Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid for Separated Children) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2019

Debate between Earl of Listowel and Lord Keen of Elie

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

This draft instrument makes provision for separated migrant children to be eligible for legal aid for civil legal services for non-asylum immigration and citizenship matters. This is important legislation that ensures access to justice for these vulnerable children.

For noble Lords not familiar with its provision, legal aid for civil legal services is available to an individual if the service is in scope—in other words, if it is described in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act. In addition, legal aid may be available on an exceptional basis where there would be a breach or risk of a breach of the individual’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights or any enforceable EU rights. This is known as exceptional case funding or ECF. For in-scope matters and ECF, legal aid eligibility is subject to statutory means and merits assessments.

Under current arrangements, separated migrant children seeking to regularise their immigration or citizenship status in the United Kingdom can apply for exceptional case funding to receive legal aid for help with their citizenship application, immigration application form or subsequent appeal. Following litigation and engagement with key stakeholders including the Children’s Society, this draft instrument will bring these matters into the scope of legal aid. This means that separated migrant children will no longer have to make ECF applications to receive legal aid for citizenship and non-asylum immigration matters.

I turn to the scope of the amendment. Officials have been working closely with other government departments and children’s charities to finalise the terms of the amendment since 2018. The amendment makes provision for separated migrant children to be eligible for civil legal services in relation to their immigration applications for entry clearance, leave to enter and leave to remain in the United Kingdom under the Immigration Rules. The amendment also provides civil legal services in relation to separated migrant children’s immigration applications for leave to remain where that application is made and determined outside of the Immigration Rules. This would include applications for discretionary leave to remain and leave to remain on medical grounds, as well as exceptional circumstances or compassionate or compelling factors, which may warrant a grant of leave outside the immigration rules.

Further, legal aid will be available to these children in relation to relevant applications for entry clearance, leave to enter or leave to remain made under the Immigration Rules by another person, including family members and extended family members, and granted either under or outside the Immigration Rules. These applications are determined on the basis of exceptional circumstances under Article 8 of the convention, regarding the right to respect for private and family life, or on compassionate and compelling factors. This amendment includes legal aid applications for registration as a British subject or citizen, a British Overseas Territories citizen, and a British overseas citizen.

Some amendments relate to the procedures for applying for different forms of civil legal services. These are grouped into different categories: gate- way work, controlled work and licensed work. The changes ensure that, for controlled work and licensed work, separated migrant children who require legal representation in proceedings before a court or tribunal covered by this regulation will be able to receive it. There are also some technical amendments to other instruments regarding the merits and financial eligibility criteria. The changes ensure that the tests applied to immigration matters currently in scope of legal aid are also applied to this regulation.

This instrument takes a normative definition of a “child”, being any person under 18 years. Where the age is uncertain, the individual is treated by the director of legal aid casework and the legal aid provider making the legal aid determination as being under 18 years.

For the purposes of this regulation, a child is “separated” if they are not being cared for by a parent or someone with parental responsibility for them. It also accounts for children who are looked after by a local authority or are privately fostered, but for whom parental responsibility has not been determined. It also acknowledges that some separated children may be in other informal caring arrangements or, indeed, caring for themselves.

A Written Ministerial Statement was laid on 12 July 2018 outlining the Government’s intentions to lay this legislation. Following this Statement, the Legal Aid Agency advised legal aid providers of interim amendments to the exceptional case funding guidance for applications made by, or on behalf of, separated migrant children for citizenship and non-asylum immigration matters. The guidance outlined reduced evidence requirements when making an application and that ECF caseworkers will operate on the basis that there is a strong presumption that separated migrant children require legal aid.

To conclude, the draft regulation before us today makes important changes to the scope of legal aid to bring citizenship and non-asylum immigration matters into scope of legal aid for separated migrant children. This is important legislation that ensures access to justice for a highly vulnerable section of our society. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome this regulation and the manner in which the Minister introduced it. As vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children, I have sat in meetings with young people and children in the immigration system and in care, and have heard their concerns and uncertainties about the future. I very warmly welcome this regulation and the careful and sensitive way in which the Minister introduced it. The Children’s Society, as the Minister pointed out, has been a prime mover in this area over many years; indeed, a consortium of charities has been working towards this goal. I am sure we all feel that it is a momentous occasion to have this legislation after so many years for these children—this access to justice for them.

Many of these children will have spent most of their lives in this country. They may well know few or no people in the country they come from. So there may be good humanitarian reasons why they should continue to live in this country. The theme from these meetings is that the earlier one can begin the process towards leave to remain or citizenship, the better—but so very often, these decisions get left until the last minute, when the child has just about reached the age of 18, which is very unsatisfactory. This regulation will make it much easier to act early in the best interests of these children.

I want to ask the Minister about what will become of care leavers. When these children pass the age of 18, or sometimes prior to that age, they become care leavers. They still have some responsibilities due to them from their local authority, but not as strong. I understand that the Government have given some commitment that there will be an expectation that the default position will be that the exceptional case fund will be applied in these cases, but can the Minister confirm that in his response to the debate?

Last year I, along with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, met three care leavers. One of them had experienced some periods in a mental institution; as we know, many care leavers experience a great deal of loneliness when they leave care, and the challenge for him of the uncertainty over his immigration status had damaged his mental health. Another young man was working as a taxi driver, illegally and under the radar, which was a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. These young people, who have had such a difficult start in life, could have their rights better protected by us. This regulation does exactly that, so I warmly welcome it.

Serco

Debate between Earl of Listowel and Lord Keen of Elie

Thursday 4th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lord for his question. In December 2018, the Chief Executive of the Civil Service wrote to central government departments asking each to include contract audit activity as part of the implementation of their outsourcing review. As part of this programme of audits, the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence have invoked contractual audit rights on five contracts with Serco, and those audits are under way.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that private prisons are 47% more violent than publicly run prisons? How does he explain this? Is this to do with the difficulties facing those prisons or is it something to do with the culture within private prisons?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I am not in a position to comment on the statistic that the noble Earl refers to. However, clearly there is an issue of violence and, indeed, of self-harm in all our prisons which we are anxious to address.

Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl of Listowel and Lord Keen of Elie

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 10th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, I am reminded that these provisions will apply to family law procedures. Of course, it may improve the resolution of family issues, which will benefit the children involved, but there is a concern that it may make resolution more difficult and thus adversely affect the children in those families. Has the family test been applied to the Bill? I do not see that in the accompanying notes and perhaps it is not appropriate to apply the family test to it. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me whether the family test has been applied.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 1, 3, 4, 6, 10 and 11, which relate to the operation of the online procedure and how we can ensure that people using it are not disadvantaged. I intend to turn first to Amendment 3, which covers whether a user can choose between digital and paper channels. Then I will move on to Amendments 1, 4, 6, 10 and 11, pertaining to the online procedure and the matter of choice.

Amendment 3 suggests that claimants and respondents should have the choice of whether to use paper or digital channels when engaged in the simplified online procedure. I can confirm that the Government agree with this point, and indeed there is provision for this already. Essentially, where the online procedure comes into place, it will be possible to access it either by way of the digital portal or by way of a written document of claim. Other written documents may also be used when employing the simplified online procedure. The intention, which already applies to some of the digital procedures we have in place for small debt, is that the document will be scanned into the system and will therefore be part of the process. The idea is to ensure that parties are not excluded from the simplified procedure that will be brought in under this online procedure simply because they feel unable to employ, or are incapable of employing, the digital process itself. However, there is a distinction between that and the situation in which, when dealing with debt claims of under £25,000 for example, a claimant or any other party would be allowed to opt either for the simplified procedure that will be promulgated under the online procedure or to have recourse to the existing Civil Procedure Rules and the more complex procedure that pertains there. It is not intended under the Bill that claimants should have an option between the simplified procedure and the more complex procedure. I shall come on to develop that a little more in a moment.

Perhaps I may take this opportunity to confirm that we have no plans to remove the availability of paper channels for citizens under the remit of the Online Procedure Rule Committee. Of course, it is our intention to create a digital service that will be easy to access and use—indeed, so easy to access and use that it becomes the default choice for the majority of users. We recognise, however, that not everyone will be able to use it, or wish to proceed with that digital choice without support. For that reason, a paper route will remain open.

We want to be clear that users can expect an equity of service, regardless of whether they proceed with a digital approach or a written claim. Where different parties choose different channels, we will seamlessly join them together by means of a scanning and printing service, so users who want to send and receive papers will still have that choice—they will not need to resort to the online portal. To that extent, I offer my assurance that paper channels are still available and will be available under the Online Procedure Rules. The Bill will do nothing to remove them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

It is to ensure that where, for example, there are debt actions below a certain level—let us take a figure of £25,000—they must be initiated by way of the Online Procedure Rules, the simplified procedural rules, rather than by way of the existing Civil Procedure Rules. It is for that purpose that the paragraph is there. In other words, it will not be open to a party who wants to make a small debt claim to decide they want to use the more complex and potentially more expensive Civil Procedure Rules as distinct from the Online Procedure Rules and the simplified procedure that goes with them.

I shall address Amendments 10 and 11, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, alongside Amendment 4, which I believe was tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Beith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, as well as Amendments 1 and 6, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.

Amendments 1 and 6 concern the continued availability of physical proceedings rather than online proceedings. Amendment 4 seeks to allow the parties to proceedings to choose whether to engage with the online procedure or the current procedural rules. This is a point that I just sought to touch upon. Amendments 10 and 11 are intended to deal with those cases where one party wishes to leave the online procedure, but another does not.

This is not what the Bill is intended to achieve. The Bill provides the flexibility for a case to progress via the online rules, or via the traditional rules of the civil procedure if necessary. Where a case is so complex that that the online procedure is clearly inappropriate, it will be for the judge to determine, and he will have the discretion to do so, whether a case should remain within the online procedure or should proceed by way of the traditional civil rules instead. Where both parties make a representation that the case should not proceed by way of the online procedure, then of course the court will hear those representations and take them into account, but ultimately it will be for the court to decide the appropriate procedure for the disposal of any claim. That is as it should be and is as it is with regard to our existing civil procedures. Ultimately, it is for the court to make these procedural decisions, not for the parties to dictate them, but of course their views will be taken into account. Equally, where parties, or one party, are of the view that an oral hearing will be required in circumstances where it might not ordinarily have been anticipated, it will be open to that party, or the parties if they are agreed, to make those representations to the court in order that the court can make the final decision about the appropriate procedure to be employed. Again, that is as it should be. It is ultimately for the court to decide the most appropriate process and procedure for the disposal of individual claims.

Under Amendment 4, users would in effect have the right to choose whether to use the Online Procedure Rules or the traditional rules. Similar points are made in the other amendments. We do not consider that that is the appropriate way to proceed. Users will have sufficient control over proceedings to ensure that they have access to justice, which will not be limited in any way, and certainly not in a way that would intrude upon any rights under Article 6 of the convention.

The online procedure system is simply designed to offer the ordinary user an easier way to access justice, while giving parties the choice to remain in a position to make paper applications to the online simplified procedure rather than engage with the digital portal. I reassure noble Lords that we are not seeking to impinge in any way upon the parties’ right of access to justice, but ultimately we must leave it to the court to determine procedural questions brought before it, albeit that it will make those decisions subject to the representations by or on behalf of the parties to the proceedings.

As I mentioned in passing and in response to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, where a physical hearing arises, it will be for the parties to make representations. Ultimately, it will be for the court to determine on the material before it whether such a physical, oral hearing is required for the disposal of a case. That, I suggest, is as it should be.

I hope that that also reassures the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, with regard to judicial discretion. That, ultimately, is paramount, and nothing in the Bill or that we would anticipate in the regulations to be made pursuant to the powers under the Bill would undermine that judicial discretion, which ultimately has be exercised in the interests of justice and for the benefit of the parties. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will consider whether at this stage it is appropriate to withdraw the amendment.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, before that happens, I express my apologies for not being able to take part at Second Reading. I thank the Minister for asking his office to contact me and I am sorry that I delayed replying until Friday. I just want to comment on the family test. This was introduced in 2014 to be applied to Bills and involved a number of questions such as, “What kind of impact might the policy have on family formation?” and “What kind of impact might it have on stability in the family?” Although the test is not mandatory, this seems an appropriate Bill to have had it applied to, and I simply express the wish that in the future it might be applied to Bills similar to this one.

Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl of Listowel and Lord Keen of Elie

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 10th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, on the matter of meeting the new challenge of litigants in person, particularly in the family courts, I highlight the value of the family, drug and alcohol court national unit. While the national unit supports these drug and alcohol courts for children in the public law system, the same judges—and I imagine the same clerks—also work in public family law. The wonderful thing about this unit is that it supports judges, clerks and the administration in family courts to become better at their job; better at managing these cases which are often very difficult and troubling.

So when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, writes to me—I am grateful to him for his letter today on the matter of the Family Drug and Alcohol Court National Unit—and says that the responsibility is now passing down to local authorities, I hear what he says and understand why he says it. However, there is a distinct benefit to the judiciary and the courts in training them to be more effective in working with these families, particularly now that they are often litigants in person. I therefore hope that he may keep an open mind, and that perhaps he will be persuaded that some money should come from central government for this special national unit for supporting family drug and alcohol courts.

We have a challenge with regard to the many families in this country who are struggling to stay together or to manage amicably and effectively a separation with the least damage to their children. Having well-equipped judges and clerks in the courts to help this process is vital, and I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that this special national unit can help with that.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, Amendment 3 relates to the power in Clause 3 for the Secretary of State to make consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provisions in relation to the authorised staff provisions by way of regulations. It provides that they are subject to a process of negative resolution by Parliament, while the amendment seeks to apply the affirmative resolution procedure.

We believe that it is necessary to take the power in Clause 3(2) to avoid any implementation difficulties or legislative inconsistencies that could arise from changing the law. We have already identified consequential amendments to primary legislation and have made provision for them in the Schedule to the Bill. The necessary changes to secondary legislation may not become apparent until after the provisions in the Bill are implemented; therefore, this power is needed so that the authorised staff provisions can be given full effect. However, I emphasise that it is not concerned with making consequential amendments to primary legislation, for which provision is already made in the Schedule, and so this is a narrow power. As I indicated, the power cannot be used to amend primary legislation, so in these circumstances we considered that the negative resolution procedure is entirely appropriate.

I hear what noble Lords and noble and learned Lords have said about moving from the negative to the affirmative procedure, and I will give further thought to that. However, at this stage I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, to withdraw her amendment.

National Probation Service

Debate between Earl of Listowel and Lord Keen of Elie

Wednesday 27th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, we are conscious of the terms of the Justice Select Committee report which was issued last Friday, and we will give considerable consideration to its detailed terms. We agree that community sentences are often more effective than short prison sentences, particularly in reducing reoffending, and we certainly intend to look at that area in more detail.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, as the Minister will know, local authorities have a duty for care leavers up to the age of 25 to provide support with education, training and housing. As he looks at the probation service, will he ensure that there is more connection with local authorities so that they can discharge that duty properly?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I agree with the observations of the noble Earl that there is a need to improve cross-government approaches to the needs and requirements of those leaving our prisons.

Courts: Modernisation

Debate between Earl of Listowel and Lord Keen of Elie

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, there is no reason why reallocated court staff will not be in a position to provide advice as they have in the past. We are at the commencement of an extensive reform of our court processes. Indeed, I quote the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals:

“While there is still much work to do, the introduction of this Bill is a positive first step in legislation to deliver reform”.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Carlile’s inquiry into youth justice were, in particular, to use youth courts, not adult courts, for young people, and more problem-solving courts. Does the Minister agree that we need to be more effective in dealing with young people in the courts so that we stop the revolving door into custody?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I entirely agree with the observations of the noble Earl.

Media: Press Sustainability

Debate between Earl of Listowel and Lord Keen of Elie

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Yes.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

Will the review look at the initial training of journalists and their continual professional development, to ensure that they get all the support that they need?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am not in a position to anticipate how Dame Frances is going to proceed with the review.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Earl of Listowel and Lord Keen of Elie

Monday 1st February 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, having visited Yarl’s Wood several times in the past, I have noted the deep anxiety of those resident there. Anything like this will be particularly disturbing to them, so that should be kept in mind.

We must always draw attention to concerns about the treatment of these vulnerable individuals, but we must also commend the Government when they take steps to protect such individuals and treat them with respect. I take this opportunity to pay tribute once again to the last coalition Government, which took children and families out of these settings. Many of us were very concerned at the large numbers of families who were detained at Yarl’s Wood, often for many months on end. I remember speaking to a 16 year-old girl who was there with her mother and her six or seven year-old sister for nine months. It is very much to the coalition Government’s credit that they decided to change the system.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to noble Lords. I shall begin by addressing the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in the context of the report from Stephen Shaw. Of course the background to this was the detailed Report of the Inquiry into the Use of Immigration Detention in the United Kingdom by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was a member. That led to the appointment of Stephen Shaw, and as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has observed, he recently reported on this matter. My noble friend Lord Bates, upon receipt of that report, made a Statement to the House in which he pointed out that the Government welcomed the important contribution that Stephen Shaw had made to the debate about effective detention and accepted the broad thrust of his recommendations. That will be the subject of a further response in due course, and certainly I hope before the Report stage. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will allow me to defer any detailed comments on the points he raised until that further response is made. But what I add is that we welcome observations that he may have to make following his visit to Yarl’s Wood on Wednesday. His comments will be received in the appropriate spirit because this is a demanding area and one in which the Government are willing to seek to respond to the broad thrust of the recommendations that Stephen Shaw has made.

I turn to Amendment 185, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, but before doing so I will make this observation. He spoke about strip searches. I take issue with that term. There are full searches but they are not strip searches. It may be that he wishes to come back on that, but I take issue with the term “strip searches”; they are full searches.