Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Bill [HL]

Lord Judge Excerpts

Second reading committee (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 12th June 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I shall mentioned just a few facts. When I retired as Lord Chief Justice, it was already a matter of urgent necessity that we should have a sentencing code. The various difficulties have already been analysed, but I want to add one: that, from time to time, men and women were detained in custody in prison for longer than they should have been because, just as judges found difficulty understanding the criminal justice system, so indeed did the Prison Service. What does this sentence mean? Does this mean that he or she can be given a date of release for x, y or z? From time to time individuals were detained for longer than they should have been.

I have personal experience of a case—it still troubles me hugely—of a young man who was 17 when he committed a relatively minor indecent assault and was put on probation. It seemed a very sensible decision. He broke the probation order and then ran into difficulties, so he was more or less in and out of the courts for some time. By November 2004, he was arrested because by then he had not notified his change of address on a number of occasions. The issue before the court was whether he complied with the notification provisions. This is not major stuff, but there is a provision which requires sex offenders to notify their changes of address. It is a perfectly sensible piece of legislation. When he was hauled before the Crown Court on an indictment alleging this failure, the poor judge who had to decide the case reserved his judgment and decided that the man was guilty of the offence. He sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment.

There was an appeal, because the issue was obviously arguable, and it came before a court on which I presided. Slocombe was the case. What did we have to look at to decide whether he should have notified a change of address? There was the Sex Offenders Act 1997 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994—I put them that way round, apparently strangely, because the relevant provisions had come into force in March 1998; that is, after the Sex Offenders Act had come into force. Before the judge it was assumed that there was nothing in the Sex Offenders Act 1997 which had any relevance to the issue, but then it emerged that there had been an amendment to Section 4(1)(a) of the 1997 Act in paragraph 144 of Schedule 8 to a 1998 Act. That came into force on 1 April 2000 and—would you believe it?—four months later the provision was repealed, but the time mattered because May 2000 was when the young man was being sentenced.

After the relevant provisions had been in force for four months, they were repealed when the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act was introduced. My recollection is that we could not find the four months in which those particular powers applied when we looked on a computer. I was not looking on a computer, but people who could use one were looking for them. Eventually, we found the text by ploughing through the old library. No one at the Crown Court could be blamed because, in the end, we had to look at Section 81 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. That resolved the difficulty, and we decided that the man had not been obliged to notify his change of address. He had pleaded guilty on the basis of a misruling by the judge and had served a three-month sentence for something that he had not committed. That was shocking.

May I add that the account I have given the Committee does not tell your Lordships what notification requirements mean? They involved us looking at these differences in definition: you had to decide between words such as “imprisonment for a term for more than six months but less than 30 months” and “a person sentenced to imprisonment for a term of six months or less”, or, in the case of a young offender “the equivalent sentence of imprisonment”. We had to look at the difference between a period that a person is “liable to serve under a secure training order”—notice “liable to serve”—with the phrase “shall be subject to a period of detention in a secure training centre”, all as part of the legislation which bore on the question of when this young man had finally cleared himself of his notification obligations.

As to where the current law stands on sentencing, in 2015 there was a total of 1,300 typed pages. That was only the current sentencing law because it did not cover the older cases: for example, death by dangerous driving. When I started at the Bar, the sentence for that was two years; then it went to five years, then to 10 years and then to 14 years. There were 14 major pieces of primary legislation, starting with the Criminal Justice Act 1991, followed by—if you want to hear it—the Criminal Justice Act 1993, the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, and then other Acts in 1998, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2014 and 2015, ending, as at this time, with the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. Lord Chief Justices do not beg, but as Lord Chief Justice, I pointed out to the then Government that a significant reduction in sentencing laws would be a good idea. I failed. I ask noble Lords to look at the facts and decide whether this is a well-justified Bill.

Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill [HL]

Lord Judge Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Judge]

9: Clause 2, page 3, line 17, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations may only be made under this section with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice.”

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, since Second Reading, when I argued in support of these amendments, I have had a meeting with the Minister and, notwithstanding his customary courtesy, I was unable to persuade him of the good sense of these amendments. Listening to his response to today’s debate, it is quite obvious that we cannot expect a Damascene conversion on his part, but did I detect the tiniest shining light—the dawning of a better understanding of why these amendments should be made? If I detected a light, it was only a faint one and I shall certainly not turn the lights off. If we are talking about dawns, nor shall I allow any clouds to obscure my meaning.

We have discussed the issues and I shall not go over those that have already been ventilated in our debate. Lord Justice Briggs’s report is admirable and I continue to support it, but it was a report directed to a small feature of the system of litigation. The Bill, as has been said but is worth repeating, has the potential to cover every single aspect of the administration of civil justice, every single aspect of the administration of family justice and the entire tribunal system. It is difficult to exaggerate the level of interference with the administration of justice in all the areas that the Bill would give to the Lord Chancellor. As I say, the issues have been addressed and I shall not repeat them, but I have heard the Minister say on a number of occasions, “It’s all right because there is the committee with a judicial involvement”. Indeed, in answer to an earlier debate, he pointed out the happy differences between this committee and the Family Procedure Rule Committee, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee and so on. But there are two that he did not grasp and they are the ones that matter.

This is a committee on which the judiciary will be in a minority and it is the first such committee. It will be a committee of which the majority of the members will be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Let us pause and think about that. The majority will be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and presumably it will be for him to dismiss them if he disagrees with them. That is consistent with the pernicious modern tendency, which I have go on about before, of our being asked to vest greater powers in the Executive—in this case in one Minister. We have become inured to it and it is particularly incongruous in the context of the administration of justice, where, as a matter of constitutional necessity, everyone accepts that the powers should be separate.

Since the constitutional reforms made in the early 2000s, ultimate responsibility for the administration of justice is vested not in the Lord Chancellor or in any other Minister of the Crown, but in the office of the Lord Chief Justice, an office I had the privilege to hold. At the time, none of the judges was urging any such change; we did not want to get rid of the Lord Chancellor. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, was not the Lord Chancellor at that time, but we were very happy with who we had had and did have. It came as a complete surprise to the judiciary, therefore, but it has come, and the consequence is this: a reduction in the responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor for the administration of justice, and a significantly enhanced responsibility of the Lord Chief Justice. He is responsible for what happens in the court system, and that must be understood when we are contemplating this Bill.

With one important exception—important for a reason to which I shall come—under the Bill in its present form, in the discharge of his responsibility for the day-to-day running of the family courts, the civil courts and, to the extent that he has responsibility over the tribunal system, the tribunal courts, the Lord Chief Justice is granted what is pushed as a “privilege” to be consulted by the Lord Chancellor if the Lord Chancellor and his committee have any proposals for change. However much the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, may be frightened of what the Lord Chief Justice may say, a political Lord Chancellor disagreeing with the Lord Chief Justice can simply disregard whatever he may say. It would for years, no doubt, be done with appropriate courtesy—and I hope that, in years to come, it will always be done with appropriate courtesy—but there is no guarantee even of that. But pause here because, after these changes have been implemented, the responsibility if they fail to work will fall not on the Lord Chancellor but on the Lord Chief Justice—even if, when consulted, he or his predecessor argued against them. In those circumstances, limiting the role of the Lord Chief Justice to consultation is absurd.

The change in the relative responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice has been understood and acknowledged in earlier arrangements. Thus, for example, when the question arises of whether court proceedings in England and Wales may be televised—and, if so, which part of such proceedings may be televised and what damage there may be, if any, to the administration of justice depending on what proceedings are televised, or how the administration of justice may be advanced if part of the proceedings are televised—that decision is not vested exclusively in the Minister, who may after all have political reasons for his decision; it requires the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice. On disciplinary proceedings, if a judge has misbehaved or misconducted himself or herself, there is a requirement for concurrence between the holders of the two offices. What is more, the Bill itself, in Clause 6(2), recognises circumstances in which concurrence is appropriate. The amendments proposed to this and the remaining clauses are therefore entirely consistent with a provision in the Bill and with other provisions outside it.

Concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, and where appropriate the Senior President of Tribunals, is necessary surely when an issue affects the administration of justice on a day-to-day basis. That is what the Bill is about: the administration of justice, day to day. Questions of how proceedings in whichever area of law may be conducted and how they may not; whether, and if so in what circumstances, they must be conducted digitally or on paper; whether and how the interests of litigants who are not proficient are upheld, as we discussed earlier—that is all part of the day-to-day requirement of what goes on in our courts. There is one final consideration, which always seems to me to matter hugely: whether the unsuccessful litigant leaves court satisfied, not of course with the result but with the idea and conviction that he or she has been heard and understood. “Even if the judge got it wrong, he listened to me”, seems a very important part of the administration of justice. These are all questions for the day-to-day search for justice.

In the context of the Bill, which proposes at some stage along the line of history to give wide powers to a Minister, consultation alone is a meaningless handout from the Executive to the judiciary. More importantly, alone it offers no sufficient protection to the citizen against inappropriate Executive interference with the administration of justice. I beg to move.

[Lord Garnier]

My Lords, in agreeing with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, given his anticipation of beneficial light emerging from the Front Bench, I caution him that, as so often happens in these matters—particularly when the Government are giving something away, such as consultation—the light at the end of the tunnel ends up being the light of the approaching train. I urge that we temper our enthusiasm for any blandishments from the Government—not that my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench would ever be guilty of offering anything as vulgar as a blandishment.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has made all the points that need to be made and has made them better than I possibly could. However, if one strips away the words “the Lord Chancellor” and replaces them with the words “Secretary of State”—and Clause 6(2) condescends to do that, because clearly the Lord Chancellor cannot agree with himself and has to agree with his schizophrenic self, the Secretary of State—and if one strips away the ancient legal title and office of Lord Chancellor, one finds that one is in fact dealing with a political Minister in a spending department at the Ministry of Justice and that he or she will be placed under all the pressures of both self-interest and Cabinet responsibility that go with being in a spending department. If it is inconvenient for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow the Secretary of State to agree with the Lord Chief Justice, he will disagree with the Lord Chief Justice. We should not be under any misunderstanding about that.

In the what must now be 20 years since the removal of the office of Lord Chancellor as head of the judiciary—and I am standing behind one of the finest exemplars of that office—with that position having now gone to the Lord Chief Justice, the metaphorical gap and indeed the actual distance between the law and Parliament has grown immeasurably. The understanding between the law and those who administer it and politicians has grown immeasurably. One only has to look at the record of some Secretaries of State for Justice who have succeeded my noble and learned friend and who do not have that intimate knowledge of the administration of justice to understand the difficulties and dangers that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, anticipates—and have happened already.

While I support the sensible policy behind the Bill, all kinds of little niggles pop up from time to time which will destroy its purpose. They will make it less beneficial for the public good than it would otherwise be, were the suggestions made in the previous debate by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and in this current debate by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, taken into account. As a supporter of the Bill and the Government, I urge them not to allow themselves to be swept down the river of consultation when the river of agreement is a much safer journey to take.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 9 and 12 would require the Lord Chancellor or Secretary of State to seek the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice when specifying proceedings which are to be subject to the Online Procedure Rules. I would go so far as to say that I am sympathetic to concerns from your Lordships about the nature of the proceedings which may become subject to the online procedure and the consequences that may have for the administration of justice. Therefore, I see there are grounds for distinguishing that case from those I have just mentioned. It is in these circumstances that, as I indicated earlier, I would be happy to discuss this matter further with noble Lords before Report. I appreciate the level of concern expressed about that point and wish to address it further with noble Lords with regard to the issue raised in the context of Amendments 9 and 12. However, I hope noble Lords will appreciate that I cannot go further on that matter at the Dispatch Box at this stage. In the present circumstances, I do not know whether that counts as a train, a nuclear explosion or a light at the end of the tunnel, but whatever analogy might be drawn, I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments at this stage.

[Lord Judge]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate. It has been short, but it matters. Perhaps I may answer two points made by the Minister. First, the difference between this committee and the committees to which he referred is that there is a majority of judicial members on all of them, whereas this committee has a majority appointed by the Lord Chancellor. That is a huge difference.

Secondly, although Section 5 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 gives the Lord Chief Justice the right to send a letter to Parliament expressing his concerns, I am willing to tell the Committee that there were occasions when I felt like writing such a letter, but it seemed to me that the first thing such a letter would do was to enmesh the Lord Chief Justice in a political quarrel. If nothing else, I could have seen the Government looking after the Lord Chancellor’s interests and therefore objecting to the Lord Chief Justice’s letter. I could see some Oppositions trying to twist the Government’s tail, thinking that they would support the Lord Chief Justice. The whole idea of that was a sop, because the reality is that if you use your nuclear option, you do not just blow up everybody else; you blow up yourself and your own case.

Subject to those two matters, and to further discussion with the Minister, for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, this amendment would extend somewhat the involvement in the committee that the Lord Chancellor will appoint across the relevant professions and service. It seems sensible to reflect the breadth of the legal service and the legal community. It would not be hugely burdensome in numbers. It seems to make sense. I hope the Minister will feel able, if not today then subsequently, to accept that this would be desirable.

I do not think I need to elaborate. The amendments are clear enough about the intention and the numbers to be involved. I hope the Minister will at least look at this again and recognise that it is in the interests of the changes that are about to be made to accept these suggestions. I beg to move.

[Lord Judge]

I will make just one small comment. If the appointments of these additional people are in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, he will end up with a majority of six to two on the committee. If the amendments are to be pursued, I respectfully ask that the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice to the appointment should be required.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd]

With the utmost respect to my predecessor, it would be usual for a magistrate to be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice rather than the Lord Chancellor. That would slightly affect the majority, but otherwise I agree with the points made.

Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill [HL]

Lord Judge Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I too welcome proposals which will improve the administration of justice by using digital or modern technology. That said, I share the reservations that have already been expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Beith. I was going to say more on that subject, but this is Second Reading and I propose to be brief, so perhaps I may respectfully adopt what they have said as if I had said it for myself. I shall confine my remarks today to the way in which excessive powers have been vested exclusively in the Ministry of Justice or the Lord Chancellor.

Dear old Henry VIII does not lurk around the corner in this Bill; as is the custom nowadays, that ogreish sight is there in full vision—you cannot miss him. What the Bill seems to have overlooked is that, since the Constitutional Reform Act, it is not the Lord Chancellor but the Lord Chief Justice who is the head of the judiciary. This Bill relates closely to how justice will be administered. As I have had the honour to hold the office of Lord Chief Justice, I underline that I have no wish to impose on my successor the additional burdens that what I shall now suggest would create.

Let us go back a little. These proposals followed an investigation by Lord Briggs, as he now is, addressed to small, low-value civil claims. Effectively, this Bill covers all non-criminal proceedings: every single case in the Family Division or the family courts, or the magistrates’ court doing family cases; every single employment case; every single tribunal case, and every single civil case whatever its value. That suggests, and it is easy to overlook because the Bill is modest and short, that this is a serious, wide-ranging Bill with wide-ranging consequences. All this is achieved by the creation of an Online Procedure Rule Committee. A number of aspects have already been addressed. We need to consider whether the Bill when it becomes an Act should not include an express provision relating to access to justice, but we will come to that at a later stage.

Perhaps I may I illustrate my concerns in a simple way, by reference to the membership of the committee. At present, there is a Civil Procedure Rule Committee. A majority of its members are from the judiciary and all levels of the judiciary, including magistrates, are represented on it. There is a tiny number of nominees made by the Lord Chancellor. It has worked well and nobody has suggested otherwise. Similar principles apply to the Family Procedure Rule Committee. Again, it works well. Let us contrast this new committee, which is vested with these vast powers. It will have five members, two of them nominated by the Lord Chief Justice and three appointed by the Lord Chancellor, empowered to look at all these issues. At the end of their consideration of the issues and what regulations should be introduced, the recommendations of three members of the committee will be sufficient to enable the Lord Chancellor to introduce the relevant regulations.

This is rather strange: three nominees by the Lord Chancellor and three needed to justify and support the regulations. Where does the Lord Chief Justice stand in this? Save in one respect, on these issues he is entitled to be consulted, but his “concurrence” is not required. As a matter of reality—good heavens, as a matter of plain English—and as a matter of constitutional principle, there is a chasm between consultation and concurrence. Concurrence requires approval, agreement. Consultation means that if I, the Lord Chancellor, do not agree, with you, the Lord Chief Justice, I can still go ahead; the regulations will still be lawful. Given the breadth of proceedings which are to be covered by this new rules committee, and the Henry VIII powers—I have not overlooked them—this is rather astonishing. After all, not only is the Lord Chief Justice the head of the judiciary, and ultimately responsible for the delivery of justice, but he also has the widest possible access to information about how these new systems are or are not working, where they could be improved and where there are concerns. That access is not available to the Lord Chancellor.

There is one aspect of the Bill which does require the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, and that arises under Clause 6(1) relating to amendments to the numbers and members of the committee itself. I venture to suggest that there is absolutely no legislative complication in amending every reference to “consultation” in the Bill to “concurrence”. That might help to put Henry VIII back into the naughty corner. If the Lord Chancellor considers that the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice is being unreasonably withheld, and to the public disadvantage, it would of course be open to him to come back to Parliament to have the matter looked at here.

Judicial Pensions and Fee-Paid Judges’ Pension Schemes (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Lord Judge Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, in a crowded and noisy political landscape, it is easy to overlook the importance of protecting our judiciary and making adequate pensions provisions for our people. Forgive me for suggesting this, but this House is perhaps uniquely qualified to value the importance of both.

I begin by politely disagreeing with the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Adonis a moment ago. I have no concerns about the Supreme Court’s ability to deal with any disputes relating to judicial pensions. Of course, the Opposition do not seek to divide the House on the interim provision set out by the Minister but I want to take this opportunity to urge him not to kick the can down the road into next year and beyond. It is concerning that the Government have recently had a number of disputes of this kind with judges, including the defeat referred to earlier. I agree with a number of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, about the importance of a confident and, frankly, happy judiciary to which we can adequately recruit to protect our reputation as a rule-of-law nation, whether we are inside or outside the EU. We need to boost our judiciary’s morale now and for some years to come.

I agree with the one-year extension of this scheme but concerns over judicial pensions need to be considered in the broader context of the austerity measures that hit the Ministry of Justice particularly hard, including budget cuts of a third since 2010. Savings made in the revised pensions schemes are just one area where spending has been seriously squeezed. Devastating reductions to the court estate, further proposals for the relocation of case management functions, listings and scheduling, new off-site service centres and service centres supervised by authorised staff, not judges, are some of the issues we discussed last year in the context of the then courts and tribunals Bill.

We on these Benches are concerned about the judgment to which the Minister referred. A finding against the Government relating to unlawful age discrimination is very concerning. Going forward, I urge the Government, in as friendly a manner as possible, to consider the acute shortage of High Court judges. As I imagine many people in the Chamber will be aware, senior lawyers and practitioners are not putting themselves forward for High Court appointment—including some highly qualified people who would be keen to complete their prestigious careers in what is a vital public service in this country. Too many positions have been left vacant for years with the very slight prospect of them being filled in the next few years. Time and again one hears that this recruitment crisis is in no small way affected by the change in judicial pensions.

We must ensure confidence in our legal system, perhaps more than ever in the times we are all attempting to navigate now. We need our judicial Benches—the entire judiciary, whether tribunal panel members, chairs, district judges, county court judges or circuit judges—to be made up of exceptional individuals. Those stressful and expert roles need to be properly remunerated for that to continue. I urge the Minister and the rest of the Government to sit down promptly with judges and have a serious discussion about how to fund that vital part of our constitution going forward, and how to boost morale and recruitment to our judiciary. With that plea to the Government, there will be no objection from these Benches to this interim measure.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak but perhaps I should. I declare an interest as having been Lord Chief Justice when the shocking new arrangements for the judicial pension were imposed on the judiciary unilaterally by the Government. There was consultation—of the kind that enables the Government to do exactly what they like—but it was imposed on the judiciary. There was a unilateral change to the pension arrangements under which a significant proportion of the judiciary were working if they were below a certain age and had not given so many years’ service. The basis on which they joined the judiciary, which was clearly understood, was changed. That represented a betrayal. It greatly damaged confidence in the whole idea of a successful practitioner—a barrister or solicitor—seeking judicial appointment. If the Government could unilaterally change the arrangements, there was no point. We still suffer the consequences of that. There is nothing wrong with the present measure we are considering, but the consequences of what happened between 2010 and 2014 are with us still.

If I may answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, about the arrangements that are currently before and have been before the courts, the judges trying those cases are not those who will have been affected by these dramatic changes. The various matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, are well known. There is no point using this opportunity to stand on a hobby-horse to repeat them, but they do not go away. That is an issue the ministry has to grapple with as soon as practicable.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I am obliged for the contributions that have been made. I note the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and I acknowledge that pension issues have created very real issues about recruitment, particularly to the High Court Bench. That is something of which we are conscious and have in mind and under consideration going forward. The whole question of the terms and conditions on which we seek to appoint the judiciary is critical, and I acknowledge the need to ensure that we maintain a judiciary whose expertise and integrity are regarded as pre-eminent. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, touched on the value—if you can put it that way—of legal services in an export sense. It is estimated to be in the region of £4.5 billion, so it is a significant matter in that context alone; but of course, it has a much wider resonance and importance than that.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, observed, those hearing this matter in the Supreme Court are not impacted by the transitional provisions we are concerned with in the McCloud case and the related Miller case, which is still to be heard. In any event, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, of the judicial oath and the confidence maintained in the integrity of our judiciary, which is entirely justified.

Regarding the potential cost of the McCloud decision, it is a matter of speculation. It does not refer just to judicial pensions; it is also relevant to firefighters.

Non-Contentious Probate (Fees) Order 2018

Lord Judge Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Lords Chamber

He is not, and we should not let him. I urge the House to reject this instrument.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I want to say just a little since the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has dealt with the law and I happen to agree with him. As your Lordships all know, I frequently disagreed with him in a previous existence. Whenever I did, he appealed to a higher court and was always right. This time I agree with him because I happen to agree with him. I will not repeat the reasons.

I will take a slightly different stance. The debate we have had, assuming that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is right—as I say, I agree with him—is whether section whatever it was of some 235 sections produced the power the Lord Chancellor now seeks to exercise. If it did, the problem is not with this statutory instrument, which we are all attacking and which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has indicted ferociously and accurately, but with the primary legislation, which, I am sorry to say, we probably did not analyse with sufficient care. I was not here at the time, so I do not bear any personal responsibility.

I am sorry to say this, but we were vesting in statute after statute vast powers in the Executive. We do it and we let it happen. We cannot complain if the Executive, having been vested with these powers, choose to exercise them. We vest powers in not just this Executive, but the next one, the one after and the one after that. That seems an aspect arising from the present order that we really should not overlook. We should be more alert when powers are being vested in the Executive to do almost anything by secondary legislation.

That has got that off my chest. Now I declare an interest. Because of the office I once held, I am perfectly well aware of the fact that our civil courts system is in a shambles. It needs funding. It needs much more funding than this funding would provide. If the Lord Chancellor has the powers—as I said, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that he has—this seems a sensible use of them to achieve a very important societal purpose.

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

My Lords, the 2014 Act was passed by Parliament when there was a coalition Government in power. I had the privilege of bringing in enhanced fees that, it has been suggested, should be viewed in rather a favourable light compared with the probate fees that are the subject of this statutory instrument. I certainly do not remember that being the response at the time, although the arguments—namely cross-subsidy—were the same. Indeed, I specifically remember making the point that it was always an option whether you chose to litigate. That has been raised as a favourable point in support of this statutory instrument, where obviously there is no question of choice.

The reality is that both these provisions were there to subsidise the much-needed court system. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, will remember that the coalition Government came to power facing an economic crisis and that a number of cuts had to be made, particularly to the Ministry of Justice budget, which the Liberal Democrats went along with happily, as did the Conservative Party, as a result of which the courts have been feeling the strain and are continuing to in a way that a number of noble Lords have pointed out. This is an attempt to at least alleviate some of that strain.

My noble friend Lord Hunt mentioned the case for cross-subsidisation. I respectfully suggest that he is right. He mentioned a number of areas. I could mention more: non-molestation orders, occupation orders, forced marriage protection orders and female genital mutilation protection orders. There are all sorts of tribunals involving family immigration and asylum that do not pay for themselves but need cross-subsidisation.

Crude though it may be, this order will be a valuable addition to our beleaguered legal system, about which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and all in your Lordships’ House share concern. The Government have responded to the initial outcry, if I might describe it as such, about the amounts involved. They have been lowered. I respectfully suggest that the Minister has made out the case.

Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Lord Judge Excerpts

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 20th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests, having now been chair of the British Insurance Brokers’ Association for the past five years and for the last 50 years having been a partner in the global legal firm DAC Beachcroft.

We need to remind ourselves that it is almost three years to the day that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the coalition Government’s plans to reform whiplash claims. What a long journey it has been. In welcoming the amendments made in the other place, I join the noble Earl in impressing on all noble Lords the need to avoid any additional delay. The figures on the costs to the National Health Service just given by the noble Earl are stark and revealing, and we need to speed up.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on the way in which he proposed that we should speed up the review process of looking at the discount rate, which is a vitally important part of the Bill. We also removed the prospect of any delay between Royal Assent and the start of the review timetable. I trust that my noble friend the Minister will understand when I stress again how imperative it is that we proceed to Royal Assent without any further delay. There is now no need to return this Bill to the Commons and no need to let any more time pass before Royal Assent. Further, there is no need to further delay the start of the review and the return to a more realistic, viable and normal discount rate.

I welcome the new clause on reporting, although I can understand how, as a non-lawyer, the noble Lord might think it complicated. But it covers the full picture exceedingly well. I congratulate all those both in Government and in the insurance industry who worked so hard on the wording over the summer. I know that it is not perfect, but it strikes an appropriate and judicious balance. It introduces the necessary rigour into reporting, but at the same time it is workable for those who have to provide the data.

One vital element to the industry—passing on cost savings to consumers—has been slightly forgotten in the heat of the debate at earlier stages. For insurers to be able to pass on the savings, there must first be savings. That is the primary purpose of this Bill. Only if the Bill is implemented, as it is now with a tariff of low damages for whiplash claims up to two years in duration and the other measures planned alongside this, including raising the small claims limit to £5,000, will there be any prospect at all of savings being realised and passed on to consumers. That will be in the best interests of all consumers and all citizens.

I add my praise to the Minister and the noble Baroness for their diligence and patience and for making themselves so readily available and accessible to all and any Members of this House to discuss various matters of concern. The Minister has made this a better Bill. Now let us speed it on its way.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, in view of everything that has been said about the Minister, perhaps he does not need any help from me in addressing the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, but I will offer him some comfort. Many people will want to make a contribution to the discussion with which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has been concerned. They may not all have the same interest as the judiciary has in seeing that there is a fair balance between the way in which the whiplash injuries damages are to be assessed and the way that all other injuries are assessed—the process of assessing damages as it develops over the years.

I specifically asked that we should not have the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice. We simply asked that he should be consulted. When he is consulted, like everyone else who has been consulted, he will be someone making a contribution to the final decision of the Lord Chancellor. As he will be merely consulted and not asked to concur, there is no danger that my successor many years down the line will find himself at the wrong end of a claim.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interest as an unpaid consultant with my old firm. I begin somewhat unusually by congratulating the Minister on having improved a pretty flawed Bill since it left us. I assume that he has played a significant part in that. In particular, I strongly endorse the provisions of Amendment 1, which are an improvement on the original wording. However, we would still have preferred the retention of the existing system which allows judicial discretion on the level of compensation to be awarded based on judicial guidelines. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that is how the system operates and there seems to be no good reason why the assessment of damages for this kind of injury should be different in those terms from any other form of injury.

Of course, we also continue to be opposed to the increase in the small claims limit by an amount higher than inflation, in accordance with the review carried out by Lord Justice Jackson several years ago of civil litigation costs. In fact, the increase is something like 100%, although I take the noble and learned Lord’s point that that is not strictly within the scope of this Bill.

The Justice Select Committee warned that,

“increasing the small claims limit for PI creates significant access to justice concerns”.

The Government’s plans to increase the small claims limit will mean that more cases are allocated to the small claims track. That will leave tens of thousands of working people priced out of getting proper legal representation. These measures are a further gift to insurance companies which are already experiencing increased profits at the expense of people injured through no fault of their own.

What assessment have the Government made of the impact of the changes to the operation of the courts, given that increasingly claimants will be unrepresented? Within the last fortnight, the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Justice has told the Justice Select Committee that two of the main spending assumptions were fundamentally “unrealistic” and that even the Treasury recognised that the department was under “considerable strain”. In these circumstances, how confident is the Minister about the ability of the courts to deal with an increase in unrepresented claimants from 5% to 30%, as predicted in the whiplash impact assessment? That of course relates only to that particular area; there will be another shortfall in relation to other claims. How long do they anticipate will be the “long term” envisaged before the courts operate at cost recovery level, as suggested in the whiplash impact assessment? To be clear, whiplash impact for this purpose is on the system, not on the unfortunate claimant.

It is estimated that insurers will gain £1.3 billion a year. I hope that the noble and learned Lord’s confidence that the industry will ensure that those savings are passed on to policyholders will be proved correct. Why will it be six years before the Treasury reports to Parliament on the savings accrued to policyholders, as apparently will be the case? It seems an inordinately long time to assess the impact of this provision. Further, is it not ironic that the Government, who make so much of the need to protect policyholders from the impact of exaggerated or fraudulent claims, have themselves increased insurance premium tax four times in eight years, thereby currently collecting £2.6 billion a year more from the people they purport to be helping through this Bill?

While the commitment given at Third Reading in the Commons that vulnerable road users will be exempt from the changes is welcome, why are children and people injured at work not included in the exemption? Extending the change to those two groups would seem to be a reasonable move.

By sheer coincidence, today sees the publication of the report of the Constitution Committee. It is highly critical of the Government’s increasing reliance on secondary legislation. The committee supported the views of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee earlier this year that key measures should be included in the Bill and not left to secondary legislation. Also, most tellingly, it said that judges, not the Lord Chancellor, should set the new tariff and that the Lord Chancellor should not be granting powers to make provision for damages relating to minor psychological injury. This accords with amendments debated during the passage of the Bill through this House but not enacted.

I hope that a review of this measure will provide an opportunity to return to this issue and adopt that approach in due course. I repeat that the Bill comes back to us in better condition than it was, but I remain convinced that it is not in as good condition as it should be.

Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill

Lord Judge Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to be allowed to intervene at this stage of debate. I apologise for not putting my name down. As noble Lords have allowed me to speak, I shall do so briefly.

I welcome the Bill. It addresses a problem created by the availability of modern technology. It is a good Bill: we know exactly what action is being criminalised; we know exactly what the intention of the perpetrator is. There is no messing about. It is a specific intention. We also know that it must be done—again no messing about—without the consent of the victim and without a reasonable belief in that consent.

I listened with care to some of the observations that have been made, and I shall make this point: any crime of this kind has to be dealt with by way of sentence. It has been an aggravating feature of any kind of sexual offence that the motivation is revenge. It has been a serious aggravating feature of any kind of sexual offence that the objective is money, gain or pressure. It is perfectly obviously an aggravating feature of any sexual crime that the victim has been chosen for whatever reason, whether sexual orientation, trans- genderism or whatever. Those features can be taken into account by the sentencing judge, assuming that it can be established that the offence is to obtain sexual gratification or to humiliate, alarm or distress. Those are very wide words. It would be difficult to think of many situations in which, we will say, a man decided to upskirt without having the purpose of humiliating his victim, probably alarming her and almost certainly distressing her.

There is a gap here that I would like the Minister at least to consider: the Bill does not cover distribution. The purpose of the taker of the upskirt may be to distribute it but the Bill does not cover the consequences if he and others do so. There is no distribution for fun—that cannot be so—but let us just call it “harmless fun” in the sense of what we mean by humiliation. That ought to be an offence by someone else who did not commit the act of obtaining the upskirt image. Certainly there should be an offence that covers the distribution of the image for financial gain. To close that gap, there needs to be consideration of all the matters that have been raised in the speeches today but also a specific offence relating to those who choose to distribute the results of someone else’s foul work.

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

Lord Judge Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 16th October 2018 Lords Chamber

I have set all this out in some detail because my concerns have been allayed by the Government’s explanations—if they are right—and for that reason, provided that the noble and learned Lord confirms the explanations that we have been given, I shall abstain on this amendment should it be put to the vote. So I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord would, in addressing this amendment, confirm my understanding of the ambit of the proposed power—in particular the power to amend primary legislation—and deal with the Government’s intention for its exercise.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, it is very geeky to wonder whether secondary legislation amending a schedule should be affirmative or negative. It is rather like a storm in an egg-cup. But there is rather an important issue here. If I may for present purposes adopt what my noble and learned friend has recently said rather than repeat it, the issue that troubles me about this is in the Schedule itself. It makes very clear provision for the Lord Chief Justice to have various responsibilities. He may authorise a person to do this; he may do that; he may nominate the other, and so on. The whole Schedule contains a series of powers and responsibilities vested in the Lord Chief Justice.

The Schedule also includes a number of provisions which expressly say that the Lord Chancellor may not interfere in the exercise of these powers, for which, on page 11, new Section 67C provides a perfect example. I shall not burden the House by going through all the provisions. My concern is that it is not at all clear from the Bill that the Lord Chief Justice is to be consulted, let alone asked for his concurrence, with any of these proposed changes—and the proposed changes relate to issues over which the Lord Chancellor now has no statutory authority.

Since the changes—I shall use the word advisedly—in 2003, 2004 and 2005, the Lord Chancellor has ceased to be head of the judiciary. He no longer has any of the functions that former Lord Chancellors used to have. All those responsibilities are vested in the current Lord Chief Justice and, in relation to tribunals, the Senior President of Tribunals. Suddenly, there is a clear danger that, by exercising the powers given in Clause 3(3), the Lord Chancellor may seek at some stage in the future to transfer back to the Lord Chancellor powers that have been vested in the Lord Chief Justice.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, we are dealing here with a very sensitive subject: that of authorising court and tribunal staff to exercise judicial functions. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, emphasised that the question may well be the scope of the Clause 3(2) power to make consequential provision. I am still puzzled as to why the Minister says that it is a power only to amend subordinate legislation, because that is not what it says. It states:

“The Secretary of State or Lord Chancellor may, by regulations made by statutory instrument, make consequential … provision”—


that is the part that concerns me—

“in relation to the Schedule”.

I understand the Minister seeking to reassure the House, as he sought to reassure the Committee, that the power may be validly used only to amend subordinate legislation, but I would welcome an explanation as to why that is so.

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

Lord Judge Excerpts

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

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to raise a question, in the confines of this amendment, about training. I know that my noble and learned friend has explained on a previous occasion that the role of justice clerks is changing and that that is the purpose of this. What stage are we at with consulting the justice clerks? I understand, looking at paragraph 10 of the impact assessment, on page 5, that currently the most senior lawyers in Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service are indeed justice clerks. To what extent are they agreeable to these changes? I want to be assured that we will not find ourselves in a situation in the autumn where perhaps they do not entirely agree to what we are asking of them. At the same time, I wonder if there is an expectation that those undertaking this new role will travel further to courts, particularly magistrates’ courts, given that in rural areas there are so few of them. We have seen an increase in cancellations of trials and cases not being heard, where witnesses have found it difficult to travel to and reach the court on time.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, one issue that arises is that, if we are to require more judicial training, it will have to be funded. The second point is that the Lord Chief Justice is responsible for the organisation of judicial training and a report from the Lord Chancellor—if I may say so, with respect—is completely unnecessary. These issues can be addressed by the Lord Chief Justice in his annual report.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Can the Minister say whether he thinks that Clause 1 of the Bill will make any significant contribution to resolving what the Lord Chief Justice has described as the unsustainable recruitment crisis that is facing the Bench?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

My Lords, currently the Bill provides that regulations under Clause 3 shall be made under the negative resolution procedure and then interact with rules of court to be made and come into force without the need for parliamentary scrutiny altogether. This stipulation of which judicial functions may be delegated and to whom, and an authorised person’s requisite qualifications or experience, is to be provided with quite light parliamentary scrutiny. I would be grateful to the noble and learned Lord or the noble Baroness if they would say a little more in their reply about the relationship between the regulations and the rules for those purposes.

Since the fall of the Prisons and Courts Bill last year, there has been no parliamentary scrutiny, even by the Justice Committee, of the Government’s ambitious programme of expensive modernisation measures or the associated court closures and staff cuts. By providing that regulations in the Bill be made under the negative resolution procedure, the Government seem once more to be seeking to avoid proper parliamentary scrutiny, even in relation to quite significant changes to our justice system.

At Second Reading, in response to similar concerns, the Minister said that,

“the purpose of primary legislation is to implement law, not to review that which we can already do”.—[Official Report, 20/6/18; col. 2053.]

On reflection, I respectfully disagree with that constitutional analysis. To my mind, the legislative process is to create law and certainly, at times, to review, direct and even constrain government policy, particularly when it has the potential profoundly to impact on our justice system. Without careful scrutiny and additional safeguards, this governmental drip feed may be capable of eroding some of our most fundamental institutions. I beg to move.

[Lord Judge]

My Lords, there should be an upgrade here, in accordance with the proposed amendment.

[Lord Beith]

My Lords, one of the things that might be reviewed is how the arrangements for delegating decisions work in the context—mentioned by my noble friend—of a large number of litigants in person. This number has increased since the withdrawal and limiting of legal aid. Court officials find themselves giving forms of advice to unrepresented litigants, if only to ensure that the court can proceed with the minimum of chaos and disruption. A clerk in a county court, for example, may simply remind the litigant of what the court needs to know in order to resolve a case and what would not be advantageous to spend lots of time on. That is a valuable function. Of course, legal advice can go far beyond that into areas on which it would be wholly inappropriate for a court official to give, or purport to give, advice. Wise officials make quite clear the limit of what they can say.

By whatever mechanism we review these provisions, whether it is that suggested in the amendment or the reasonably adequate existing ones offered by the Justice Select Committee and Constitution Committee, we should look at them in a context in which officials are being asked for advice or guidance by people who are not represented.

Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Lord Judge Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 12th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham]

My Lords, I shall comment on an amendment that has not been spoken to—Amendment 12, which I think will be articulated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—and, more precisely, on the proposed new clauses, spoken to so admirably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf.

Amendment 12 seems manifestly sensible. Of course the Lord Chief Justice should be consulted by the Lord Chancellor. That is particularly important when one bears in mind that many Lord Chancellors nowadays are not lawyers and will therefore be entirely dependent on the advice of their officials, who might themselves not be lawyers. Therefore, it seems admirable that we should put into statute a requirement that the Lord Chief Justice be consulted. If the Minister says, “But of course he will be”, all I can say is that Ministers sometimes have a curious habit of forgetting the obvious and their obligations. For example, I was rather surprised about three weeks ago when the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, during the debate on Brexit, said that Ministers had never used the phrase “meaningful vote”. That was a curious lapse of mind, and it may well be that Lord Chancellors will forget the obligation to consult the Lord Chief Justice. Therefore, I am all in favour of the amendment and I hope the Government will concede the point.

Perhaps I may move more directly to the proposed new clause in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and Amendment 18. I do not have the experience of the noble and learned Lord but for many years I practised as a personal injury lawyer. I do not do so any more, so there is no need for me to identify an interest, but I used to do a lot of work in personal injury law. Indeed, I was instructed by my noble friend Lord Hunt and I was very grateful for the briefs in those days. Back then, we were informed about the level of damages by the guidance of the Court of Appeal and by the reports, which in those days were available in the current law citator. There really was no difficulty in operating within the parameters set by the judiciary.

That takes me to my objections to what the Government are proposing. The first is a very deep-seated reluctance to see the Executive or Parliament interfering with essentially judicial positions. I am bound to say that that informed my real reservations about the determination of Parliament to impose tariffs in homicide cases, set out in a schedule to the Act. I deprecated that. This is another example which we should be very cautious about. We need to ask ourselves what the essential characteristic of justice is. It is to respond to the individual and varied cases that appear before the courts. The effect of imposing a cap of this kind is to prevent the trial judge being able to respond to the particular aspects of the case in front of him or her, and in my view that is, by definition, unfair.

There is a further point that I venture to intrude on the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Marks. It is perfectly true that the Bill provides for an uplift, but the uplift requirement is discretionary on the Lord Chancellor; it is not mandatory. The Lord Chancellor may provide for an uplift in regulations but he or she does not have to do so.

I am sorry to be pedantic about this, but your Lordships will know that on many occasions I have spoken in pretty derogatory terms about the statutory instrument process that we have. This is another example. Let me acknowledge at once that we are doing it by the affirmative procedure, which is a lot better than doing it by the negative procedure, but the cap will be determined by statutory instrument. Who, pray, is going to set the cap? I can tell you: it will be officials. Unless the Minister of the day is particularly well informed and/or intrusive, the cap will be determined by officials without interference. I am bound to say that I find that a very unpleasing prospect.

If, therefore, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, is minded to press his amendment and his proposed new clause and to test the opinion of the House, unless my noble and learned friend is even more persuasive than he customarily is, I anticipate that I will support the noble and learned Lord.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great comfort to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, say that he agrees with what I am going to say before he has heard it. Now, perhaps he will not mind hearing it.

We have to face the reality that there are a huge number of fraudulent claims for damages arising from alleged whiplash injuries sustained in road traffic accidents—far too many of them. We also have to remember that a large number of perfectly honest claims are made as a result of injuries suffered in road traffic accidents. We have to find a pragmatic solution to the problem of fraudulent claims, given that the cost of contesting them in court tends hugely to outweigh the amount of money that is at stake if the claim is not substantial. Whiplash injury cases, in the way that will now be defined in the Bill, are not cases that attract vast sums of money in damages. I particularly welcome the requirement of medical evidence, which provides some level of protection against the fraudulent. I welcome also the prohibition on cold calling, and I think there is something in the provision for uplift.

Can we be clear, though, that some claims absolutely reek of fraud? I suspect many of us know, for example, of a case where, at traffic lights with two cars in a line and none behind, the front car moves forward across the junction, not too fast, and is followed by the second car. Then, suddenly, the front car slams on its breaks for absolutely no reason, resulting in an impact. I am certainly aware of at least one case—perhaps we all are. It was not a case in court but was narrated to me by a friend, who was rather mortified to find that, after a small accident, the recipient of the injuries in the other car came out of the car saying, “Whiplash, whiplash!”, and had no other word of English to speak. He then found that his insurance company had received claims for no less than four people, when there was only one person in the car. As I say, these cases reek of dishonesty.

I hope that, if this part of the Bill is enacted, insurance companies will continue to remember that before a claim can be made for whiplash injuries, there has to be a claim and the claim should be contested as and when there is evidence of fraud. They cannot just sit back, otherwise they will find themselves paying out more and more. Some cases reek of fraud and they should be contested, and the easy way of doing nothing much more than that should be avoided. The police should be informed and the evidence should be handed to them so that at least they can investigate. I know that they have many other things to do, but a few knocks on doors and the word would go around the fraudulent area of this particular universe saying, “Hang on, there’s something going on here”. That too might discourage the odd dishonest claim.

What I cannot accept is a solution which means that a dishonest claim is handled in exactly the same way as an honest one. We cannot have dishonesty informing the way in which those who have suffered genuine injuries are dealt with. That is simply not justice. There should not be any idea that an honest claim for a whiplash injury made by the victim of a car accident should be less well compensated than an identical injury suffered by someone at work. There are all sorts of ways in which injuries can be caused; indeed, a slip in the street or a fall down the stairs can result in a whiplash injury, so there are many perfectly ordinary ways in which these injuries can be sustained. We need a process that produces the same result for the same victim who has honestly suffered the same consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, I will add briefly to the points that have been made by my noble friends on Amendment 47. I declare an interest: I am associated with Thompsons Solicitors, one of the largest trade union solicitors in the country. In its current form, the Bill will deter claims for personal injury for many vulnerable, low-paid people. The inequality of arms which exists when someone tries to bring a case will be overwhelming for many people. I note from UNISON’s brief—which most noble Lords got—that it did a survey of people it had helped to get compensation. This found that 63% would not have taken the case if they had not had a guarantee of legal support and an opportunity to recover costs. There is an absence of good information about the effects of these changes, so that is probably as good as any. There will be a deterrent effect on this sector of personal injury.

When speaking to an earlier amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was rather dismissive of the access to justice argument, which a number of lobbyists have drawn to the attention of those who follow this subject. The information supplied by UNISON and others shows that there will be a lot of people who will not take cases who otherwise would have done under the present limit. On this side of the House, we are looking to temper that kind of approach by the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will know from his experience with the Transport and General Workers’ Union—to which he referred—that for low-paid and vulnerable people a period off work for an injury or illness is a big deal. It is not to be assumed that employers will automatically cover the cost. These people experience the cost of illness more than those of us in comfortable jobs.

Amendment 47 seeks to tie the Government to the recommendations made by Lord Jackson in his review of civil litigation costs. These said, in effect, that there should be an increase in the small claims limit only when inflation justifies it. The Justice Committee in the other place very much agreed with that in its recent report. That is what leads to the figure of £1,500, an increase based on changes in the CPI, rather than the £2,000 which the Government are pressing for. I note that the Justice Committee was deeply unimpressed by the inability of the Ministry of Justice to quantify the impact of raising the small claims limit for employer liability and public liability claims to £2,000. That is the crux of the issue addressed by the amendment. I hope that in light of these points, and those made so ably by my colleagues, the Minister will soften a little bit and look at the plight of the people at the bottom, the most vulnerable, those who are struggling, those who lose money when they are ill and off work, and so on. Without labouring it too much, I hope that the Government can see our point rather more clearly than they have done so far.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, as it has not emerged that the amendment is the property of the Opposition, perhaps I may add a few words in support of Amendment 47.

Lord Justice Jackson’s report was a remarkable document. It exhaustively analysed the entire structure of our civil justice system. It would not have supported the present Government’s position. I would love to read out the Justice Committee’s report—but, if I did, we would be here awfully late and no one would want to hear it. However, can we briefly recognise that the Justice Committee report is not adverse to the Government’s proposal but deals a series of hammer blows, each one individually worth noting?

“We recommend the Government should not increase the small claims limit to … £5,000”.


Bang.

“There is no policy justification for including vulnerable road users within the reforms proposed”.


Bang.

“We recommend that they be excluded from any higher small claims limit that is imposed on other RTA PI claims”.


Bang.

“We are deeply unimpressed by the inability of the Ministry of Justice to quantify”.


Bang.

And so it goes on. This is not one of those reports with recommendations that obscure their meaning, and perhaps the Minister will consider that as an important feature of this debate.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I will not begin with a bang but I will address the points that have been raised.

I begin by pointing out, with great respect, that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, may not be entirely correct in some of the propositions she advanced. She said that the £1,000 limit had been with us since 1999. It has been with us since 1991. The small claims limit in respect of claims other than personal injury and housing claims is now £10,000 and operates effectively and efficiently at that level. That has to be borne in mind as well.

The noble Baroness spoke with her consumer hat on and referred to the small guy. Reference was made to the worker with limited ability to deal with his claim. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred to workers being pitched out on their own with no help and alluded to a number of examples given by Thompsons solicitors—I shall come back to that in a moment—of where they were perplexed by the way in which claims were dealt with by insurers. The noble Lord, Lord Monks, said rather modestly that Thompsons solicitors were one of the largest firms of trade union solicitors in the country. They must be the largest by quite a long way. They are well established and have been for many years. Why do we refer to them as trade union solicitors in this context? It is because one of the great benefits of union membership for workers is the availability to them of legal advice and assistance when they require it in respect of a claim, particularly one arising in the course of their employment—which is why legal aid is not available in those circumstances. So, far from the little guy, the worker, being pitched out on their own without any help, they almost invariably have the assistance of probably the largest and most established firm of trade union and personal injury solicitors in the country.

I do not decry that—it is an immediate and obvious benefit—but the disbenefit of increasing the small claims limit is that the extent to which the union will recover its legal costs will be more limited, and that will have an impact on trade unions. I understand that and one has to take it into account in the overall scheme of these provisions.