Queen’s Speech

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Who said “Thank God”? I never did like some of the Liberal Democrats but now they are on our side I am told that I have to like them. However, even the Liberal Democrat who said “Thank God” might agree with what I am about to say. For some time I have been an advocate of first past the post for election to the House of Commons. The strong argument in favour of it, which I think even those who are sceptical about it are agreed on, is that it maintains a good constituency link and that Members in the other place are interested in their constituencies, run surgeries and are very much involved in their constituencies. That is a good thing which does not always occur in other systems that we have. However, we have got into a muddle on this as well. I take Scotland as the worst example again. In Scotland we have four electoral systems: in local government, we have STV; in the Scottish Parliament, we have the additional member system, which is a combination of first past the post and lists; in Westminster, of course, like the rest of the United Kingdom, we have first past the post; and in Europe we have the closed list—the worst of all, by the way. I do not know how we ended up with that.

I have now come round to the conclusion that that muddle could also be looked at by the convocation or the convention. If a Neanderthal like me—a dinosaur like me, one of the great first past the post advocates—can come round to that point of view because of the mess we are in, surely the Government and those who are sceptical about looking at this in a comprehensive, coherent, systematic way, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and others have suggested, can also think again. I know the pressures from civil servants. I sat in exactly the same office in Dover House that the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, is now occupying. It is by far one of the best offices in Whitehall, by the way—it has the best view. When Trooping the Colour takes place everyone comes in and looks out; it has a wonderful view. But I remember going again and again to Cabinet committees and Labour Ministers—yes, Labour Ministers—coming up and reading out briefs that had been prepared by their departmental officials. Fortunately, because I was the Minister of State for Scotland, we did not have such a vested interest. I would say, “Wait a minute. We are here as Labour Members to implement Labour Party policy, not the departmental policy”. That is why I think we need Ministers like our new Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, and the noble Lord, Lord—

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

Faulks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, this has been a lengthy but remarkable debate. It has contained a little bit of post-election blues, understandably, with various suggestions for improving the electoral system. But for the most part it has contained a number of extremely constructive suggestions from all quarters of the House, dealing with the ambitious electoral programme that is part of the gracious Speech. It is unsurprising that your Lordships’ House has looked carefully at all the different Bills and proposals contained in the Speech and has shown already an appetite for scrutiny of which I am sure that we will see evidence in the months to come.

To some extent, I will not have detailed replies to the various suggestions, because of the fact that this is the first Queen’s Speech in the new Parliament, and quite a few of the Bills have not even been published. But what has been said has been extremely valuable, and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that I shall take back those observations that are relevant to the Secretary of State for Justice. All the comments contained in this debate will be considered carefully by the Government.

I should also like to congratulate our maiden speakers, coming appropriately, given the theme of the debate, from different parts of the United Kingdom. There was the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, a veritable northern powerhouse himself. My noble friend Lord Dunlop unusually made his maiden speech from the Dispatch Box; he will be a valuable ministerial colleague. As many noble Lords know, he has great experience in an area in which he will be scrutinised, or the proposals will be scrutinised, in considerable depth. The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has kept us waiting a little longer before making his maiden speech, but it was well worth the wait. We are grateful for all their speeches, and I know that they will greatly inform our debates in future.

The Government are committed to governing for the whole of the United Kingdom. We are one country and we will govern with respect, giving due and proper recognition to our four constituent parts and their Governments. Notwithstanding the penetrating analysis by my noble friend Lord Forsyth of some of the difficulties, particularly in relation to Scotland, I share the positive approach shown by the noble Lord, Lord McFall. We should be looking forward. Devolution enables decisions to be taken in closer proximity to the people whom they affect and gives us the safety and security of being part of the bigger United Kingdom family of nations. We believe in rebalancing the economy to enable wealth to be created more fairly and evenly across the whole country. The devolution packages that have been considered in the course of this debate today will provide the incentives necessary to drive growth in each part of the United Kingdom.

In this Parliament we will fulfil our commitments and implement as fast as possible, as is consistent with good government, the further devolution that all parties agreed for Wales and Scotland, and deliver the Stormont House agreement in Northern Ireland. In parallel, we need to have governance arrangements that are fair for England; in that context, we will bring forward the proposals on English votes for English laws.

I acknowledge that there has been a considerable groundswell of support around the House for what has been for the most part described as a constitutional convention, although various other expressions were used in the course of the debate. The Prime Minister has said that he wants to make our United Kingdom work for all our nations. The Government welcome a discussion on how best to do that, including ideas for constitutional discussion and debate. There were some suggestions before the debate that such a convention should draw up a statute or charter of the union, such as a charter most recently recommended by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, referred to by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. In the Government’s Command Paper The Implications of Devolution for England, the Conservative Party said that if a constitutional convention or commission was established, it should be concerned with the effective functioning of the union and could consider the case for a statute of the union, but that such a body should not delay plans for further devolution or the introduction of English votes for English laws. There was, of course, no reference to such a convention in the Conservative Party manifesto, as opposed to the manifestos of Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

I know that English votes for English laws was criticised, notably by my noble friend Lord Lawson, who deplored the idea of there being two classes of Members of Parliament. Attention was drawn to the difficulty of identifying issues where the Barnett formula would be excluded. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, I am told that there were a number of Bills in the last Parliament which would have satisfied the criteria and that there is one Bill—the education and adoption Bill—to be introduced shortly which will fulfil those criteria. However, the Government are revising Commons rules to make the law-making process fair and sustainable and changes to Standing Orders will ensure that Bills, or parts of Bills, that do not apply to all parts of the UK will be voted on only by MPs representing affected constituents.

Turning to Northern Ireland and the Stormont House agreement, the Bill gives effect to key elements of the Stormont House agreement that will deal with the legacy of the past. There have been problems in relation to welfare reform, as noble Lords are aware, and it has been said that the UK Government may need to take control of welfare. The Government agree that the situation is serious, which is why the Secretary of State has chaired intensive discussions over recent days. Welfare reform is a key part of the agreement. Without it the Executive’s budget does not add up and that potentially puts devolution at risk, so it is essential for everybody that these issues are resolved, as a number of noble Lords said.

Reference was made to the commitments made in the Stormont House agreement to deal with the legacy of the Troubles. The Government will establish a historical investigations unit, provide for an independent commission on information retrieval and establish an oral history archive. The House will recall the outstanding speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, which emphasised the importance of contextualising these investigations so that they do not frustrate what should be achieved by them.

As to Wales, I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, so recently associated with Wales in a ministerial capacity, welcomes the changes delivering what the Government have promised, although she indicated that there were certain areas in which she will push for more.

I turn to the Government’s plans to make the criminal justice system work better for victims—a matter which I will deal with, as my noble friend Lord Dunlop said. Measures to increase the rights of victims of crime will make sure that victims receive the support and information from criminal justice organisations to which they are entitled. This is an area on which all parties’ manifestos contained proposals of a similar nature.

Victims often feel let down and they are the people we owe the greatest duty of care towards. Our plans to enhance victims’ rights go hand in hand with the improvements we are making to help victims of crime navigate the criminal justice system, access the information and support they need and protect vulnerable victims and witnesses in court.

In December 2013, the Government implemented a revised victims’ code to give victims clearer entitlements and a louder voice in the criminal justice system with, for the first time, the right to ask to read their personal statement to the court. However, the experience of victims in the criminal justice system too often falls short of what they have a right to expect. Enshrining victims’ rights in primary legislation will make absolutely clear to criminal justice agencies that they must comply with their duties towards victims.

Before I turn to the substantial issue of human rights, I ought to deal with a number of matters which were raised during the debate. On the question of IPP sentences, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, has assumed the mantle of Lord Lloyd, recently retired—and a remarkable mantle it is. The noble and learned Lord drew attention to the power that the Secretary of State has to consider responding to the challenge that IPP prisoners face. Of course, he and the House will be aware that a Secretary of State has to consider the individual and their tariff sentence but at the same time has to be minded about the Parole Board’s assessment of whether any individual may be a risk if released into society. It is something that will be on the Secretary of State’s agenda of things to be considered early in his time in office.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to assisted dying and the Private Member’s Bill brought forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, in the previous Session of Parliament. I think that the Bill has found its way into the current ballot but is not terribly high up. I do not want to raise expectations in this regard but the Government are aware of the issue and will consider the question during the course of the next months or years.

I am glad that there is a general welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and my noble friend Lord Black for the judicial oversight in relation to bail. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will hold the Government very much to account in relation to prisons. I am glad that he welcomed certain signs from the Ministry of Justice that the Secretary of State will place a considerable emphasis on education in prisons. I am sure that he will be anxious to ensure that the reforms that were begun in rehabilitation can be maintained and that prisons become a useful place of rehabilitation.

A great deal has been said about the Human Rights Act on all sides which is misleading. The Government were elected with a mandate to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights. Human rights and their protection are the hallmarks of a civilised society and this Government will be as committed as any other Government to upholding fundamental human rights. But the truth is that the cause of human rights has been undermined by various failures of the Human Rights Act. We will now look at how to strike an appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities. There is a clear will in the country to ensure that human rights laws are not abused by those who would do us ill. That does not entail weakening fundamental human rights. It is important to emphasise that human rights were protected long before 1998, and they will continue to be protected under a Bill of Rights.

This will be a significant piece of legislation. It will be of interest to many inside Parliament and beyond. Over the coming months we will draw up proposals to implement this vital reform. We will then take time to consult widely and draft legislation which meets the needs of a modern democratic society.

I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who I think welcomed the fact that there was going to be consultation in relation to the Bill, will accept that when one is making constitutional changes, for that is what they will be, it is important to pause. The changes to the role of Lord Chancellor, which he has very frankly admitted were perhaps a little hasty, are an example. We want to try to get this right.

I want to emphasise as strongly as I can that we are not getting rid of human rights, nor are we going to ignore the convention. The Bill of Rights is likely to reflect all the rights in the convention. We are anxious to maintain what has been a very proud history for many centuries of protecting human rights in this country. Human rights were protected by the common law. Human rights were protected by Parliament and will continue to be protected by Parliament. Let us look at the Modern Slavery Act, so recently passed by Parliament. That was not as a result of the Human Rights Act. Of course there is a prohibition on slavery contained in the convention. But our abolition of slavery long preceded the convention and modern slavery was a nuanced response to a particular situation.

During the debate the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, who is not in his place, seemed to imply that some of the advances in the approach to liberal causes were peculiarly as a result of the Human Rights Act. Same-sex marriage—an important piece of legislation brought in by the coalition Government during the last Parliament—had nothing to do with the Human Rights Act. In fact, there was a real anxiety that Strasbourg would prevent it becoming law, because when an attempt had been made to argue that there should be same-sex marriage, it did not succeed in Strasbourg, but because of a triple lock in the Bill it was generally considered—although not by all—that the legislation would survive.

The problem with the Strasbourg jurisprudence is that it has been of variable quality, and there has been a general sense that human rights—a noble aspiration, as has quite rightly been pointed out in this debate, stemming from what happened in the Second World War, finding its realisation in 1948 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and finding its way into the European convention—have been diminished by some of the ways in which it has been used. The Supreme Court has felt itself more or less bound, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2 of the Human Rights Act. The case of Ullah was a wrong turning by the Supreme Court. In recent years, the Supreme Court has gradually begun to establish what is rather quaintly described as a dialogue with Strasbourg. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, rightly said that quite a lot of the Strasbourg jurisprudence is now woven into the common law like Japanese knotweed. That may be so, and I do not suggest for a moment that the jurisprudence from Strasbourg is all not of good quality.

Of course, we should not be insular. We should, in developing our law, look beyond our shores to Strasbourg but not only to Strasbourg. Many judges recently, writing extrajudiciously, have emphasised that the common law itself should be growing organically, as it does, that it has been far too centred on reacting one way or another to the Strasbourg jurisprudence, and that it should, in fact, have been looking elsewhere and not peculiarly at Strasbourg, and should sometimes have simply ignored Strasbourg.

We want a British Bill which will reorient our rights in Britain. The Supreme Court should be supreme. My noble friend Lord Flight referred to the fact that the Abu Qatada case went to our Supreme Court and was then overturned in Strasbourg. The beguiling metaphor used by the Labour Party in 1997 and then in the 1998 Act was that it was bringing rights home. In fact, it was subcontracting the rights to a considerable degree to Strasbourg. We want to bring rights home to this country so that they are protected by our Supreme Court and our Parliament—let us have faith in our Parliament to protect rights—rather than by the inconsistent jurisprudence of Strasbourg.

Nevertheless, we want to consult widely. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said that there has been a commission. Of course, she was a distinguished member of it; I was a less distinguished member. The majority of the commission concluded that there should be a British Bill of Rights. I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is not against the idea of a British Bill of Rights, but understandably—and we agree with this—it is what is in the Bill that is important.

It will not be forgotten that in 2007 Gordon Brown published a Green Paper exploring the possibility of a British Bill of Rights. In 2009 the Labour Government launched a consultation process into a Bill of Rights entitled Rights and Responsibilities: Developing Our Constitutional Framework. I hope that this House, in performing its scrutiny, will honour the fact that there is a mandate to produce this Bill, will scrutinise it carefully, perhaps consider some of the suggestions made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay about a degree of democratic override and decide what should be in any such Bill.

I conclude by referring to some rather mysterious comments, which I think mostly emanated from the Liberal Democrat Benches, about the Salisbury convention. They first found their way into a speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, on the first day. They were repeated, I think, in some form by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and then by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I may have misunderstood it but I thought that what was being said was that there was something unsatisfactory about the electoral system. Of course, the psephology was explained by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. As a result of that, the Liberal Democrats felt comfortable in ignoring the normal convention—the Salisbury convention.

[Lord McNally]

This is straining at gnats. I was a member of the Cunningham commission that looked at the Salisbury convention and put forward a report adopted by this House. It had one very clear point in it; that is, the House of Lords retains the right to say no. If it did not retain that right, there would not be a need for a Parliament Act. That is the only point that is made. The idea that the Salisbury convention, or what was in the Cunningham convention, allows the Government of the day to get their will, whatever their proposals or whatever is said in a Bill, is not in any convention because the House of Lords retains the right to say no. That is all that has ever been said from these Benches.

[Lord Faulks]

That is precisely what I thought was being said by the Liberal Democrats. It is now on the record and I understand that I have been disabused of the misunderstanding that I must have had about the Salisbury convention. I looked at the Library Note and saw what was said about it. In due course, no doubt that will find its expression in a response to various Bills which satisfy the description of unacceptable in one way or another to the Liberal Democrats.

I hope and expect that all the legislation will be scrutinised with great thoroughness from all quarters of this House. I and the Government welcome that. I hope that it will be possible for the Government to fulfil their ambition that this should be a one-nation Government. There has been some competition for ownership of that phrase, originated, I think, by Disraeli. I thought I was a one-nation Conservative. I then found that Ed Miliband was a one-nation politician and, once again, we have attempted to reclaim that expression. It is in fact a noble aspiration—although “aspiration” is another word about which there is some contest.

In any event, I hope that we can be one nation as a result of the legislation, which this House will, no doubt, help to make better and help this Government achieve its aspiration.

Debate adjourned until tomorrow.

Prisons

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, a wide range of organisations and individuals independent of the Prison Service, including inspectors, monitoring boards, parliamentarians and researchers, are frequently given access to our prisons. It is right that prisons should face scrutiny and are subject to public debate. Our priority is the welfare of prisoners, their families and those who work in prisons. Inaccurate and irresponsible criticisms undermine their welfare. NOMS has the right to refuse access to those who voice such criticisms.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I sympathise with the Minister for having to try to defend the indefensible. In the future, the Secretary of State for Justice will be remembered and blamed for the havoc that he has wrought in less than three years on the entire criminal justice system, which will take years to resolve. Only those who fear the truth need to try to suppress it, which the Secretary of State is trying to do as regards a long-established, independent, voluntary organisation whose only crimes have been to oppose him and to expose untruths. Can the Minister please assure the House that this shameful instruction will be instantly withdrawn and never again repeated in a free United Kingdom?

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, when the noble Lord became the Chief Inspector of Prisons in 1995, I am sure that in the course of inspecting prisons, he was anxious to be fair and objective in his inspections regardless of whether they were private prisons or public prisons. These two prisons are private prisons. Unfortunately, the chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, Frances Crook, disapproves of private prisons and has been quoted as saying that,

“making money out of punishing people is both reprehensible and immoral and it is on these grounds that we have opposed the private management of prisons”.

Just before Christmas, she said on “Newsnight” that for a three-week period over Christmas, young offenders would be locked in their cells while there was a 40% reduction in staff numbers. Both these assertions were completely wrong. She was given an opportunity to retract, but she declined to do so. NOMS has to bear in mind the welfare of prisoners, the families who would be concerned about such misinformation, and the morale of prison officers.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, last Thursday, the process of appointing a successor to the highly regarded Chief Inspector of Prisons, Nick Hardwick, ground to a halt when Mr Grayling refused to consider the candidate put forward by the appointment panel. Moreover, on the same day the Justice Committee objected to his appointment of two so-called independent members of the selection panel—of four—who just happened to be Conservative Party activists. One of them is an adviser to that paragon of political impartiality, Grant Shapps. Today, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has raised serious and legitimate concerns about a ban on visits to prisons by Frances Crook of the Howard League for Penal Reform. Incidentally, I understand that G4S, which runs the prisons, had no objection to her going to them. What reassurance can the Minister provide that during what remains of the Lord Chancellor’s tenure of office, Mr Grayling will desist from pursuing his career as a serial offender against the interests of justice?

[Lord Faulks]

That is a large question, and perhaps I can answer some of the many sub-questions in it. The Secretary of State had nothing to do with the decision taken by NOMS, but I of course, as a Minister, take responsibility for that decision, which was an operational one. As for the appointment process, this is under way. The noble Lord seems to be very well informed about the process, and an announcement will be made in due course. There is no question that Nick Hardwick has not been allowed to act independently. The Government’s preference is that all public posts are re-competed at the end of the fixed term, with that incumbent free to apply.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the conditions in our prisons will impact on control and discipline but are also a matter of serious concern for the families of those who are detained in some of our institutions? Has the noble Lord studied the recent lecture given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in which he talked about prison conditions when he undertook a review of Strangeways prison some years ago? He mentioned that many of his recommendations are still to be implemented and also suggested that a further inquiry ought to be undertaken. Does my noble friend agree with that suggestion?

[Lord Faulks]

The noble and learned Lord’s report on Strangeways, some 25 years ago, identified a number of things that were wrong with our prison system. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree, as indeed would the party opposite, that there have been significant changes and improvements in our prison system since. For example, there is no slopping out, there are much better conditions in cells, overcrowding is at its lowest level since 2007, prisoners are doing more purposeful activity and participate more in education, and the number of people absconding has been reduced. There is no room for complacency—there will be always be challenges in the Prison Service—but I am afraid that we simply do not accept that there has been no improvement in 25 years.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister seriously saying that people who are critical of private prisons are not to be allowed to visit? Is that what the Government’s policy amounts to?

[Lord Faulks]

It certainly does not. The Government welcome constructive criticism of all sorts. We want constructive and objective criticism by the monitoring board, the inspectorate, the press and academics—all of whom are regularly given access to our prisoners. But objectivity and fair criticism, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree, are vital.

Inquiries Act 2005 (Select Committee Report)

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Shutt for initiating this debate to discuss the Select Committee’s report on the Inquiries Act 2005, and in particular the Government’s much criticised response to its recommendations. I also thank all other noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. If it is to be my last appearance at the Dispatch Box—I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his remarks in that respect—it is a great privilege not only to be involved in a debate of this quality with so many participants of enormous experience, but also to be present on the occasion of the valedictory speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby. I have not had the privilege of knowing him well; I wish I had known him better. I do know, however, that he was the assistant to no fewer than five Convenors of the Cross Benches. Perhaps I could dare this observation: I suspect that that might well have been quite a challenging occupation on some occasions.

Before finally turning to the debate itself, perhaps I may reciprocate the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. He has been a formidable opponent—not to say a thorn in my side—during the time that I have been standing at the Dispatch Box. He has held the Government to account with tremendous ferocity accompanied at the same time by great wit. I pay tribute to him for that.

The report of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, received a response from the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, suggested that in the welcome expressed by my ministerial colleague, Simon Hughes, there was a subtext that the Government did not in fact welcome the report. I am here to disabuse him on that particular matter: the Government do indeed welcome the report and know that the committee invested a considerable amount of time and effort in understanding the operation of inquiries both under the Act and otherwise. The committee’s work has undoubtedly prompted a lively and constructive debate today.

I am grateful to all those who have given evidence to the inquiry—both written evidence and in person—including former chairs, panel members, inquiry legal and administrative teams, and others with involvement in inquiries, who provided invaluable knowledge, experience and insight into how inquiry processes and procedures might be improved.

I assure the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and his committee that their report was well received across government and that careful consideration was given to the recommendations. It is worth making clear to the House that the response submitted by my right honourable friend Simon Hughes, the Minister of State for Justice and Civil Liberties, who has responsibility for this policy area at the Ministry of Justice, reflected opinion across the whole of Whitehall, not just that of our department. As my noble friend Lord King pointed out, the possible need for these inquiries can confront Ministers in different departments with different levels of experience. It is important that there should be—this is very much the burden of one of the recommendations—a degree of sharing of knowledge and experience to enable a proper response to be given by Ministers in different departments to the call, as there often is, for a public inquiry.

For the benefit of those who are not familiar with this aspect of government, the Ministry of Justice works closely with the Cabinet Office in the operation of inquiries. My department has responsibility for the Inquiries Act 2005 and the Inquiry Rules 2006, which underpin the Act. It provides advice on the application of the Act and the rules. The Cabinet Office has responsibility within government for providing guidance on how to establish and conduct inquiries, and provides the main liaison between lead departments and the centre of government.

Regardless of how they are constituted—whether they are statutory or not—and as a number of noble Lords quite rightly said, public inquiries perform an important role in today’s society of holding public bodies to account, as well as bringing to light, and providing answers to, issues and events that cause public concern. Setting up a major public inquiry is a process that of course the Government take extremely seriously. There is a clear requirement in the Ministerial Code reflecting the importance that is attached to major inquiries of this nature. It states that:

“The Prime Minister must be consulted in good time about any proposal to set up … Major public inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005”.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and his committee colleagues may feel that the Government took a long time to respond to their recommendations. However, as I have alluded to already, the Ministry of Justice consulted widely to make sure that the response was as comprehensive as possible. Some government departments had little experience of running an inquiry while others had much to offer. As it was, and simply for the sake of the record, the committee’s report was published on 11 March and the Government’s response was published on 30 June.

The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, referred, by way of comparison, to the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie—another essay in post-legislative consideration—on the Mental Capacity Act. I was the Minister who responded to that debate. Lest it be thought that the Government are serial offenders in late responses, I should correct one slight misunderstanding that my noble friend may have in that respect. We did in fact respond to that report well within time. The letter that I wrote, and which was referred to in the debate, was a response to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, simply to update the House as to what had been done to implement the various recommendations—I am glad to see the noble Lord nodding to affirm this. It enabled the debate to be much shorter because the House was made aware of the up to date position. The point that my noble friend makes is a valuable one, but it is not an appropriate criticism of the Government in that respect.

Here, the Select Committee’s report reflected a number of concerns about the use and operation of the 2005 Act and contained 33 recommendations. There were three broad areas of concern that my noble friend Lord Shutt focused on. First, the Committee believed that, when considering what form an inquiry should take, it should be Ministers’ practice to start from a presumption that the 2005 Act should be used—a point made forcefully in the course of our debate by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who referred to the evidence given by my ministerial colleague Shailesh Vara.

The word “presumption” does not appear in the Act. It is an expression familiar to lawyers and it may be that, on many occasions, Ministers would be well advised to look at the 2005 Act first. However, it would be wrong to superimpose some rule of law, from whatever origin, that there is a presumption that the 2005 Act should be used. Whether it is wise, of course, is a matter of opinion, and this particular Act does not contain any mandatory obligation on the part of a Minister to employ the Act.

Secondly, the Committee felt that it would be useful to have a standing central inquiries unit to give practical support to the chair and secretary of inquiries. Thirdly, the committee made a number of recommendations to increase the accountability of government Ministers and limit their powers to act without the consent of the inquiry chair.

I am sorry that the committee did not feel that the Government’s response addressed these points to their satisfaction. The Government accepted over half of its recommendations—19, in fact, although I understand there is slight carping over the mathematics—and we believe that these included the most important recommendations, as I will explain in a moment.

As noted in the Government’s response, the Select Committee’s report was very much welcomed. My department had carried out post-legislative scrutiny of the Act in 2010, in line with the then new regime of departments scrutinising their legislation between three and five years after implementation. The 2010 scrutiny concluded that the Act was working well but that the 2006 rules presented a number of concerns. The work of the committee was therefore timely. When it reported in March last year, four years had elapsed since that post-legislative scrutiny. At that point, 17 inquiries, under the Act or otherwise, had reported since the implementation. Since the scrutiny, three further inquiries have either been set up under the 2005 Act or been converted to run under the Act. This includes the most recent independent inquiry into child sex abuse, to be chaired by Justice Lowell Goddard.

At the end of October, as he told the House, my noble friend Lord Shutt and members of the committee met my colleague the Minister of State for Justice and Civil Liberties. I understand that many of the committee’s concerns were addressed. There were, however, a few points on which the Government committed to respond—around the role of the Cabinet Office, as I understand it. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to apologise to the noble Lord and his colleagues for the delay in responding to those points. In response to the committee’s report, and to further helpful discussion with committee members, we have looked again at the guidance available and the role that the Cabinet Office can play in supporting departments. I will say a little more about that in due course.

As to the question of whether to establish an inquiry under the 2005 Act, the government response looked in some detail at how Ministers decide what kind of inquiry to establish. At the October meeting, my ministerial colleague addressed the committee’s concerns about the consideration given by government departments to establishing inquiries under the Act. However, for the benefit of the House, I will explain that Ministers will in fact always consider the suitability of the 2005 Act when deciding to establish a public inquiry—it will always be the starting point.

Ministers will, however, also want to consider whether another vehicle would be more appropriate and effective, bearing in mind time and cost. This could be a non-statutory inquiry—I note that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, drew on his experience of non-statutory inquiries and said that they could be useful; an independent review; a parliamentary inquiry; an inquiry of privy counsellors; an investigation with a public hearings element overseen by a judge or QC; an independent review with a public hearings element; or, in a very limited number of cases, an inquiry established under other legislation, such as the Financial Services Act 2012 or the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.

Across government there was consensus that Ministers must retain the option of deciding whether or not to use the Act. It is essential to adopt what is the right approach under all circumstances. It should also be noted—some noble Lords might already be aware of this—that Section 1(1) of the Act gives Ministers discretion to decide whether or not to use the Act. This clearly indicates that Parliament was mindful of the potential of other, non-statutory, approaches.

The House should not lose sight, either, of the fact that there is always the option to convert an inquest or other form of inquiry, investigation or review, into a 2005 Act inquiry in the event that powers under the Act—such as those to compel witnesses—are felt to be required. Very often, witnesses do not need compelling, but recently this has been the case in the investigation into the death of Alexander Litvinenko. On 22 July 2014, the Home Secretary announced that the inquest would be converted into an inquiry—the noble Lord, Lord Soley, referred to this—under the 2005 Act to give the chair the power he needs to consider sensitive material.

On the point about a central inquiries unit and guidance—an important part of the report—I fully understand the concerns behind the committee’s recommendation that a central inquiries unit should be established within central government. Government departments considering establishing an inquiry—as well as potential inquiry chairs and teams, both administrative and legal—will want to be assured that there is resource and experience available to them, rather than having to reinvent the wheel, to use the terminology employed by the committee, with every new inquiry. However, as the Government’s response sets out, we do not accept the need to create a new standing team. The MoJ and Cabinet Office already work closely with departments to provide guidance and assistance at various stages of inquiries, from the point at which Ministers consider whether an inquiry is required, through set-up and on to the final publication of reports, to closing down inquiries and learning lessons.

We absolutely accept that more can be done to improve this service, and to ensure that we learn lessons from inquiries. However, it is essential that any central resource provided for inquiries work is proportionate to the number of inquiries and reflects the need from departments. In this vein, and since the Government’s response last June, the Cabinet Office revisited its approach in this area and identified dedicated resource to build the nature and profile of support available. The Cabinet Office also revisited the draft guidance to departments on establishing an inquiry, taking account of the views of the committee and feedback from departments. This will be a more streamlined document, providing the necessary signposts for those involved in inquiries and ensuring that there is complete clarity around additional sources of information and support.

The guidance will take account of the recommendations made by the noble Lord and his committee, of what has been said in today’s debate and also of the recently published guidance by the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution—with which I know the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has been involved—on setting up and running a public inquiry. It will also take account of lessons learnt from inquiries that have completed or are underway, including the recent data loss from the Robert Hamill and Azelle Rodney inquiries. The Cabinet Office official responsible for this area of work instructed me to say that she would be very willing to meet my noble friend Lord Shutt to discuss this ongoing work before it is finalised.

Alongside this, the Cabinet Office is engaging with key officials across Whitehall to ensure that the cross-Whitehall officials group on inquiries operates as effectively as possible. In addition, we are establishing a network of former inquiry secretaries to provide a further repository of expertise and experience. We absolutely accept the committee’s concerns regarding the completion of lessons learnt exercises, and the Cabinet Office will ensure that these are completed with greater consistency than they have been to date, and that the lessons arising are cascaded appropriately and are used to continue to inform guidance to departments.

Like my department’s post-legislative review in 2010, the committee concluded that, generally speaking—and notwithstanding its various recommendations—the 2005 Act continues to work pretty well. However, the committee also agreed that there is a need to improve the rules. The committee recommended four amendments to the rules, of which the Government accepted three. Unfortunately, we have been unable to make these amendments in the current parliamentary Session. However, work is in hand to progress these changes at the earliest opportunity under the new Parliament. The changes are in no way controversial.

I now come to what is much more controversial: the question why Her Majesty’s Government rejected the committee’s recommendation that Rules 13 to 15 on warning letters should be revoked and substituted with a rule giving chairs greater discretion. Of course, on warning letters, a 2005 Act inquiry cannot apportion civil or criminal liability—although I note the observation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, that more use might be made of the findings of inquiries in civil proceedings. The warning letter provides a mechanism to inform someone of the fact that they have been or may be criticised during the course of the inquiry. Rule 13 contains a discretion to send warning letters. The warning letter also provides that individual or body with the opportunity to respond to the inquiry chairman and provide any additional information. To that extent, warning letters can—as acknowledged in the debate—assist in the effectiveness of inquiries by encouraging engagement and allowing the inquiry to consider any response from that individual before reporting.

The next paragraph I will share with the House reflects the letter to my noble friend Lady Buscombe but contains a further comment. Her Majesty’s Government consider that Rule 13 strikes the right balance, affording individuals the opportunity to take legal advice and, if necessary, to respond to criticism. A departure from the current approach could lead to a loss of that opportunity with a corresponding impact on the involvement of witnesses.

During the course of this very helpful debate, there have been useful observations from the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf, Lord Cullen and Lord Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. In the helpful comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, he provided the useful quotation from Sir Richard Scott—as he then was—stressing the need for flexibility and how so often this process has got out of hand. I can tell the House, notwithstanding the official response, that the Government—although considering, on the face of it, that there should be sufficient discretion for chairmen to avoid some of the undesirable features of the Salmonisation or Maxwellisation process so helpfully identified in this debate—are none the less much impressed by the strength of the argument today and consider that it may well be necessary to reconsider these particular rules to give greater clarity to chairmen so as to avoid some of those undesirable features. The House will realise that I cannot go further than that but I hope that that will provide some comfort to those who participated in the debate.

I assure the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and his colleagues that, since the Government published their response, the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet Office have worked closely together, and will continue to do so, to make sure that the committee’s recommendations are implemented. As I said, work has progressed on the support provided to those considering establishing an inquiry. The Cabinet Office is currently working with departments to ensure that this guidance reflects their needs, and will of course take account of all that has been said.

I was asked to deal specifically with a number of matters. I will do so very briefly given the time that has already elapsed in my response—although I was asked by my noble friend Lord King to give a full response, and I am endeavouring to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was concerned about the need for representation. Of course, he will be aware that it is provided for by Section 40 of the Act that the chair can award reasonable costs, but he was right to draw attention to the fact that he departed somewhat from the rest of the committee given his particular experience, having been before the Scott inquiry.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen, referred to the appointment of counsel. He will be aware that the cost of legal teams is one of the biggest cost drivers in inquiries, so it is right, in the Government’s view, that—important though the role of counsel is, for the reasons that he gave——Ministers should protect the power to be involved in the appointment of counsel. In the Government’s view, that should not be for the chairman alone, although one imagines that the chairman often has considerable influence in the identification of appropriate counsel.

My noble friend Lord Trimble referred to the question of inquests—whether there were inquests rather than inquiries, in a reference to Article 2 of the European convention. There is a slight difference. Of course, there has to be an inquest as a matter of law in certain circumstances but there is always discretion whether to call an inquiry. As he will know, all inquests have to comply with Article 2. I understand that the inquest system in Northern Ireland is somewhat different, and inquests there have been held by the ECHR not to comply with Article 2 of the European convention. He also referred to the on-the-runs inquiry. He said that that was a private inquiry. I am instructed that in fact it was not private, but was an independent review under the chairmanship of Lady Justice Hallett. No public evidence sessions were held, given the nature of the issues—of which my noble friend will be well aware—but a full report was published on 17 July 2014.

In conclusion, I hope that the House will be assured from my remarks today that the committee’s recommendations were well received and that work is progressing—perhaps not at the pace that the committee would like but at a pace that is realistic given the many other pressures, especially now as we approach the end of the Parliament.

The noble Lords, Lord Soley and Lord Richard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, all rightly emphasised the importance that public inquiries exercise in the public mind as a reassurance when, sometimes, confidence in politicians is not quite what it might be. The noble Baronesses, Lady Stern and Lady O’Loan, emphasised the absolute need for the paramountcy of independence where inquiries are concerned. I entirely agree.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and his committee colleagues have accepted that given the nature of public inquiries there needs to be a degree of flexibility. One size plainly will not fit all. As we know, every time that an issue arises, there is a call for an inquiry. Consideration must be given to the most suitable approach that will deliver the answers and limit the possibility of the event happening again, but in a cost-efficient and timely manner.

The report, and this debate, have been an extremely valuable contribution to what is and will remain a very important topic. I thank all who have taken part very much.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he confirm whether we are to cull from Hansard some of the important things that he has had to say, or whether there will be what we might call a supplementary government response to the report?

[Lord Faulks]

I will not to commit to a supplementary government response, but I will look through Hansard to see whether there are any particular matters that I did not deal with in the course of the debate.

Legal Services Act 2007 (Warrant) (Approved Regulator) Regulations 2015

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

That the draft regulations, draft rules and order laid before the House on 15, 26, and 29 January be approved.

Relevant documents: 21st and 22nd Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 11 March.

Motions agreed.

Access to Justice

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Rochester]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they plan to take in response to the recommendations of the recently published Theos report Speaking Up.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have noted the Theos report. We carefully considered the matters raised in it, including access to justice, when developing our policy on legal aid reform. The Government have already committed to a review of the impact of the LASPO Act three to five years after implementation. Even after reform, our legal aid system will remain one of the most expensive in the world at £1.5 billion per year.

[The Lord Bishop of Rochester]

I am very grateful to the Minister for that response and for the underlining of that commitment to an assessment of the effects of the legal aid reforms. I wonder if I might ask the Minister, if necessary, to pass on to colleagues a particular request to look at the impact of those reforms in relation to tenants in both the public and the private rented sectors, with particular reference to access to remedy in relation to things like the disrepair of homes, tenancy deposit schemes and other questions of tenancy rights. I declare an interest as the chair of the charity Housing Justice.

[Lord Faulks]

I can assure the right reverend Prelate that these are matters which will be considered by this Government, or indeed any other Government to follow, in due course—probably between 2016 and 2018.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not clear that the principle of equal access to justice is held sacred across the political parties as well as across the churches? Is it not equally evident, however, and curiously, that it is a principle not cherished in the bosom of the Lord Chancellor, the very person who we would expect to be the high priest of justice? The Minister knows the present Lord Chancellor, Mr Grayling, well. Will he share with the House any insight he may have as to why the Lord Chancellor is a heretic in regard to this article of faith?

[Lord Faulks]

The Lord Chancellor is well aware of his obligations, as he told the Constitution Committee. He has had to ensure that so far as possible there is access to justice while at the same time having to cope with the deficit that was left behind by the party opposite. I can assure the noble Lord that the Lord Chancellor remains committed to access to justice, as do all his Ministers.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister is right to draw attention to the report, which is about access to justice. Does he not agree that it is a negation of democracy if justice is available only to those who can afford it? Will he therefore establish a system of monitoring so that we can see the impact of such policies, particularly on poor and disadvantaged communities in our country, and more importantly, the impact they will have on the rest of the criminal justice system and the Prison Service?

[Lord Faulks]

My noble friend is of course quite right to identify the potential injustice that can result from cuts in legal aid. That is something that any responsible Government will have close to their heart, and we will continue to consider any adverse effects.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not know whether the Minister has had a chance to see last week’s report by the Justice Committee of the House of Commons, which criticised the LASPO Act in very strong terms indeed, particularly on the issue of exceptional funding. I do not think it is going too far to say that it suggested that, despite the promise that exceptional funding would be a way in which those who could not get legal aid any longer would be able to get legal aid in exceptional cases, there have actually been a tiny number of cases. It criticised the Government for their response as far as that is concerned. Does the Minister agree and what are the Government going to do about the fact that more than 325,000 people per year who used to be able to get legal help when they needed it no longer can because of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act?

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, the exceptional funding provisions in the LASPO Act were very specifically drawn to deal with potential violations of EU law or of the European Convention on Human Rights. We are satisfied that the Act is performing as Parliament passed it, although it is true that there have been fewer applications than we expected. We have done our best to make it easy for those people who think they come within the terms to make an application and have afforded the possibility of a preliminary view being offered by the Legal Aid Agency. The answer to the noble Lord’s other point is that some people are not getting legal aid who were previously. We have tried to concentrate on those at the bottom of society who need it most.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Can the Minister say whether the Government, or the future Government if he can say, will look at the impact on private law cases in the family courts of the absence of any legal aid except in very unusual circumstances?

[Lord Faulks]

Obviously, I cannot give any undertakings for any future Government. I think the noble and learned Baroness may be referring to the problems that quite often occur with litigants in person. She will know that even before the LASPO Act 66% of people on average were unrepresented in private law cases. We understand that this can cause difficulties, but we congratulate the court staff, the judges and the Government on their ingenuity in dealing with these difficulties.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Does my noble friend not agree that those campaigning against the Government’s reforms of legal aid and arguing for better access to justice would have more credibility if they also argued for reducing the costs of the legal system and of the courts and the fees which are charged by barristers and other lawyers?

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful for what my noble friend says. He may notice that the endorsement on the Theos paper from a former High Court judge says that all barristers should give a tithe of their time and services. I am sure that is not just restricted to Christian barristers and solicitors.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

Following the question from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, can the Minister compute the whole cost of our justice system, and will he then compare it with the whole cost of the justice systems of other common-law countries?

[Lord Faulks]

I will certainly not do that calculation at the Dispatch Box, but I think I understand what the noble Baroness is saying, which is that those systems where the judges are more involved—more inquisitorial as opposed to adversarial—may cost more. None the less, we generally believe that our legal aid costs—as is quite right, because we value access to justice—are more expensive than anything which is remotely comparable elsewhere.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister recognise that with the cutbacks in legal aid and fewer solicitors being willing to do it a greater burden rests on the citizens advice bureaux and law centres? Will he contemplate affording them more resources in order to meet the unmet need?

[Lord Faulks]

My noble friend is right. We have in fact given £107 million via the transition fund; that was last year. We remain concerned that justice should be provided by whatever means and we acknowledge the contribution of the Low commission in identifying different ways of providing help other than by the rather expensive and cumbersome method that is sometimes used.

Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

That the Bill do now pass.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, with this Motion I should like to thank all those noble Lords who have spoken during the course of the Bill, or otherwise provided support throughout its passage. I extend particular thanks to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, as well as to all parties for their support. In particular, I thank the Bill team for its help.

Bill passed.

Legal Services Act 2007 (Warrant) (Licensing Authority) Regulations 2015

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Legal Services Act 2007 (Warrant) (Licensing Authority) Regulations 2015.

Relevant document: 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice) Order 2015

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice) Order 2015.

Relevant document: 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, the purpose of this order is to bring into force a revised code of practice under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, setting out the manner in which police officers are to record, retain and reveal to the prosecutor material obtained in a criminal investigation.

The revised code that this order will bring into force replaces the current one that was introduced in 2005. The changes to the code are not extensive but they are a crucial element in an initiative that is designed to make summary justice more efficient. This is the transforming summary justice programme—TSJ for short.

The objective of TSJ is to enable guilty plea cases to be dealt with wherever possible in one hearing, and contested cases to be properly managed at the first hearing and actively progressed and disposed of at the second. One of the elements of TSJ is that summary cases that are likely to be guilty pleas and those that are expected to be contested should be treated differently, the former being listed for a hearing after 14 days, the latter after 28 days.

Last May, the senior presiding judge received the report of a review that he had asked His Honour Judge Kinch and the chief magistrate, Senior District Judge Riddle, to carry out into disclosure of unused material in summary cases. This magistrates’ court disclosure review made several recommendations that complement TSJ, including that the relevant code of practice should be amended to enable a streamlined but proportionate procedure to be used in disclosing unused material in summary cases.

The review endorsed the separate treatment of likely guilty and not guilty cases. It recommended that the code should be amended to remove any implication that a guilty plea might be expected simply on the basis of the defendant not having denied the offence. However, where a guilty plea was expected with good reason—typically because the defendant had admitted the offence—then a schedule of unused material need not be served.

Even in these cases, however, there remains a duty on the prosecution at common law to disclose any material that might assist the defendant in a bail application or in preparing his case. This is often referred to as “ex parte Lee disclosure”, after the case in which the principle was set out. It is perhaps unlikely to be required in a straightforward summary case, but the review recommended that in the rare cases where the need for such disclosure arises, the police must draw the material to the attention of the prosecutor. Where on the other hand there is nothing to disclose, as will ordinarily be the position, that fact should be declared.

These recommendations are reflected in the revised code. Annexed to the code are three forms, the first of which is for use in cases where a guilty plea is anticipated, declaring that there is nothing to disclose at common law.

The review noted the intention of the CPS,

“to replace the unused schedule with a short disclosure report in anticipated not guilty plea summary cases”,

which it observed would require an amendment to the code of practice. This, too, is reflected in the new code and in the second and third forms annexed to it. These are streamlined certificates for use in anticipated not guilty cases, one certifying that there is nothing to disclose under the 1996 Act or at common law, the other certifying that there is disclosable material and specifying what it is. These forms are quicker, simpler and less bureaucratic than the ones they replace.

The amendments incorporated in the revised code were drafted in consultation with the national police lead on unused material, as well as with representatives of the Law Society, HM Courts and Tribunals Service and the office of the senior presiding judge. In accordance with the process set out in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, the revised code was published in draft for consultation in October last year. Six responses were received, and the draft was further slightly revised in the light of them.

The resulting revised code was laid on 28 January and the draft order to bring it into force, which your Lordships are considering today, was laid the following day. This slightly unusual process is in accordance with Section 77(5) of the 1996 Act. The order was subject to scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and has been amended slightly in the light of it. The code will come into force on the day after the day on which the order has been approved by whichever House approves it last.

The revised code introduced by the order under consideration today does not alter the criteria for disclosure. Rather, it seeks to help to ensure that defendants receive the disclosure to which they are entitled earlier than at present, including an assurance that the prosecution’s obligations at common law have been met. As the review observes, late compliance with disclosure obligations, or failure to comply with them,

“frequently leads to ineffective trials, delay and the incumbent costs in both financial and human terms … Many practitioners observe that there is a procedural rather than substance difficulty in most cases. The material listed on the unused schedule (and often any items disclosed) frequently has limited, if any, bearing on the outcome of cases tried summarily. With that in mind, it is all the more frustrating for procedural failures in the disclosure process to lead to a case collapsing, or suffering delay”.

The purpose of the revised code is to prevent such procedural failures and to reinforce the effect of the TSJ programme in speeding up summary justice. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, the order before us today replaces the code of practice issued in 2005 under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. I understand it is being brought forward following the Magistrates’ Court Disclosure Review in 2014, which recommended the adoption of a streamlined procedure in summary cases and, I think, in those either-way cases that are likely to remain in the magistrates’ court, so that a schedule of unused material need not be served in such cases, when it is anticipated that a guilty plea is going to be entered.

The present procedure is outlined in the magistrates’ court review, which I have looked at, with particular reference to paragraph 49. The recommendation that this order is seeking to bring into effect is listed as point 220 in the summary of recommendations. It would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, could just set out for us how we get to this position of an anticipated guilty plea. Clearly, someone can admit, at the first opportunity, that they have committed the offence and are guilty, but what about other cases? What sort of assessment will actually take place? Is there an expectation or assumption that, on the evidence already there, they will be getting legal advice from their own solicitor that the wisest course of action for them would be to submit a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity? I just want to be clear on the process that will be followed.

It would also be helpful if the noble Lord could just outline for us what will happen if the anticipated guilty plea does not materialise after all that. As the noble Lord said, I have served as a magistrate. I was on the Coventry bench for many years, and most cases that come before you, especially summary offences, result in a guilty plea and there are very few trials. However, things do not always go to plan, and it would be useful for that to be outlined for the Grand Committee.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for confirming when he spoke earlier that material that is of assistance to the defence and that meets the appropriate tests must be disclosed to the defence. As he said, that is the rule of common law disclosure. He referred to the ex parte Lee case, which is helpful in this respect. With those few points, I am very happy to support the order.

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his careful consideration of the order, informed of course by his own experience as a magistrate. He is quite right that the question of a plea is not simply a binary one or an automatic process at a particular juncture. People change their minds, and it is important that their right to do that is respected by the procedure rules and that we do not become too much a servant of process, at the risk of in any way jeopardising the important choice that a defendant has. Of course, it is important to stress in that context that defendants, whatever their intended plea, are entitled to know the case against them. They receive that in the form of the initial details of the prosecution case. Under the proposed arrangements they will receive that information earlier.

This is about disclosure of unused material. However, as I have endeavoured to stress, defendants are still entitled through the ex parte Lee case to the disclosure of material by common law which might potentially assist them. If, for example, a witness had a previous relevant conviction or had refused to give a statement, the police would have to reveal that before or at the first hearing. Such information is vital for the defence in making a bail application—quite apart from anything else—and the amended code reminds the police of the importance of making such disclosures even in a guilty plea case.

The noble Lord asked what would happen if an expected guilty plea did not materialise. In those circumstances the appropriate certificate must be prepared and served as soon as possible. The procedure is outlined in paragraph 6.4 of the code, which embraces the possibility quite reasonably and sensibly suggested by the noble Lord. Experience tells him that defendants sometimes get cold feet for one reason or another.

The importance of the order is that the defendant will be protected by this process. Important material which may assist will still be disclosed, but not a considerable amount of unused material which would have no relevance to a decision or to the outcome or strength of a case. Such material would simply slow up the process, causing additional expense and inconvenience, not only to the court but, importantly, to the defendant.

This order meets the desire to streamline the process —the transforming summary justice programme. It means that there will be fewer hearings but none the less protects the defendant and his or her freedom to choose whether to plead guilty or not guilty.

Motion agreed.

Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2015

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2015.

Relevant document: 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

The draft rules amend the Special Immigration Appeals Commission—which I will call SIAC—rules of procedure, giving effect to two provisions contained within the Immigration Act 2014. These are straight- forward—being consequential to the new Act—but, none the less, important amendments. One will amend a current right of appeal to SIAC and introduce a new power of statutory review to ensure that all cases that should be dealt with by SIAC remain there, while the other will tighten up its bail processes.

Your Lordships will be aware from previous debates that SIAC is a specialist tribunal dealing with the most serious immigration and asylum appeals where there are issues of national security or other matters of public interest. For instance, it has heard cases under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 by persons certified as suspected international terrorists. SIAC heard the deportation case of Abu Qatada, for example. Unlike other immigration tribunals, it has processes in place designed to control the disclosure of material which, if released into the public domain, could be damaging. These are its closed material procedure and its use of special advocates, whereby some of the Home Secretary’s evidence is withheld from the appellant and his representatives. The purpose in both instances is to avoid compromising intelligence sources and the UK’s national security. The appellant’s interests are instead represented by a special advocate—a lawyer of the highest experience and ability and who has access to all the material withheld from the appellant.

The Immigration Act 2014 is being implemented by the Home Office on a phased basis, starting last July, with full and final implementation on 6 April this year. It contains a number of provisions to improve and streamline immigration processes. We have already considered and debated all of the Act’s provisions during its passage last year, so today is not about revisiting those, but rather about the consequential procedural rule amendments that are now required.

The Immigration Act provides that there will be a right of appeal to a tribunal only where fundamental rights are involved. From next month, the Act will remove the current right of appeal to SIAC against deportation decisions where the individual does not claim that removal would breach their human rights. Although it is likely that an individual will claim deportation would breach their human rights, there may still be cases where an appellant does not want to challenge their deportation on that basis, but rather that the reasoning behind the deportation decision itself is flawed. The Act allows for that by introducing a further power of statutory review to SIAC’s jurisdiction.

The number of cases that we are talking about is likely to be very small indeed. SIAC is a low-volume jurisdiction: it currently has only 17 appeals, although it has some other work. Although this does not represent a significant extension to the use of the closed material procedure, we must still make provision to allow SIAC to continue to consider these cases. Without the new review, the only route of challenge once the statutory appeal is removed would be by way of a judicial review to the High Court. This would not be satisfactory for two reasons. First, the High Court has only limited provision for the closed material procedure. Secondly, SIAC is the tribunal with the greatest judicial and panel member expertise in immigration matters and national security cases, and is the specialist in deciding and using closed material procedure.

SIAC is a superior court of record. It is presided over by a senior and experienced judge of the High Court, so this is not a lesser option. SIAC already deals with two other types of statutory review: to set aside a direction by the Home Secretary to exclude a non-EEA national from the UK and to set aside a decision by the Home Secretary in relation to naturalisation and citizenship applications. In both instances, SIAC is required under primary legislation to apply the same principles that would apply in judicial review proceedings; namely, the principles of natural justice and general public law. This further statutory review will also apply these principles, so SIAC will, as it does now, give full and proper consideration to any request for the closed material procedure.

In mandating those two statutory reviews in SIAC, Parliament has decided that it is the appropriate forum for all immigration challenges involving matters of national security or other public interest. I am sure noble Lords will agree that we would not want to go back on that decision when deciding whether to approve this amendment today.

The Immigration Act also tackles repeated bail applications, which are often made in an effort to delay someone’s removal from the United Kingdom. Before the new Immigration Act there was no limit on the number of bail applications that someone could make, and an identical application could be filed the day after one had been refused. These all currently require a hearing, which can be costly and time consuming. From April, these draft amendment rules will allow SIAC to dismiss a repeat application without a hearing if it is made within 28 days of an earlier unsuccessful application and there has been no material change in the applicant’s circumstances. Similar rules are in place in the First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber, as required by the Immigration Act provisions which were commenced in October last year, so these amendments provide parity in the rules of procedure.

The draft rules have been produced on behalf of the Lord Chancellor following a short period of consultation by the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice with several of the bodies most familiar with SIAC, including the Law Society, the Bar Council, special advocates and the SIAC chairman and judiciary. We are therefore satisfied that they meet the needs of SIAC users and adjudicators.

The rules before us represent straightforward changes but, as I have outlined, they are critical in preserving our national security. Decisions made by the Home Secretary in reliance on sensitive and potentially damaging material should continue to be challenged at SIAC rather than the High Court. SIAC’s hearing time is best saved for dealing with such matters and for the appellants who genuinely need it, rather than being spent on unmeritorious applications for bail. I therefore commend these rules to the Committee, and I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister has outlined, these rules make amendments to bring the 2003 rules into line with the provisions of the Immigration Act 2014. The first change to the rules is the removal of the current right of appeal to SIAC against deportation decisions where there are no human rights grounds and the application of a new section of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 allowing SIAC to deal with these by way of a statutory review. Appeal rights properly and rightly remain for human rights matters. Will the Minister comment on whether any thought has been given to whether the restriction of these appeal rights is likely to increase the number of cases claiming human rights as a reason? Has any further work been done on the potential cost in that case? Have the Government taken account of those costs when they looked at the savings they think they will make?

On the forum for appeals, we are always concerned when there is an extension of the use of closed material procedures. Will the Minister say something further about the matters that will be dealt with by SIAC rather than the High Court by a process of statutory review rather than by judicial review? I assume that the terms will be of a similar effect. I was pleased when the Minister confirmed that asylum will be looked at on human rights grounds, using the same criteria as the High Court. I agree with his comments about the members of the judiciary who work in that court.

On the question of bail, some concerns have been raised as to what constitutes material change. Could the Minister say a bit more about that as well? I get his point about renewed bail applications being permitted only when there has been material change. I assume that I am right in thinking that a procedural defect would be a very serious material change. Could he outline any further things that would constitute material change? With that, I accept that these are important and serious matters and matters of national security and I am happy to support the rules.

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his observations and for his acceptance, for the most part, of what lies behind these rules. He makes a valuable point in asking whether there could be a perverse incentive for somebody to claim that there were human rights violations and therefore get themselves within SIAC. That is, with respect, a little unlikely. In fact, the purport of the regulations is to embrace those cases where national security is an issue but the person is not relying on human rights grounds. Classically, that would happen on the grounds of Article 3 or Article 8 of the European convention. It has to fall within SIAC because of the national security arguments; it is not a simple incantation of a human-rights based challenge.

I caused some inquiries to be made as to precisely what cases might come within the regulation when somebody was not claiming human rights grounds and would therefore be covered by this measure. I was given to understand that the likely applicant would be someone who was before the court in relation to espionage, who would not want to rely ex hypothesi on Articles 3 or 8 but might want to challenge the underlying assertion that they were, in effect, a spy. In that way, they would still come within the national security ambit of SIAC, involving all the closed material procedures with which we are familiar—the special advocates and well travelled range of things—and not rely on human rights matters.

The noble Lord asked about costs. I do not believe that the human rights element of itself would cause additional costs. In relation to the rules amendment costs, there are minimal costs on the work of drafting and laying the amendment rules and no costs to the SIAC administrator or Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service in introducing this new statutory review. They already deal with other statutory reviews, so forms, guidance and IT are not affected. The bail amendments will reduce costs for SIAC, because they will save hearing time from being used on unmeritorious applications.

The question of material changes is a fairly well travelled doctrine in terms of bail applications generally, and judges will be familiar with that. It involves something material, as the adjective suggests, not just a minor change that warrants an application—something that may have an effect on personal circumstances, such as their address, giving the court grounds for thinking that the risk was somewhat less than originally appreciated. It might be a matter for SIAC to give further guidance, but of course material change of circumstance is the sort of thing that courts are used to addressing in a number of circumstances. Indeed, the noble Lord may be familiar with it in his guise as a magistrate, with frequent bail applications—although I may be wrong in thinking that he is a magistrate. It might be something that affects the range of considerations which the tribunal thought important when the previous bail application was decided. I would be reluctant to specify precisely what might constitute material circumstances, but it does not mean de minimis matters, things that do not really alter the basis of the application. It would be a matter for the court on the particular facts of the case to decide whether there had been a material change.

I hope that, with those assurances, the Committee is content that the rules should proceed, and I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Legal Services Act 2007 (Warrant) (Approved Regulator) Regulations 2015

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

The Grand Committee do consider the Legal Services Act 2007 (Warrant) (Approved Regulator) Regulations 2015.

Relevant document: 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to the draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Warrant) (Licensing Authority) Regulations 2015.

By way of background, as noble Lords will know, the Legal Services Act 2007—the 2007 Act—governs the regulation of legal services in England and Wales and established a new regulatory framework for legal services. The 2007 Act enabled the widening of the legal services market to allow for different regulators to regulate legal services and for different types of legal businesses to provide those services.

The intention of the 2007 Act was to put the consumer at the heart of legal services and deliver a more effective and competitive market. It established a number of regulatory objectives which the Legal Services Board and the approved regulators must promote, including protecting and promoting the public interest and the interests of consumers, encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession and promoting competition in the provision of legal services by authorised persons.

The Legal Services Board was established under the 2007 Act to be the independent oversight regulator with responsibility for overseeing the approved regulators. Under the 2007 Act, approved regulators are under a duty to act in a way that is compatible with the regulatory objectives set out in the Act. Where acts or omissions of an approved regulator are likely to have an adverse impact on these regulatory objectives, the LSB has a range of enforcement powers that it can exercise, including issuing performance targets and directions, public censure and imposing financial penalties.

Where an approved regulator’s acts or omissions cannot be adequately addressed by these other enforcement powers the LSB can, in appropriate cases, issue an intervention direction providing for certain functions of the approved regulator to be exercised by the LSB or a person nominated by it; or it can recommend to the Lord Chancellor that he cancel the approved regulator’s designation. Similarly, the LSB may recommend that the Lord Chancellor cancel an approved regulator’s designation as a licensing authority in relation to one or more reserved legal activities, but only if it is satisfied that it cannot address the issue through its other enforcement powers. This is intended to ensure that the power to issue an intervention direction or to cancel a designation remains reserved for the most serious or persistent infractions.

Where an intervention direction is made under Section 41 of the 2007 Act or an approved regulator’s designation is cancelled under Section 45, the LSB or a new regulator will assume some or all of the approved regulator’s functions. In order to provide continuity of regulation in these circumstances, the LSB, or a person nominated by it, can apply for a search warrant for the approved regulator’s premises under Sections 42 or 48, as appropriate.

Section 79 makes similar provision for licensing authorities to that made by Section 48 for approved regulators, in that it makes provision for search warrants which may be issued following the cancellation of a designation. It applies where a body has had its designation as a licensing authority cancelled, either automatically under Section 75 of the Act because its designation as an approved regulator has been cancelled under Section 45, or by an order made by the Lord Chancellor under Section 76 of the Act.

The 2007 Act permits the LSB to apply for a warrant in certain circumstances authorising it to enter and search the premises of an approved regulator or licensing authority and take possession of any written or electronic records found on the premises. There are two separate powers under the 2007 Act which are set out in Sections 42 and 48. These allow search warrants to be issued for an approved regulator’s premises, and one power in Section 79 which allows search warrants to be issued for a licensing authority’s premises. Regulations must be made by the Lord Chancellor under each of those three sections specifying further matters which a judge or justice of the peace must be satisfied of or have regard to before issuing a warrant, and also regulating the exercise of a power conferred by the warrant. That is the purpose of these two sets of regulations before the Committee, one of which relates to approved regulator warrants and one to licensing authority warrants.

The intention in exercising a warrant under Sections 42, 48 or 79 will be to provide continuity of regulation in specific circumstances of regulatory failure by an approved regulator or licensing authority. If both sets of these regulations come into force, they will enable the LSB or a person appointed by it to apply for warrants as part of its enforcement strategy. As required under the 2007 Act, the Lord Chancellor has also formally consulted the LSB about the making of these regulations.

Finally, I regret to say that there is a small error in the version of the approved regulator regulations before the House—the result of a computer glitch. In Regulation 1(2) the paragraph lettering is incorrect in that it runs through from (a) to (g) rather than restarting for each definition. I take it that no confusion has been caused. This error will be corrected in the final “made” version of the regulations.

In conclusion, these regulations enable the LSB or a person appointed by it to apply for a warrant as part of its enforcement strategy, enabling the LSB to assume effectively the functions of the relevant regulator. Overall, this has the potential to act as a deterrent against poor regulation, to improve the standard of regulatory practice and to strengthen the LSB’s regulatory powers, leading to greater consistency and better protections for consumers. I commend both sets of regulations to the Committee and beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I can say at the outset that we are not opposing either of these two sets of regulations. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has outlined for the Grand Committee, the Legal Services Act 2007 permits the Legal Services Board to apply for a warrant in certain circumstances authorising it to enter and search the premises of an approved regulator or licensing authority. The Lord Chancellor must make regulations specifying further matters which a judge or justice of the peace must be satisfied of, or have regard to, before issuing a warrant and regulating the exercise of a power conferred by a warrant.

I am aware from the guidance that a previous draft of these regulations was originally laid in February 2010 and then withdrawn. That was at the end of the last Parliament and here we are, five years and one month later at the end of this Parliament, with another set of regulations that we are seeking to put through. Quite a lot of time has elapsed. I understand and accept that sometimes when things are drafted, that can highlight problems and defects, but it would be useful if in his response the noble Lord could outline in some detail why have we waited so long for these regulations to be brought back. We are literally in the last few days of this Parliament. It would also be helpful if he could say something about the nature of the problems which have been uncovered.

In looking at the regulations and the helpful Explanatory Memorandum, it appears to me that they have been quite tightly drawn up to limit the circumstances in which they can be used and to ensure that the issue of these warrants is a matter of last resort. That seems right and sensible to me. However, is the noble Lord satisfied that the regulations are proportionate and strike the right balance? Have any problems been caused to the Legal Services Board in exercising its regulatory duties over the past few years by not having these powers? If he is satisfied that there are no problems, perhaps he would inform the Committee of how he has come to that conclusion. With those points, I am happy to support the regulations.

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his consideration of these regulations and for his observations in general about them. He asked why there has been effectively a delay in these matters and also asked me to say a little more about whether I was satisfied with the various safeguards which exist.

In a sense both those questions have a common answer, which is that these powers are very much ones of last resort. They follow from the Act; Parliament expressed the view that there should be this residuary power but the circumstances in which the super-regulator—if one can call it that—would actually wish to step into the shoes of the regulator are very hard to foresee. I believe Parliament felt that there should be that power at least, hence the existence of the regulations. This is not, I think, something the absence of which has caused the LSB any difficulty at all in the delay during the five years since the replacement regulations were drafted.

The powers are not to be used, of course, until after all the other LSB powers have been utilised, and the noble Lord and the Committee will realise that there are a range of other powers short of these last-resort powers which the LSB can exercise. It was in those circumstances that these powers were prioritised below other more immediately required orders such as those required in the implementation of the Act and subsequently those recommended by the LSB. As outlined in the memorandum accompanying the regulations, we have produced 11 other legal services statutory instruments since 2013, which perhaps gives the Committee an idea of the scale of recent work. We have therefore prioritised our resources.

Progress on the approved regulator draft has continued steadily. For example we have consulted twice on the content of the regulations with the stakeholders—and there are a considerable number of stakeholders—who will be affected by them. We have made numerous changes as a result and taken their comments into account. The licensing authority regulations have also been drafted during this period allowing the two sets of regulations to be consulted on and progress through Parliament together, given how similar they are. I think the noble Lord will understand that regulators were likely to express a view as to whether the super-regulator should be allowed these powers and if so the appropriate restrictions on them. There is perhaps, one might say, a healthy tension between the interests of the regulators and the super-regulator, which, I think, provides some explanation.

In terms of the safeguards, the word “necessary” or “desirable” is an important one for the exercise of a regulatory function. A judicial officer must be satisfied before issuing a warrant. Specifically, the regulations allow a judicial officer to issue a warrant only if satisfied that the LSB has made reasonable attempts to obtain the records sought by other means. This would be likely to result in the records being removed, hidden, tampered with or destroyed. There is also provision to prevent repeat applications where another of the same substance was refused. There are other safeguards providing for the return of seized documents. A key safeguard is that a warrant may not be used to take possession of or copy records subject to legal professional privilege. That matter was drawn to the attention of the regulators by the Bar Standards Board as a matter of importance and that finds its way into the regulations, as the noble Lord will have seen. Any such record which is taken or copied in error must be returned.

These regulations were drafted in consultation with the approved regulators, whose suggestions were incorporated in the way that I have indicated to achieve the desired balance. I hope I can satisfy the Committee that there are these appropriate safeguards. I do not think it could be said that the LSB is champing at the bit to exercise these regulations—it is unlikely it will do so—but Parliament has envisaged that it should have its power. By providing these regulations, albeit they have taken a little time to produce, we are acting in a way that is faithful to Parliament’s intention. In those circumstances, I hope the regulations can be approved.

Motion agreed.