if you cut legal aid, those are the sections of society that are likely to be affected. Economic circumstances have forced cuts on my department and we are trying to make the reforms to legal aid as focused and effective as possible, while still protecting the vulnerable in our society.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I declare an interest as someone regulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. Does the Minister share the widespread concern that the Government’s proposal to introduce competitive tendering for criminal legal aid services will remove choice for the consumer, remove the incentive for the provider to maintain quality and inevitably result in the destruction of hundreds of small to medium-sized solicitors businesses up and down the country?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I am greatly reassured that somebody is regulating the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Again, in response to this consultation, we have heard various parts of the legal profession harping on about the worst-case scenario, which we simply do not accept. We are in consultation and have put forward proposals about legal aid contracts. However, the legal professions are facing a number of changes, irrespective of what we are proposing on legal aid—a point I have made before from the Dispatch Box—and they will have to adjust to the new circumstances if they are going to survive. We are consulting with the Law Society and Bar Council, and with other bodies and individuals. We are listening and we hope to get a solution that will reflect what the Government can afford to pay on legal aid at the moment but that will also leave us with the protections for our legal aid system that many of us have taken pride in.

European Convention on Human Rights

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I speak at this Dispatch Box for the coalition Government and the coalition Government’s policy on the European Convention on Human Rights is very clear. The noble Lord asked a specific question, “Is it our policy to withdraw?”, and I gave him a specific Answer: “The Answer is no”.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, do the Government recognise the link between this Question and the previous three in that the European Court of Human Rights has played a major role over the past 40 or so years in combating arbitrary discrimination on grounds of sex and race and other invidious grounds?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I find that a very helpful contribution. When the question, “Are you in favour of the European Convention on Human Rights?” is asked, certain people will see the word Europe and their eyes will start spinning round. As the noble Lord has pointed out, however, if you ask people, “Do you want built into law protection against the power of the state?”, in the way that he has just illustrated, they will invariably say, “Yes, please”.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2012

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

Well, we have had heard it over two years and both Houses have come to decisions on the LASPO Bill. As regards fatal Motions, I can speak from experience. I was part of engineering a fatal Motion on the casino Bill. That fatal Motion was carried by the House. The Government of the day did nothing further on the casino matter. If I may coin a phrase, as it says on the tin, fatal Motions mean what they say.

[Lord Pannick]

Given that the House rejected as inadequate the limited concession on legal aid in First-tier Tribunals, is it not truly perverse for the Government to respond by withdrawing even that?

[Lord McNally]

The Government have not withdrawn that concession. This House passed a fatal Motion meaning that that concession was no longer part of the Bill. That was the decision of the House. If I may so in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and of all those who voted for it, I made that very clear to the House before the vote.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Lords Chamber

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lord Lester, who said on Report that it is arbitrary and irrational that whether a person has an in-country right of appeal depends on whether they are in the UK at the time when the case is certified. The Minister replied that it would be “nonsensical” to allow a person back into the UK to exercise a right of appeal. That is tantamount to saying that the rule of law itself is nonsensical. I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords—

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, forgive me. I want to make, not a pre-emptive remark, but an introductory one. I apologise to your Lordships for intruding on your discussions on this particular amendment, but I am very surprised by the form and volume of the Marshalled List at Third Reading. Having been here for 39 years I do not recall there being anything like this in the past. I draw your Lordships’ attention to paragraph 8.142 of the Companion, and suggest that this is a matter to be considered by the Procedure Committee before we continue in the next Session.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I understand that Amendment 5, to which I wish I speak, arises in particular out of concern that the House may unintentionally have been misled on Report. I support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on Amendment 5. I fully understand the argument deployed by the Government on Report—it would be absurd to allow a person regarded as dangerous back into the country in order to pursue an appeal. My concern is that legal practitioners understand the policy of the Home Office to be to wait until a person with leave to remain travels abroad before then making the decision to curtail their leave, with the express intention of depriving them of the right of appeal from within the United Kingdom. That seems to be difficult to reconcile with the rule of law. I ask the Minister in his response to Amendment 5 at least to give the House an assurance that decisions to curtail leave to remain will not be deliberately delayed until a person travels abroad, with the intention of depriving them of a right of appeal from within this country.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I declare an interest as co-chair of the human trafficking parliamentary group. If there are reasonable grounds for someone being understood to be a victim of trafficking, it would be extraordinarily unjust and contrary both to the Council of Europe’s convention and the directive of the European Union, to both of which the Government are signatories, to treat that victim in the way that it is possible that he or she would be treated if the amendment were not passed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers]

My Lords, I apologise for the fact that I was not able to be present to move a similar amendment on Report, but I could not have improved on the explanation of its merits given then to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The amendment is needed to remedy two anomalies in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which, in its present form, impacts adversely on the independence of the Supreme Court.

The first anomaly arises from the terms of Section 48(2) of the Act, which provides that the Lord Chancellor must appoint the chief executive after consulting the president of the court. The effect of the amendment is to make the president of the Supreme Court, rather than the Lord Chancellor, responsible for the appointment of the chief executive of the court. The amendment is appropriate because the Act expressly provides that the functions of the chief executive of the Supreme Court are to be carried out in accordance with the directions of the president of the court. Those functions include the non-judicial functions of the court in so far as the president delegates them to the chief executive.

More generally, the Act requires the chief executive to ensure that the court’s resources are used to provide an efficient and effective system to support the court in carrying on its business. The president and chief executive of the court work in partnership to ensure that the court operates efficiently. Under Section 50 of the Act, the Lord Chancellor is responsible for ensuring that the court has the resources that he thinks are appropriate to enable the court to carry on its business, but he has no role under the statute in relation to the manner in which the court is run. This is quite deliberate. The whole object of the creation of the Supreme Court was to make sure that it was, and was seen to be, independent of the legislature and the Executive.

The chief executive is the accounting officer of the Supreme Court and, as such, reports not to the Lord Chancellor but direct to Parliament in accordance with Section 54 of the Act. This requires the chief executive to prepare a report after each financial year, which the Lord Chancellor is required to lay before each House of Parliament.

The first danger of the provision that the chief executive be appointed by the Lord Chancellor is that the Lord Chancellor, when making the appointment, will be concerned to appoint a candidate who will have regard to his wishes when deciding on the administrative arrangements of the court. Let me make it plain that there is no suggestion that this consideration influenced the appointment of the first chief executive of the court. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, explained to the House how she was appointed by an ad hoc commission that included three Law Lords, under the chairmanship of a Civil Service commissioner. There is no complaint about what happened on that occasion. That process resulted in the appointment of Jennifer Rowe. I take this opportunity to recognise the admirable way in which she has performed her duties under my presidency, and to confirm that she is rightly recognised as deserving much of the credit for the successful birth and early years of the Supreme Court.

The second danger of the provision is that, because the Lord Chancellor appoints the chief executive, the chief executive will be expected to defer to the wishes of the Lord Chancellor in relation to the manner in which the Supreme Court is managed. Such an interpretation of the Act might not seem unreasonable. After all, the Lord Chancellor is to provide the court with such resources as he thinks are appropriate for the court to carry on its business. Why should he then not have a say in how those resources are used? The answer is of course that this would be in conflict with the objective of the creation of the Supreme Court, which was to give effect to the separation of powers. Lest there be any doubt about this, perhaps I may remind the House of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the then Lord Chancellor, said to the House on 14 December 2004, when bringing forward the amendments which became the governance sections of the Constitutional Reform Act. He said:

“The chief executive will be able to allocate resources as he considers appropriate to ensure an effective and efficient system to support the court in carrying out its business. In other words, the chief executive will be solely responsible for the administration of the court, in accordance with directions from the president, and will be free from ministerial control”.—[Official Report, 14/12/04; col. 1237.]

The danger that there will be a perception that the chief executive should defer to the wishes of the Lord Chancellor is a real one. I must tell the House that during my presidency it was made quite clear to me that those who served in the Ministry of Justice at all levels were of this view. It made relations with the Ministry of Justice difficult. When responding on Report to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, said that,

“the Government retain a fundamental concern with regard to accountability and proper lines of accountability which need to be established so that the elected Government are responsible for the proper fiscal and managerial operation of the court”.—[Official Report, 4/12/12; col. 653.]

Far from justifying the Government’s opposition to the amendment, that statement underlined its desirability, for the chief executive of the Supreme Court is accountable not to Ministers but to the president of the court and to Parliament.

The second anomaly that the amendment is designed to cure arises from the terms of Section 49(2) of the 2005 Act, which requires the chief executive to obtain the agreement of the Lord Chancellor on the number of officers and staff of the court, and on the terms upon which they are to be appointed. The staffing needs of the court are quite complex. They include security officers; secretaries for the justices and administrators; librarians; judicial assistants; operators of the television system that provides live coverage of the proceedings of the court; the staff of the communications department; cleaners; and the staff of the public cafeteria. It makes no sense at all for the chief executive to be required to obtain the consent of the Lord Chancellor, through his officials, on the number and terms of employment of this diverse staff complement. These are matters which pre-eminently should be decided by the chief executive, working in consultation with the president, who himself will be in a position to obtain the views of the other justices as to their needs. There is nothing useful that the Lord Chancellor’s officials can add. Furthermore, the requirement to obtain the consent of the Lord Chancellor to these matters detracts from the independence, and the appearance of independence, of the Supreme Court, which was the objective of its creation. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, did not press this amendment on the understanding that it raised a live issue that was subject to ongoing discussions in which the president of the court was involved.

This morning, the president, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, informed me that these discussions had not borne fruit and that, in particular, he had been given no justification for the present form of the relevant provisions in the 2005 Act. Shortly before I came into the Chamber, I received on my BlackBerry a copy of a letter written by the Lord Chancellor to the noble and learned Lord, explaining that the Government would not be in a position to agree to the amendment because further time was required to consider its implications. I am not at present persuaded that there is any need for further time, but I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about this in due course. I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, perhaps I may add two points to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, said. The first is to inform your Lordships that the chairman of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, whom I am pleased to see in her place today, wrote to the Minister on 10 December stating the committee’s support for the amendment on the basis that,

“it is not constitutionally appropriate”,

for the Lord Chancellor to retain his present functions in relation to the appointment of the chief executive of the Supreme Court and in relation to the deployment of the court’s staff.

The second point that I want to emphasise is that allowing the Lord Chancellor to retain these functions is impossible to reconcile with the Supreme Court being seen as independent of the other organs of government. The need for the Supreme Court to be seen as independent was the main reason why it was created by the 2005 Act and why the Law Lords left this place. It is of especial importance that the administration of the Supreme Court is seen to be independent of the Executive when the Executive are the respondent in a very a large proportion of the cases heard by the Supreme Court. This amendment is of constitutional importance; the arguments in its favour are simply overwhelming.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jay of Paddington]

My Lords, my name is not on this amendment but I have spoken several times on this subject during the course of the Bill. I welcome the Minister’s further discussions with the Lord Chancellor, and the government amendment. As he said, it reflects the Constitution Committee’s considerations of this matter which, as he mentioned in the discussion on a previous amendment, have been going on since the beginning of this year. I am delighted that he has taken the view that he has and that he is proposing Amendment 8.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I, too, am very grateful to the Minister for bringing forward Amendment 8. It is important to underline that Amendment 8, and the personal obligation that it will place on the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, is not to question in any way the commitment and the work done in this field by the current Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, which has been considerable. Nor is it to suggest that appointments to the Bench should be made other than on merit. There are highly qualified women and members of ethnic minorities at the Bar, in solicitors’ firms, in the CPS and in the government legal service, and every effort needs to be made to communicate the message that applications from them for judicial appointment would be specially welcomed.

The House heard in Committee and at Report the personal commitment of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on the issue of promoting judicial diversity. I am pleased that through his efforts the amendment has been tabled on behalf of the Government.

[Baroness Prashar]

My Lords, I, too, welcome this amendment and thank the Minister for accepting the arguments. The Judicial Appointments Commission recommended this way back in 2008 and I am delighted that it has been agreed and that it is recognised that promoting diversity is a tripartite effort and that leadership is much needed. I want to put on record my thanks.