No-fault Divorce

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Deech]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the letter from Lord Keen of Elie to Baroness Deech on 16 March 2020, what progress they have made on reforming the law governing financial provision on divorce to align with the introduction of no fault divorce.

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

My Lords, the letter from my noble and learned friend Lord Keen was sent at the conclusion of the parliamentary process for the divorce Act. In the intervening two years, we have prioritised the implementation of the fundamental reforms of that Act, which will commence on 6 April. Following that commencement, we will consider how best to proceed with the commitment in that letter, and we will announce our intentions in due course.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, the new no-fault divorce law is coming into force in three weeks’ time, but the most miserable and litigious part of it will remain: the law about splitting assets and paying maintenance. That law is so bad that the ministry is paying couples £500 each to mediate and avoid it. The promise was made two years ago to review it; where is that review? Gathering evidence is no excuse for not formulating principle, and I can offer this piece of evidence right away: legal costs eat up chunks of the assets. Unless it is reformed, the no-fault divorce law will fail to achieve its aims. Will the Minister assure the House that vested interests are not blocking reform, and will he give a timetable for completion of the financial provision project?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I do not make any apology for the mediation voucher scheme; it is important to encourage mediation in family law, as indeed across the civil justice system more generally. However, we have committed to exploring the financial provision aspects of divorce after the Act comes into effect. I cannot give the noble Baroness a timetable, but I assure her that we will look at this as a matter of principle and will not be bowed down by vested interests, whether legal or otherwise.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

Following the reference made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, to vested interests, I ask: have the Government had representations from solicitors practising in this lucrative area, or from members of the family Bar, to keep fault as an issue in financial provision proceedings? If so, what was the Government’s response?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I have not had representations from those entities, but I dare say that the department might have done. We get representations, frankly, from all areas of the legal profession, and indeed more broadly, all the time. We will look at this issue on its merits. We have set out that we want to make sure that financial matters are dealt with as amicably as possible. The divorce Act will be a very good start and, as I say, we are encouraging it through family hubs, mediation vouchers and many other ways too.

[Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)]

My Lords, I speak as a foot soldier operating under the current system. I would like to explore with the Minister the redundancy of the current legislation, which is now 40 years old. Society has changed, as has the way we operate, and the rules are so left to the judge’s discretion that there is an industry—I am almost ashamed to practise in it—which fine-tunes, for money, applications for ancillary relief because no one can predict the outcome of such an application accurately. We talk about the mythical mediator, but the mediator has to know what the rules are, because how can they mediate without the rules being clear and explicit? The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and I—

[Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)]

I would like my noble friend the Minister to be nailed down to a timetable, and I would like to know what that is because—I was going to build up to the question—we are fully welcoming the Act that Parliament has passed facilitating divorce without the end of the financial remedies being sorted. We need a timetable.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am not sure whether my noble friend is a foot solider or somewhere between a major-general and a field marshal in this area of the law. May I gently suggest that perhaps not all lawyers charge by the word? I respectfully say that in this area of law, as in many areas of law, there is a balance to be struck between discretion on the one hand and certainty on the other. You need clear rules, but you also need a judge to have discretion to do the right thing in the individual case. That is what we will be striving for when we look at this area of the law about financial provision on divorce.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, as a former foot soldier who tried a very large number of these cases, I believe it is a far more complicated area than either the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, or the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, has said to the House. I would be very unhappy with a timetable; the Government ought to get on with it, but they need to take a lot of sensible advice before they put forward proposals. That is my suggestion to the Minister.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for that question. Of course, we will take advice from a broad range of stakeholders and others. Indeed, in preparing for today I also looked at the laws in other jurisdictions. Although it is fair to say that, for example, prenuptial agreements are enforceable in Spain, which they generally are not in England and Wales, they are not enforceable if the judge considers that they are detrimental to the children or seriously damaging to one of the spouses. So again, the House will see that that balance of certainty and discretion is so important to try to reach in this area.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said when she first proposed this Question, the whole point was to make divorce, by being no fault, less acrimonious and less difficult. The missing part is the financial aspect. In the current system that creates more acrimony and difficulty, especially when children are involved. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, he said that such a review would take “two to three years”. That plays into what the Minister said just now about how complex and difficult this is, but does that not mean that we ought to make a start as soon as possible? It feels like the ghost of Sir Humphrey is around, with “in the fullness of time”, “as resources allow” and “in due course”. Nobody is asking the Minister to come up with answers now—only to start the review, which is urgently needed.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I hope I have made it clear that we are talking about a matter of weeks once the Act comes into force. We will look at this area very carefully. I know that the previous and current Lord Chancellors are focused on this area. Looking at family law generally, we want to see fewer private family cases before the court and maintain the public family cases before the court. Many private family cases really ought to be resolved out of court, through mediation and in other ways. We will work towards that.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, how have the Government strengthened support for separating couples in preparation for the commencement of this divorce Act on 6 April? In particular, how will they help ex-partners and children cope with the considerable emotion and conflict that being unilaterally divorced will provoke and which might last for years?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, we of course recognise that divorce can be a stressful time for families. We want to make sure that support is there for separating couples. We have invested in family hubs and the family mediation voucher scheme. We also have a Reducing Parental Conflict programme. However, we also think that the new divorce Act will lead to more amicable divorce and will itself take some of the heat out of the issue.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, let us not put the cart before the horse by changing the law before thinking about the most acrimonious part of divorce. Is it not true that a no-fault divorce does not necessarily mean that there was no fault? In which case, is it not all the more important that there is equality of arms between the two people concerned when it comes to mediation on a financial settlement?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, yes: no-fault divorce means that the question of fault is essentially irrelevant to the fact of the divorce. As to equality of arms, that is where mediation is so useful. Families who participated in the mediation voucher scheme tell us that it really took the heat out of the issue as they could sit down outside a court setting and resolve their issues. For every multi-million pound divorce that you read about in the papers, hundreds—indeed, thousands—of divorces go through without too much acrimony, other than the acrimony perhaps inherent in the fact of being divorced. We want to build on what we think is a movement in the right direction.

Early Legal Advice Pilot Scheme Order 2022

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Early Legal Advice Pilot Scheme Order 2022.

Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, I beg to move this statutory instrument, which establishes the early legal advice pilot scheme that will be conducted in Middlesbrough and Manchester for a time-limited period. The instrument amends part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, colloquially known as LASPO, to bring civil legal services for certain housing debt and welfare benefit matters in scope of legal aid for the purposes of the pilot scheme. It makes consequential amendments to secondary legislation for the purposes of that pilot scheme. The draft order is made using the powers conferred by LASPO itself.

The instrument lays the necessary foundations to put the pilot scheme into operation and signifies a crucial step in delivering a key commitment made in the Ministry of Justice’s legal support action plan, which we published in 2019. Through the pilot scheme, we will test the impact of early legal advice on the resolution of legal problems. We will also seek to quantify the benefits to individuals, their support networks, the Government and, ultimately, the taxpayer.

Civil legal aid is available to an individual if their issue is listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to LASPO. Legal aid may also be available on an exceptional basis where there would be a breach, or the risk of a breach, of the individual’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights or any retained enforceable EU rights. This is known as exceptional case funding, or ECF.

Eligibility for legal aid, for both in-scope matters and ECF, is subject to a statutory means and merits assessment. The means test sets out that, if an individual’s capital or disposable income is above a certain threshold, they are generally not eligible for legal aid. There are different merits tests depending on the type of case but, generally, the merits test provides for a cost-benefit test and a “prospects of success” test. If those tests are not met, again, funding would not be granted. Under the current arrangements, legal aid for social welfare law matters such as debt, housing and welfare benefits is limited to the most urgent and important circumstances, for example if an individual is at risk of losing their home through eviction or repossession. This is so that legal aid is targeted at those who need it most.

However, during the post-implementation review of LASPO, we heard from respondents that the reforms in that Act, which came into effect in 2013, might have caused increased financial costs to individuals, their support networks and the Government. Those respondents explained that individuals experiencing social welfare legal problems, especially related to housing, were now unable to resolve their problems at an early opportunity. This meant that they were now likely to experience problem-clustering and problem escalation, each of which can lead to costly intervention. Frequently cited examples included increased use of court services for possession proceedings; greater reliance on welfare benefit and on temporary and permanent accommodation services; and increased use of health services for stress and anxiety.

Although we have some anecdotal evidence to support the view that early legal advice could produce benefits to individuals and to local and central government, there is limited empirical evidence. In particular, there is limited evidence in relation to the financial impact of early intervention through the legal aid scheme. I am sure we can all agree that the argument that early intervention can result in cost savings feels intuitively correct. However, in order to make robust arguments for funding for early legal advice and ensure that we provide value for money for the taxpayers who will fund it, we need an argument based on actual evidence. We are therefore bringing these matters into scope and using the pilot scheme as an opportunity to gather robust, quantitative evidence that can demonstrate whether early legal advice can lead to early problem resolution, thus bringing savings to the public purse.

The pilot will be in two specific areas—Manchester and Middlesbrough—and will be time limited, from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2024. Individuals will be eligible if they live, or habitually reside, in the area of Manchester City Council or Middlesbrough City Council. They must be selected to participate by a person appointed by the Lord Chancellor, who will publish guidance explaining who the person will be—they might be an independent evaluator—and how they must select participants. Participants will receive a maximum of three hours of advice and assistance for housing, debt and welfare benefit matters.

We have worked closely with legal aid providers and other government departments to devise the pilot scheme and finalise the terms of this amendment. The amendment to Part 1 of Schedule 1 to LASPO in this instrument brings these matters into scope for legal aid, subject to some exclusions outlined in the order; for example, participants cannot receive advocacy or representation services. This reflects the intentions of the pilot because it is all about advice before court proceedings are initiated.

It covers, therefore, civil legal services relating to advice and assistance in relation to housing, debt and welfare benefits for a maximum of three hours. Participants can receive advice and assistance irrespective of whether their matters fall into one or all of those categories. They will receive holistic advice on all those categories as far as needed. The maximum time for advice is fixed at three hours, but there is no means or merits test. The only criteria are the geographical requirements and that they are included in the pilot scheme by the person appointed by the Lord Chancellor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has given us an historical context for what we are receiving through this statutory instrument. We of course support it, because it goes some way to ameliorating the position we have had since the massive cuts in 2013 with LASPO. The noble Lord has made the broader points, with which I agree.

I want to focus on two particular questions, one of which was asked by my honourable friend Afzal Khan when this matter was debated in the House of Commons. He contacted the Greater Manchester Law Centre and the Law Society there, the only two welfare benefit and legal aid providers in Manchester city and the only two debt legal aid providers in Middlesbrough, one of which also advises on welfare benefit law. He made the point in the House of Commons that the scheme will undoubtedly create an increase in demand. There was scepticism, from that limited number of providers, whether the three-hour limit is enough in itself and whether the pay is enough for those three hours. How, given that there is very likely to be an increase in demand, will the ministry respond?

The Minister used a couple of phrases that I thought were appropriate when he talked about the problem of the clustering of cases around a multitude of different contexts—housing, welfare and the like—and about the problem of escalation. From different parts of our working lives outside this House, we all know that both of those things are right and true, both in the housing context and the criminal justice context as a whole—something I know from my work in magistrates’ courts.

The Minister said that there was limited evidence of financial benefit from early intervention. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, expressed extreme scepticism, and I agree with him: there is a multitude of reports about the benefits of early intervention, and I have lost track of the number of early-intervention pilots that I have seen on the criminal justice side that have fallen by the wayside for various reasons.

I will raise another question, which comes from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report’s appendix 2:

“Further information from the Ministry of Justice on the draft Early Legal Advice Pilot Scheme Order 2022”.


Question 1c is as follows:

“The wording of the SI indicates that those who are selected but receive no advice will also be informed that they are part of the pilot—will that control group also be required to fill in any evaluation or description of their experience? Otherwise, they will be just like any other Housing benefit claimant—what marks them out?”


That is to say, what marks them out as different in the data collected? The answer is:

“The pilot is seeking to develop robust quantitative impact evidence, and so how to best collect control or comparison group evidence is a priority issue to be examined. The specific criteria and process for identifying and engaging the control or comparison group is to be determined based on feasibility work to be undertaken by the independent evaluator.”


I did not read that out very well, but I understand what it means. My experience on the family court side is that a large number of people drop out of the system. Advice is made available and people start accessing it, but then the process becomes difficult and tiresome and people just stop engaging.

So, arising out of that question and answer, my question to the Minister is: will there be an evaluation of people who start the process but do not finish it? That is part of the overall cost, and it is also a demonstration of the impact or otherwise of these schemes. As I say, from my experience in a different context—family law—a very big part of the overall picture is the people who do not pursue the advice and support that are available to them because doing so is just too burdensome.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. I will pick up a few points in response. On the Treasury being behind it, I say that this is not a Treasury-driven measure, in the sense that the sole focus is not the public purse. But we have to recognise that the Treasury is ultimately behind the legal aid system: it is funded by the public purse, and we have to make sure that we get value for money.

One of the things that we are doing here is trying to answer this question—we all feel this instinctively, perhaps, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, there are lots of people in the market, so to speak, who say, “Spend some money now; you’ll save more money later on”. But we want to have some robust evidence to see to what extent that is actually the case—and also to see to which particular groups it applies more and to which it applies less. We have a very diverse population, and one of the things that we will be able to do in the pilot is look at people with different backgrounds and needs and see the extent to which the early legal advice actually helps. Although I am well aware of the research by the various NGOs that the noble Lord mentioned, that is not empirical evidence. We do not have the robust, quantitative evidence that we will get from the pilot.

I will pick up the points made the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who asked a few questions around time limits and associated points. First, on the appropriateness of the fee, I explained the 25% uplift. To obtain the figure for the underlying fee, we used the existing non-London hourly rates for housing and family matters; that generated the baseline fee for the work. We added the 25% uplift to increase the extra costs. We are confident that that will mean that we get proper take-up from providers.

Prisoners: Imprisonment for Public Protection Sentences

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to publish an action plan in respect of prisoners serving indefinite sentences for public protection; and if so, when.

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

My Lords, the Government will publish the imprisonment for public protection action plan following careful consideration of the findings and recommendations of the report of the Justice Select Committee on its inquiry into the IPP sentence, which is due later this spring. A version of the IPP action plan has previously been published and is in the House’s Library.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, on 15 December last year the Minister referred to his ministry’s

“successful action plan dedicated to the rehabilitation and risk reduction of IPP offenders”,—[Official Report, 15/12/22; col. 358.]

but he has politely declined to put the current version of the action plan in the public domain. Can he say whether the action plan includes the training given to probation officers in the effective supervision and support of IPP offenders?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I think I made it clear in my first Answer that the current version of the action plan is in the Library. We are updating it but we will wait to see what the Justice Select Committee report says. I suggest to my noble friend that that is an appropriate way to proceed. As to the probation service, the action plan requires the direct involvement of the probation service and the IPP progression panels in each probation region. The panels support probation officers to manage offenders on licence and they assist in applications made to the Parole Board to suspend supervision requirements or terminate the licence.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, on International Women’s Day, it would be appropriate if the action plan took into account the very specific circumstances of women, given the Parole Board’s remit to ensure that we remain safe when prisoners are released. Perhaps the Minister could tell us this afternoon how many women prisoners have never been released when sentenced to IPP and how many are currently on licence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I have those figures: as at the end of September 2021, there were 19 women in custody who had never been released and 115 women in the community on licence. A qualified psychologist has reviewed the sentence plan of every woman serving an IPP sentence in custody to ensure that the plan identifies the right courses and work she needs to complete in order to demonstrate a reduction in risk.

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

Responding recently to the Atkin Lecture of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, on prisons, Mr Raab referred to the growing proportion of unreleased IPP prisoners who had committed “more serious offences”. May he perhaps have overlooked the 570 unreleased IPPs who have served more than 10 years beyond their tariff terms, fewer than 50 of whom had tariff terms of over four years, 200 of whom had tariff terms of less than two years—hardly sentences reflecting serious offences? Does the Minister think that they have been overlooked or merely forgotten?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, they have neither been overlooked nor forgotten. The vast majority of the IPP prisoners who have never been released received their IPP either for a serious sexual offence or for violence against the person. However, progress is being made. In December 2020, there were 1,849 IPP prisoners who had never been released. In December last year there were 1,602. That is a 13% fall in one year.

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust. While we are waiting for the action plan, will the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to assist IPP prisoners with access to courses, to open conditions and to ROTL, which have been seriously affected by the pandemic but may be crucial to the IPP prisoner’s release?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. It is imperative that prisoners get that sort of support to make sure that they are in the best position they can be to be released, if they have never been released before, or to have their licence terminated. We are working with each prisoner to make sure that they have a proper pathway. The House will recall that one of the government amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill was to ensure the automatic referral of offenders on licence to help them terminate their licence as soon as possible after the 10-year period.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

Will the Minister please confirm that the action plan will contain measures for IPP prisoners who have been recalled? Research from the Prison Reform Trust shows that recalled prisoners struggle to cope with the indefinite nature of recall and to find the motivation to engage in the never-ending cycle of prison, release, recall and prison. What special help will be included in the action plan for them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot go now into details of the action plan which will be published. What I can say is that we are absolutely focused on the sword of Damocles nature of the licence hanging over the prisoner. That is why we brought in the automatic referral. What I can say, though, is that prisoners are recalled from licence only when they exhibit behaviour which makes their risk unmanageable in the community. Over 40% of recalls are in relation to fresh offences committed when on licence.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, refer to my trusteeship of the Prison Reform Trust. Some years ago, Dame Anne Owers, the former prisons inspector, said that there was a link between humanity and effectiveness. Do the Government have their own view on the link between humanity and effectiveness in relation to the IPP regime? Why do we have to wait for them to be told what to say by the Justice Committee?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I think the link between humanity and effectiveness might lie beyond a short answer to a question. What I can say is that quick fixes—such as retrospectively abolishing the IPP sentence or resentencing IPP offenders—would expose the public to unacceptable risk. We have to recognise that people were given IPP sentences because they were considered dangerous. Having said that, we are working towards making sure that all prisoners subject to an IPP sentence are properly reviewed and their sentences are progressed.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

One cannot exactly call this a quick fix. The review was announced by the then Prime Minister in July 2011 and has taken until now—nearly 11 years. Why has it taken so long to even start to get to the point where we are righting this egregious injustice?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, “egregious injustice” is probably the right phrase. What came out in the debates on the police Bill was a recognition by those who proposed the IPP sentence in the first place that it was a mistake. I do not want to look back. We have made the first moves towards a proper automatic referral system. We will be publishing the action plan once we get the response of the Justice Committee. I hope that across the House we can work together to resolve this issue.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, improving the prospects for IPP offenders is important. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that this must be balanced with the overriding need to protect the public?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My noble friend raises a correct point, which I sought to make in the previous answer. We must recognise that as the number of IPP offenders in custody reduces, proportionally the cohort comprises more serious offenders. Therefore, we must recognise that the rate of release is likely to slow down, given that background.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

One of the reasons we have got ourselves into this situation is lack of access to rehabilitation courses inside prison. The availability of those courses has declined by over 60% over the last 10 years. This not only harms IPP prisoners but is one of the reasons why reoffending rates are so stubbornly fixed. What will the Government do to improve access to these courses for prisoners, whether or not they are on an IPP?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I do not want to get too political about it but, picking the last 10 years and talking about why we are in this position, we are in it because the Labour Government came up with IPP sentences in the first place, which is now recognised to have been a mistake. Post pandemic, we are ensuring that prisoners have the support they need to ensure that they can exit the IPP sentence, whether from custody or on licence.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, 10 years ago I was the Minister who saw through the abolition of IPP in this House. I do not doubt the Minister’s good intentions, but I had the same good intentions. I was told then that there were plans in place for retraining, for bringing courses through, et cetera. As for the danger to the public, what about the people who have been sentenced for serious offences since IPP was abolished? We manage them, and we manage them very effectively through the process. It is a Daily Mail canard to suggest that we will be sending out dangerous criminals on to the streets. The truth is that over 10 years, the Minister’s department has not delivered what was promised in the LASPO Bill: an effective programme of rehabilitation.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I think I am the first Minister to have made a real change in this area, in the government amendments to the police Bill. Regarding the noble Lord’s other points, we have a cohort of prisoners under the IPP sentence. We must recognise that if they had not been given an IPP sentence, they might now be given a life sentence with a tariff. If you are given a life sentence with a tariff, you are on licence for the rest of your life. You never come off the licence.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with the final sentence of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. We all want to see this system work well, and we all want to see adequate safeguards. It seems to me that the safeguards may be built into the regulations, but of course we can build in further regulations and safeguards through the process we are going through now. We are not hostile to these procedures as such; we are just concerned that proper safeguards are built in, either through primary legislation or the regulations.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, set out fully the broad gamut of issues relating to these types of online convictions, where people plead guilty and receive a computer-generated sentence based on certain summary, non-imprisonable and relatively minor offences. All noble Lords who have spoken raised the point about the ramifications of people making guilty pleas because it seems easier to just get it out of the way, and that the possible consequences of having that criminal conviction, even though it is a non-recordable conviction, are not readily known.

I spoke about this point when I had a meeting with the Minister last week. The wording in the Bill is “recordable offences” and I made the point that there are plenty of offences which are recorded, but they are not recordable in the sense of going on the Police National Computer. For example, when I sit in court as a magistrate and deal with people who have non-recordable offences such as evading train fares, the information is available to me that they have previous convictions for avoiding train fares. I am aware of that information, even though it is not a recordable offence, and that will obviously have an impact on the sentence I give to the person who has not paid their train fare for a second or third time. So there is a distinction between offences which are recorded and offences which are recordable.

I will briefly run through the amendments in my name. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, they are trying to mitigate the possible problems with this approach, to which all noble Lords have spoken. Amendment 26 would require all accused persons considered for automatic online convictions to be subject to a health assessment and that only those who do not have any vulnerabilities or disabilities are given the option of being convicted online. Under Amendment 27, the automatic online conviction option would be available only if the prosecutor is satisfied that the accused has engaged a legal representative. Amendment 28 would exclude any recordable offences from the automatic online conviction option. Amendment 29 would raise the age of eligibility for written procedures for entering guilty pleas from 16 to 18 years old.

As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, those four amendments in my name attempt at this point to probe the Government’s response to the potential pitfalls of this approach, to put in adequate safeguards for vulnerable people and children and to make sure that people do not plead guilty out of a sense of convenience. I was particularly taken by the argument used by the noble Lord about ensuring that, when people plead guilty, they know the full ramifications of the possible costs of their guilty plea. As he said, there is the cost of the fine itself, the cost of the prosecution and the cost of the victim surcharge, and all those numbers add up. When one sits as a magistrate, one has discretion over the fine and the costs but no discretion over the victim surcharge, so it is not a straightforward calculation. Depending on the means of the person one is dealing with, one would make a suitable adjustment.

After one has put the fine in place, one puts in place a collection order. This is where you give a specific and direct warning to the person you have just fined that, if they do not pay the money, there is a power for debt collectors or bailiffs to come to their house to collect goods to the same value. I go on and warn them that that makes things more expensive because the bailiffs also charge their costs. So there is quite a bit of procedure that one can adjust when one is sentencing, according to the nature and means of the person in front of you. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, asked a good question: how will this online procedure have the flexibility that the in-court procedure has to make sure that a fair disposal is reached?

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

My Lords, I will first deal with the general argument for Clause 3, not least because the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, gave notice that she would oppose the Question that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill.

As we have heard, Clause 3 creates an alternative new automatic online conviction and standard statutory penalty procedure for some single justice procedure cases. I should say at the outset that it comes with a number of safeguards. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, fairly said, we all want to see the system work well. This is about putting in place a system that is appropriate and fair.

The procedure would provide defendants aged over 18 and companies that wish to plead guilty to specified offences the additional option of accepting a conviction and pre-agreed standard penalty online without the involvement of the court. Importantly, prosecutors will offer this to defendants only in cases that they consider can be dealt with appropriately through this procedure. It is unlikely even to be offered in cases where, for example, there are aggravating factors or the defendant is a habitual offender.

The procedure is entirely optional on the part of the defendant. Defendants can choose to have their case heard in court at any time before they accept a conviction. Defendants who opt in to using this procedure will be guided through the process and provided with all the information they need to make an informed decision, including—the noble Lord, Lord Marks, made this point—the consequences of accepting a conviction and the full details of the prospective fine. I will say a little more about that in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister. That was the point that I was seeking to make. The last time the online procedure Bill came before Parliament, in 2019, this Committee debated very carefully whether it was appropriate to allow the Lord Chancellor to determine which civil matters should be dealt with online. Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee recommended that it was inappropriate for the Lord Chancellor to decide such matters. This House debated and the Government gave way. The Minister’s predecessor —not quite his predecessor—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, who was speaking on behalf of the Government, accepted that it was appropriate for the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice to be required. Why does the Minister think it is different in the criminal context? I suggest that there is even greater sensitivity in the criminal context than in the civil context and that the concurrence of the head of the judiciary is required.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that further explanation of the point and will happily reflect on it. At the moment, I stand by the point I made a moment ago, which is that it is right in principle for the Government to be able to decide which offences are included under the new procedure. Of course, we discuss with the Lord Chief Justice and other elements of the judiciary how these offences will be managed in practice. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, knows, the operation of the courts is run essentially under a concordat agreement between the Lord Chancellor and the judiciary. I will look again at Hansard and go back to the discussion which somebody who was not quite my predecessor was involved in. For present purposes, that is my answer to the noble Lord.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Just on that—and by the way, I did not speak earlier because the case was made so well by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and I think it is a kindness to the Committee at this stage not to duplicate concerns and comments—to develop the point from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and to comment on his conversation with the Minister, it is not for the Government to decide, is it? It is not actually the Government’s position that it is for them to decide which offences are covered by the new procedure, because mercifully the Government have said that there will be parliamentary procedure and regulations. It is for Parliament to decide.

Is not the point that when Parliament looks at these regulations that are made in the future, by a future Lord Chancellor who may not take such a measured approach as the Minister is taking now in relation to which offences are to be included, Parliament would benefit from regulations that come with the advice and endorsement not just of the Government of the day but of the senior judiciary?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I should say, first, that when I mentioned the noble Baroness in my speech, I was not making the point that she had not risen. I wanted her to appreciate that I had taken on board that she was opposing the clause. When I say “the Government”, of course I mean “the Government with the authority of Parliament”. We are looking at a Bill and that is taken as read. Ultimately, the question is: is it necessarily right for Parliament to say that we cannot proceed unless we know that the LCJ is on board? I suggest that it is quite proper in this case for Parliament and the Bill to say, “This is a power which can be exercised by the Lord Chancellor and no concurrence is necessary.” As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I am happy to look at this point, but that is the current position which I adopt.

I was going to make one more point on Clause 4 and Amendment 29, which seeks to raise the age of eligibility for the Section 12 procedure—often referred to as “pleading guilty by post”—from 16 to 18. This procedure has been available as an alternative method of summary-only prosecution for defendants aged 16 and over since 1957. I am not aware of any issues of concern being raised in relation to under-18s during the whole of that time.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Before I consider our position, can I just ask when the cooling-off period is likely to kick in. In other words, does it start immediately upon the indication of a plea of guilty or will it be following the conviction that is a consequence of the online plea?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I will give an answer, but I will check it and if I get it wrong I will write to the noble Lord. I think the way it works is that it will be immediately after conviction. The conviction is almost instantaneous with submitting the online form because it is an online procedure. Therefore, the cooling-off procedure would start immediately after conviction and would run from that time. Indeed, I have just received a message to say that that is correct.

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification; I will consider it.

I will of course withdraw the amendment at this stage, but I see the process that we have had today as calling for continuing discussion. Although it is helpful to know from the Minister that the financial consequences will be spelled out precisely in the offer, he did not address the non-financial consequences—the personal consequences—in enough detail. Of course I take his point that, at this stage, this procedure will apply only to travelling on trains without a ticket, what used to be called riding on trams without a ticket or unlicensed fishing. In those circumstances, limited to those three offences, the consequences might not be as serious as they otherwise might be, but since the statute refers to all summary-only, non-imprisonable offences, it potentially goes very much wider. It would be very helpful if, during continuing discussions, we were assured about the criteria that would be applied in much more detail for its application to future offences because one can see the distinction simply from the offences that he mentioned and we cannot be sure what will happen.

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, seems to have a great deal to commend it. He raised it as a query to the Minister. If there were an amendment to that effect on Report I rather expect that it would have a lot of support in the House. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

I strongly agree that the magistracy is essentially a local service built up by knowledge of the area in which magistrates are asked to administer justice. It would be an extraordinary development to cut that out, because the knowledge of what is going on in their area is a source of strength to the magistracy in issuing judgments which, as has been pointed out, are a very high proportion of the total number dispensed throughout the country. On the other hand, I can see that sometimes a technical relief from the particularity of the boundary may be important. Perhaps that can be done without losing the principle of the locality of the magistracy.

I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said about the help that we are getting in this respect, having here a practising magistrate who knows the difficulties that arise and can be dealt with by personal experience. I also support the idea that we must have some system for noticing what the difficulties of different people are in relation to the courts, particularly women and girls. I imagine that this has to do with the treatment given by the courts, not particularly the question of certain types of crime that may not always be getting the result that we might expect in various situations.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group, Amendments 30, 37 and 54, all deal with reviews of the criminal justice system or criminal court procedure. I will take them in turn.

Amendment 30 would require the Secretary of State to commission a review and publish a report on the effectiveness of the single justice procedure. The review would consider the transparency of the procedure and its use in the prosecution of Covid-19 offences. Let me begin by allying myself to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his service as a magistrate, and for what that service gives us in these debates: a real, from-the-front-line addition on how things are going. Since that has been raised, I also thank more generally all magistrates. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, they are the backbone of our criminal justice system. During the pandemic, they went above and beyond to keep the wheels of justice turning.

On the substance of the single justice procedure, I should first make it clear that a case dealt with under the single justice procedure is dealt with in the same way as any other case, except that a single magistrate can deal with it and, as we have heard, the hearing need not be in public. The magistrate must comply with the same legislative safeguards as all other proceedings, and the Sentencing Council’s sentencing guidelines apply in the same way. Importantly, as with the previous group, the single justice procedure is entirely optional. Also, all processes are reviewed regularly to ensure that it is easy to navigate and accessible. Following consultation, the single justice procedure notice has recently been revised to make it even clearer for users.

We have also worked closely with the media to ensure that this procedure is accessible and open, because justice in this country is public justice. While the criminal procedure rules require all courts to give certain additional information on individual cases upon request from the media and other interested third parties, courts are currently obliged to give more information on cases prosecuted under the single justice procedure. That would include the prosecution’s statement of facts and the defendant’s statement in mitigation if there was one.

In addition, a list of pending single justice procedure cases is published each day online and is available to the public. The media also receive a more detailed list of these cases so that they can report on them if they so wish. So, actually, the media receive more information about cases dealt with under this procedure than traditional proceedings, where they get the information only if they actually turn up to the hearing. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, would confirm, it is now quite rare that local newspapers turn up. So, far from reducing transparency, the online procedure actually increases it, and I am sure that everyone in the Committee would agree that that is a very good thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beith (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister. Does he think that he ought to consider the impact that would flow from removing local justice areas, when we already find that taking cases to the furthest point within a local justice area—because there is a particularly well-equipped courtroom there, say—means that magistrates are finding that most of the cases they will be asked to sit on are taking place 50 or 60 miles away? It is extremely difficult to recruit magistrates who are prepared to accept that distance, and it does not do much for local justice.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

Of course I accept that point as a matter of principle. That is why consultation is really at the heart of this. There has to be a balance. For example, there could be a case where you have a number of very disabled witnesses and a particular courthouse is more accessible for them than another one. There could be cases, as in the pandemic, for example, where some courthouses have been more easily adapted than others. But, as I hope I have made clear, we will make sure that there will be full consultation on this. But we want to build in the legislative flexibility to allow that to take place in cases where it is needed. If I may say—

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The legislative form that this is taking, in Clause 43(1), is:

“Local justice areas are abolished.”


The Minister referred to things on the edges, such as greater flexibility between areas and particular courthouses being suitable, all of which sound quite sensible. But it is very hard to think that that requires the wholesale abolition of local justice areas. Echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, said, could the Minister tell us what consultation has taken place already and led to the conclusion that the solution to, and the right way to deal with, what appear to be problems around the edges is to abolish local justice areas altogether?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

First, the legislative architecture, so to speak, is not just Clause 43: I have already mentioned other statutory provisions that require consultation. There has been consultation on this, although I do not have all the details of it to hand. If I may, I will drop the noble and learned Lord a note setting that out.

I was just about to thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, and I apologise for standing up when he was about to speak. I respectfully say that he summed up perfectly the balance that is required between the need for a local link and for flexibility when it is useful.

Finally, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, explained—I received the message—Amendment 37 essentially a probing amendment for me to explain what is going on. It would formally require an inquiry into the adequacy of the criminal courts in relation to women and girls. We are doing significant work in this area, both to improve the experience of women and girls in the criminal justice system—or, in some instances, the justice system more broadly—and to better scrutinise the agencies involved. As she said, a number of agencies are involved, and this is a cross-government issue.

We are already taking specific actions. I shall set out some of them now, although it is a non-exhaustive list. We know that pre-recorded cross-examination can help to improve the experience of victims, so we are rolling out the use of this measure, known as Section 28, for sexual violence and modern slavery complainants to all Crown Courts nationally. We have introduced a single source of 24/7 support for victims of rape and sexual violence. We are working with the police and the CPS to reform approaches to disclosure, and I am sure that the noble Baroness has heard the DPP talk about that in particular. In July last year we launched a violence against women and girls strategy that contained a number of commitments to keep women and girls safe. I will not read those into the record, but I know the noble Baroness is familiar with them.

On a cross-government basis, we have cross-system governance structures to hold criminal justice system partners to account. We published the first criminal justice system scorecard for adult rape in December last year. Publishing and monitoring that data will enable us to improve how adult rape cases are handled at each stage of the criminal justice system, focusing on key metrics such as—I apologise for using this phrase because I hate it, but it is the phrase that is used—“victim attrition”. It sounds terrible but we know what it means.

Finally, there are reviews and inquiries, similar to the one proposed in this amendment, already in place. On 5 October last year the Home Secretary announced the Angiolini inquiry to investigate the issues raised by the conviction of Wayne Couzens for the murder of Sarah Everard. Among other issues, the inquiry is looking at what police forces are doing to identify and deal with misogynistic and predatory behaviour.

In October last year, the Metropolitan Police announced that it had commissioned the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to lead an independent review of its culture and standards following Sarah Everard’s murder. The review will assess the extent to which the force’s leadership, recruitment, vetting, training, communications and other practices effectively reinforce the standards that the public should expect. Finally, the Victims’ Bill consultation, which recently closed, explored how to amplify victims’ voices, improve the accountability of criminal justice agencies and generally improve support for victims, and we will of course be responding to that in due course.

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the issue. I hope she will forgive me for not mentioning everything in response, given that her amendment is a probing one, but obviously I can assure her that this is right at the top of our priorities across government. Formally, though, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I have to admit that Amendment 54 provoked more comment than I was anticipating. I particularly thank my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer for his observations about the importance of local justice areas, and my noble friend Lady Whitaker for her experience of local justice areas. The same point was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay.

I understand that there needs to be a balance between getting rid of artificial boundaries and recognising the importance of locality. While the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, about rural local justice areas is absolutely right, where people have to travel a great distance, in a big conurbation such as London I personally feel very much connected to the area where I sit as a magistrate.

I want to add one extra point to this debate, which I understand will be going on, about the importance of the pastoral role of the Bench chairman. I sit as a chairman for the Greater London Family Panel, and quite literally every day I deal with pastoral matters for my magistrate colleagues. It is a very important role and one that my colleagues appreciate. I think it is important that that role should continue in some way, because it is a way of maintaining the morale of magistrates within a particular area. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, the first two amendments in this group, Amendments 31 and 32 from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, would add requirements that an adult accused should have received legal representation and had a physical and mental health assessment confirming their capacity to understand the meaning and consequences of a guilty plea in order to participate in proceedings before the court seeks an indication of a guilty plea in writing. Amendment 33, also from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, would require information to be given to the accused as to the consequences of a guilty plea. These are similar to some of the issues we have canvassed before this afternoon. But, again, I support the principle of these amendments. They are directed at the proposition that before a court proceeds to accept a guilty plea, it must be satisfied that the accused has full capacity and understands the consequences.

These are complex proposals, and the consequences of a guilty plea are challenging to understand. They may, for example, include the consequence of being committed to the Crown Court for sentencing under new Section 17ZB of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980. It is important to understand how these points are going to be addressed in practice, and I hope the Minister will help us with that.

As for the next amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I agree with him that taking a guilty plea from children, as proposed by Clause 8, is unacceptable, and I support him in opposing that clause and, consequently, in opposing Clause 14, which would, independently as well as consequently, water down the involvement of parents and guardians in child cases. That involvement is, I suggest, extremely important. There are two principal reasons for my opposition. First, it is extremely difficult to guarantee that a child of whatever age under 18 will fully understand the proceedings or consequences before giving an indication of a guilty plea. Secondly, a criminal charge often brings matters, risks and difficulties that are faced by particular children to the attention of the court when they attend court. That gives the court and other agencies an opportunity to address those difficulties, and that opportunity ought to be available and taken as soon as possible and before any question of indicating a guilty plea arises. For the same reasons, I support Amendment 34 in relation to Clause 9, which would permit allocation hearings in respect of children or young people to proceed in the absence of the accused. That does not seem appropriate.

These are difficult provisions for indicating a guilty plea in writing, and as I have said, it is difficult to see how they will work in practice. While they may prove to be inoffensive if introduced, the sunsetting provisions in Amendment 35 are surely sensible. If our concerns turn out to be groundless, Parliament can revisit the procedures on the basis of evidence of how they have worked out in practice and make them permanent or extend them. Otherwise, they ought to lapse after two years, as is suggested in the amendment.

I turn next to Clause 13, permitting the extension of a magistrate’s sentencing powers. I cannot, at the moment, for the life of me see why the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, are not right to say this is a matter that ought to be considered discretely and independently by Parliament, rather than having delegated powers enable the Secretary of State to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers at a later date by executive action. That does not seem appropriate, and no good reason has been advanced for why that should be right.

As to the threat to jury trial considered by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I share her belief that increasing sentencing powers is likely to lead to more, rather than fewer, defendants opting for jury trial. The greater sentencing powers of magistrates would lead only to defendants taking their chances with a jury trial rather than staying in a magistrates’ court, and forfeiting what has been traditionally the incentive to stick with the magistrates—that they are likely to impose a shorter sentence and unlikely to commit for sentence.

As a matter of principle, I am instinctively opposed to increasing the sentencing powers of magistrates. At the same time, along with many who have considered the evidence, we are strongly opposed to short prison sentences. Against that, there is a serious risk that a move to permit 12-month sentences, when previously six-month sentences were the maximum that could have been imposed, will increase the use of custodial sentences of a longer period where community sentences would be more appropriate. I find that a difficult issue to face. We should be concentrating on increasing the use of community sentences; and increasing magistrates’ powers to 12 months for a single offence is entirely wrong. But I wait to see how the Minister approaches this change and justifies it.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It covers a number of different points, but, essentially, it focuses on the procedure for triable either-way cases and the recent announcement that the Government intend to extend magistrates’ courts’ sentencing powers from six months to 12.

Let me start with amendments to Clause 6 —Amendments 31, 32 and 33. They all seek to add further safeguards to Clause 6, but I hope to explain why the Government consider them to be unnecessary. I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to ensure that defendants are able to seek legal representation in criminal proceedings at the earliest opportunity. The central point here is that a defendant is unable to proceed with the new online procedures without the support of a legal representative. That is because the online procedures we are dealing with here are made possible through the common platform, which is currently not accessible by individual defendants. So, as currently, legal representatives would be needed to access the platform, and they will then be able to help identify whether a defendant has particular vulnerabilities or does not understand the process even after explanation.

Defendants, as in a previous group, will be under no obligation to accept an invitation to proceed online. They can choose to discuss these matters at a traditional court hearing if they should so wish. Where a defendant fails to take up the offer of engaging online, the proceedings will simply default back to a normal court-based procedure. Furthermore, the court itself will be able to stop an online proceeding and call an in-court hearing if it has any concern or would like the defendant, for whatever reason, to attend court in a contested case. That would include cases where, for example, the court had concern about a defendant’s mental health or mental capacity, or where, for any other reason, the court considered online proceedings inappropriate.

Amendment 33 would require that defendants are informed about the real-world consequences of pleading guilty to a crime at court and what it could mean to get a criminal record. Of course, getting a criminal record is not something that should ever be taken lightly, but Clause 6 already ensures that the court must provide important information about the consequences of giving or failing to give an online indication of plea.

Where a defendant does decide to proceed with the online procedure, all the communication that would take place between the parties and the court to facilitate effective case management, which would otherwise take place in court, can take place online. A defendant will, for example, still be able to seek an indication of whether a custodial sentence would be likely if they were to plead guilty and were dealt with at the magistrates’ court. Further, any online indication of plea—and that is what we are dealing with, an indication of plea—will remain just that, an indication. A defendant is able to withdraw it at any time before their first appearance at a hearing in court. They will still need to enter a binding formal plea before the court at that hearing and any online indication of plea cannot be admitted as evidence in later proceedings. So I suggest that we have enough safeguards in place to ensure that defendants are appropriately supported.

Given that there has been some recent press coverage of the online procedure, I reiterate the important point I made earlier: the principle of open justice will be maintained for cases dealt with under this new online procedure. Magistrates’ courts will publish the result of these proceedings in the usual way and, and I said earlier, various measures in the Bill will actually mean that the press get more material here than they would from a traditional format.

Amendment 34 to Clause 9 would prevent the courts having a power to proceed with trial allocation decisions for children who fail to appear at their hearing without an acceptable reason and where it would have been in the interests of justice to progress the case. It is important that all cases, but particularly cases involving children, are progressed as expeditiously as possible, so that interventions to tackle offending are not delayed. This provision recognises that with the increased vulnerability of child defendants there will need to be additional safeguards.

Clause 9(5) creates a new, but clearly defined, set of circumstances that would enable a court to allocate a child’s case in their absence. A point to underline is that these conditions are far more stringent than those prescribed for adults, even though children cannot elect for jury trial.

There are essentially five conditions. The first is that the child has been invited, but failed, to provide an online indication of plea and that, in accordance with Clause 14, the court should, where appropriate, have made sure that the child’s parent or guardian was aware of the written proceedings. The second condition is that the child has then also failed to appear at the subsequent allocation hearing. The third is that the court must be satisfied that the child was served with adequate notice of the hearing or had previously appeared at a hearing and was therefore aware of the proceedings. The fourth condition is that the court does not consider that there is an acceptable reason for the child’s failure to appear. The fifth is that the court must be satisfied that it would not be contrary to the interests of justice to proceed to allocate the case in the child’s absence. There are a number of other existing safeguards—I will not go through them all—for example, when a child is arrested, the law requires that a parent or guardian must be notified as soon as possible. For prosecutions initiated by summons or postal requisition, the notice is also sent to the child’s parents or guardian.

Amendment 35 would add a sunset clause, which would essentially switch off the provisions in Clauses 6 to 9 two years after Royal Assent, unless Parliament passed a resolution to prevent it. I understand that the intention is to ensure that defendants are not disadvantaged, but I suggest it is unnecessary for three reasons.

First, as the Committee will appreciate, magistrates’ courts already have powers to allocate in the defendant’s absence. The online procedures are already used effectively in magistrates’ courts; we are simply extending the circumstances in which these powers can be used. Secondly, these measures do not replace current tried and tested procedures; they offer more options to defendants to save time and reduce the number of unnecessary appearances at court. If a defendant does not want to go online, the proceedings simply default to the usual court-based proceedings on their allotted hearing date. Thirdly, as I have said, there are safeguards to protect defendants who need protection, particularly children but also others, recognising that we have a distinct youth justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar]

38: After Clause 23, insert the following new Clause—
“Power to make certain provision about dispute-resolution services
(1) This section applies to Online Procedure Rules which provide—(a) for the transfer by electronic means of information held for the purposes of an online dispute-resolution service to a court or tribunal, or(b) for a court or tribunal to take into account, for any purpose, steps that a party to proceedings has or has not taken in relation to an online dispute-resolution service.(2) The Rules may be expressed so that their application in relation to a particular service depends on things done by a particular person from time to time.(3) The Rules may, for example, refer to such services as—(a) appear from time to time in a list published by a particular person, or(b) are from time to time certified by a particular person as complying with particular standards.(4) In this section—“online dispute-resolution service” means a service accessible by electronic means for facilitating the resolution of disputes without legal proceedings;“particular person” and “particular standards” include, respectively, a person of a particular description and standards of a particular description.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause enables Online Procedure Rules to allow things done by third parties to determine the application of the Rules to particular online dispute-resolution services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am conscious that there is another amendment in this group, Amendment 39, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. I hope the Committee will find it helpful if I speak to my amendment and then respond in the normal way to the noble Lord’s amendment.

Both amendments relate to the new Online Procedure Rule Committee, OPRC, created by the Bill. Amendment 38 seeks to give, by way of a new clause, greater flexibility to the Online Procedure Rule Committee when it comes to establishing standards relating to dispute resolution conducted online before court proceedings are initiated. This will enable parties who try to resolve their dispute online prior to commencing legal proceedings to then transfer into the legal process in a seamless and efficient way if it proves impossible to resolve some or all of their dispute. The key point is that the IT processes will enable these pre-action dispute resolution processes to roll over into the online legal processes where that is necessary, saving parties time and cost in preparing a new claim. I am grateful to members of the Committee who have taken time to engage with me on this proposed government amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister rightly said that his Amendment 38 is a modest one, but this group of amendments raises more general concerns, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, has just explained.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, may be interested to know, in the light of his earlier observations, that Clause 19 gives the Minister a power to make rules that require that specified kinds of legal proceedings “must” be conducted, progressed or disposed of by electronic means. The Minister could say, in principle, that all cases in the Court of Appeal of a civil nature will not be conducted by oral hearings; they will disposed of by pressing a button on the computer, and the judge will then decide. That is quite a remarkable power, the noble Lord may think.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

Look at subsection (6).

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The Minister draws my attention to subsection (6), which allows a person to choose to do so by non-electronic means, but that is not easy to reconcile with the provision I have just referred to in Clause 19(1)(b). If the Minister can assure me that the person who is the litigant—either the claimant or the defendant—can always choose in all cases to have an oral hearing in the court, then I would be very pleased indeed to hear that.

When we debated provisions in very similar form in 2019 in Committee and, I think, on Report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, assured the House that the Government’s intention was to introduce online procedures only for civil money claims up to the value of £25,000. I ask the Minister whether that remains the intention of the Ministry of Justice. Does it have any plans to introduce these online procedures, including those covered by his Amendment 38, for any other civil proceedings?

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I will speak first to government Amendment 38, which makes provision for pre-action dispute resolution services and procedures to be taken into the overall procedure within the Online Procedure Rules. In principle, we particularly welcome this recognition of the importance of alternative dispute resolution procedures in the civil justice context. We accept the Government’s point that it is even more important in the context of online procedures, where modernisation and simplicity of approach are at the forefront of the Government’s aims, than it is in the context of conventional procedures to make provision for online alternative dispute resolution procedures to be brought into the overall picture.

However, what is proposed is a power only; it is not even really a template, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, pointed out, although not in those words. We simply stress how important it will be, in the context of the Online Procedure Rules, to integrate the arrangements to facilitate ADR into online procedures in a clear way. The noble and learned Lord pointed out particular areas where the provisions were very unclear about who would be responsible for those procedures and how they would be authorised, but I would welcome clarification from the Government as to how they propose to proceed in that regard.

Amendment 39 on online procedural assistance in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, and to which I have added my name, is comprehensive. At its heart is the aim in proposed subsection (1) of introducing a statutory duty to provide assistance to those who need help navigating online procedures. That is an adjunct to the importance attached to them in the Bill itself. We of course accept that the Government intend to ensure the availability of assistance with the new procedures and we welcome the introduction of these online procedures. We were also reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, of the limitations of the procedures that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, promised when he was Advocate-General and we last debated these procedures. Our concern is that what the Bill proposes is very much wider and could, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, cover family proceedings, proceedings for injunctive relief—almost any proceedings of whatever magnitude. However that might be, the importance of online assistance becomes greater with the importance of the proceedings to the parties.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, talked about digital exclusion by virtue of skills, but it is not only a question of skills. She is absolutely right that many people are unable to handle digital technology through age, disability or vulnerability, as well as, of course, through lack of education or simply not having kept up with advances in technology. There is also the lack of availability of fast broadband and an inability to access the internet in the way those of us who live in areas of fast broadband are becoming completely used to. There is the availability of technology and computers. The answer might be that people can go to their local library, but for many people in rural areas, local libraries are very distant and lacking in decent equipment. It is not enough to say that anybody can access a computer.

That ties in with the financial abilities and means of people who may be litigants. If they do not have the equipment, as well as not having the skills, they cannot access it. For us, the cardinal principle is that no one, however unable to access digital procedures without help for whatever reason, should be disadvantaged by the new procedures. That can only be answered by a duty upon the Lord Chancellor to provide digital and online assistance. There needs to be assistance to a sufficient level that every litigant understands the procedures and how they are to be implemented and is able to have personal, telephone or remote appointments, whatever is necessary, to enable them to participate in procedures at every stage online. As per our amendment, this also means assistance with language in terms of interpretation or translation for those for whom English is not their first language.

An important part of our amendment is the prescription of an annual evaluation of online procedural assistance and the collection of information about how it is proceeding. I add only this: we are concerned to see that it will remain possible to take all steps in proceedings by paper means. This has been promised by the Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out. I am confident that the number of those requiring step assistance by paper proceedings will reduce as time passes. However, the ability to take all steps on paper, at any stage, must remain. This is essential to honour the fundamental principle of our justice system that we preserve universal access to enable people to enforce and defend their rights.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I will first say a word about the amendment which I have put before the Committee. Dispute resolution is fundamental, and it is becoming ever more important. Although the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to alternative dispute resolution, as he may have heard me say before, we have sought to drop the “A”. We do not call it ADR anymore, we call it DR, because we do not see it as alternative, like alternative medicine. I can see my postbag about to grow, but I am going to say it anyway: alternative medicine is sometimes seen as somewhat outré and whether it actually works is questionable. Dispute resolution is not unusual; it is now a central part of resolving disputes and we know that it works. We want to ensure that people who engage in dispute resolution can do so online and—I will come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in a moment—that they can also vindicate their legal rights online when it is appropriate to do so. I give the example that I have given before: there is a small trader who has a debt of £13,000 and the hearing is going to last for 90 minutes. Do we expect that person to take a day off work and go to the local county court and hang around when, instead, they could continue their job and—I was going to say “dial in” for the benefit for the mystery person on the Opposition Front Bench—go online, engage in the court hearing and vindicate their legal rights.

I will come back to the safeguards in a moment. Properly used, the online procedures are a way of enabling people to vindicate their legal rights. In justice, like in many other parts of our society, we have been forced to go online more during the pandemic and we have seen that it can work. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, talked about when I was previously at the Bar. Before I joined your Lordships’ House, I had to take a three-week trial entirely online. That trial could not—and probably would not—have taken place five years ago, but it took place online. I accept that it was a commercial case, and I will come to the points about family and other cases a little later. However, these proceedings and the Online Procedure Rule Committee are focused on ensuring that the civil justice system can respond to, and is appropriate for, the sort of world in which we now live.

Having said that, the noble Baroness—

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

I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord and am grateful for him giving way. May I draw him back to Amendment 38? I completely accept and take on the chin his criticism of my use of the word “alternative”, but I used it as a distinction from procedures by court. I understand his Amendment 38 to be concerned with out of court procedures, with what I used to call “alternative dispute resolution” procedures, but never will again. Nevertheless, it is concerned with integrating, as I understand it, dispute resolution procedures organised by third parties, which are not applicable to the example that he gave of having your rights vindicated by reference to the procedures that are allowed by Clause 19 of having court procedures online, which is slightly different.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right, but I was seeking to make the point more broadly. I will come to the court procedures, but the noble Lord is right: Amendment 38 seeks to ensure that, when people go to pre-court dispute resolution—I think everybody in the Committee wants to encourage that—if the case does not settle in whole or even in part, they can seamlessly transition to the online court procedure. They do not have to repopulate forms or send in new documents. Of course, I emphasise the mediation bit of it remains without prejudice, obviously, that is fundamental to mediation. Amendment 38 is to ensure that there is a set of protocols, essentially, to make sure that we can have that seamless transition. It is part of enabling people to vindicate their legal rights, either by way of an out of court settlement, with which they are satisfied, or by migrating into the online court space.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

May I assist the Minister with an illustration? Four weeks ago, a close relative was owed a significant sum of money and used dispute resolution procedures. He filled in a claim form online, and the debtor filled in a claim form also online. There was a half-hour hearing on the telephone with a judge who reserved his judgment and fortunately found judgment for my relative very quickly after. It shows that it can be done. In that sort of circumstance, it saves days of problems in filling out written documents and attending at court.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. Absolutely, this is about enabling people to vindicate their legal rights. The Government are conscious—we put a clause in the Bill specifically for this reason—that we need to safeguard those who cannot get online, either because they do not have proper broadband or proper facilities or because they are incapable for whatever reason of using computers.

I anticipated that it would be the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who spoke, so I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman for that. She made absolutely the right point. We agree that assistance may well be needed. Although we do not accept Amendment 39, that is because the Bill already places a duty on the Lord Chancellor to arrange for such support. Extensive measures, which I will mention, have been put in place to make sure that assistance is provided to those who need it. We need to distinguish between online procedures, that is, the form-filling applications, and an online hearing. The two things are quite different.

So far as online procedures are concerned, I recognise that some users may find it difficult to use digital services. Therefore, I should make it absolutely clear that there will be no change in the current options to use paper forms and processes. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, says, the cardinal principle is that nobody will be disadvantaged.

For those who choose to conduct proceedings using paper routes, they will be available in the same manner as at present. At HMCTS, we are improving and streamlining the paper routes and are committed to making sure that the level of service is the same no matter whether litigants are engaging with the justice system through online or offline routes. We will therefore be offering substantial support for those who want to use online routes and who can do so with support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I am increasingly bewildered by these answers. I have obviously misunderstood this clause, but it says that the rules

“may authorise or require the parties … to participate in hearings, including the hearing at which the proceedings are disposed of, by electronic means.”

I thought that meant you could have rules that said this sort of case has to be dealt with at an electronic hearing, which does not give the judge a discretion. Is it the position that this is all subject to an overarching discretion in a judge to say that the hearing can be dealt with in person?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

That is the point I was going to come to. Here we are dealing with the rules set out by the Online Procedure Rules Committee. That is not the Lord Chancellor. I want to show the Committee that the Online Procedure Rule Committee is set out in Clause 22, and in the usual way it is a committee which is not run by the Government but is run in the way that the procedure rule committees are run, which is ultimately under the control of the judiciary. The central point is that ultimate control rests with the judiciary.

As I understood it, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was that two safeguards are in place in relation to the powers to make amendments in Clause 27, which states:

“The Lord Chancellor may by regulations amend, repeal or revoke any enactment to the extent that the Lord Chancellor considers necessary or desirable in consequence of, or in order to facilitate the making of, Online Procedure Rules.”


I cite—this goes back to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in relation to a different issue—subsection (3), which is a consultation requirement with the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals, and subsection (5), which states:

“Regulations under this section that amend or repeal any provision of an Act are subject to affirmative resolution procedure”.


I suggest that that is very important. So the architecture here means that, ultimately, judges retain control, in practice, of what is heard online and what is heard in court.

However, there will be increasingly firm directions and defaults as to what is heard online and in court— I make no apologies for this. In my own area, the Commercial Court, although you can ask for an in-person hearing if there is a good reason, it is now the default that, if you have an application for half an hour or one hour in front of a judge, it will be online, because that saves time and money and provides access to justice.

On family courts, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, asked about, I had discussions very recently with the President of the Family Division about this. Again, this is ultimately a matter for the judges, but he was saying that it is actually better to have certain hearings online. For example, if everything has been agreed between the parents and it is essentially a consent hearing, that will be done online. I am sure that it would be inconceivable that a public law family hearing, for example, where the court is taking a child away from parents, would be done online. But, ultimately, that is a matter for the judges.

I regret that, during the pandemic, there were cases where that had to be done, unfortunately, because of the need to protect children—because, when push comes to shove, protecting children is more important than having a face-to-face hearing. But, in normal circumstances, one would certainly expect that that sort of hearing would be face to face—but that is not a matter for Government Ministers or the Lord Chancellor.

These provisions seek to set up the Online Procedure Rule Committee, which will have the same sorts of powers for online procedures as the current rules committees have for the current procedures, whether that is the Family Procedure Rule Committee, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee, the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee or the rules committee for the Court of Protection—there are a number of different rules committees—

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My concern is not about online hearings, because they do take place and may be convenient in some circumstances; it is that Chapter 2 allows for no hearings at all. It allows for legal disputes, if the Online Procedure Rule Committee so authorises, to be conducted entirely electronically, which means by the submission of arguments in writing. The Minister really needs to recognise that that is authorised by Clause 19. He says that this is only if the independent Online Procedure Rule Committee so decides, but will he accept that, under Clause 22, that committee consists of three people who are appointed by the Lord Chief Justice and three people who are appointed by the Lord Chancellor, so the Lord Chancellor has a very considerable influence over the composition of that committee?

The Minister may be coming to this question. Does it remain the intention of the Government—who clearly have a very influential role in this—that these provisions should be used only for money claims up to £25,000? The origin of that origin, as the Minister will confirm, was the report of Sir Michael Briggs, now Lord Justice Briggs. He investigated these matters and proposed a £25,000 limit which would always apply to this category of case. There would be no hearing. It would be conducted entirely electronically—although perhaps, in exceptional cases, the judge would have a discretion to decide that the matter would be conducted in an oral hearing.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is absolutely right about the three/three appointments, but I would respectfully direct his attention to two features of Clause 22. First, whom the Lord Chancellor can appoint is circumscribed by subsection (4). One of the three has to be a barrister, solicitor or legal executive. The second must have

“experience in, and knowledge of, the lay advice sector”.

The third is somebody

“who has experience in, and knowledge of, information technology relating to end-users’ experience of internet portals.”

The second safeguard is in subsection (7):

“Before appointing a person under subsection (4)(a)”


there is a requirement on the Lord Chancellor to consult with

“the Lord Chief Justice … the Senior President of Tribunals, and … the relevant authorised body.”

So this does not enable the Lord Chancellor just to appoint three friendly faces—although I am sure no Lord Chancellor would do so. They must be people with a particular expertise, and there is a consultation requirement. I accept that the Lord Chief Justice, the Senior President of Tribunals or the authorised body do not have a veto, but, in the real world, it will ensure that we have proper people on the committee.

If I may, I will come back to the £25,000 point in a moment. I am conscious that I want to finish giving the Committee an assurance about assistance, so I will finish this point and then come back to the £25,000 point.

The assistance currently provided by HMCTS is offered over the phone through our Courts and Tribunal Service Centres. HMCTS has also designed and tested a digital support service to ensure that access is available even for those who need more intense support. The contract was awarded to We Are Digital in late 2021. We expect full national coverage by the late spring of this year. Users will be able to attend in-person appointments. It will also be possible for a trainer to attend an applicant’s home for in-home, face-to-face support. If the noble Baroness passes to me confidentially the name of the relevant individual, I might even be able to arrange a home visit. One-to-one video appointments will also be available for those who already have access to online services, as well as the support over the phone. Therefore, I believe that this level of support, combined with the duty in the Bill, is enough to ensure that the digitally excluded receive the support that they need.

Finally, I turn to the outstanding question from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I have been able to check while I have been on my feet. The position is that the legislation is not limited expressly to those claims. I am told that they are first in line to be used under these procedures. The noble Lord’s question went further and asked what was anticipated would be done after that. I will write to the noble Lord once I have an answer which I am satisfied is absolutely clear. I am concerned to make it very clear to the Committee that civil justice in particular is going to change. It has changed and it will change. For example, there does not seem to be any clear reason why a claim of £25,000 would be done online and not one of £26,000. One always has to have a limit but, once we accept that justice can be delivered online, the question then is what cases are suitable. I will write to the noble Lord on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The relative of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is the proof that we all want. We are also aware that the judges will have an incredibly important role in determining the rules. The fact that the judges will have an important role in determining the rules does not mean that Ministers should not tell Parliament what the Online Procedure Rule Committee has in mind. We should expect to be told, for example in relation to money claims, whether, if £25,000 is okay online, £25 million is okay online and required to be online. If that is the vision, tell us, so that Parliament can properly debate it.

In relation to family matters, I am hugely unimpressed by the Minister referring to consent orders, because almost every consent order now is already dealt with online, in the sense that it will be dealt with by emails. We should be told if it will go beyond the sorts of things that I referred to earlier—not because we will necessarily object to it but because we can then debate it. Of course, we are as keen as he is to go towards the future, but we would like to know what the Government’s view of the future is. If the Minister wants to write to us, that is fine, but on Report this might be quite important.

I will say just one more thing. I probably missed it, but I am keen to know who these people were who were going to approve the dispute resolution alternatives to court that are referred to in Amendment 38.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

Let me deal with that last point. Amendment 38 is not about approving the persons but approving the process. For example, the Online Procedure Rule Committee will say, “This is the protocol” and there will be Wolfson Mediation Services and Falconer Mediation Services and people can choose in a market who they go to. Of course, those services which offer seamless transition to the online courts service are likely to be better placed in the market, because they will have an advantage. However, it will be up to the providers to set up their services so that people can seamlessly transfer in. The Online Procedure Rule Committee will set up the protocol, so that you know what you are aiming at and the way that you must set up your online procedures so that, if the case does not settle, the data can transfer into the court process.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

What is envisaged in Amendment 38 is that, if it is Falconer Services or Wolfson Services, somebody has to say that they are okay. Who will be saying whether those services are okay?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

That is not what Amendment 38 is aimed at. It is not about accrediting mediation services. It is about saying to mediation services, “If you want people who are using your services, if the case does not settle, to be able to integrate seamlessly into the online court space, these are the protocols to do it”. It is a process point, not a mediation accrediting point. There is a separate issue out there about accrediting mediators. The noble and learned Lord will be aware that there are a number of entities that seek to accredit mediators. There are also a number of bodies such as CEDA in that space. That is an important issue but a separate one to the point of Amendment 38.

I will write about what is online because this is a much bigger point than the Online Procedure Rule Committee. Ultimately judges—I emphasise this point—decide what is online and what is not. At the moment, judges decide whether you get a hearing at all. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will be aware—to give an example from my background, but it appears in other areas of the law as well—if you appeal an arbitration award to the commercial courts, the judge may say no without giving you a hearing at all, either because you do not pass the permission threshold or because you do but the judge decides to have the hearing on paper. There is therefore no substantive difference between that and what is proposed here.

As to what the Online Procedure Rule Committee will do, I am afraid I will not be able to assist the Committee because the Online Procedure Rule Committee has not been set up yet; there are no people on it and it does not exist. This legislation sets out what the Online Procedure Rule Committee will be looking at. I will, however, look again at what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said, and I will write if I can.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. He correctly points out that there are occasions where there is no oral hearing and the judge so decides. Would he not accept, however, that there is a fundamental difference between that and a decision being taken, at the encouragement of the Master of the Rolls and certain others in the legal profession, to do away with oral hearings in categories of case because it is quicker and cheaper to do so?

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has made the point but I join with him; it would be a matter of policy and of great significance were a decision to be taken by the Online Procedure Rule Committee that, for example, all civil claims for money are no longer to have oral hearings but to be determined on paper. There need to be some criteria for the exercise of these very broad powers that Parliament is conferring. There is no parliamentary approval of these new rules as I understand it, so it is a matter of enormous concern.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

With respect, of course I understand the point the noble Lord has made, and I will write to try to put a little more flesh on the bones. The last point he makes is in some ways perhaps the most important because I have seen two sides of this coin. The point the noble Lord has just made is that Parliament should have the final say on court procedures because, ultimately, it should not be for judges to decide whether you have a hearing; there should be a parliamentary override.

In a completely separate issue that I have been dealing with, child trust funds, I have sought to have a better procedure in the Court of Protection. It has been quite properly and very firmly pointed out to me that, ultimately, it is a matter for judges, not Ministers or even Parliament, to decide how the courts are run. This is a difficult topic. I take the point the noble Lord has made. I will write to him and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and copy it generally to the Committee.

Amendment 38 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for tabling these amendments so quickly; I am pretty sure we would have tabled something almost identical. She is right in everything that she said, and she did so succinctly but effectively. I shall address Amendments 40, 42 and 43 in her name as well as Amendments 41, 44, 45 and 53 tabled by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby.

As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, there is a theme running through this group: putting families at the heart of this process. There are long-standing concerns about the way that the process often takes place. It is unfortunate that the Government have not taken this opportunity to consider the issue as fully as they could have done. We are worried that efficiency and streamlining of processes should not in any way bring about a sense that these matters are to be treated with less solemnity or seriousness than they should be. We are very nervous that the Government are permanently changing procedures because of a backlog following Covid-19; we understand that that needs to be dealt with, but the needs of families must be central to the Government’s thinking here and at the moment I do not think they are.

We all appreciate that there is widespread inconsistency with coroners and that something of a postcode lottery is developing. I recommend the Justice Select Committee’s report to Members of the Committee. It is a thorough and excellent piece of work; the Government would do well to consider it and implement more of its recommendations. One of the suggestions that the Select Committee made was the introduction of a national service. As I say, the Government have missed an opportunity to go much further than the measures before us, which I am afraid seem motivated predominantly by a need to make up ground after the pandemic.

The current law, the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, holds that where a coroner has commenced an investigation, they must proceed to an inquest unless the cause of death becomes clear in a post-mortem examination. The Government are arguing now that cause of death can be established by what they call “other means”, and they give the example of medical records. They need to be incredibly careful not to create a situation where the justification for discontinuing is based on evidence that cannot be challenged by the family or by others.

My good friend Andy Slaughter in the other place gave a long list of examples, which he probably got from inquest, showing clearly the need for safeguards, particularly the need to allow the family to consent to discontinuation and for such consent to be properly informed. I shall read from Hansard an example that he gave, of Laura Booth. It will just take a minute to read it, but I think it will help us to appreciate the seriousness of the issues that we are considering:

“Laura sadly died on 19 October 2016 at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital in Sheffield. Laura went into hospital for a routine eye procedure, but in hospital she became unwell and developed malnutrition due to inadequate management of her nutritional needs. The coroner overseeing the investigation into Laura’s death was initially not planning to hold an inquest because the death was seen to be from natural causes. However, Laura’s family and BBC journalists fought for the coroner to hold an inquest. The inquest reached the hard-hitting conclusion that Laura’s death was contributed to by neglect. A prevention of future deaths report issued by the coroner to the Royal Hallamshire Hospital noted serious concerns about the staff’s lack of knowledge and understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and recommended that families should be better consulted in best-interests meetings.”—[Official Report, Commons, Judicial Review and Courts Bill Committee, 18/11/21; col. 334.]


So this really matters. Inquests play a vital role in making sure that loved ones understand the reasons for a death.

Amendment 41 would provide that the Lord Chancellor should establish an appeals process for families who disagree with the decision to discontinue an investigation. We think that is an important safeguard, and it would rightly respect the interests of those whose closest have died. We see it as an anomaly that no right of appeal exists for families in that situation.

Amendment 44 would prevent an inquest being conducted by telephone or other means that were audio-only. We think that audio-only risks hindering engagement with families, and it may be inappropriate in these circumstances.

Amendment 45 would ensure that remote inquest hearings and pre-inquest hearings were still be held in a manner accessible to the public. We think this is important for public confidence, for scrutiny and for challenge. We are worried that measures in the Bill designed to streamline processes will make it more difficult for families to be active participants in the process when all the evidence is that we should be taking steps to help their participation.

We strongly support Amendment 42, which would ensure that inquests were not held without a hearing if that was against the wishes of the family. To do so, as well as being incredibly insensitive, would deprive the family of the opportunity to explore all available evidence and limit their ability to scrutinise the accounts provided by relevant authorities, including by hearing oral evidence and questioning key witnesses. I am sorry the Government are taking the route that they are taking, and I am sure we will want to continue to press them on this as we progress.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to coroners’ inquests, and include government and non-government amendments. I will begin with those tabled by noble Lords who have spoken and then come to the government amendment at the end.

Before I do that, I should inform the Committee that the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of St Albans has kindly sent me a note, because his Amendments 50A and 50B are in this group. As he is serving elsewhere, in Committee on the Building Safety Bill, he is unable to join this Committee this afternoon. I do not know whether this is normally done, but unless the Committee objects, I propose to write to him setting out substantially what I would have said had he been here and I will circulate the letter, because even though the amendments are not formally moved, the right reverend Prelate raises points which he has raised in the House on previous occasions.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Subject to the views of the Committee, that sounds eminently sensible. In case it is necessary, perhaps I might say that I support those amendments and would not want to deprive the right reverend Prelate of the opportunity to bring them back to the House at a later stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I was not seeking to take any procedural point. Rather than take time this afternoon, because we have not had a debate on the amendments, I will set out the position in writing and copy the letter appropriately.

Before taking the amendments in turn, perhaps I may make an important point which is central to this discussion, which is that coroners—

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am sorry, I know that we are pushed for time and there are important matters that we want to get on to. I do not know about other noble Lords, but I would appreciate hearing the Government’s position on Amendments 50A and 50B. Is that possible?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

It certainly is. I had prepared to respond to the amendments and am happy to do so if the Committee finds that more helpful. I see some nodding heads, in which case I will do it that way instead. I will obviously direct the right reverend Prelate to Hansard. I am very grateful.

A central point which is really important is that coroners are judicial office holders—whether they go back to William the Conqueror is not directly relevant for these purposes, although it was interesting. That point is important: they are not administrators or decision-makers; they are judicial office holders. Ultimately, it is therefore up to the coroner, circumscribed by statute, how to conduct their investigations and inquests. I respectfully ask the Committee to bear that in mind when considering a number of these amendments, to which I will now turn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

The Minister has said we want coroners’ inquests to remain inquisitorial. In practice, they are adversarial. The ancient position of a coroner does not allow the proper adversarial safeguards to be in place. I would like the Government to rethink that position and consider whether it is appropriate at this time.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I can accept two points there. I can accept that I and the Government will reconsider it. We certainly will think about it. This is a bit of a chestnut point, if I may say so; it has been discussed on a number of occasions. But the Government’s current position is that we want coroners’ inquests to be inquisitorial and not adversarial. Secondly, I accept, as a consequence of that, that we do not have adversarial safeguards. But that is consequent on the first point; the inquests are not adversarial.

There is a real problem, I would suggest, in changing the nature of a coroner’s inquest to being adversarial. I accept there will be particular inquests where it is appropriate for people to be legally represented. I do not want to mix the groups up, but we will discuss in the next group the issues of legal aid, exceptional case funding, et cetera. But the central fact is that the inquest is there to determine who the deceased is, where he died—I will say he—when he died and how he died, but not why he died. That is an important point.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are getting to the heart of it, in a sense, because the Government contend that these processes are not adversarial. I understand why they are doing that. However, I am increasingly of the impression that what the Minister has just said has absolutely no grounding in reality. The lived experience of extremely vulnerable people in this context reveals that the processes are deeply adversarial. Their experience does not align with what the Minister has just said. It is unfortunate that the Government do not seem able to appreciate this in their consideration of these amendments.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

Of course I understand that point, in the sense that I too have read the material of people who have been involved in inquests. I have read some of the material from the various groups which have been lobbying for changes in this area. I hope that I have set out the Government’s position fairly. As we all recognise, the point being made to me is fundamental. I do not want to keep repeating it in response to each amendment, but I certainly accept that what I have just said underpins the Government’s response to a number of these amendments. Therefore, I absolutely accept and understand the noble Baroness’s position; that is, because she disagrees with me on this fundamental point, necessarily she will disagree with me on a number of these amendments because they are underpinned by the same point—

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Whether the process is inquisitorial or adversarial, surely you are entitled to basic fairness. This means you are entitled to having a say on what is going on and an opportunity to make proper representations. This is the case whether you are either a family member saying, for example, that your loved one is the victim of a criminal offence by the police, or you are a police officer being accused of manslaughter. Indeed, the Minister has just said that there would be a coroner at the inquest. Therefore, I am not sure why—whether it is inquisitorial or adversarial —you are to be deprived of that basic fairness.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

The fundamental point is: who is the “you”? Who are the parties to an inquest? As I was saying earlier, you do not have “parties” in inquests, in the same way that you do in adversarial proceedings. Of course, there are inquests where legal aid is provided and family members—or, indeed, other people—turn up with lawyers. However, as a Government, we certainly do not want the general inquisitorial procedures, in the normal run of an inquest, to become adversarial. I understand that this is a point of principle between us; this is not a point of detail.

This point will underpin a number of the responses which I am going to give. I turn to Amendment 42, which would require the coroner to obtain consent from interested persons, including bereaved families, before determining whether to deal with an inquest on the papers. Clause 39 has been designed to give coroners the flexibility to conduct inquests without a hearing, where there is no need to hold one. They would exercise that power judiciously, because they are judicial officeholders, in cases where they consider them to be non-contentious, where there is no concern about the cause of death, or where the family have indicated that they do not wish to attend a hearing.

To return to the point I started with: because coroners are independent judicial officeholders, introducing the concept of consent into their decision-making process would cut across their judicial independence and fetter their discretion. The coroner would still be required to hold inquests with a hearing, in cases which require one. The Chief Coroner would issue guidance to coroners on how they should exercise their discretion.

Amendments 43, 44, 45 and 53 all relate to remote hearings. The purpose of Amendment 43 is to ensure that additional safeguards are met before a coroner can hold a remote hearing. The position here is that coroners have always been able to conduct hearings with virtual elements, but the coroner and the jury, if there is one, must be physically present in the courtroom. Clause 40 allows all participants to participate in a remote hearing.

As we have said on previous groups about magistrates and jurors, throughout the pandemic, coroners’ courts have also worked very hard to keep their services running. They have taken advantage of the benefits of remote hearings to keep inquest participants safe. Key witnesses, who often could be front-line doctors, have been able to focus on their primary role and attend remotely. Clause 40 ensures that coroners can continue to operate remotely, when they regard it as appropriate. Again, we expect that, being judicial officeholders, coroners would work with interested persons to address any concerns that they may have regarding remote hearings. Again, the Chief Coroner is expected to provide guidance on any law changes.

Amendment 44 deals with remote hearings. The short point here is that there may be instances where participants might prefer or need to participate in a remote hearing only by audio, without video; perhaps that is the only way that they can participate if they are based abroad, for example, and there are technical limitations to how they can access the hearing. As we understand it, the amendment would exclude those participants from participating in the hearing remotely—

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is not the intention; it is that the hearing in its entirety should not be conducted by audio only. The amendment would not prevent someone participating by audio only.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I am grateful for that clarification, but the same point would apply. If the only people who are interested—I am using that word in the technical sense—in the inquest can participate only by audio link, the coroner would have to either not hold the inquest and adjourn it or hold it, so to speak, in a room, despite those interested people not being able to be there. I will consider again whether what the noble Baroness has said resolves my concerns, but I do not think that it does. Certainly, we are concerned to make sure that an inquest can still go ahead when, for some reason, everyone relevant can participate only by way of audio.

I assure the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that what underpins this and Parliament giving coroners these powers is concern for families. We want people to be able to participate, and we are conscious that some people may only be able to participate through technical means or audio only.

Amendment 45 seeks to ensure that remote inquest hearings and pre-inquest hearings are heard in a manner that is accessible to the public. In this regard, Clause 40 is designed to complement Clause 166 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is currently in the other place. Clause 166 provides for wider remote participation in court proceedings, under the direction of the court, and it covers a number of courts, including coroners’ courts. So, Clause 166 will ensure that justice remains accessible to the public, regardless of how the hearing is conducted. Again, the Chief Coroner will provide additional guidance on the use of remote hearings to ensure that coroners’ inquest hearings remain accessible to the public, as set out in Rule 11 of the Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beith (LD)]

It is not just human nature; it is the practical difficulty of registering deaths and making appointments in coroners’ offices, because registrars’ and coroners’ offices have very limited not just opening hours but opening days. This has been particularly marked during the pandemic.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I understand that, certainly from my postbag. I should say that coroners work extremely hard, but the pandemic has caused a real problem. I do not want to go back to the online discussion, but we hope that enabling people to do that sort of thing online will help. I certainly take the noble Lord’s point.

To solve this, the amendments in my name will enable a coroner to provide the registrar with the information required for the registration to take place on the basis of that information. I should make it clear that we are not introducing new duties on coroners or removing the duty on qualified informants to provide information. It is intended to be used in those exceptional circumstances where qualified informants are unable or unwilling—often for good reason, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said—to discharge their duties. The effect will therefore be that the death will not go unregistered. We think that about 200 of these cases happen a year. They affect the accuracy of records, but there is also the potential for fraudulent use of the identity of an unregistered deceased person, since the identity has not been closed by the death being registered. It is not quite Day of the Jackal territory, but there is potential for fraud there. We want to close that.

For those reasons, I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments and I will move mine when the time comes.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to every Member of the Committee who participated, in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for crystallising the fundamental inequality of arms that exists in so many inquests. Regardless of jurisprudence or terminology, that is how it is and how it feels for these families.

I am grateful, too, to my noble friend Lady Chapman of Darlington for making it crystal clear that evidence that cannot be challenged is going to be a huge problem, not least for compliance with Article 2, and for reminding us of the tragic case of Laura Booth, which is in the Inquest briefing in case noble Lords want to read it at leisure. There are other tragic cases of that kind, where, but for close scrutiny and the testing of evidence that initially seemed very straightforward, some real public interest problems, whether in our hospitals or elsewhere, would not have been revealed.

I am only slightly disappointed that the very busy right reverend Prelate disappointed my hope that it would be possible for a Lord spiritual to be in two places at the same time. None the less, I am very happy to take care of his amendments and ensure that he has the opportunity to bring them back next time. I think that is the right thing to do.

The Minister will forgive me, I hope, for being disappointed in the 100% defensive rebuttal of every single concern raised in this Committee. He reminds us that coroners are judicial officers and not mere administrators; of course, he is right about that. But he says that in total rebuttal of every safeguard and gentle constraint suggested—for example, the discretion to discontinue these vital investigations.

I cannot help but point out the contrast in the Government’s approach to this part and, for example, to Clauses 1 and 2. In Clause 1 we are told that it is perfectly acceptable for the legislature to constrain judicial thinking and discretion in quite convoluted ways, but here, when we want to put the needs and concerns of families into the equation, we are told that it is somehow an inappropriate constraint on the wonderful, inquisitorial, coronial province. We are reminded that coroners are inquisitorial and not adversarial, as if these terms of art are set not in aspic but in stone. I do not really care whether these are technically inquisitorial or adversarial—you can call them “Doris” as far as I am concerned. There are vital rights and interests being explored in this jurisdiction.

I am sorry to say that I do not know whether the government position is science fiction or space fantasy. In many cases these proceedings are tantamount to very difficult quasi-adversarial proceedings, but one side is silent. One side is silent because it does not have the language and resources to put its side of the picture. This is exacerbated in cases where very defensive public authorities, understandably, are heavily represented by Silks and so on. We cannot say that the full answer to that problem will be a technical, jurisprudential definition of inquisitorial versus adversarial proceedings. That is not reality at this moment in the 21st century.

I gently ask the Minister to consider meeting some representatives of the unrivalled NGO Inquest before Report. That organisation and those working within it have done so much work over the years with a number of bereaved families. I am sure they would at least help illuminate the Minister’s understanding of what some of these most difficult inquests are like for ordinary people. That would be my request to him. None the less, for the moment—but only for the moment, because having heard from my noble friend Lady Chapman and from the Liberal Democrats, I suspect that the Committee will want to return to this group on Report, and I obviously preserve the position for the spiritual Benches opposite—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar]

46: After Clause 42, insert the following new Clause—
“Provision of information to registrar when investigation discontinued
In section 23 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 (furnishing of information by coroner in connection with registration of death), after subsection (3) insert—“(4) Where a senior coroner— (a) discontinues an investigation under section 4 of the 2009 Act,(b) authorises the disposal of the body, and(c) sends to the registrar, on request by the registrar, a certificate stating any particulars required by this Act to be registered concerning the death (so far as they have been ascertained at the date of the certificate),the registrar shall in the prescribed form and manner register the death and those particulars, so far as they are not already registered.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause enables a coroner who has discontinued an investigation into a death without holding an inquest to supply information needed for the death to be registered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, if noble Lords will permit me, I would like to make a short intervention. I have not taken part at all in the debates on Part 2 because I wanted to find my feet more in this House. I do so as a member of the council of Justice and, until recently, president of the Civil Court Users Association. I certainly intend to get further involved on Part 2 when we get to Report.

To go back to what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, in the mists of time I was called to the Bar in 1963, and in the 1960s and 1970s, legal aid was one of the most socially important provisions that the Labour Government of 1945-51 had brought in. The other one, of course, was the National Health Service and it has been treading backwards ever since that Labour Government went out of power. It is very sad. I remember sitting on a lot of legal aid cases. The problem with legal aid cases was not the lack of spread of legal aid; it was the slowness of the fees coming in. Sometimes they took 18 months or two years to come in, but they did come in and they were very highly supportive of those involved in legal aid. As we see now, particularly in our discussions of coroners, legal aid is no longer supplying the social need that it set out to do, successfully, in 1945. It gets ever more depressing that there is not further support or further money available to support legal aid now, in our present age of the 2020s.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group, Amendments 47, 48 and 49, would introduce three new clauses on legal aid for inquests. Let me make two points right at the start. First, we have now heard about two colliery disasters. The Gresford disaster was something that my late grandfather used to talk about, although he was from south Wales and not north Wales. As a boy, and I have just been looking it up, one thing that stuck with me when he talked about it was the numbers: 266 people were killed in that disaster. Only 11 bodies were recovered because of the understandable, albeit controversial, decision to seal the districts. I remember as a young boy hearing him talk about how that added immensely to the grief that the families went through, because there was no body to bury. I was very moved, if I may say so respectfully, by the noble Lord’s reference to that.

Secondly, as a matter of introduction, it has been suggested by a number of noble Lords that I should meet Inquest. I hope I have established that my general approach is to meet anybody who reasonably wants to meet me. I would be very happy to meet Inquest; I will ask my office to arrange that. Of course, I am sympathetic to the difficulties facing all bereaved families. We certainly take the view that the bereaved family should be at the heart of any inquest process that follows a death. I set out on a previous group, and I will not repeat, the inquisitorial point: I know that is an issue on which we are not going to agree, so I just ask the Committee, respectfully, to take that as read.

It is against that background that I suggest that Amendments 47 and 49, which seek to expand access to legal aid at inquests, run counter to that approach. There is a risk that having additional lawyers at an inquest will not provide an overall improvement for the bereaved and could have the unintended consequence of turning an inquisitorial event into a significantly more complex defensive case, which could, in the majority of cases, prolong the distress of a bereaved family. I think it is important to recognise in this area that for every inquest such as that for Hillsborough—the Committee will appreciate that with my background I remember Hillsborough and I remember that night, as the news came in, very clearly—for every awful case like Hillsborough, there are thousands of, so to speak, normal, usual inquests up and down the country and we want to make sure that they remain inquisitorial. However, we recognise that inquests need to be a process that bereaved families can engage with properly. We have introduced a number of measures in this area; let me set out a few.

We have engaged with the Chief Coroner on training for coroners and their investigating officers; we have published new guidance on coroner services for bereaved people; we have developed a protocol which, among other things, ensures that where the state is represented, it will consider the number of lawyers instructed so as to support an inquisitorial approach; we have, building on the protocol, supported the legal services regulators—the Bar Standards Board and the Solicitors Regulation Authority—in their work to develop inquest-specific information to guide lawyers who represent at inquests. The regulators published a toolkit and competences for practitioners on 13 September last year.

Turning to legal aid and legal advice and assistance: for bereaved families who need advice and assistance, legal help is always available under the legal aid scheme, subject to a means and merits test. This can help preparation for an inquest, including help for families to decide what questions to ask.

For legal representation at an inquest, legal aid may be available under the exceptional case funding scheme, where certain criteria are met. Where those criteria are met, the Government are of the view that the process should be as straightforward as possible. I do not know whether Members of the Committee have picked this up, because it is very recent, but as of January this year there is no means test for an exceptional case funding application in relation to representation at an inquest or for legal help at an inquest where representation is granted. I appreciate that does not go as far as the amendment, but I hope it indicates that the Government have considered this and moved in this area.

Amendment 48 seeks to remove the means test for legal help prior to an inquest hearing. I have just said that as from January there is no means test for legal representation granted under the exceptional case funding scheme. This change will also provide non-means-tested legal help in relation to an inquest for which exceptional case funding has been granted for legal representation.

I hope that Members of the Committee are aware that we have been conducting a review of the legal aid means test as a whole across civil legal aid, which has been a substantial piece of work. I cannot give a date, but I hope that the review will be published very shortly. It might not go back to the position which the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, set out, but I hope that when Members of the Committee see the review, they will be interested in it and that it will engender some broad support.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

Bravo, bravo!

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

The noble Lord has not read it yet, but I will take the bravos in advance in case I get brickbats later. I hope it will be a piece of work which will find support. Given that ongoing work and while recognising there is a point of principle between us—I absolutely accept that—none the less, for today’s purposes, I respectfully invite the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, not to press the amendments.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Clearly, we will not push the amendments to a vote today. It is pleasing to hear the Minister recognise the problems that we are raising, so at least we have got somewhere. Too often, Ministers say, “Well this isn’t a problem; we don’t need to fix it”. I do not think that is what the Government are saying. I am pleased that the Minister has agreed to meet Inquest; that will be very helpful. We obviously reserve our right to come back to this matter at future stages.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Similarly, I indicate our hope that the Government will bring something forward. Should that not be the case, we will happily play our part in doing whatever we must to move this on.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, as this is the last group in Committee, it is nice to end on a point of general agreement rather than discord. Whoever put the groups together, I take my hat off to them.

I respectfully welcome the proposals in Amendment 51, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and am grateful to him for the time that he has given to me and my officials in discussing this. The amendment would allow pro bono cost orders to be made in tribunals, in much the same way as they are already available in the civil and family courts. This is a helpful proposal which will not only provide additional funding to the Access to Justice Foundation but—moving from pounds, shillings and pence to a statement of principle—importantly signals our support for the excellent work that is done pro bono by the legal profession up and down the country. Indeed, in the last group we heard an example of that from many years ago.

As I have already explained in meetings with the noble and learned Lord, we have two concerns about the amendment as drafted, though I underline that I am making not a point of principle but points of drafting. First, as drafted, it would apply to a very wide range of tribunals of different types, including tribunals for which the Government are not responsible; for example, professional disciplinary tribunals, such as those of the General Medical Council. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord and the Committee would agree that it would not be right for the Government to impose this measure on those tribunals that the Government are not responsible for, in circumstances where we have not been able to engage with them or seek their agreement. That is the first point: the ambit of the tribunals which we are talking about, although those for which the Government are responsible are, for these purposes, the vast majority, so that carve-out will not have too much of a practical effect, I hope.

There is a second point: issues of territorial extent. Again, as drafted, in Wales, it could impose measures on tribunals that are administered by the Welsh Government, while in Scotland, judges would not be able to make pro bono costs awards, even when they are dealing with reserved matters in reserved tribunals. That, again, is a drafting point I am confident we can discuss and agree on.

Therefore, I will formally invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment, but I assure him on the record that I and the Government remain entirely supportive of the principle behind his amendment. As he says, my learned friends the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are also supportive of the measure. The noble and learned Lord and I have met on a couple of occasions now to discuss the amendment ahead of today’s debate. I will certainly continue to discuss this issue with him ahead of Report, and I am very hopeful that we will be able, between us, to do something that will resolve this issue and meet the point he seeks to address in his amendment.

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

I think there is nothing more to say. I am very grateful to the Minister for those indications, and on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar]

52: Clause 48, page 58, line 15, at end insert “, except section (Provision of information to registrar when investigation discontinued)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the new Clause after Clause 42 in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar to be brought into force by regulations.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 21st February 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar]

That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.

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

My Lords, I beg to move.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

On a point of order, my Lords, questions on a Statement should have been for 15 minutes and not for 10 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Marks—I too enter this discussion with some trepidation. I will first set out the Labour Party’s overall view, since the debate on this group has been fairly wide-ranging. We believe that the proposals for judicial review in Clauses 1 and 2, which we will come to in group 4, are regressive and uncalled-for. More especially, when many aspects of the justice system are in crisis, we do not believe that there is a need for this review in the first place. The Ministry of Justice is trying to fix something that is not broken, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith. We believe that overall, the Government’s changes to the judicial review process will have a chilling effect on justice, deterring members of the public from bringing claims against public bodies and leaving many other victims of unlawful actions without redress. These are proposals that will make it harder for individuals to hold this Government to account. As a result, unlawful decisions made by this Government, or by any government or public body, will go unchallenged.

I put my name to Amendments 1, 4 and 5. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as ever, introduced those amendments very fully. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked me about Amendment 3. In my brief, I am embarrassed to say, it says that Amendment 3 is consequential on Amendments 1, 4 and 5; I have had a look at it while the debate has been progressing, and I cannot add any more to that. It may be that what I have been provided with is wrong in that respect.

Amendment 6 would, as set out in the explanatory statement,

“protect collateral challenges by ensuring that if a prospective-only or suspended quashing order is made, the illegality of the delegated legislation can be relied on as a defence in criminal proceedings. This would prevent individuals from being criminalised under defective and illegal ministerial powers.”

The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said that he did not think that the problem existed. It would be very useful if the Minister could confirm that he too does not think that the problem exists, because, in a sense, it is an inquiry about whether there is any potential for this problem existing. It would be helpful if the Minister were to confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has said.

My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer entered into a very interesting debate with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, about the development of suspended quashing orders through common law and whether that was appropriate. My noble and learned friend was very much against proposed new subsection (1)(b); he thought it was quite wrong to give power to judges to, effectively, change the law unilaterally and retrospectively. He argued very strongly that that was not the case.

That point was dwelled on by a number of noble Lords. It is not the point, really, that comes out in this group. We may return to some of the elements which were discussed on that point, but as I said, I enter this discussion with some trepidation, as I understand the amendments in my name—Amendments 1, 4 and 5—much more clearly. We will be debating further amendments to quashing orders in the next group, where we can further look at other prospective amendments. For now, I lend my support to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, the previous two contributors to the debate noted that they spoke on these matters with some trepidation. In responding to the amendments in this group, I declare a non-interest: unlike so many of your Lordships, I confess that I did not sit on, or even appear in, any of the various cases cited to the Committee. Therefore, with that significant handicap, I will instead start by reminding the Committee of the rationale for including Clause 1 in the Bill. However, in these remarks I will not address the list of factors in subsection (8), or the so-called presumption in subsection (9), because we will deal with those in later groups.

The clause aims to expand the remedies available in judicial review proceedings to provide more flexibility to the courts. As I put it at Second Reading, we want to put another couple of remedial tools into the judicial toolbox so that they can be used when appropriate. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that this has nothing to do with dismantling judicial review or an elective dictatorship. The Government and I recognise the importance of judicial review to good government, which is lawful government. But one also has to recognise that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, reminded us, we have lots of different sorts of cases where we want flexibility of remedy—and that judicial review applies to many decision-makers who cannot sensibly be described as “government” in the way that the noble Baroness was using that word.

The current position is that quashing is typically both immediate and retrospective, depriving the decision of ever having had legal effect. It is as if the decision had never been made; it is a legal nullity. This makes a quashing order something of a blunt instrument, and it can have unintended consequences when applied to nuanced problems.

The clause seeks to give the court a discretion to change quashing orders in two ways, as we have heard. The first is to allow the effects of a quashing order to be suspended for a period, as the court sees fit. The Independent Review of Administrative Law—I listened very carefully to the contribution of its chair, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks—recommended this additional remedial flexibility, and the clause therefore seeks to implement its recommendation. I agree with the noble Lord that the word “may” is critical to the way that this clause operates. The suspended quashing order allows courts to suspend the effect of an order for a period of time to allow the decision-maker to prepare for the effect of the quashing. This could give them time lawfully to make a new decision before the unlawful decision is quashed or to implement some other transitional arrangements.

The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, which aims to remove the whole clause, would remove this new remedy, which I had thought was broadly supported. Although I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, say, “If the judges want this power, they can create it”, we have heard that it is far from clear, to put it at its lowest, that the common law would actually enable the judges to do this. More importantly, there are circumstances where suspending a quashing order will allow the court to provide a remedy that better serves the interests of justice, and we should therefore ensure that it is a tool available to the courts.

The second modification, which would be removed by Amendment 1 and the consequential Amendments 4 and 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is the ability to make a quashing order prospective only. I accept that that has been more controversial in the Committee this evening, so I will set out some of the parameters of the debate, as the Government see it.

We have heard examples from those in the other place, and indeed from some noble Lords this evening, where, prima facie, a prospective quashing order could cause significant injustice to the claimant, the applicant or third parties. There will be cases where a prospective quashing order could cause injustice, which is why we are not forcing the courts to use the powers in any case where it would cause injustice or, indeed, be inappropriate. Therefore, I suggest that we leave those discussions aside, because there is remedial flexibility, and concentrate on whether prospective orders make sense in principle, given the wide variety of cases that come before the courts. We could therefore answer the question: are there cases in which their use could be appropriate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

If the court determines that regulations that impose a tax charge are unlawful but decides that this should be prospective only, is the consequence that the taxes raised before the date are “treated” as having been lawfully raised?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

If the noble and learned Lord will forgive me, I will come to precisely that point later in my speech, because it arises under the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I am raising it now because the noble Lord is placing huge emphasis on the word “treated”. I would be interested to know whether that word means that tax raised under unlawful regulations in the past remains treated as if it were raised lawfully.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I will come to this point because these are two sides of the same coin. The short answer to the noble and learned Lord’s point is that it would be almost incomprehensible that a court would use a prospective order in circumstances where people have paid taxes that were necessarily unlawfully raised—so the question would not arise. It is a nice theoretical question, but it would not arise. That is why I will deal with it later, and I am happy to take further interventions at that stage, if we can try to deal with the points separately. I see where the noble and learned Lord is going, but at some point one has to live in the real world and consider whether a prospective-only order would be appropriate. Remember, the court has to look at the factors in subsection (8), including paragraph (f), which refers to

“any other matter that appears to the court to be relevant.”

It also has to look at where subsection (9) says

“unless it sees good reason not to do so.”

The idea that that could survive an unlawfully raised tax case is, I suggest, almost incomprehensible.

I will go back to where I was. We are not making an unlawful act lawful. The real question is: what is a remedy at all? In particular, what is a quashing order? This is something that has, frankly, bedevilled public law for some time. It is not clear that public lawyers, or indeed anyone else, have come up with a good answer to it. I suggest, however, that the remedy that the court gives, whether a quashing order or an order of prohibition, does not determine whether something was unlawful or not. It is the judgment and any declaration as to the state of the law that do that. The remedy decides what the effects of that unlawfulness should be, because there are cases where the court will declare that something was unlawful but not actually give a quashing order—but the action is still declared unlawful.

So this new power allows the court to modify the remedial effect of the quashing order so that, up to a point, the action or decision in question would be treated as being valid for all intents and purposes. The court is therefore doing its traditional job of declaring what the law is and what the law was, but it has greater flexibility in determining the real-world effects of its determination. I therefore respectfully agree with the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, put it. I heard his slightly in terrorem threat as to when we come to the presumption—but I will deal with that at that time.

That approach is consistent with public law as we understand it today. Judges are faced with situations where, despite a finding of unlawfulness, a quashing order does not issue, for a variety of reasons. I do not think therefore that it follows on principle that a finding of unlawfulness should always result in the voiding of the decision ab initio. I am grateful therefore for support on this point from the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, although I will avoid getting into any relitigating in this Committee of either Spectrum or Ahmed—we will leave that for later groups and possibly further editions of memoirs.

We need to avoid an approach which would take us right back into the straitjacket of nullity, and the academically interesting but practically frustrating doctrines that characterised decisions from Anisminic to Ahmed. We are not giving the court a binary choice of quashing retrospectively or giving declarations that state the law but do not necessarily deal with the effects of the impugned decision, even if it is declared to be unlawful. That is my response to the first main point from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

His second contention is that the new powers draw the courts into policy questions. I say respectfully that we are simply not doing that. We are asking the courts to do what in many ways they do already, which is to assess the possible effects of their judgment on the parties and the public interest. It may well be the case that having given the courts these two new tools—I think the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, made this point—they do issue quashing orders in cases where they would not have done so if the only option open to them was an ab initio quashing order. Well, so be it. If Parliament has given them these extra tools, that is the way matters will work out. Subsection (8) sets out what we believe to be the pertinent factors, but we made it expressly a non-exhaustive list.

Courts have long recognised the principle that the administrative burden of rectifying the effects of a past decision can outweigh its potential benefits, especially if the Executive are rushed into action. Importantly, there are cases where the courts have recognised that regulations or policies that have a wide effect can create expectations for third parties: plans could have been made, contracts signed and money spent, all in pursuit of what everyone thought was a lawful policy.

We must not get lured into the example of somebody paying tax under regulation which turns out to be unlawful. People might have signed contracts on the basis of a regulation which turns out to be unlawful. They may have spent money or set up businesses. To undo all that could give rise to far more injustice than making sure that present and future situations are rectified. The example I gave at Second Reading, which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, also mentioned, was the case of BASCA v Secretary of State for Business.

There is a further benefit to good administration, which is really what judicial review is all focused on anyway, which is that public bodies can make good a decision without having to revisit what can sometimes be long and drawn-out policy processes for the sake of a small error.

In cases relating to Heathrow expansion, for example, one point of contention was whether the Government had to take into account the Paris climate agreement. If the court had ended up finding that the decision not to take it into account was unlawful, it would surely have been far better to give a prospective order, so that the overall process of expansion was protected and the decision could be amended properly to take into account the relevant agreement. Quashing retrospectively would mean that the entire process would need to begin again from square one. A prospective remedy would allow the unlawfulness to be corrected at lower cost and in a shorter time, while still recognising—I underline this point—that the initial decision was unlawful.

I also emphasise the points in subsection (8)(c), which ask the court to have regard to

“the interests or expectations of persons who would benefit from the quashing of the impugned act”

and subsection (2), which allows the court to set conditions on the remedy. I hope that those provisions assuage any concerns that individual rights would be prejudiced—on the contrary, they ought to be taken into account by the court.

I have gone into some detail on that point because it was focused on by the Committee. I hope I can deal with the other amendments slightly more quickly with that background.

Amendment 3 removes the ability of the court to attach conditions to a suspended or prospective-only quashing order. These are intended to give the court maximum flexibility. For example, a court might want to make an order prospective only to reduce administrative chaos, but only on condition that parties who may have lost out financially are properly compensated. The conditions may not be necessary in every case, but it is an option for the court where appropriate.

Finally, Amendment 6 aims to ensure that the invalidity of quashed regulations can be relied on in criminal or civil proceedings. As I understand it, the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is twofold. First, defendants could be prosecuted under regulations that have been ruled to be unlawful yet, because of the powers in this Bill, are treated as valid. That point was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks.

Secondly, this might mean that claimants or victims would be less able to obtain damages, restitution or compensation. As I have suggested already, the amendment is unnecessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said, collateral challenge is not at issue. The Bill does not necessarily prevent such challenges, because it gives the courts powers to formulate the remedies appropriately. In circumstances where provisions which create criminal penalties are being challenged, and have been challenged successfully, I find it very unlikely that a court would decide to use a prospective-only remedy. That is not only because the list of factors includes in subsection (8)(c)

“the interests or expectations of persons who would benefit from the quashing of the impugned act”

and, in subsection (8)(f),

“any other matter that appears to the court to be relevant”.

That would, I think, mean that the court would certainly find a “good reason”—to use the language in subsection (9)—to use a retrospective quashing order, so that any persons, for example, who had paid tax would have a remedy in restitution.

In similar cases where a court considers a suspended remedy, the ability to set conditions on the order would also mitigate any risk of injustice. For example, a court could use a suspended quashing order with the condition that the authority in question does not take any further enforcement action. This goes back to my main point about maximum flexibility. For those reasons, I invite the noble Lords who have tabled these amendments not to press them.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has explained Amendments 8, 11 and 15, and I will not go further into them. However, Amendment 12 is important; it makes a point which is entirely obvious and it should be completely unnecessary. In deciding whether there is a detriment to good administration under new subsection (8)(b), the court must have regard to the principle that good administration is administration which is lawful. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is right to say that where the Government suggest that this is only about remedies, and not about lawfulness, they miss the point that good administration requires the administration to be lawful. The clause, as it stands, detracts from that principle. It is, therefore, right that it should be reinforced in the way that these amendments suggest.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I will respond to the amendments in this group in grouping order. I start by making a point about the list of factors. The purpose of the list of factors in subsection (8) is, as I said in the previous group, to allow the court to respond flexibly in the interests of delivering justice. However, it is important that the court considers—I emphasise “considers”—whether the remedies to be used are appropriate. These are the factors to which the court must have regard.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Is the Government’s intention that these two remedies—new subsection (1)(a) and (b)—should be in a different category from every other remedy the court has under judicial review?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

Yes and no, in the sense that this gets us into the argument about the presumption, because the presumption applies to only these two remedies. To that extent, the point made by the noble and learned Lord is correct: that is the nature of the presumption, which we will get to in the next group. We want the court to specifically consider whether these remedies are appropriate and to use them, as the ending of new subsection (9)(b) says,

“unless it sees good reason not to do so.”

Because these are new remedies, we have set out a list of non-exhaustive factors which the court must consider. These are the factors in new subsection (8)—and it is expressly non-exhaustive in new subsection (8)(f). I agree with the noble and learned Lord that, as he put it, these are important considerations. However, we want to encourage consideration of their use; we are certainly not mandating their use in any case.

The other thing we want to do, by putting these factors in the Bill, is to provide consistency in the jurisprudence from the start as to how the remedies are used in the cases which come before the court. I remind the Committee that we consulted on the sort of factors that should be included in the list. We received some very useful contributions in response to that consultation. However, the “must” in new subsection (8)—which is contrary to the proposal in Amendment 7 before the Committee—requires the court to consider each of the factors in the list. Coming to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, the “must” does not require the court to find that every factor in the list applies. It does not require the court to say that all the factors are relevant in the instant case. The court may consider that some of these factors in the case before it are not relevant at all; some might have very limited weight or only marginal relevance. All the court must do is to consider them. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, pointed out, the court may add to its consideration absolutely anything it wants under new paragraph (f).

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but is that right in relation to new subsection (8)(c) and (d)? The court must have regard to the interests or expectations of persons who would benefit from the quashing and of persons who have relied on the impugned act. There is nothing voluntary about that. Those interests may be in conflict. Is it right that the court should always need to have regard to those interests?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

First, they may not apply at all, because there may, in a particular case, not be any person who would benefit from, or has relied on, the quashing. Secondly, the court must have regard to it, but only having regard to it, the court can give it such weight as it deems appropriate. Absolutely, some of these matters may be in conflict. That, as we have heard, is nothing novel in the field of judicial review when the court must consider what remedy to issue in every case. Indeed, it goes beyond judicial review. There is nothing new in principle here at all. What we are doing is setting out factors which the court should have regard to. The court can place such weight as it wants on any of these, and the court can have regard to any other factors as well.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am very grateful to the Minister. He emphasises that the court can have regard to other factors. Does he accept that it would be permissible for the court to ask itself the question set out in Amendment 2? Is it satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to make one of these orders? Is it permissible for the court to say that it would not be in the interests of justice in the circumstances of this case, therefore it will not make one of these orders?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I was going to come to interests of justice slightly later, but let me take the point now. I do not want to drift into the presumption, but these issues are related to an extent. If it is not in the interests of justice to make the order, there would be good reason not to do so in new subsection (9). Therefore, the noble Lord’s question answers itself.

Amendments 2 and 9 add further factors to the list, including a condition that the court may use the new remedies only where it is satisfied that their use will be in the interests of justice. In addition to the point I have just made to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—perhaps I am putting his question in reverse—I struggle to foresee a situation where the court, having considered new subsection (8) and the presumption, would think it appropriate to apply one of the new powers where the court none the less considered it against the interests of justice to do so. Indeed, I am making the same point: you do not get there, because if it is against the interests of justice, there must be “good reason” not to use one of the orders.

Furthermore, coming back to the amendments, if timeliness is relevant to the case, the court can consider that under the current drafting, in particular the factors set out in new paragraphs (c) and (f).

Those amendments sought to add some factors. Amendments 8 and 11 seek to remove a factor from the list and remove an important provision—the need for the court to consider

“any detriment to good administration that would result from exercising or failing to exercise the power”

and the need for the court to consider actions that a public body proposes or intends to take but has not yet taken. The point of clearly specifying that the court should have regard, not only to actions taken but to actions proposed to be taken, is that actions a public body proposes to take could sometimes be a relevant factor. For example, let us say that a government department recognises that regulations may be quashed but has already stated its intention to make new regulations and has announced the date by which they will be in force. This could help a court to reach a decision on whether a suspended quashing order is appropriate in principle and to determine how long the suspension period should be.

Amendment 10 seeks to modify the fourth criterion, paragraph (d), making it so that the defendant is responsible for identifying the interests of those who rely on legislation being quashed. I suggest this amendment is unnecessary. If a suspended quashing order, or a quashing order with limited retrospective effect or none, might be appropriate, it will always be in the interests of the defendant to set out why that is the case. The defendant would want to encourage the court to use that remedy rather than the ab initio quashing order. So, in effect, the onus is already on the defendant or respondent to demonstrate who will be affected if the impugned act is quashed immediately, ab initio; and that would obviously include identifying who has relied or is relying on the impugned act.

Amendment 12 seeks to modify the same factor in paragraph (d) by providing that the principle of good administration includes the need for administration to be lawful. I think I said in the previous group that that really is, if I may say so, motherhood and apple pie. Good administration is lawful administration. We all expect our Government and all decision-makers to abide by a set of lawful principles and duties that are conducive to effective administration. I am therefore not persuaded that legislating to say that good administration is lawful administration adds anything that is not already obvious or, indeed, inherent in the drafting.

Amendment 15 seeks to remove the requirement in subsection (10) for the court to take “particular” account of any action taken or proposed to be taken, or any undertaking given by a person with responsibility, in connection with the impugned act. This is intended to draw the court’s attention to any response the defendant may have already provided, or be in the process of providing, to the relevant defect. We see this subsection as a positive measure which could encourage a defendant to consider how to resolve matters proactively by offering suitable redress where it is appropriate, before the court need order it. It is also aimed at ensuring that the court takes particular care in considering any redress already provided so that defendants do not feel that they have to provide redress twice.

Finally, I come back to the point I was making about tax. I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, asked me whether I was satisfied with the phrase “offer adequate redress”. I certainly am satisfied with that phrase, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has an amendment in the next group that focuses on it. He certainly raised it at Second Reading, and I will be coming back to that. When I was referring to tax in the previous group, I was saying it would be very unlikely that a court would want to use a prospective remedy in that situation. I did not say “never” for two reasons. First, it is always up to the judge in any particular case. Secondly, one has to consider other effects even in tax cases. There could be cases where, for example, under tax legislation, somebody has not paid, but they have been given a refund, or they have a rebate or a tax credit. In those situations, it may be right, if it is positive to the taxpayer, so to speak, to use a prospective remedy even in tax cases. That is why I do not say “never” but in the case the noble and learned Lord was putting in the previous group, of when people have paid, in no circumstances does it seem likely that a prospective remedy would be appropriate.

I hope I have dealt with all the points raised. For the reasons I have set out, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said, this suite of amendments was really an attempt to get clarity. Some of them were probing amendments, and some we may return to at a later stage. As my noble and learned friend said, there are potential conflicts, and he gave the example of that between subsection (8)(c) and (d). Those two elements would need to be considered within the broader context of the whole of subsection (8).

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I open by noting that my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti said that Amendment 14, to which I have my name, is a probing amendment and I think that she rightly said it is less preferable to Amendment 13 if we can clear up the element of new Section 29A(1)(b) about removing retrospective quashing. I agree with her point on that.

I want to address a different point. It was actually raised in the House of Commons by the government Minister at the time when he talked about unintended consequences. I will read out the briefing I have on this. In Committee, the Minister suggested that limiting the retrospective effect of remedies could mitigate the potential negative and unintended consequences that some public interest judicial reviews could have. For example, if a statutory instrument concerning social security is quashed, immediately it could remove all the social security protections provided for in that statutory instrument because they would no longer have any legal effect. But the argument is not convincing. The mere fact that some judicial reviews could potentially produce unintended consequences does nothing to argue in favour of a presumption. I was amused by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, picking up that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, referred to a so-called quashing order. In the vast majority of cases, a court will not issue a quashing order in any event. In most cases, a court merely declares a statutory instrument to be unlawful and leaves it to the Government to amend the instrument in a way thought necessary by the Government. Indeed, even where human rights were violated between 2014 and 2020, the courts have quashed only four statutory instruments out of 14 successful challenges.

So we are not talking about very many cases and the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and in support of his amendment, I think, are absolutely right. I shall listen with interest to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by responding to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to whom I am grateful for his characteristically kind words and his tender concern that I am replying to these matters not so much on my own and without a Leader as on my own and without any juniors. That is, I am without much support from those Peers who also take the Government Whip. I would not want to make this point publicly, but in the undoubted privacy of these discussions I can perhaps venture the suggestion that the undoubted attraction of a debate with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others, about the finer points of judicial review might possibly have failed to outshine the annual dinner—which has now been awaited for a couple of years—of the Association of Conservative Peers. But that is mere speculation.

More substantively, let me turn to Amendments 13 and 14. These amendments seek to remove subsections (9) and (10), which have come to be known as the presumption, but I stand by calling it a so-called, or low-level, presumption, for reasons that I will set out. As I explained in answer to the question put to me in the previous group by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, if the court regards there as being good reason not to apply either of the new remedies, then it does not have to; the presumption essentially falls away. The question then put to me, which I will come to, is: why have it in the first place? That is the either/or which a number of contributors have put to me this evening.

The aim, as I have said in previous groups, of Clause 1 is to aid good administration and provide greater flexibility to the court in giving remedies. The new remedies are a very useful addition to the courts’ toolbox —to use that metaphor again—and the presumption, we believe, allows the courts to consider their use and will make sure that a body of case law develops quickly around the appropriate use of new remedies.

The policy intention, therefore, behind the inclusion of the presumption is to encourage judges to use the new remedies where appropriate, and for that I really do make no apology. I do not see that as any fetter on judicial discretion or as the Government intruding into places where they should not be. The independent review, as we have heard, recommended that courts should be given a statutory power to make suspended quashing orders, as it thought that they would be beneficial if used appropriately. We believe that the suspended quashing order and the prospective order are useful additions, but they can only be beneficial to the jurisprudence if the court considers their use.

The presumption is therefore phrased in a way which encourages the court to consider their use, but we are not trying to fetter judicial discretion or to steer—I think that was the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich—the courts to a particular decision. As now, it will remain very much up to the court to decide what remedy is appropriate in the individual circumstances of the particular case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beith (LD)]

On the basis of what the Minister has just argued, do I understand the Government’s position to be that unless this presumption is included, insufficient use will be made of these provisions and case law will not develop appropriately? Is that the Government’s position?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

The Government’s position is that the presumption will enable the case law to develop more quickly, perhaps, than it might otherwise do, because in each case the court will consider whether these remedies are appropriate. But there will be no case in which the remedy is provided where the court sees a good reason not to do so. In other words, we will not be in the position of Ahmed; that was the opposite. That was where at least some members of the court—in fact, the majority—wanted to do something and could not. We are not—I underline “not”—putting the court in a position where it will say, “We have to do this. We really don’t want to, but we have to”. You simply do not get there under subsections (9) and (10).

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Surely the courts will consider it when it is raised by the Government, and the question of the amount of time and how often the courts consider it will be dependent on the number of times it is raised as a proposition. I do not see why we need the presumption to get the courts to consider this.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

There are two parts of the answer to that. First, there are, as I said earlier, many judicial reviews in which it is not “the Government” in the way that the phrase “the Government” is used.

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, because the second point ties into a point I was going to come to. It is, I am afraid, a longer response than the speech which provoked it from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who said that this is a presumption in favour of the wrongdoer. I will try to answer the two points together. With great respect, I disagree for this reason: the presumption is not a presumption in favour of the wrongdoer. It is a presumption in favour of finding the appropriate remedy for the facts of the case. As we have heard, rightly, from a number of noble Lords, the claimant might not be the person who is actually most affected by the decision in question. There could be a whole class of people who are very severely affected by the decision in question who are not before the court. The claimant, who is before the court, is affected because they are sufficiently affected to have standing, but they may not be affected to the same degree. Therefore, it may not matter too much to the claimant as to whether the remedy is given. It may, on the facts of the case, not even matter too much to the defendant whether this remedy is given, but it may well affect third parties.

Another benefit of the presumption is that the court, so to speak, has to go through that thought process of whether this would be the appropriate remedy, thinking about people—we talked about the factors in subsection (8) earlier—who are not before the court, because on the facts of a particular case, the claimant may not actually be too bothered about whether these remedies are used. The defendant may not be too bothered whether the remedies are used, but it could well affect the position of third parties. Therefore, with respect, I dispute the proposition that this is a presumption in favour of the wrongdoer. It is in favour of the appropriate remedy.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

Why is the interests of justice test not quite sufficient for your purposes?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I think I replied to that point in the previous group. The interests of justice test is subsumed here because you can use these remedies only where there is no good reason not to do so; in other words, if there is a good reason not to do so, you cannot use the remedies. Therefore, necessarily, every time you are considering whether to use the remedies, it is in the interests of justice to do so.

If I may repackage the noble and learned Lord’s question, it really is: why not just say, “in the interests of justice”, or have a freestanding discretion? That point was put by a number of members of the Committee and gets me back to my point that we want jurisprudence to develop, and we want the court positively to consider these remedies. This is not least because there could be cases—the music copyright case is one—where these remedies would be very helpful to third parties, while the instant parties to the case may not be too bothered whether they are used or not.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Does the Minister understand that his comments about third parties are now making me feel more nervous again about proposed new section 29A(1)(b)? We are effectively opening the door to judicial legislation in relation to immunising the Secretary of State from further challenges by a whole class of people who are not currently in the court; we are therefore doing the legislative thing in removing or limiting any retrospective effect of the quashing, as opposed to just delaying the quashing for the future.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

With respect, no. The noble Baroness is looking at this in a very negative way. The whole point about the music copyright case was that the prospective-only remedy was there to protect people who have relied on the regulations. One must not look at these cases with the view that you have all these people out there with claims against the Government and the prospective-only remedy insulates the Government from all these other claims. There are lots of cases where a local authority, or the Government, or some other public body has made a decision and people have relied on it. Businesses have been set up, people have taken out bank loans and made investments. In those cases, I ask rhetorically, should all those third-party interests be disregarded merely because in the case of the claimant bringing the judicial review, his bank loan has not been drawn down yet, so he does not mind whether they are upheld, so to speak, prospectively or retrospectively?

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said in the very first debate, there is a wide gamut of cases that come before the courts, and we have to give remedial flexibility; that is what all of this is seeking to do.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

That is an interesting answer. If there are two judicial reviews going on and one holds, for example, that the regulations are unlawful—not in accordance with a statutory power—but says prospective-only, it is presumably open to a second judicial review, which might be going on in parallel, to say, “It is unlawful, and I argue for it not to be prospective-only, for the following reasons.” Would it be open to two judicial review courts to come to different conclusions on the same unlawfulness?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

We all know that judicial reviews have to be brought within three months of the act. Therefore, I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that it is highly unlikely that one will have two separate courts adjudicating on the same decision. If there were separate judicial reviews, they would be consolidated.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Scotland and England?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

The position would still be that proper case management can deal with all of this. The point that the noble and learned Lord makes is no different from the proposition that could apply now. You could have two judicial reviews where one court decides to give a quashing order and the other does not. That point is already out there, so to speak. There is nothing new conceptually added by this Bill.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He expresses the hope that these provisions will enable the judiciary to build up a body of precedent in this area. Can he direct the Committee to any other statutory context which sets out in the way we see here a list of factors that judges are obliged to take into account, and then directs them by way of a presumption as to how discretion should be exercised? I cannot think of any. While I am on my feet, I thank him for being here tonight to deal with these amendments and giving up what would otherwise, I am sure, be an important date in his diary.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is still recovering from my absence from the dinner, but I am sure he will provide the usual entertainment and speech that my colleagues would expect.

On the wording of the new clause, there are two separate points. First: do we have statutes with presumptions? Well, of course we do. Secondly, do we have statutes which set out a list of factors to which the court must have regard on either an exhaustive—rare, I think—or, much more commonly, non-exhaustive basis? Yes, of course we do. My noble friend Lord Faulks gave the example of the Limitation Act—in Section 33, I think, from memory. The noble Lord’s real question is, therefore, do we have an instance where those two are put together? There is a short answer and a longer one. The short answer is that I cannot think of one off the top of my head, but I will have a look. The longer answer, however, is, with great respect: so what? If a presumption is not objectionable in itself, and if a list of factors on a non-exhaustive basis is not objectionable in itself, what, I ask rhetorically, makes it objectionable when those two features are put together? There is nothing objectionable about it.

I suggest that the real point put to me is not that this is objectionable, wrong or sinister, but that it is unnecessary. The answer to that is that it is beneficial for two reasons. First, to repeat the point, the court’s considering these powers will encourage the growth of the jurisprudence. Secondly, as I said to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the fact that the court has to consider them means that they will be considered in all cases, because there may well be cases where it is not in the interests of the party to the case that they be used, but it could be in the interest of third parties.

That ties into the point I was coming to on Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I heard what she said—that she would prefer the other amendment but tabled this one on a probing basis—but let me respond to it. In addition to removing the presumption, it would replace it with a precondition that, before exercising the new remedial powers, the court must be satisfied that the modified quashing order would offer an effective remedy to the claimant and any other person materially affected by the impugned act. This proposed precondition is superfluous, because the remedies available in the Bill are more effective and tailored, taking into account the interests of both claimant and third parties. The problem with the wording of her amendment is, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, pointed out, the copyright case. The wording used is not very good for third parties.

However, in that context, I should pick up a point made by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Beith, concerning the phrase “adequate redress”, which was first made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, at Second Reading, if I remember correctly. We have heard the argument that we should replace that phrase with the phrase “effective remedy”, as also used in Amendment 14. I said in my closing speech at Second Reading, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, that I would reflect on this point with officials, and, of course, we have. I hope I can take a moment to explain the rationale behind the drafting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am hugely and genuinely grateful to the Minister for that, because it cuts to the heart of my residual concern about proposed subsection 29A(1)(b). It is that the Government are thinking of circumstances—copyright and others have been cited—where granting the immediate quashing order, which may be what the applicant in the particular case is seeking, would cause all sorts of problems for other people not in the courtroom, certainly in the Government’s view. Of course, it is the job of the elected Government to think about all of those other classes. Therefore, in that case, the Government would seek to invite the court to make all sorts of detailed delineations to remove or limit any retrospective effect of the quashing, but that would be the Government inviting the judiciary into a quasi-legislative role that it is not best placed to discharge, given that it would be just the Government’s view of those wider interests, not challenged in Parliament, as the Government are.

So, although I am so grateful to the Minister for making that genuine point about the need for polycentric decision-making, there is a limit to what you can ask the court to do. Remember, this would not even be the substantive judicial review hearing; this would just be the argument about remedies.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I would not say that it is “just” about remedies; as this debate shows, remedies are very important. But I do not think that Mr Justice Green, in the music copyright case, felt that he was legislating in any way. As we heard in the first debate, this issue goes back to Lord Reid and indeed further.

There are two separate issues here. First, should we have prospective-only quashing orders as a matter of principle? We dealt with that in the first group, and I set out the reasons why. Secondly, in this group, should there be any sort of presumption? That is the point that I am seeking to address. But I hope that what I have said on third parties assuages the noble Baroness on both the presumption and prospective quashing orders generally.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, asked me whether this will become a standard approach for future legislation. There, I really would be going well beyond my remit. However, going back to what I said earlier, there is nothing conceptually unusual here in either a presumption or a list of factors. There is certainly nothing sinister—a word that was used by someone in that context.

I hope that what I have said goes at least some way to clarifying the concerns that have been raised on the presumption. Of course, I have listened very carefully to what has been said, and I shall reflect on it further. For the moment, I invite the proposers of the amendments not to press them.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this notable debate—notable not just for its quality but for the rare and even forceful unanimity that it evoked among nearly all lawyers who spoke. I exempt, of course, the Minister, who was paid, or possibly not paid, for taking the opposing view.

I thought that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, put it most pithily when he said that the presumption was unnecessary, wrong in principle and potentially dangerous in practice. He was swiftly outdone by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who, if I may say so, correctly described it as a presumption on favour of the wrongdoer—the person against whom a quashing order is to be made. Even the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who attempted a characteristically fair-minded defence of the presumption, confessed that he was not persuaded that it was necessary.

Of its necessity, I was not persuaded by the Minister in his speech. He still seemed unsure whether it is a presumption at all—but if it is not a presumption, what on earth is it, save for a sort of fertiliser for, as he put it, encouraging the growth of jurisprudence, which I think we are all agreed it would be? I hope that the Minister is right that “adequate redress” is broader than “effective remedy”, but, sadly, neither his words, or still less mine, are any substitute for the authoritative judicial ruling that would no doubt take great time and effort to achieve. These subsections are not something that we should have in this Bill, and they would be a damaging precedent for other Bills.

Finally, we are in the extraordinarily privileged position in this Committee to hear from very senior judges whose lives have been devoted to the interpretation of such laws what the practical defects of proposed laws would be. I hope that we will not only hear them but act accordingly when, as we surely will, we come back to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to comment on Amendment 23 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. The amendment retains the Cart supervisory jurisdiction but bars

“any appeal from the court exercising the supervisory jurisdiction or any other challenge to decisions of that court whether by way of renewal or otherwise”,

and the decision of the High Court will be final. As the noble and learned Lord put it, this is a middle way. In a way, it is a shame that it was not degrouped from this group of amendments because, essentially, we have been having two debates in parallel. Also, it might have been more appropriate as a Report stage amendment.

By way of introduction to my comments on the amendment itself, one of the experiences of being a magistrate is that a lot of legal advisors leave magistrates’ courts to go and work in the administrative courts; it is a career progression for a number of them. Some, who I would count as friends, have said to me how utterly hopeless are many of the cases they have to deal with and prepare for the judges; so, interestingly, a number come back to the magistrates’ courts because they prefer the work there. Anyway, that is an aside.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, questioned the figures presented by the Minister. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that. A number of noble and learned Lords proposed further amendments. The noble Lords, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey and Lord Pannick, also proposed further amendments, which may come back on Report; we wait to hear. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, also supports the approach taken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I think that an encouraging statement has been made by all these noble Lords.

As I said earlier, we oppose Clause 2 standing part. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, on that, but I intend to withdraw my amendment after the Minister has spoken.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I will begin by addressing the clause as a whole before dealing with specific amendments, as a number of Members of the Committee have indicated that they believe the clause should be wholly removed from the Bill.

As the Committee is aware, Clause 2 overturns the Cart and Eba judgments, removing the route of challenge known in short hand as a Cart judicial review. Let us be clear exactly what that is: it is a challenge of a decision of the Upper Tribunal to refuse permission to appeal a First-tier Tribunal decision. The claimant has already had a case before the First-tier Tribunal, which the claimant has lost, and the claimant has then been refused permission to appeal by both the First-tier and Upper Tribunal. A Cart judicial review allows an applicant to challenge in the High Court the Upper Tribunal’s refusal of permission to appeal—and that is not the end of the matter. If permission to apply for judicial review of the Upper Tribunal’s decision is refused by the High Court, that itself opens a route to the Court of Appeal, as we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton.

It should not surprise anyone that the Upper Tribunal, which is a senior and specialist tribunal, in some cases presided over by a High Court judge, appears to get over 96% of its determinations on permission to appeal right. In this context, “right” means that, sometimes, another High Court judge sitting on an application for a judicial review did not give permission. That should not come as a surprise because the Upper Tribunal is a senior court with a specialist jurisdiction, with senior judges sitting on it, so it is well suited to determining those questions of law.

I have heard it argued that we are removing a lifeline for claimants, but that argument can be extended to any system that has a limit—and there must be a limit. The question for Government and Parliament is where to draw the line. It is commonplace in our judicial system, so far as applications for permission to appeal are concerned, for that application to be considered by the original judge and the putative appellate judge, but no more. That is what the tribunal system does already.

Some members of the Committee may remember the decision in Board of Inland Revenue v Haddock, a decision of the Court of Appeal, comprising the Master of the Rolls, sitting with Lord Justice Ratchet and Mr Justice Apple, but reported only by one AP Herbert in his collection Uncommon Law. Subtitled

“Why is the House of Lords?”—

referring, I hasten to add, to this House in its former judicial capacity—the report posed the question why there should be three tiers of appeal: judge, Court of Appeal and then what he referred to, somewhat impertinently, as the

“wild wager on the final race”,

as he described the former Judicial Committee of this House. This metaphor meant that the Court of Appeal was relegated to

“a minor handicap taking place at 3.30”.

However, we have moved on since then. There is often now one tier of substantive appeal. If you want to appeal from a master to a judge, and then from the judge to the Court of Appeal, there are very special rules for second substantive appeals, and even showing that the judge was probably wrong is not enough to get you a second appeal. This is not even a substantive appeal; it is a question of permission to appeal where both the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal have refused permission.

As I have said, the Upper Tribunal does not err often, with only 3.4% of claimants who were refused permission to appeal being granted an appeal and then having that appeal found in their favour. That can usefully be compared to a general 30% to 50% success rate for judicial review cases. Due to this, and the sheer number of Cart JRs per year—around 750—the IRAL recommendation was for Parliament to legislate to remove the Cart judicial review process.

I obviously listened very carefully to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, said about the time and motion study and the assumptions set out therein. I know that he and my officials have had a number of useful exchanges on this. We have striven to count as accurately as possible the days taken at each point in the process, and we set that out in our impact assessment. I think that the noble and learned Lord omitted the time taken by the Upper Tribunal for reconsideration, which is not insignificant. Whatever the number of cases that reach the Court of Appeal, it must be more than zero. Therefore, I argue that there is a risk that we are actually underestimating the judicial time spent on Cart reviews. But, for present purposes, I can say that I am very happy to continue discussion on these matters ahead of Report. I will also write to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, about the data, if there is any—I do not know whether there is—on the settlements and the other points that he mentioned.

The second contention put against me is that the means by which we propose to implement the recommendation is a dangerous one. There are two points here. First, are ouster clauses appropriate in principle? I know that I will not persuade the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on this but, to put it briefly, parliamentary sovereignty means that an ouster clause can be appropriate in principle, I suggest. Legislation can change any aspect of the law and can also include an ouster clause. Although I respect and understand the argument that they are wrong as a matter of principle, I and the Government do not agree with this argument, and we consider that they are appropriate in particular circumstances.

The question now is: in this case, is the ouster clause the proper measure? We say it is: this is the best way to make Parliament’s intention clear vis-à-vis the relative and respective competences of the Upper Tribunal and the High Court. I absolutely accept that the clause’s drafting has been influenced by the arms race, one might say, between Parliament and the courts on ouster clauses in a series of cases. Parliament says X; the court says, “Did you really mean X? Maybe you meant Y.” Parliament says, “No. We are now saying Y.” “Well, what about Z?” You can see that development of the cases from Anisminic through Privacy International and thereafter. That is why the clause must in the form it is: otherwise, the point from Privacy International will be put: “Why does it say ‘purported’?” I think that was the Privacy International point. That is why the clause is drafted in the way it is.

Amendment 23 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, creates a procedural bar, providing that the decision of the High Court or any other supervisory court in reviewing an Upper Tribunal permission to appeal decision is final, preventing any escalation of that point to the Court of Appeal. Although I accept that that approach would create some efficiencies compared with the status quo, they would be significantly fewer than the approach we are taking. It also does not address the conceptual issue, with the High Court overseeing permission to appeal decisions of the Upper Tribunal, which is a senior court of record with specialist subject knowledge.

I am also concerned that some of the nuance in the original ouster clause, which still allows review in certain circumstances, has been lost in that revised version. The procedural bar proposed by the noble and learned Lord would seem to be absolute, not only on the refusal of permission point but, as was identified in the debate, in the substantive disposal were permission granted. As the debate went on, it seemed to me that the lid would not be as tight-fitting as he intended. Indeed, it sounded to me that as more additions and exceptions were built into the amendment, we would be back at either square one or, perhaps at best, at square two. Therefore, although I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord seeks a compromise solution, his amendment, especially with the additions accreted thereto, would not meet the Government’s policy intent.

Amendments 16 and 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and Amendment 21 from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, add a variety of exemptions to the ouster clause in particular cases but, in short, the Upper Tribunal is well placed to know the circumstances. It deals with matters of immigration law on a regular basis, and I therefore see no justification for treating those circumstances as exceptions to the ouster clause.

Amendments 17 and 18 apply to the natural justice exemption. This provision was amended by the Government on Report in the other place to read in the words now in the Bill. That was not, as my colleague James Cartlidge explained, a change of policy. Our intention is for substantial procedural impropriety to remain reviewable but for errors of fact or law within the Upper Tribunal’s remit to be ousted. The new wording is intended to be clearer. The amendments would undo the clarification on that point. As to whether fundamental breach is particularly different from material breach, that is perhaps something of a moot point. The intention is to set a high bar which will not be susceptible to erosion over time or cause an unnecessary number of applications, which would undermine the entire purpose of the ouster.

In that context, Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which would allow the High Court or the other supervisory jurisdictions to carry out a JR of an Upper Tribunal permission to appeal decision where there is a “fundamental error of law”, risks taking us back, I am afraid, almost to where we started. That amendment attempts the same thing the Supreme Court attempted in Cart itself—to create a route for judicial review on errors of law but with a sufficiently high bar not to create a flood of cases. That attempt obviously failed, and I fear the noble Lord’s amendment will take us back and, essentially, repeat the same mistake.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

As has been said, this part of the Bill provides for “interpretation” of the refugee convention. It includes some entirely new provisions and replicates or amends some existing provisions.

On existing provisions, this part of the Bill repeals the Refugee or Person in Need of International Protection (Qualification) Regulations 2006. These regulations transposed a key EU directive on standards for asylum systems, the qualification directive, into UK law. The Bill repeals the regulations and puts versions of the provisions into primary legislation instead.

The UNHCR noted with concern the Government’s approach to interpreting the refugee convention. I will read an extract from its legal observations on the Bill in full. It said:

“We note with concern the Government’s approach to interpreting the Refugee Convention. Any treaty must be ‘interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.’ In the case of the Refugee Convention, as the UK Supreme Court has noted on more than one occasion, ‘There is no doubt that the Convention should be given a generous and purposive interpretation, bearing in mind its humanitarian objects and the broad aims reflected in its preamble.’ In addition, the Vienna Convention specified a range of sources that ‘shall be taken into account’ in interpreting a treaty; these all reflect the agreement of the parties, and include other agreements and instruments from the time the treaty was concluded, as well subsequent agreements, State practice and international law. In other words, States cannot, under international law, unilaterally announce their own interpretation of the terms of the agreements they have made with other States. This, too, has been repeatedly recognised by the House of Lords and the Supreme Court of the UK.”


I do not want to repeat what has already been said, but I just ask: do the Government agree with that extract from the UNHCR’s legal observations on the Bill? If they do agree with it, do they believe that they are still abiding by it?

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

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.

The starting point is that we are no longer members of the European Union and, by extension, the Common European Asylum System. In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, these provisions are not a direct response to the case of AH (Algeria). They are about having an opportunity to define clearly and unscramble refugee convention terms following our exit from the EU. It is right that, at this time of legal change, we take the opportunity to reassess the operation of our asylum system and reconsider our approach not only to fundamental policies but to processes, so that we can create a clearer and more accessible system.

The fact is that the development of the asylum system through international conventions, European law, domestic legislation, Immigration Rules and case law has created a complex legal web that can be difficult to understand and apply; that goes for claimants, decision-makers and the courts. I do not propose to use props—I understand that that is not permitted—but, for my own assistance on a later group, I brought a book called, rather laughingly, The Immigration Law Handbook. We consider it a desirable law reform to define clearly key elements of the refugee convention in UK domestic law. In response to my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, that is exactly what we are doing. We want to make the position clearer for everyone, including decision-makers and the courts.

A lot has been said that touches on the same point but, with great respect, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, perhaps put it most forcefully. She used a number of metaphors. Let me respond to them. This is not about tripping anybody up. It is not a sleight of hand; it is difficult to do one of those on the Floor of your Lordships’ House. This is about bringing clear definitions before Parliament and having them all in one place. The central point is this: there is nothing wrong—indeed, I suggest that there is everything right—with the UK, through this Parliament, interpreting its obligations under the refugee convention. That is entirely lawful. I use “lawful” in both its narrow and wide senses. It is lawful in the sense that it is in accordance with the law; it is also lawful in the broader sense of being in accordance with the political or constitutional principle that we call the rule of law. Further, it is in accordance with the Vienna convention. Everything we are doing complies fully with all our international obligations, including the refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. I will come back to the question that the noble Baroness asked me in that regard a little later.

With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, it is not perverse to use domestic legislation to give effect to and interpret international treaties. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that I am not in the business of appeasing the far right; nor am I in the business of deleting obligations under international law. Many of the definitions, which repay careful reading, are very similar to those already used in the UK—for example, those contained in the 2004 qualification directive, which was transposed into UK law via the 2006 regulations.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his kind words. I assure him that I of course give proper consideration to international reputational impacts, but surely there can be no adverse impact by complying with international law and interpreting treaties in accordance with the Vienna convention.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I am sorry, I missed my moment; I should have spoken as soon as the Minister spoke to me. I did not accuse him of trying to appease the far right. I hope I did not say that—I certainly did not mean to—but I do accuse the Government of it. I know that the Minister did not write this Bill, but that is something I see the Government as guilty of.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I did not take it personally. I agree that I did not write the Bill. It would be a far worse Bill, and the noble Baroness would like it even less, if I had written it. But I replied in that way because I take the view that if I am standing here defending government policy, then I will stand here and defend government policy. I certainly would not defend a government policy which was simply appeasing the far right. So, that is why I replied in those terms. I know that the noble Baroness was not making a personal attack; I did not take it that way.

To finish my point to the noble Lord, Lord Alton—

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, can we have a little less talk about the far right? Some 70% of the population think that the present Government’s policy on asylum is a failure.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I do not want to get into the question of whether the Bill is going too far or not far enough, and whether our policy is good, bad or indifferent, on this group of amendments. If I may say so, those are Second Reading-type questions. I was simply responding to the point put by the noble Baroness.

To return to the point on Turkey, whether its acts are in accordance with the refugee convention is really a separate issue. I do not mean to diminish or demean this, but what we are talking about here are not acts, so to speak. We are talking about the fundamental question of whether it is proper—because the charge put against me is that it is not—for this Parliament to set out its interpretation, the UK’s interpretation, of the international obligations we have under the refugee convention.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

Before the Minister leaves that point, I was not specifically asking him to respond to Turkey’s actions. I was saying that it diminishes our ability to speak to countries such as Turkey or China—which I also referenced—if we are ourselves een to diminish our responsibilities under the 1951 convention. That comes to the question that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, put about how this is seen beyond our shores by international institutions that have examined what we are trying to do. I hope the Minister will address that point as we proceed.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I was going to come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. Let me just say a sentence about it now: the UNHCR is not the interpretive body of the refugee convention. Each state under the convention is there to interpret its obligations, in accordance with the Vienna convention. That is the system which the state parties have set up. When we have a phrase—we will get to one a little later—such as “serious non-political crime”, the state parties have to interpret it. We will get to an example in the next group—this is a little cliffhanger—of where different countries have approached the question differently. There is nothing wrong with that, provided that they are all acting in accordance with the Vienna convention in good faith in seeking to interpret their obligations.

Respectfully, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, essentially accepted that basic proposition under the Vienna convention, and he was obviously right to do so. He sought characteristically carefully—if I might say so—to seek disclosure of the legal advice on which the Government are relying, while recognising the conventions which apply to that. I listened carefully to what he said. I will read Hansard to see whether there is anything more I can say in writing to him; I do not want to rush from the Dispatch Box. There may or may not be anything more I can say, but I will read that point carefully. I think he recognised that there are conventions in this area which do apply.

However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that it is not a question of having to agree with all the other signatories. This is not about amending the refugee convention; it is about interpreting it. That is a very different thing. If you want to amend a contract, you need the other party’s agreement, but interpreting a convention is for each state party.

I will say a few words about the substantive clauses, although I think it is fair to say that those were not really the Committee’s focus. Clause 29 sets out how key terms which are defined in the following clauses will be applied; they are the key components of the refugee convention. Clause 29 also revokes the Refugee or Person in Need of International Protection (Qualification) Regulations 2006. Those are the regulations through which we transposed our obligations under the EU qualification directive 2004. Because we are out of the EU, we need to do that in a different way.

However, we will continue to grant humanitarian protection to eligible individuals who cannot be removed from the UK to their country of origin if their removal would breach the UK’s obligations under Articles 2 or 3 of the ECHR. It is important to clarify—I am sure Members of the Committee know this—that these are not individuals protected under the refugee convention. However, we will make further changes to align the entitlements of permission to stay granted on the basis of humanitarian protection to that provided to group 2 refugees.

In response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, we believe that Clause 33 provides a system of effective protection from persecution. Clause 34 deals with relocation, but I do not think any noble Lords spoke to it directly, so I will just refer to it and move on.

On Clause 35, of course we have a proud history of providing protection to those who need it, but that should not apply to those who commit serious crimes, putting the communities that host them at risk and endangering national security. We believe we are right to define and legislate in this area. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that that is a good example of serious non-political crime. That is a phrase in the refugee convention, but it is not further defined in it. Each state has to look at it and define it, in accordance—always—with the Vienna convention.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

The Minister keeps saying that each state will define the refugee convention, and he alluded to the EU qualification directive; there is also the procedures directive. I declare an interest, as I worked on both directives as an MEP. Of course, that was an attempt not for each state in the EU to do its own thing but to have a collective set of laws which interpreted the refugee convention in detail and, as far as I know, complied with it. That prevented each country doing its own thing in a potentially destructive way.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I have an associated point, to save the Minister bobbing up and down too much. I entirely take the point about non-political crime. I just wanted to make it clear that I was referring only to that bit of the Bill when I mentioned the case. I was not suggesting that it was the prompt for the whole of this part. But can the Minister explain more about the impact of our leaving the EU? Does that give us a legal opportunity, or is this happening because it is a convenient political point in the calendar, as it were?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

On the first point, of course the EU sought to interpret the refugee convention for all its members. But that actually makes my point, because it is only for the members of the EU. All the other states will interpret it in their own way. If you want to hand over your interpreting power to the EU, that is fine if you are a member—but I suggest that that does not cut across my basic point.

As to the effect of leaving the EU, if we have hitherto signed up to various interpretations through EU regulations, we now have an opportunity to look at the matter afresh, as I said when I began. To go further into that point would go way beyond the scope of this group.

Finally, I come back to the question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, about “scrapping” —I think that was the word she used last night as well—the Human Rights Act. I said last night, and I will give the same answer now, that the Human Rights Act brings into English domestic law the European Convention on Human Rights. We have reaffirmed— I did it yesterday; I will do it again now—that this Government will stay in as a signatory to the convention.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that, but will he answer my question a bit more specifically? Has he instructed parliamentary counsel to begin the drafting process for the Bill that will replace, repeal or reinterpret the Human Rights Act and/or the convention on human rights?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

As a matter of policy, I am afraid I am not going to get into the discussions I have with government law officers and parliamentary counsel. The Government’s legislative programme has been set out. The Lord Chancellor, the Deputy Prime Minister and I have given evidence on this. We have made it clear that we will be staying in the European Convention on Human Rights. In so far as the burden of the noble Baroness’s challenge was that we have to be careful, because the Government are watering down rights, we are staying in the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore—

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

I was going to wait until the Minister had finished his sentence but, before he sits down, I revert to the question of the Government’s legal case. The Minister is reticent to disclose government legal advice, which I entirely understand but, before the Committee and others can reach a fully formed opinion on this, they need a worked version of the Government’s legal position. It may be that that takes the form of a position paper or submission, rather than the replication of advice already given. But, until we see in detail what Raza Husain and the UNHCR got wrong, and why these interpretations are fully consistent with the Vienna and refugee conventions, the evidence is all one way. I am sure that I speak for many other noble Lords when I say that I would be very much assisted by seeing something of that nature.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I hope the noble Lord does not take it amiss if I say, with respect, that he makes the same point as he made earlier. and I understood it. I need to be very careful that I do not get inadvertently drawn into disclosing legal advice, but I hear the point from the noble Lord that he and others would like to see a greater fleshing out of the Government’s legal position. I have said that I will see what I can do to assist in that.

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

Very diffidently, am I entirely wrong in thinking that, under Article 35 of the convention, some heed is required to be paid to the UNHCR’s expression of its approach to the convention? My recollection is that Lord Bingham said as much in one of the cases I mentioned last week, Asfaw. Is that not right?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

Respectfully, what I said earlier is that it is not the arbiter of the interpretation of the convention. I do not think that is inconsistent with the point the noble and learned Lord just made.

I was proposing to sit down, after suggesting to the Committee that we should keep these various clauses in the Bill.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, I was wondering whether he would explain some of the changes that are being made or cover them in a subsequent letter. As I understand it, Clause 33 replaces Regulation 4 in the Refugee or Person in Need of International Protection (Qualification) Regulations 2006, which is repealed by Clause 29. The wording is largely the same but, as I understand it—and I may be wrong—the existing regulations reference

“protection from persecution or serious harm”,

whereas Clause 33 references only “protection from persecution”. Why has that change to the language been made and what will its practical effects be?

There are changes of language in other areas, such as from a “may” to a “must” in Clause 34. What problem is that intended to solve? Is it not the Government’s intention to explain the reasons for the changes they have made where they have made them?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

The “may” and “must” point, to which the noble Lord referred, will come up in a later group because, from memory, there is a specific amendment on it. I was proposing to deal with that when I respond to that amendment. I think we are going to come to the persecution and serious harm point later but, if I am wrong, I will write to the noble Lord and explain it. However, we are coming to “may” and “must” on a later group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am not sure whether it is the time of the evening that prompted that reference to dinner; otherwise, it is not immediately apparent to me what the relevance of it was. I will come back to that rather less substantive point—if I may say so, respectfully—at the end.

Let me deal first with Clause 31. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. He is right that there are points of principle that underlie these amendments; they underlay the last group as well. I too will try not to repeat the points that I have made. There are points of principle that are at issue between us, and we have set out our respective positions. We believe that the test set out in Clause 31 is compliant with our international obligations. More specifically, we believe that it will provide, and lead to, better decision-making, because it sets out a clear test, with steps for decision-makers, including the courts, to follow. That will lead to greater consistency.

Turning to Amendments 103 and 104, although I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I agree with the importance of us carefully assessing whether asylum seekers have a well-founded fear of persecution, as required under Article 1(A)(2) of the convention, we do not agree with these amendments because, taken together, they will essentially maintain the current standard of proof system. In so far as my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering said that it was, to a certain extent, a probing amendment, let me try to explain.

First, this is not about setting aside decisions of the court. The courts are there to interpret the legislation as it stands—that is what they do. Parliament is entitled to change the legislative background, in so far as it is consistent with our treaty obligations. Clause 31 sets out a clear, step-by-step process. I hear the point made by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, that it should be—so far as legislation can be—in simple language and a clear test. The problem at the moment is that there is no clearly outlined test as such. There is case law, there is policy and there is guidance in this area, but the current approach leads to a number of different elements being considered as part of one overall decision. What we seek to do here is to introduce distinct stages that a decision-maker must go through, with clearly articulated standards of proof for each. We believe that this will lead to better and more consistent decision-making.

At its core, in Clause 31(2) we are asking claimants to establish that they are who they say they are and that they fear what they say they fear to a balance of probabilities standard. That is the ordinary civil standard of proof for establishing facts, and those are facts in Clause 31(2); namely, more likely than not. It is reasonable, I suggest, that claimants who are asking the UK for protection are able to answer those questions. We have looked carefully, of course, at the often difficult situations that claimants might come from and the impact that might have on the kinds of evidence that they can provide. However, we consider that our overall approach to making decisions, which includes a detailed and sensitive approach to interviewing, allows all genuine claimants an opportunity to explain their story and satisfy the test.

There is international precedent that supports our decision to raise the threshold for assessing the facts that a claimant presents to us to the balance of probabilities standard. Both Canada and Switzerland—highly respected democratic countries, dare I say it—have systems which examine at least some elements of a claimant’s claim to this higher standard. Respectfully and rhetorically, let me ask this of the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said that this was confusing and complex. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said that she had horror at it. The higher standard is used in Switzerland. Does the horror extend to Canada and Switzerland as well? There is nothing wrong in principle with adopting the higher test for some parts—I will come to it in more detail—of the decision-making tree.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Does the Minister recall that I did not just say that it is about the higher standard? It is about having different limbs and different requirements under those different limbs, and switching from “reasonable likelihood” to “balance of probabilities” as part of the composite test, which is not holistic but is in different parts. That is what is confusing, not just a change in the standard of proof.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, with the greatest respect, it is not confusing at all, because Clause 31(2) establishes the facts, and that is all a balance of probabilities. Then, in Clause 31(4), the decision-maker turns to questions of the future. It is at that stage that the reasonable likelihood test is the appropriate test, because the decision-maker is looking to assess what might happen in the future. That is why we have a lower test at that stage. It is quite usual in law to have different stages of a test and different levels of probability at each.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Could the Minister answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser? What is the problem that we are trying to solve here? Who is pressing for this change? The Law Societies have advised against it. It seems to me that the only purpose it serves is to make the task of determining whether the fear exists and is well-founded more complicated and more likely to result in the answer, “No, let’s send him back.” That seems to be what is driving this. I remind him that, in late July and early August, Hazaras from Afghanistan—asylum seekers here—were still receiving letters of rejection, telling them that they were not at risk if they were sent back to Kabul.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the question. What is driving it, as I said a few moments ago, is the attempt to have a consistent and clear approach to decision-making. When you have a single test with different elements, and it is all under “a reasonable likelihood”, it is then that you are more likely to have inconsistent decision-making—I will not use the word “mishmash”. What you are doing here is really two things, and Clause 31 sets them out clearly. You are first saying, “Are you who you say you are?” and “Did you, in fact, fear such persecution?” Those are factual questions, decided on the balance of probabilities. Then the question is: “Is there a reasonable likelihood that, if you were returned, you would be persecuted?” That is a question of reasonable likelihood.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My noble friend is, in fact, rewriting the law. I am not an immigration lawyer, but if I were, I think I would be a little confused at the moment. In the case that was decided in 2021, Kaderli v Chief Public Prosecutors Office of Gebze in Turkey, it was clearly said that

“The true test involved the application of a lower standard”


than the balance of probabilities. So now no immigration lawyer could plead the application of the lower standard because my noble friend is raising the bar in this Bill.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I thought I made it absolutely clear when I said earlier that the court in that case made its decision against the legislative background at the time. Parliament is entitled to change the legislative background. We will want to make sure that we remain consistent with the refugee convention, and, as I said earlier, we believe that we are. There is nothing wrong with doing that. It is simply not the case that we are somehow bound as a Parliament by what the Court of Appeal said in the case referred to by my noble friend. Therefore, with great respect, I disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, where he said that a single holistic question was better and that the higher standard was objectionable. With respect, I disagree on both points.

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

Does the Minister agree that, if, under this clause in future, somebody were to fail—they could prove only 45% of the relevant limb of the clause—they nevertheless could not be refouled? Certainly, under Article 3 of the ECHR the test is “reasonable likelihood” and not “balance of probabilities”.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

With respect, refoulement is a separate issue and, with greater respect, I will deal with it separately. What we are establishing here is what you need to do to establish your “well-founded fear”. If you cannot establish, on the balance of probabilities, that you are who you say you are, then yes, under this test, you will not satisfy Clause 31(2)(a).

I will now turn to Clause 32, because otherwise I will start to repeat myself. Article 1(A)(2) of the refugee convention states that a refugee is an individual who has a

“well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”,

and Clause 32 lays out precisely what is meant by each of those characteristics, which are sometimes called “convention reasons”. Again, the purpose here is to make sure that all decision-makers, including both the Home Office and the courts, understand and operate to the same definitions. That is, I suggest, a desirable law reform.

On Amendment 105, there is a mismatch between how the concept of a “particular social group” is defined in current legislation, government policy and some tribunal judgments, and also in how the definition has been interpreted by some courts. There is no authoritative or universally agreed definition of “particular social group” among state parties to the convention and, in particular, there is no universal agreement as to whether the test set out in Article 1(A)(2) of the refugee convention should be applied cumulatively. The UNHCR has issued guidance supporting the view that the cumulative approach is a misapplication of the refugee convention, but, as I said in the last group, that guidance is neither legally binding nor determinative as a matter of international law.

Article 1(A)(2) of the convention does not elaborate on what is meant by

“membership of a particular social group”;

there is no supranational body with authority to give a determinative ruling and, therefore, each state party, including the UK, has to interpret it. We believe that the definition in Clause 32 captures what is meant in the convention by a “particular social group”. We have looked at the broad wording in the convention, the travaux préparatoires—excuse my French—the approach of a number of other jurisdictions, and Article 31 of the Vienna convention, and we believe that setting it out in this way will make it clearer.

The amendment would mean that you would have to satisfy only one of the conditions to be considered a member of a “particular social group”, and that would erode the concept that people deserve and need protection based on fundamental characteristics that go to the core of who they are, such as their faith or sexuality. It would broaden the definition to cover potentially transient factors that could perhaps be changed, such as an individual’s occupation. That is the first point. The second is that our proposed definition accords with the widely used and accepted interpretation of the “particular social group” concept, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, noted. It is an EU interpretation; it comes from the approach in the EU qualification directive, which underpins the Common European Asylum System. We are very happy to look at EU interpretations; we do not have a closed mind—when they get it right, they get it right, and being independent means that we can look more broadly. However, with great respect, it is difficult to attack this as something utterly wrong if, in fact, this is the interpretation in that legislation.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I am not a lawyer, so I rise with some trepidation, but it seems to me that it suits the Government’s purpose to interpret it in this way, because it means that fewer vulnerable groups—particularly women—fleeing violence will receive refugee protection as a result. It is no clearer than the interpretation that it is overruling, and it seems odd. It is quite rare for the Government to pray in aid an EU interpretation over that of their own courts. Maybe one of the lawyers opposite will be able to give a better response than I can, but I am afraid I am not convinced, because it seems as though that is why this is being done—it is nothing to do with clarity. If this legislation had clearly put in law Lord Bingham’s interpretation, that would be clear. So why the EU interpretation, which is, as numbers of authorities have said, likely to mean fewer vulnerable people—particularly women—receiving the refugee protection to which they are entitled under the convention?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I set out why we think this interpretation is correct. I am certainly not saying that we are using this interpretation because it is the EU one; I was referring to the EU to make the point that, with respect, it is very difficult to challenge this as somehow an unfair, unworkable or inapt interpretation when it is actually reflected in the EU jurisprudence. I absolutely take, with respect, the noble Baroness’s comments about the importance of the equality impact assessment for the policies being taken forward through the Bill. The public sector equality duty is not a one-off duty; it is ongoing, and I want to provide reassurance now that we will be monitoring equality impacts as we put the Bill into operation and as we evaluate its measures and, indeed, those in the wider new plan for immigration.

I assure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester that we are well aware of the particular issues facing women and survivors of gender-based persecution and, indeed, the asylum system is sensitive to them. The interview guidance contains clear instructions to interviewers in this area. We seek to offer a safe and supportive environment for individuals to establish their claims. Despite references to the decision of this House in its judicial capacity, in Fornah, those comments were obiter. I underline that there is no authoritative definition in case law of what is a “particular social group”, and that is why it is absolutely right for this Parliament to define it in this clause.

Clause 37 amends the definition of a “particularly serious crime” from one which is punished by imprisonment of two years or more to one which is punished by imprisonment of 12 months or more. To be clear, imprisonment means an immediate custodial sentence—I am not sure that any noble Lord made that point, but it is important. Indeed, it is why I brought the handbook: if you receive a suspended sentence, you are not caught by its provisions—going back to the underlying legislation. Furthermore, not only does it have to be an immediate custodial sentence of 12 months or more but the second limb has to apply—namely, whether the individual is a danger to the community—and that is rebuttable.

We cannot accept Amendment 111 because it would potentially allow dangerous foreign national offenders to remain here, putting the public at risk. If somebody has been sentenced to a year or more in prison, we should not enable them to second guess the verdict of the jury or the decision of the court by allowing them to bring into play again whether they were such an offender. We seek to allow only the second bit of it to be rebuttable; namely, whether they pose the relevant danger.

I think I have answered all the questions that have been asked. On the last point put by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, at the heart of this lies not some dinner party conversation but a lack of clarity in the current case law and standards, which make it harder for decision-makers to make accurate and efficient decisions; that is it.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

That may be the case, but all I asked of the Minister was to tell the Committee who has been making representations for these changes.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I have not been here as long as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, but, with respect, I do not think it fair to ask me that question as I stand here. The Government receive representations on this issue all the time. One might say that we receive representations from millions and millions of people who voted for this Government at the last election when immigration reform was full square in our manifesto. I say with great respect to noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that we are having a very interesting debate on some important legal points. If he wants to make political points, I am happy to respond in a political context.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Since when has it been making a political point to ask where the pressure has come from to make these changes? Since when has that been a political point?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

The pressure has come from the people of the United Kingdom, who elected this Government with an overwhelming majority.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

In that case, will the Minister accept that, in a way, and given what we have heard from other noble Lords, particularly my noble and learned friend Lord Brown, it is part of the Government’s strategy to toughen up on migration and immigration? That is really what this is about.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

Absolutely, we want to toughen up on illegal migration. We want to make sure that people who have a right to come in are able to do so, and to make sure that people who do not have that right cannot come in. We want consistent and better decision-making. It is really as simple as that.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In a previous group, the noble Baroness the Minister—I was very grateful to her—sought to make distinctions between immigration and asylum protection; I think that was quite important. To be now almost resiling from that and suggesting, in answer to a previous intervention, that we are going to reinterpret the refugee convention—to respond to the millions of people who voted for Mr Johnson’s Government on the basis of controlling immigration—is a little troubling. I do not think I am alone in the Committee in being so troubled.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am surprised that anyone in a democracy is troubled by a Government listening to the people and putting forward legislation which, first, delivers on a manifesto commitment, and, secondly—as I have said and I repeat —is entirely consistent with our international law obligations. There is nothing wrong and everything right with each signatory to the refugee convention interpreting its obligations under it; we have now been around that point on several occasions.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I am sorry to keep bobbing up, and I appreciate what the Minister said about monitoring the equality impact of this legislation, but does he accept that Clause 32 means that a woman fleeing gender-based violence with good grounds for being accepted as a refugee is less likely to be so accepted? I do not believe that that is what the British people voted for.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am not trying to be difficult here. What it means is that a woman, like anybody else, who has a proper claim under the refugee convention will find refuge in the UK. That is what we are seeking to do. By having a clearer set of definitions, we are trying to make sure that it will not depend on the happenstance of who the decision-maker is and the way the test is applied.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I do not wish to prolong the Minister’s agony but can he clarify something for me? I think he said that, in the face of court judgments, the Government were entitled to change the legislative background. Does changing the legislative background mean that the Government are raising the standard of proof, thereby making it more difficult for claims for asylum to be accepted—this is in Clause 31—and in so doing, overturning the judgments of the UK’s highest courts? That is the first question.

The second question relates to Clause 37. The Minister says that “particularly serious crime” is not defined in the refugee convention and that it is up to each country to define what it means. My understanding is that the definition is being changed from two years’ imprisonment to 12 months. So, particularly serious crime was defined by this country as entailing two years’ imprisonment and now the Government are changing it to 12 months. That is not about seeking to define or a lack of clarity but a deliberate change. Why is that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

On the first point, the position at the moment is that you have a reasonable likelihood test; what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, called the holistic test. What is going on here—and what should be going on—is that we have sought to identify a number of discrete questions and we have applied the appropriate standard of proof to each of them. On the second point, the noble Lord is absolutely right in that a serious crime was defined as one that meant 24 months’ imprisonment and we are now defining it as 12 months. We believe that that is appropriate and remains consistent with our refugee convention obligations.

I am not sure whether I should formally have said that I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

I thought we were going to have more Q&A. I am grateful to the Minister for his fairly clear explanation of why the Government are doing what they are doing. I am not totally satisfied that we have heard the full reason. Over the years, we have not had any arguments put to us that the 1951 convention was not working; the arguments have been elsewhere. Suddenly, we are given these different considerations for why we should pass this. However, we will be back on Report, having listened to what the Minister has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I begin with Amendment 107, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, whose analysis I listened to very carefully. It seeks to reflect the position in the Adimi case by defining the requirement to “come direct” to include having passed through intermediate countries on the refugee’s way to the UK. I assure the noble and learned Lord that this is something we have carefully considered. Where, for example, a person has taken a connecting flight to the UK, due regard will be paid to the individual’s circumstances in determining whether they came direct. The powers in the Bill enable us to exercise that flexibility, which will be reflected in guidance provided to the caseworkers and decision-makers.

It follows that if a refugee cites a particular protected characteristic as a reason for being unable to comply with the standards set out in the Bill, including to come direct, that will be carefully considered by caseworkers in determining the entitlements attached to their leave. As I said on earlier groups, we will be sensitive to those cases. Flexible powers in the Bill allow it, and that will be set out in guidance in any event.

I will come back to Amendment 106 in a moment, but Amendment 108 links closely with Amendment 107 and seeks to ensure that determination of both “reasonably expected” and “reasonably practicable”, which are relevant standards in determining “come direct” and “without delay” respectively, are interpreted with due regard to protected characteristics. Essentially, this point is answered by the point that I have just made: the Bill has flexibility built into it to take individual circumstances into account. A person may be deemed to have come direct if they could not have been reasonably expected to claim asylum in a first safe country. Similarly, they will be deemed to have claimed asylum without delay if it occurred as soon as was “reasonably practicable”. Therefore, if a refugee cites a particular protected characteristic as a reason for being unable to comply with the standards in the Bill, that will be considered by the caseworker. The Bill is perfectly flexible enough to enable us to do so.

Turning to Amendments 106, 109 and 110, we again tread over the ground of interpreting obligations under the convention. I recognise the importance of taking a sensitive approach to how “come direct” is interpreted and I have already talked about the example of a connecting flight. However, I cannot accept that the definition should be amended as proposed, to enable a refugee to have been in another country “for a substantial period” and still be determined to have come directly. Those in need of protection must claim in the first safe country that they reach, because that is the fastest route to safety. That is an internationally recognised concept. It underpins, for example, the Common European Asylum System, and there are safeguards in the current provision in Clause 36(1). Even if a person stopped in another country outside the UK, they could still say that they came direct to the UK if they can show that they could not reasonably have been expected to seek protection under the refugee convention—for example, because they were under the control of traffickers—although every case would have to be considered on its own merits. Therefore, with respect, and without opening up the wider issue, there are some good underlying points in what we heard from my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts.

Amendment 109 requires a little unpacking. I should be clear that differentiation does not constitute a penalty for the purposes of Article 31. However, I disagree with the analysis that protection under Article 31 of the convention should extend to those who have tried to exit the UK without first seeking asylum, because we must interpret the “first safe country” principle consistently. Therefore, the defence under Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 should no longer be available to those who transit out of the UK.

Finally, turning to Clause 36, the refugee convention is clear that refugees should be protected from penalties for their illegal entry or illegal presence when they have come directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened, they presented themselves without delay to the authorities, and they showed good cause for their illegal entry or presence. This will now be familiar ground. However, the refugee convention does not define what is meant by the terms

“coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened”

or

“present themselves without delay to the authorities”.

This clause sets out how these phrases should be interpreted in the UK. This is the same point that I made in the previous two groups.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, asked me whether we were overturning the judgments in Adimi and Asfaw and, if so, why? I hope I have that question down fairly. With the greatest respect, the courts in Adimi and Asfaw interpreted “come directly” in Article 31(1) more generously than the original intention of Parliament. The Explanatory Note to Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 says:

“This defence, which is modelled on Article 31(1) of the Refugee Convention, does not apply if the refugee stopped in a third country outside the United Kingdom unless he can show that he could not reasonably have been expected to be given protection under the Convention in that country.”


What we are doing here is consistent with the refugee convention. There is sufficient flexibility in the proposed powers and the overall policy to enable an individual to demonstrate that during the stopover they could not reasonably have been expected to seek protection under the refugee convention or, where appropriate, to show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Turning finally to the point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who said that someone arriving by aeroplane would be arriving illegally, some joys await us in group 8, when we will come to this point. As a taster before the short dinner break, I point out that there is a statutory defence recourse under Section 31 of the 1999 Act if they are genuine refugees and used fraud or deception to get a forged or false entry clearance. We will no doubt come back to this in more detail in group 8.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

If every country interpreted Article 31 as the Government want it interpreted by means of the Bill, what would be the consequences for dealing with the refugee crisis that the world faces?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I really do not mean to be flippant. The consequence would be that every country would be interpreting the refugee convention in accordance with its terms. As a country, we are interpreting our legal obligations in the way that we ought to and are allowed to. We are going back—

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

The Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended that this be amended. There must be good reasons for explaining why the Government do not want it amended and I have not heard them.

This is a true story; I can meet the Minister in camera and show him the evidence. A young man aged 17, whom we found in Kenya—

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

I am giving an example of why Article 31, without the amendment, does not work.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I am almost as new, I think, as the noble and right reverend Lord, but my understanding of procedure is that that is meant to be for questions. If the noble and right reverend Lord will write to me or meet me to discuss that particular case, I will certainly discuss it with him. If the case raises a point of principle, I will deal with it. If it raises a point of principle that I think will be helpful for the Committee to hear, I will write to him and provide a copy of the letter. I hope that is helpful for this evening.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, may I just say that this is Committee? This is not Report. Any noble Lord is entitled to speak after the Minister in Committee.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I really do not want to get into a procedural battle. I was trying to be both helpful to the Committee, given the time and pressure, and respectful, I hope, to the noble and right reverend Lord. I reiterate the offer, which I think is appropriate.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Could the Minister answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick? It was rather a flippant answer that he gave—that everybody would be interpreting the convention according to their rights. I think the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, meant: what would be the practical effect? What would happen to the 26 million refugees in the world, three-quarters of whom are in countries contiguous to the one in which they had their citizenship? Would all countries agree, if they introduced this “first safe country” rule, that all refugees had to stay in these contiguous countries—in these encampments in Jordan, Syria, Turkey and so on—and that nobody could move on, under the refugee convention, to another country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I am certainly not trying to be flippant. What I am saying is that we have a refugee convention that sets out our international obligations. We are abiding by those international obligations. It may—I underline “may”—be that a convention entered into in 1951 is not absolutely suitable for the world of 2022. That might be the answer. At the moment, however, my focus as a Justice Minister is on making sure that this country abides by its international obligations, and that is what we are doing. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My answer to that last point is that if that is what the UK Government feel, they should convene a conference to renegotiate the refugee convention, but they are not doing that. A large number of noble Lords in this Committee believe that the Government are riding roughshod over the refugee convention in a way that demeans this country and sets an extremely poor example, not least to those countries on the front line, which are taking the overwhelming majority of people seeking protection. We have bandied around the statistics in the last few days in Committee, but we are not in the top category of countries in terms of the numbers, which are manageable. They would be particularly manageable if the Home Office got its act together in the way it decides asylum cases initially—if it invested in the initial consideration of the claims and did not make the law ever more complex, with ever more delays and ever more prospects of litigation. It seems we are banging our heads against a brick wall somewhat, but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

My Lords, the Judicial Review and Courts Bill comprises important measures dealing with both areas. I shall start with judicial review, but before getting to the detail of what is in the Bill, and especially for those few non-lawyers who have ventured into this legal bearpit, let me say a few words about what judicial review is and what it is not.

Judicial review is a means of holding those in public office, or those using public powers, to account. It is there to ensure that those who exercise public office or public powers had legal power to do what they did, and that they exercised such power in the manner and for the purpose the power was conferred.

The clue is in the title: judicial review. It is a judicial function that is exercised by judges; but it is a review mechanism that assesses the lawfulness of the decision-making process, not the merits of any decision that a public authority has taken. It is not for the courts to review—or, to put it more tendentiously, second-guess—the economic or social merits of government policy.

That is for good reason. Ministers are politically answerable to Parliament and, ultimately, to the people. Judges are politically answerable to no one, and that is how it should be. If people do not like a Government, they can vote them out. But they cannot vote the judges out—or indeed vote them in—and, again, that is how it should be. If the decision-maker had legal power to act as it did and acted in accordance with the law and in a procedurally proper manner, the fact that the judge might think the decision was wrong is—or should be—neither here nor there.

I have heard it said in some of the commentary on the Bill that it is somehow inappropriate for the Government and Parliament to intervene in the field of judicial review. That is a contention I cannot accept, for two reasons. First, as a matter of basic principle there cannot be any field of law in which it is wrong for Parliament to tread. Parliamentary sovereignty, like judicial review, means what it says on the tin. Secondly, and relatedly, Parliament is the proper forum in which the social and economic aspects of government policy are to be scrutinised.

So Parliament has a role—indeed, I would say, a duty—to intervene when the law takes a wrong turn or when it is not operating as effectively as it might. It was for this reason that the Government committed in their 2019 manifesto to look at the way in which judicial review is operating. It is the reason why we established the Independent Review of Administrative Law, with an eminent panel chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, in 2020, and why the measures in this Bill are before the House today. The excellent work of the noble Lord and his eminent panel is the bedrock of Part 1 and the sensible and practical reforms that the House will consider.

Let me now turn to the detail of some of the measures. Clause 1 addresses concerns about the lack of remedial flexibility currently available to the courts, which was identified as an issue by the independent review. At present, when a decision is quashed—that is, struck down—the effect of that quashing is typically immediate and retrospective. It operates ab initio and deprives the decision of ever having had legal effect. This means that a quashing order can be a blunt instrument which is too often applied to nuanced problems.

Clause 1 provides courts with greater flexibility, allowing them to deal more practically with the ramifications of quashing while delivering justice to claimants. That is achieved by allowing courts to suspend the effect of a quashing order or to limit or remove its retrospective effect. Suspending a quashing order means that courts can, when appropriate, allow a decision-maker to make a new decision before the unlawful act is quashed, or put in place transitional arrangements. Making a quashing order prospective-only enables the court to consider the interests of those who have relied on a decision which is being struck down and prevent a regulatory vacuum arising when secondary legislation is quashed. Individuals or families may in good faith have taken actions that they thought were lawful, and, without the ability to make a quashing order prospective-only, would have acted on the basis of a regulation which would be ruled never to have legally existed.

An example of when a suspended quashing order may have been of great benefit is the case Ahmed v Her Majesty’s Treasury. I refer to this decision with respect to the noble and learned Lords who sat on the case, and I am conscious that there was not unanimity of view among the Bench on this issue. In Ahmed, the court ruled that orders freezing suspected al-Qaeda terrorist assets were ultra vires, requiring Parliament to rush through emergency legislation or risk suspected terrorists being able to access their funds. Had the court considered that it could, on the facts of the case, suspend the effect of the quashing order, it could have allowed the Government better to protect British citizens and Parliament would have had the time to carry out proper scrutiny of the replacement legislation.

An example of where prospective-only remedies would be beneficial is the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors’ challenge to the private copying exemption in copyright law. This exemption allowed individuals to copy works they had purchased for their private use. For the assistance of the House, I will give a more familiar, if perhaps not technologically bang-up-to-date, example: making a mix tape or copying the contents of a CD on to a computer. When the exemption was struck down, a prospective-only remedy would have protected actions individuals had previously taken relying on the private copying exemption. Although, in that case, the court was able to take other action to protect the historic actions of individuals, it was unable to rule that the regulations themselves were previously lawful.

I want to make it absolutely clear that the decision whether to use these remedies in any particular case will ultimately be for the court. The Government acknowledge that the new remedies may not always be appropriate and that in those circumstances, the court will be under no obligation to use them, either because they would not offer adequate redress or for some other good reason.

The important point is that we are putting two new tools into the judicial toolbox. We are doing so because there are circumstances where these new remedies will allow the court to provide a remedy that better serves the interests of justice and promotes good administration. Clause 1 includes a list of factors that courts must consider when determining the appropriate remedy. They are intended to provide consistency in the decision-making process.

Clause 2 implements another recommendation of the independent review: it ousts the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court and Court of Session over the Upper Tribunal under certain circumstances. This overturns a Supreme Court judgment in 2011 that established what is now commonly known as a Cart judicial review, or an Eba judicial review in Scotland.

Let me set out the relevant background. Assume a claimant has been unsuccessful at the First-tier Tribunal and wants to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. The claimant would need permission from either the First-tier Tribunal or the Upper Tribunal. Assume that the claimant has been refused permission to appeal that decision by the First-tier Tribunal and has also been refused permission to appeal by the Upper Tribunal. A Cart judicial review is the claimant asking the High Court, or the Court of Session in Scotland, to review the Upper Tribunal’s refusal to allow the claimant permission to appeal.

If the House is still with me, it will appreciate that the first objection to this form of judicial review is that it involves three different courts deciding on a permission to appeal application. That is striking, especially when the Upper Tribunal is a specialist senior court broadly equivalent to the High Court. Indeed, many of those sitting in the Upper Tribunal are themselves High Court judges. The words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, in the original Cart judgment are most relevant:

“The rule of law is weakened, not strengthened, if a disproportionate part of the courts’ resources is devoted to finding a very occasional grain of wheat on a threshing floor full of chaff.”


Secondly, even in cases where the High Court finds in favour of the applicant and grants judicial review, it does not necessarily mean that the underlying appeal will be successful. Although Cart judicial reviews occur on a range of issues, the majority concern immigration cases. Only around 3.4% of the underlying appeals are successful, compared to a general success rate of 30% to 50% for other judicial review cases.

The ousting of supervisory court jurisdiction contained in Clause 2 is clear in its intent and narrow in scope. It still allows for some oversight by the supervisory court in the very unlikely event the Upper Tribunal acts in bad faith or commits a fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice. In this regard, I commend the work of Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project, which has highlighted the problems associated with the Cart judgment for a number of years and produced several illuminating papers more broadly in the area of judicial review. Taken together, those two clauses deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment in a sensible and measured way.

I will take a few moments to outline some of the other provisions in the Bill dealing with courts and tribunals against the background of the Covid pandemic.

In the criminal courts, the Bill introduces new measures to modernise court processes and improve efficiency by updating procedures and avoiding unnecessary hearings. Clause 3 will enable the swifter resolution of specified low-level offences, such as travelling on a train without a ticket, by giving adult defendants who intend to plead guilty the option of entering their plea and accepting a conviction and pre-determined penalty entirely online. But there are safeguards: there is a cooling-off period and the courts will have the power to set aside any conviction that appears unjust.

Defendants prosecuted for either-way cases will always be given a specified first hearing date at a magistrates’ court, but Clause 6 enables defendants to have the additional option to indicate a plea and proceed with the trial allocation procedure online. They can do that only with the support of a legal representative. Any online indication will become binding only when they appear at a subsequent court hearing to confirm it.

Clause 9 gives magistrates’ courts powers to proceed with a trial allocation decision in the absence of a defendant who fails to appear without good reason and where the magistrates consider it in the interests of justice to do so. Again, there are special provisions for children and to make sure that adult defendants who do not understand what has been going on have an opportunity later in the process to elect for jury trial.

Clause 11 helps to speed up court recovery by enabling the Crown Court to return more cases to the magistrates’ court where appropriate. That is estimated to save 400 Crown Court sitting days a year.

We have made changes to magistrates’ court sentencing powers. We are extending the sentencing powers from a maximum of six months’ imprisonment to 12 months for a single triable either-way offence. We will do that by commencing existing provisions in the Sentencing Act 2020 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

We have a number of measures that will streamline and simplify coroners’ court procedures, which will speed up the inquest process for bereaved families and reduce unnecessary distress. The coroner measures in the Bill have been designed to support the Chief Coroner and coroners as they implement their post-pandemic recovery plans and address the backlog of inquest cases which have accumulated due to the pandemic in many coroner areas.

Moving to employment tribunals, the Bill will introduce measures to transfer rule-making powers for the employment tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal to the Tribunal Procedure Committee. Transferring these powers to an independent judge-led committee will provide a swift and efficient rule-making process for these tribunals and deliver greater alignment within the unified tribunal system.

We are also setting up an online procedure rule committee, which will create rules for online procedures in the civil and family courts and in tribunals. That will ensure a consistency of online rules across the jurisdictions. However, that will not mean that users cannot engage with the court in more traditional ways. Although digital services will undoubtedly become the default, we understand that not everyone will choose to participate in a hearing by electronic means or will be able to use digital services to pursue their legal rights. The measures in the Bill will ensure that paper forms will remain available for citizens participating in proceedings. An offline option will always be available for those who need it.

Finally, the Bill will enable the development of a new, purpose-built combined courthouse in the City of London. Not only will the new courthouse provide 10 additional courtrooms but court users will also benefit by having access to more modern facilities.

In summary, the Bill, which is short but focused and wide-ranging, will enable sensible and practical reforms to judicial review. It will streamline and improve processes across the Courts & Tribunals Service. I look forward to discussing the Bill during this debate and henceforth, and indeed to continuing discussions I have already had with many Members of the House. For those essential reasons, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all Members of your Lordships’ House who have contributed to a wide-ranging and, if I may say so, extremely good debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to a number of pressure groups which had put out various press releases dealing with the judicial review measures. I have received those as well—I have even read them—and nothing in the Bill justifies the charge levelled against the Government of putting whole swathes of government policy or decision-making beyond the scope of review. The fact is that for some groups, any legislation in the field of judicial review is treated as necessarily improper and wrong in principle. Too many groups, I am afraid, wrote their press releases first and then read the Bill. That also goes, I have to say, for the Twitter feed of one Member of your Lordships’ House, who unfortunately cannot be with us this evening. This is not, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, a full-frontal attack on judicial review. It is not even guerrilla tactics. What it is is a proportionate and sensible response.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it—that is good Conservative philosophy—but my noble friend Lord Moylan showed us that there are improvements we can make and it is quite right for this House to look at judicial review, and that is even before we get to the jurisprudential niceties of what a quashing order actually is, what the difference is between a quashing order and a declaration, and why if you can get a declaration you need a quashing order at all. All those joys await us in Committee, when we get to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, referred to as “troublesome doctrines”. If it is troublesome for the noble and learned Lord, it is probably way beyond my—unpaid—pay grade.

Prospective-only quashing was raised by a number of noble Lords. The relevant point seems to be that there are plainly circumstances where a prospective-only quashing order is, and will be, in the best interests of justice and good administration. That is particularly relevant for individuals, businesses and families who may in good faith have taken actions based on regulations which are to be quashed. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, referred to some very serious circumstances in some hypothetical examples. Those circumstances might well provide a good reason not to use a prospective quashing order, but the point is that the courts are not obligated to do so. What we want to do in the Bill is to provide the courts—I will use the metaphor again—with new tools in the toolbox but it is ultimately up to the judge to decide whether to take them out. To support this, Clause 1(8) lists factors which courts should consider when determining whether the new remedies are appropriate. The interests of justice is the overriding objective which governs everything the court does and that is, frankly, taken as read in anything the court does in any circumstances. But I say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that this does not limit the flexibility of the court. Clause 1(8) and (9) are there to ensure a consistent but rigorous approach to identify the appropriate remedy in each case.

I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for his reference to other courts. It might perhaps be a first for a Conservative Minister to pray in aid the approach of the European Court of Justice. I am not going to fall into that particular elephant trap. But it is at least a response, and we will continue this in Committee, to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who seemed to say that the courts would end up in the position of having to deny compensation or damages, even in circumstances where it would be appropriate to do so. I respectfully say that that is not the case because ultimately the remedy is discretionary. However, I have to acknowledge the genius—if I may say—of the noble Lord in managing to get the names of the Reverend Moon and the noble Lord, Lord Howard, into the same sentence in Hansard. That must surely be a first.

The presumption in Clause 1 is properly circumscribed. The court is able to make a suitable order in each case. Therefore, I respectfully disagree with the approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. New subsections (8) and (9) make that clear.

I am very happy to pick up the gauntlet that the noble Lord threw down about the Human Rights Act and to restate this Government’s commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights, which is the foundational underpinning of the Human Rights Act. I therefore take the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to heart: “It is not as bad as it could have been”—words last seen on my school report.

We want the judiciary to consider in each case the benefits that these remedies can bring. There will be cases in which they are appropriate and cases in which they are not, but ultimately the judge will decide. I therefore gratefully adopt the point, made by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, that this will enable courts better to fashion a suitable remedy in each case.

My main response to the noble Lord, Lord Marks—we will continue to discuss this—is that the courts will look at all relevant circumstances when considering what remedy to provide. I got the impression that the noble Lord was tilting not so much at what is in this Bill but at what he fears might be in some future Bill. I respectfully encourage both him and the House to consider the legislation before us; we can consider any other legislation at the appropriate time.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, asked me the difference between adequate redress and effective remedies. I am sure we will discuss that in Committee. I have a note here; I will not have time to read it all out, but I am alive to the point and we will continue to discuss it.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, raised the Henry VIII powers. The powers being given to the Online Procedure Rule Committee and the Lord Chancellor are consistent with those given to other rule-making committees. There are checks and balances built into the legislation: the concurrence requirement, the affirmative resolution procedure, and the requirement for a majority of the committee to agree on changes to the rules. We have provided an explanation for the delegated powers in the Bill, including the criminal measures. We have published that online and sent it to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

I now turn to the Cart judicial review and whether the ouster, if we are to call it that, is a template for other Bills. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, said the Ministry of Justice had given the game away. I thought we had given a clear and straightforward answer to a question. The Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that there is nothing wrong with an ouster clause in principle; Parliament is able to do it. The real questions are whether it is suitable for the particular case and, critically, whether Parliament has used sufficiently clear words.

The history of the case law in this area is that there has been something of a legal arms race between the courts and Parliament. Parliament says something. The court says, “Are you sure you meant that? Maybe you meant something slightly different.” “Oh no”, says Parliament in the next Act, “We actually did mean that.” “Maybe it’s something else”, says the court. You have a judicial arms race ranging from Anisminic all the way up to Privacy International and culminating, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said, in a remarkable—I say with respect—obiter dictum, in the situation that there may be some clauses that the court simply will not enforce. This clause is in the form it is in because jurisprudential history has told us that if Parliament is to have an ouster clause, we need to be clear and precise.

So far as the figures are concerned—the success rate of Cart judicial reviews—the Government’s methodology is clearly set out in Annexe E to the consultation response. We are confident that the 3.4% figure is correct but, frankly, whether it is 0.2%, 3.4% or 5%, the critical point is that this is all very low compared with the 30% to 50% success rate in other types of judicial review.

Far from the sky falling in—the classic phrase, “fiat justicia ruat caelum”—the sky is not falling in here. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, reminded us, we are going back to the recommendation of the Leggatt committee—and for those who did not know the Leggatt in question, that is Leggatt father not Leggatt son—and the idea that Lord Justice Leggatt would have proposed anything that amounted to a denial of justice is frankly fanciful. Therefore, I suggest that the ouster clause is entirely appropriate. My noble friend Lord Trevethin and Oaksey mentioned some of the exceptions to the ouster clause, and I am sure we will come back to that in Committee. There is nothing wrong with an ouster clause in principle and an ouster clause does not involve the Government in an attack on the rule of law. The two things are really quite different.

Before I leave the topic of judicial review, I am caught somewhere between my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, who praised me for a cool head and a steady hand, and the implication from my noble friend Lord Howard, who urged me to go much further and mount a greater attack on judicial review. The measures in this Bill are sensible and appropriate, but my noble friend cited my colleague Minister Cartlidge in the other place in saying that this Bill is not necessarily the last word on judicial review. No doubt this House and the other place will consider any other measures that the Government may bring forward in due course.

I say in particular, and underline the point, that there is nothing wrong with Parliament acting to reverse particular decisions of the courts. That happens at the moment but we do not really see it because it is contained in Clause 187(3) of the fisheries Bill. Parliament can do it much more expressly. There is nothing wrong in our constitutional system, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said—with Parliament acting to reverse particular court decisions. I am well aware of the Adams decision in principle and the problems that it has caused in Whitehall.

So far as what I may respectfully call the halfway house approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, on Cart, I will reflect on what he said. However, our assessment is that we would save 180 days of judicial time in putting forward our proposals. That is based on the resource expended in the Administrative Court in considering the high volume of Cart judicial review permission applications.

I turn to the criminal court measures. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, asked about defendants who have no access to digital communications. Defendants would need actively to opt into the new online procedures introduced under Clause 3. They could choose at any point prior to accepting the conviction to have their case heard in court instead, including if they did not feel comfortable engaging online.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, who asked what happens if people accept a conviction under the automatic online procedure but do not know the consequences. The defendant is provided with all the information necessary to understand what is going on but, as I said in opening the debate, the Criminal Procedure Rules will provide a cooling-off period to allow defendants to change their minds and withdraw their plea on accepting a conviction under the new procedure, and the court will always have the power to set aside the conviction in the event that the defendant simply did not understand the procedure with which he was engaging.

Online justice is important. It does not amount to a denial of justice or justice being done in secret. Indeed, the days of local newspapers sending reporters to sit at the back of the magistrates’ court are long gone. It is far more likely that local newspapers will be able to follow those proceedings if they are broadcast online. That is why last week I introduced a statutory instrument to broadcast the Competition Appeal Tribunal online. I do not necessarily recommend it to your Lordships’ House, unless your Lordships are having trouble getting to sleep. It is a somewhat esoteric—with the greatest of respect to those who practise in it and administer justice. The underlying point is important: all our tribunals and courts should be available because we do justice in public. Online justice can also be public justice.

On the subject of tribunals, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, raised the proposal of legislating to allow pro bono cost orders to be made in tribunal proceedings. He was kind enough to share a draft of the proposed amendment with me. We support pro bono work as a means of enhancing access to justice for those who need it. We therefore support in principle measures which would allow cost orders to be made in tribunal cases where a party is represented pro bono. We have some concerns about the scope of the amendment because it is very wide—it applies to tribunals outside the unified tribunal structure. But we will certainly work with the Access to Justice Foundation and the noble and learned Lord on the proposed amendment.

Turning to the Online Procedure Rule Committee, I assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that it will work in co-ordination with other committees. Again, online justice can improve access to justice. Let us take a small trader who has a small debt to recover in the county court. Will they give up a day’s work and sit there waiting for their case to be called on in a face-to-face hearing? Perhaps not. Will they tune in, so to speak, to an online hearing, where they can stop where they are working and go on their laptop or iPad for an online hearing for one hour, vindicate their legal rights and get a judgment? Online justice can improve access to justice for those for whom the current justice system provides obstacles.

I do not want to unduly delay the House, but there were a couple of questions on coroners’ proceedings. I am sure we will debate those in Committee. The essential point when it comes to coroners is that we want to reduce unnecessary processes in the coroners’ courts. We want to maintain the distinction between a coroner’s court and other courts. A coroner’s court is inquisitorial, fact-finding, and ought not to be adversarial. We have to bear in mind that what is good for courts normally may not be good for coroners’ courts.

I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, who welcomed the City of London courthouses. Whether that was a subtle request to be invited to the opening, I am not sure. But, in all seriousness, they will be a very valuable addition to the court estate. We are committed to maintaining London’s position as the pre-eminent dispute resolution city in the world.

Finally, on the territorial extent of the Bill, the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, I am grateful to him for engaging with me; we have had a few conversations about this already. At the moment we think that the extent clause of the Bill is correct, but we are in discussions and of course we need to get it right. I assure him that we will continue to discuss that further with him.

Before I sit down, I hope that I too can take a moment to say how wonderful it is to see and hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. In my tradition we have something called a second bar-mitzvah, which happens when you are 83—70 years plus 13. It seems that this House has introduced a similar idea of a second maiden speech 50 years after your first. I am sorry that the hats have gone. I remember full-bottomed wigs in this House, which sometimes usefully doubled as ear muffs. I do not know whether they will come back but I will certainly resist any amendment to the Bill which would seek to introduce them.

I am sure we will have very interesting and important discussions in Committee. I am very grateful to everyone who has contributed this evening but, for the moment, I commend the Bill to your Lordships’ House.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Criminal Justice: Royal Commission

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made with the establishment of the Royal Commission on the Criminal Justice System announced in the 2019 Queen’s Speech.

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

My Lords, as I said in answer to the noble Lord’s Question on 6 July last year, due to the pandemic, we slowed work to establish the royal commission. Significant new programmes of work were established to support recovery and build back a better system. In the last six months, we have undertaken several new programmes, and our focus is on delivering these priorities over the coming months.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I make no apologies for asking the Question again, because, as I have said before, I regarded it as extremely discourteous of the Government to ask Her Majesty the Queen to make an announcement which they had no intention of implementing. I had no notice of the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, to bring up this matter on Report on the police Bill. I invite the Minister to say what he said in reply to that intervention.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, since the Queen’s Speech in 2019, there has been the small matter of a global pandemic, which has affected the criminal justice system very substantially. We reacted to that: we put in place particular new ways of working. We have taken a lot of that work forward: there is the Second Reading this afternoon of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, which contains more reforms to the criminal justice system. I therefore think, with respect, that it is a little unfair to say—in fact, it is inaccurate—that we have no intention of implementing that. As to what I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in Committee, I stand by that, absolutely.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, in the Council of Europe’s recent report on penal matters, England and Wales scored very high in a number of categories, including prison population, prison density, suicide rates, the proportion of prisoners not serving a final sentence and the rate of admissions per 100,000 inhabitants. It is almost a world-beating record. Will the Minister ensure that the terms of reference of any royal commission that is set up include an in-depth consideration of sentence inflation in our courts?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, one of the other things on which we score extremely high internationally is the quality of our judges. That ought to be mentioned as well. So far as prisons are concerned, we published a prisons White Paper in the last six months, which deals with a number of the matters raised by the noble Lord. As to the terms of reference of any royal commission, of course I have heard what the noble Lord has said.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, I refer to my interest as director of the Sikh prison chaplaincy service. Reducing reoffending should be a central aim in any criminal justice system. Does the Minister agree that chaplains of all faiths can play an important role in this by giving purpose and direction to offenders? Does he further agree that there should be equal access to resources and pastoral support for all faiths in a truly multifaith chaplaincy and probation service?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to express real gratitude for the work done by prison chaplains, particularly during the pandemic when the chaplaincy had to move from face-to-face to telephone or video conferencing. Access is of course ultimately a matter for prison governors, but if the noble Lord has particular concerns in this area, he knows that he can speak to me; I am very happy to have a discussion with him.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, disproportionate outcomes for racially minoritised people in the criminal justice system are well documented, including of course in the Lammy review. Does the Minister agree that care should be taken to prioritise these concerns through the royal commission?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I have said on a number of occasions from this Dispatch Box that racial inequality in our criminal justice system goes back many decades. We are absolutely focused on it, and I am sure that any royal commission in this area would want to look at it.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, the pandemic demonstrated more clearly than ever the importance to prison morale and effective rehabilitation of family and other significant relationships. Benefits to prisoners of access to video-calling technology have also been proven. Building back better requires sharpening the emphasis on the third leg of the rehabilitative stool of relationships. Will this and access to technology, as an obvious requirement in a world that is being transformed daily, be key principles in the royal commission?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, we know that prisoners who maintain contact with their families and communities behave better in prison and have lower reoffending rates when out of prison. During the pandemic, we rolled out video-calling technology to all prisons. We have committed to retaining this long term.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, when is it intended to start the royal commission?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot go further than what I have already said. We are looking at it, and we want to make sure that we maintain our current programmes. In the last six months we have published a victims consultation, the prison White Paper and national criminal justice scorecards. We have the Judicial Review and Courts Bill this afternoon, and there is a consultation on juries in the consultation on human rights. That is not too bad, for the last six months.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, a significant proportion of people on community sentences report having mental health or drug addiction issues, yet very few of those community sentences include mental health or drug treatment requirements, partly because these services are simply not available in many areas. This must change if we want community sentences to be fully effective in helping offenders turn their lives around. Will the royal commission on criminal justice include a review of community-based sentencing?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am reluctant to write the terms of reference for the royal commission from the Dispatch Box, but we do know that such services are absolutely essential for people who have come out of prison. My department works closely with the DHSC to ensure proper join-up when people leave prison, so that they can access services in the community.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, might it not have been sensible to write the terms of reference for the royal commission in 2019, when it was announced? I do not see how Covid would have prevented the establishment of a royal commission, or how any of the splendid initiatives my noble friend has mentioned would have prevented the commission operating. This an independent group to look at the whole thing across the board, and which does not reflect the Government’s views but looks at all the arguments, surely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, as I understand it the royal commission would need significant resource from the department. The people working on the royal commission were deployed on other work during the pandemic, and that is what they are still doing. The last royal commission was one on this House, and it reported in 2000. I hope that that has not put us off royal commissions in principle. We are still focused on having a royal commission on criminal justice in due course.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

My Lords, could we consider the possibility that we are looking at crime and prisons in the wrong way? There is a lovely printing term, arsy-versy—which is not a rude word. Can we not recognise that, for a specific period, we have a captive audience and we could change them? Many people who have come out of prison have been useful to the community. We need learned experience to help us in the world of crime.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I can only agree with that. We have recently looked very carefully at our education programme in prisons, which has undergone an absolute revamp. Minister Victoria Atkins in the other place has had a lot to say about that. Prison is an opportunity to turn lives around. In addition to punishment, we must never forget that part of it is about rehabilitation.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar]

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Judicial Review and Courts Bill has been committed that they consider the bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 16, Schedule 1, Clauses 17 and 18, Schedule 2, Clause 19, Schedule 3, Clauses 20 to 30, Schedule 4, Clauses 31 to 33, Schedule 5, Clauses 34 to 49, Title.

Motion agreed.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Thursday 3rd February 2022 Lords Chamber

All the previous arguments—about the deadline being arbitrary and how the time taken to put a case together will be different in different cases, particularly in relation to vulnerable applicants—also apply here. Again, a simple caution similar to the PACE criminal caution appears to me to be sufficient. Whether the timing of the submission of evidence has a bearing on the credibility of the claimant should be a matter for the tribunal, not the Bill.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which has ranged fairly widely. I will try to cover everything in my response. I start with Amendments 77, 89, 90B and 95A, which were spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on behalf of Lord Rosser.

We acknowledge that there may be many good reasons why an individual is not able to comply with either the requirements of an evidence notice or the requirements of a priority removal notice. We also accept that those good reasons may often be linked to the trauma that they have suffered. Where such reasons exist, they will be fully considered by decision-makers on a case-by-case basis and thereafter by the judicial system, should a claimant appeal the refusal of a human rights or protection claim.

The key point here is that every claim is unique; that is trite to say but none the less true. I therefore suggest it is correct that case-by-case scrutiny is given to all individuals. The good reasons test therefore takes into account objective factors, such as difficulties in obtaining evidence, but it would also include subjective factors, such as an individual’s particular vulnerabilities—related perhaps to their sexual orientation, as the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, mentioned; gender identity; or, indeed, mental and physical health. I suggest that the good reasons test, which I think is appropriate, means that Amendment 77 is unnecessary.

To respond specifically to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, who invited me to parse or gloss what good reasons are and are not, I respectfully say that the test is deliberately open, not circumscribed, to ensure that all relevant factors in the individual case can be considered. Specifically, I can confirm that LGBTQ+ protections will be dealt with in guidance that specifically addresses good reasons and how they may relate to LGBTQ persons and issues, because of course you can have an LGBTQ issue even if you yourself are not LGBTQ.

Further, under Amendment 77, a vulnerable individual who did not fall within the specified groups listed in the amendment may nevertheless be served with an evidence notice. If they provided late evidence, a decision would be needed on whether or not they had good reasons for that lateness; whereas at the same time an individual who happened to fall within the categories set out in the amendment would be free to raise evidence at any time. For reasons that may be entirely unconnected with the reason for their exemption, they would none the less be automatically free from any disadvantage under the system or the consequences in the legislation, based on what is essentially something of a tick-box exercise. I suggest that that would be unfair.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked how the test would apply to children. This was taken up by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, speaking also on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. Guidance will be published setting out how decision-makers should consider the age of the child in the exercise of their discretion. This should be obvious but let me state it from the Dispatch Box anyway: evidence provided by a child will be considered in the light of their age, degree of mental development, and maturity, currently and at all material times previously. As part of our obligations under the public sector equality duty, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, equality impact assessments have been completed in respect of these clauses. Those assessments incorporate a consideration of the impacts on children.

We are concerned that Amendment 77 could also lead to perverse outcomes, whereby individuals who do not fall into one of the categories identified by the amendment could abuse the process by falsely claiming that they did. That would perpetuate the issues that these clauses are designed to address, to the detriment of genuine claimants, undermining their usefulness.

For similar reasons, Amendments 90B and 95A are unnecessary and would confuse the test to determine the acceptable reasons for something being raised late in response to an evidence notice or a priority removal notice. Unlike the good reasons test, which is fair and is an established principle in the assessment of credibility of an asylum or human rights claim, an unclear and, at least in practice, a rather subjective test of “fairness” risks inconsistent decision-making, which could lead to an increase in uncertainty for both decision-makers and claimants. For those reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to not move her amendments.

Amendment 89 introduces a requirement to publish guidance on good reasons within 30 days of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. This is an arbitrary deadline which is not necessary to include in the Bill. I have already said that good reasons will be set out in published guidance for decision-makers. This will be made available when the measures come into force. The amendment does not assist those in genuine need of protection and would in fact limit the discretion of decision-makers and undermine the effectiveness of the priority removal notices. For those reasons, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to not move those various amendments.

I turn to Amendments 84, 90 and 96. In accordance with the public sector equality duty, protected characteristics must be considered by decision-makers when they are considering good reasons for lateness following service of an evidence notice or a priority removal notice. However, it is not intended that the good reasons are limited to the characteristics listed in Chapter 1 of the Equality Act 2010. For example, mental health issues or past trauma do not amount to a disability under the Act, but they will also be considered. These may be as important, perhaps even more important, than a protected characteristic in determining whether or not someone has a good reason for lateness. Therefore, the amendment is not only unnecessary but could have the unwanted effect of leading decision-makers to believe that they should be prioritising a narrower range of factors than those already intended within the Bill itself. I invite that amendment to be not moved.

I turn to Amendment 85, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. Again, I associate myself with the remarks of other noble Lords: we wish her well. Clause 18 adds two new behaviours to the existing credibility provisions in Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. It introduces the principles that providing late evidence without good reason or not acting in good faith should be damaging to the claimant’s credibility. Where there are good reasons for providing late evidence, that will not impact on their credibility.

The concept that certain conduct should be damaging to credibility is not new. Decision-makers must consider egregious conduct by the claimant, and it is then open to the Home Office decision-maker or the court to decide the extent to which credibility should subsequently be damaged. The good-faith requirement is intended to address behaviours such as those mentioned in the amendment, as well as any other behaviours that a deciding authority thinks are not in good faith. Therefore, there is no need, I would suggest, to single out, as this amendment does, particular behaviours to highlight them specifically.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister saying that in practice—I hope he is—if someone has quite clearly destroyed their documents, that will be taken into account when considering their claim?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I really do not want —as I said earlier—to get into a position of glossing the wording of the Bill. It is very important that decision-makers and the courts are able to look at the Act—I hope that it will become an Act—and not my gloss on it. What they will have to do is to ask themselves whether there are good reasons or other circumstances, and whether the claimant acted in good faith. Those are the tests which they will have to apply. Although it is tempting to do so, I am going to resist the temptation to say that this would be included and that would not be included, because my underlying point is that this has to be assessed on a proper case-by-case basis and the statutory tests applied. I am going to leave it there, because I think I have said it clearly enough.

Let me now turn to Amendment 86A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. For the priority removal notice to achieve its objective and operate efficiently, it is essential that those who receive the notice should raise any relevant claims and provide information and evidence before the date specified in the notice. That is to ensure that all claims can be considered sufficiently in advance of the person’s removal, reducing the extent to which removal can be frustrated, and to allow those, on the other hand, in need of international protection to be identified and supported as early as possible. For individuals who have received a priority removal notice, there will be standard timescales for recipients to respond, which will be set out in guidance. Guidance for decision-makers will also set out the circumstances where it would be appropriate for these timescales to be adjusted or extended.

When considering whether to extend the standard timescale, decision-makers will be required to take into account a wide range of factors and will not just be limited to the recipient’s experience of, or alleged experience of, sexual or gender-based violence or torture, or modern slavery or trafficking. The approach is certainly not arbitrary, to use the noble Baroness’s word. The guidance will, therefore, actually go further than these amendments and will require decision-makers to consider a wider range of issues when determining what is a reasonable and fair timescale for an individual to be able properly to respond to a PRN. For those reasons, I invite the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.

It should also be noted, while I am on this point, that all recipients of a PRN will receive a legal aid advice offer to support them in responding to the notice. Having experience of sexual or gender-based violence or torture, or modern slavery or trafficking, does not necessarily mean—I underline the word “necessarily”; I do not want to be taken out of context here—that an individual will acquire additional time or a longer period to respond. There are many factors and reasons why an individual may require additional time to respond. Again, each case has to be looked at on its own circumstances. Therefore, we need to adopt a case-by-case approach, and not the approach set out in this amendment.

Turning now to Amendment 87, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, a person who has been issued with a priority removal notice can be subject to the conditions of the notice while it remains in force. That is a 12-month period after the cut-off date or, where a claim is received prior to the cut-off, the 12-month period after they have exhausted their appeal rights. We suggest that that is a reasonable period, which recognises that personal circumstances can change over time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

Is the Minister able to give an assurance that this guidance, which has been referred to a great deal, rather than putting what I would describe as cautionary provisions in the Act itself, will be ready before the Act comes into force and will be made sufficiently public so that there can be discussion and consideration of it by the general public?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I think I was asked a similar question, in a different context, on the police Bill. I will give the same answer, not least because I am conscious that a lot of these provisions are actually Home Office provisions. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that I will write to him with the answer to that question, so that when this matter comes back he will be in possession of the answer—rather than make an educated guess, which might turn out to be slightly inaccurate, from the Dispatch Box. I hope that is sufficient.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, on that very important point, perhaps the Minister will take back to the Home Office that this Committee would very much like the guidance to be published in draft form in good time so that Members of the House and others can look at it.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I am sorry for interrupting, but I am becoming a little confused again, I am afraid, probably because we have been at this for a very long time and it is very late and so forth. Is the Minister saying that the deadline that is set for the submission of evidence will be set on a case-by-case basis, for example, if the applicant is particularly vulnerable? If vulnerabilities come to notice that were not initially brought to the notice of the decision-maker, will the deadline then be adjusted and perhaps extended as a consequence of that? Although there might be general guidance about what the deadline might be in every case, is it movable and adjustable in every case and might it be adjusted further as the case progresses? In which case, why on earth is this part of the Bill?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

Let me come to that point in a second. First, let me say that I almost took it as implicit in the request from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that the Committee would like to have the guidance, but I have heard the point made, and I will certainly pass it on. I do not want to go over points I have already made, and I think when the noble Lord looks in Hansard, he will see that I have set out quite clearly why, first, we need to have a system whereby, in particular cases, the date can be extended or adjusted, but also, secondly, why that does not undercut the principle of actually having a date and having this structure. However, I am very happy to look again at what the noble Lord has just said. If, having read it, it seems to me that I can add to what I have already said, I will; otherwise, I respectfully direct him to what I said earlier.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

It may be that, because it has been a long day, I have missed something, or it may be that I have jumped the gun and the Minister was about to come to this point, but I have not yet heard the justification for having Clause 25 at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

There are a number of ways of skinning this particular cat because there are separate amendments but common themes. If when I am about to sit down, I have not dealt with it fully, I am sure the noble Baroness will intervene, but I will try to come to Clause 25 head on.

However, I was going to go next to Amendments 82A and 82B, both in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Different elements of Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 have different thresholds in how they are applied to the facts of a case and how credibility is consequently damaged. Clause 18 is drafted to take this into account, so that decision-makers will take into account the relevant thresholds on a case-by-case basis. Clause 18 will encourage claimants to engage with the process in good faith and, along with the measures relating to late evidence in Clauses 17 and 25, to provide evidence in support of their claim at the earliest opportunity. As I said earlier, we think that by encouraging people to bring all their evidence upfront in protection or human rights claims, we can protect those who need protection and identify any unmeritorious claims as early as possible.

Turning to Amendment 82B, the good faith requirement is intended, as I think is obvious, to address behaviours that a deciding authority thinks are not in good faith. Where an individual who makes a protection or human rights claim exhibits a pattern of non-compliant behaviour during their dealings with immigration authorities, their credibility should be damaged to reflect that behaviour. It is also designed to stop claimants deliberately obstructing the one-stop and expedited judicial process—for example, by not taking up our enhanced legal aid offer and then making a last-minute claim based on lack of access to legal advice. The good faith requirement therefore goes further than the behaviours currently described in Section 8 of the 2004 Act. It puts beyond doubt that past behaviour that is deliberately designed to frustrate or delay proceedings should be damaging to the claimant’s credibility. We think that is right, for the reasons I have outlined.

I turn to Amendments 83 and 88, which would remove the credibility provisions in Clauses 18 and 21. For the reasons that I set out earlier, we think that it is entirely reasonable to require evidence in support of a protection of human rights claim, or a claim of being a victim of modern slavery, to be provided in a timely manner, unless there are good reasons why that is not possible.

However, I underline that a person’s credibility is not necessarily determinative of their claim under the current rules and procedures, and the Bill does not change that. Decision-makers will still be required to consider credibility in the round, as they currently do, and, where a person has raised evidence late, which causes delay and wasted resource, it is right that decision-makers consider whether there is any merit in the reasons for that lateness.

I turn now to Amendment 90A, again in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We recognise that, due to an person’s individual circumstances, it may be harder for them to provide material in a timely manner. Since this is essentially an amendment to Amendment 90 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, I respectfully direct the noble Baroness to the response that I gave to the noble and learned Lord.

As I am on the noble and learned Lord’s amendments, I will now deal with Amendment 91 on reasonable grounds. It is right that, where an individual has been assessed as a priority for removal or deportation, they should avail themselves of the associated legal aid advice offer and provide any matters listed within Clause 19(3)(a) before the cut-off date and they should provide reasons for lateness where a late claim is raised, under subsection (7).

Decision-makers cannot reasonably be expected to speculate on or investigate why an individual who has received a removal notice and associated legal aid advice offer would raise a late protection or human rights claim. If no reasons for lateness are provided, or if the reasons provided are not considered to be good reasons, it would be clear to the decision-maker that any appeal must be subject to the expedited appeals process. In answer to the noble and learned Lord, I say that the good reasons test is adequate and sufficient.

The clause already provides significant safeguards for recipients of a PRN in the form of the legal aid advice provision and the good reasons test for individuals who raise late claims. I set out earlier what those good reasons can amount to. It is a very open-ended test. Therefore, I respectfully suggest to the noble and learned Lord that the amendment is unnecessary and, indeed, would risk complicating an otherwise straightforward and, I suggest, suitable test.

I turn now to Amendment 95 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, but spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. By introducing a statutory requirement to provide evidence before a specified date, the Bill redresses the current balance. It is right that decision-makers should have regard to the principle —I underline “principle”—that minimal weight is given to evidence that is late, following receipt of either an evidence notice or a priority removal notice, without good reason.

I will come to the thrust of Clause 25 in a second, but I will first say that this amendment would place an obligation on decision-makers, not only in the Home Office but also the judiciary, to accept that there were good reasons for late evidence in all asylum and human rights cases where either the claimant or the claim type fell into one of the listed categories. That would remove the requirement that decision-makers should have regard to the principle that minimal weight should be given to the evidence. That would be the case even if the reason for lateness was wholly unconnected to the category of claim or the personal factors. No causal link between the two is set out in the amendment. I respectfully suggest that that is overly prescriptive and would tie the hands of the decision-maker. Of course, in all cases, the decision-maker can take these matters into account—

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

It is not my amendment so maybe it could be worded better. The noble Lord gave great emphasis to the case-by-case basis earlier, which sounds very reasonable, and he talked about subjective factors. Has he read the recent research from the British Red Cross about women seeking asylum? It found that frequently their claims are met with disbelief and they are not treated very well at all. There is a lack of recognition of gender-based violence that they may be fleeing from, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, talked about earlier. I suggest that the noble Lord and those responsible for this clause look at this research, because I worry about putting so much emphasis on subjective factors and the case-by-case basis.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I think I have received the email from the Red Cross, as I think it emailed everyone. I have set up a folder for all these briefings, so I do not want to say that I have read it, but if I have been sent it I certainly have it and will read it. However, due to pressures of other business, I cannot say that I have read all the material yet.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I absolutely understand—I do not think it was in its general briefing, but it produced a separate report last week or the week before, and it is worth looking at.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

In that case, I will certainly read it over the weekend. I know that those in the Home Office responsible for this area are obviously looking at the debate and will have picked up what the noble Baroness has said.

I was just dealing with Amendment 95, after which I will come to Clause 25 itself. I lost count of how many times the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, used the word “tawdry”. It really is not, if I may say so. We obviously disagree, and I will make no comparisons either to parking fines or international commercial litigation. At one point it seemed to me that the noble Baroness was saying that, on the one hand, this clause was terrible and, on the other, that this is what tribunals do in any event and we can trust them to do the right thing.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am saying that, if we trust—as I am sure the Government do—immigration officers, the Secretary of State, the First-tier Tribunal, et cetera, to be intelligent, effective operators in the system, they are by definition capable of looking at late evidence on a case-by-case, open-textured, well-reasoned basis and determining those occasions where there is a good reason and those where there is not. That goes without saying, so why do we have to have this diktat in the Bill, with “must” give it “minimal weight”? I suspect it is because, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, suggested, the Government are trying to dictate to the tribunals in particular what is and is not a good reason. That is the sinister aspect of this. It is also impractical, because you then have to have arguments about what is and is not a good reason. I promise the Minister that this will be litigated ad nauseam. It would be better, as he said to other noble Lords, to leave this to open-textured judgment and decision-makers who are capable of applying it.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

As regards the in terrorem threat that things will be litigated ad nauseam, I am tempted to say that that is not really a change from the current position. More substantively, and with respect, to say that the clause sets out that the tribunal “must give … minimal weight” to the evidence, as the noble Baroness just put it, is not what it does at all.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

It says that they have to have good reason.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

It does not do that either.

It does not say that the tribunal “must give the evidence minimal weight”; it says that the tribunal

“must, in considering it, have regard to the principle that minimal weight should be given to the evidence”.

The tribunal is perfectly entitled to say, “Well, we’ve looked at that principle. Actually, we’re not going to apply it here”—for reasons A, B and C. There is no requirement and no fettering of the tribunal; there is no compulsion that the evidence be given minimal weight. What the decision-maker has to do is have regard to the principle that minimal weight should be given to any late evidence unless there are good reasons why it is provided late.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I promise that this is my final intervention on the Minister, but I do not understand why we have to have the provision at all. He is saying that it is perfectly open-textured enough, that good reasons do not have to be specified in the Bill because the Government are not going to put glosses on it or be overly prescriptive, that they can be objective good reasons or subjective good reasons, that it is only about having regard to the new principle that they are inventing et cetera. Why have this at all?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

It is because there is absolutely nothing wrong with Parliament saying to a tribunal, “We want you to have regard to this principle, but of course the final decision is yours”. We do that in other areas of the law as well. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, kindly said, I gave evidence yesterday to her committee in what I hope was an interesting session. One thing we talked about was Section 12 of the Human Rights Act. The layout there was not a million miles away from this. It too gives a very clear direction to the court, but ultimately it is the court’s decision. I find it slightly surprising that, on the one hand, the noble Baroness is saying that this is tawdry and dreadful but, on the other, is saying, “Actually, you don’t need it all because the same result is going to eventuate”. Both points cannot be right at the same time.

As we all know, the asylum and the legal systems in this regard are overwhelmed. We see repeated unmeritorious claims at the very last minute designed to delay removal. This clause is a proper part of an overall system to make sure that we give protection to those who need it—I always put that first; that is the most important thing—and at the same time to identify unmeritorious claims.

Finally, Amendment 137 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, seeks to implement a recommendation made by the JCHR in its ninth report. Of course, we welcome the JCHR’s positive comments on Clause 45. Migrants who are subject to removal must be given sufficient opportunity to access justice. The clause improves and enhances the status quo. It gives a statutory guarantee that migrants will receive a minimum notice period of five working days. As a result, some migrants will get more time compared to the current policy. It introduces a separate statutory requirement for a notice of departure details to be provided to the migrant before removal.

On a practical level, Clause 45 will be supplemented by policy guidance that accords further respect to the common-law right to access to justice. I say respectfully that it is not clear to me what deficiency in Clause 45 Amendment 137 tries to address. I would genuinely welcome engagement from the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, to identify what offending aspects of Clause 45 there may be and how Amendment 137 would solve them.

Therefore, having taken probably too much of the Committee’s time already, I invite the various noble Lords to consider not pressing their amendments.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this very important debate. I also thank the Minister. Yes, it was a long reply, but it was an important one and it did not take up too much time. Sometimes long replies are needed, and the Minister was right to take the time that he took to respond. There are a large number of points on which I could reply to the Minister, but it is clear that we will have to come back to some of them on Report.

If the Minister does not mind me chiding him slightly, I will say that that was a bit of a “no worries, no problem” defence: “Everything is fine. It will all be sorted in guidance, although we will not see it until some future time. Do not worry about the children problem that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raised, because we have all taken into account the sensitivity of children and how old they are. Do not worry about LGBTQI because they will all be very reasonable. Do not worry about the good reasons either—it will all be sorted. Good reasons mean good reasons. Nobody will do anything about it if the reasons are good.”

One example where the Minister was in trouble at the end essentially concerned Clause 25(2). When is a principle not a principle? Is it a principle when it is written down? I love the phrase “have regard to”; it is always put in. The Minister said that we do not have to take X or Y into account. In a sense, he agreed with the JCHR that a better word would be “may” instead of “must”. This is quite a significant change—something may be taken into account, or it may not be. At the moment, it says “must”. This is the problem with which he was trying to wrestle—first, whether there is a principle at all, and secondly, whether “may” or “must” should be used.

The Government are seeking to deal with the problem that the asylum system is in chaos. Half the decisions are overturned on appeal. Panic has broken out. The Government say, “We cannot have this. The public are going mad. Everybody is dissatisfied. We will get more and more of this. Everyone is making late appeals. They are not abiding by the rules. We have to do something.” A whole series of new measures is being taken to overcome a bureaucratic problem. In the end, it needs good—probably trained—decision-making, speedily done, to get a system that works. The Government will not address the very real problem in the Bill, particularly in respect of late priority notices, except on a piece of paper. In a year or two or three, there will be a Nationality and Borders Bill mark 2. If they are not careful, whoever is in government—I hope it will be a different Government—will be panicking in the face of it not working. They will bring in other measures.

Much of what has quite rightly been raised by noble Lords across the Chamber will have to be revisited on Report. I thank the Minister again for his courtesy and for the time and trouble he took to try to respond. Finally, the sooner we have a look at the guidance, the better. It is very frustrating when the Government say that they will publish the guidance and it is published after the Bill is passed. We deserve to see the guidance as soon as possible. I would be very grateful if the Minister could pass this on. I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Secondly, but still on the point of efficiency, concerns have been raised that far from making the system faster, this will lead to a backlog of cases in the Upper Tribunal. Can the Government say what estimation has been made of the impact of these provisions on the upper tribunal?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, in the last group I spoke at some length. This time I hope to be more brief. The principles have been discussed in some other groups and the points at issue are of relatively narrow ambit, although they are important.

Clause 22 creates a new expedited appeal that will be heard in the Upper Tribunal. Too often, those facing removal or deportation utilise delay tactics to thwart removal action, such as withholding relevant information in their initial claim, which can be used later if they are first refused, resulting in late and repeated claims and subsequent appeals. That is both costly and an unfair burden on the courts and tribunals system. With this clause, appeals in relation to late human rights or protection claims brought by recipients of a PRN are determined quickly, with decisions being final. That removes the incentive for bringing late claims.

Where a person provides good reasons for a late claim, their right of appeal will not be certified as an expedited appeal. Furthermore, the Committee will note in Clause 22(5) that the Upper Tribunal retains discretion and when it considers that the only way that justice can be done in an individual appeal is to remit to the First-tier Tribunal, that is what it will do. Therefore, while I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser, that better decision-making is important and certainly part of the answer, I do not accept the implication of their contributions, that it is the only answer. This is also an important thing that we can do to improve the system.

Clause 23 works together with Clause 22 to ensure that individuals cannot utilise the appeal system as a tool for delay. Clause 22 provides expedited appeals to be determined quickly and finally by the Upper Tribunal. There may be additional rights generated by other claims that an individual may want to exercise in parallel with an expedited appeal. Those other appeals might usually be heard in the First-tier Tribunal. Therefore, without Clause 23, an expedited appeal might have concluded but there would be an outstanding appeal in the First-tier Tribunal, which would prevent removal. Clause 23 provides that the other related appeals will be heard by the Upper Tribunal at the same time, so provides a suitable one-stop shop. Again, there is a safeguard to ensure that in cases where the Upper Tribunal thinks that justice can be done only by continuing the appeal in the First-Tier Tribunal, it can do that. That is the burden of Clause 23(7).

For those reasons, which are brief but, I hope, persuasive, I beg to move that Clause 22 stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

As I say, we support the amendment and the purpose behind it, but our initial feeling is that seven hours is not enough time for a legal representative to take instructions from, advise and represent individuals who are often among the most vulnerable people in society. That, I think, is the cue for the Government, in their response, to indicate how they came to the conclusion that seven hours was sufficient, and how they would argue, even though it may be an equally arbitrary figure, that 20 hours is excessive. I await the Government’s response.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have contributed. These amendments obviously deal with matters of legal aid, and I remind the Committee that LASPO is the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, just to put everybody out of their misery—otherwise they will not be able to sleep when they get home. I will be quick, but I will just make one point: with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, this is not a matter of generosity. This is not about the Government being generous. I do not want to sound high-falutin’, but this is about the rule of law. Abiding by the rule of law is not a matter of generosity; it is simply non-negotiable, and this provision is in the Bill because it is a proper and necessary thing to do.

Amendment 93 and 94 seek to provide up to seven hours of free legal aid to individuals with a slavery or trafficking notice. They are unnecessary because existing legal aid rules will already ensure that individuals can receive more than seven hours of advice if they receive a slavery or trafficking notice. The key point to bear in mind—and I accept that this is complex—is that a slavery or trafficking notice can be issued only to individuals who have made a protection or human rights claim. That is relevant because it means that they are already within the immigration system and legal aid is already available in order to make that protection or human rights claim. So, in a case where an individual is in receipt of legal aid for their protection or human rights claim and they then receive a slavery or trafficking notice, they are already entitled to advice on that notice as part of their protection or human rights claim. Importantly, there is no limit on the number of hours that can be provided on someone’s protection or human rights claim. Legal advice is available until the matter is resolved, and it may well be for considerably more than the seven hours—or, indeed, 20 hours.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I am really sorry, I know we are looking at the clock, but if I have understood it, and I am sure the Minister is briefed to the hilt, the problem is that he who has, gets more, as it were. If you are already in the asylum system and then you get the notice, you will get even more legal aid—but what if you have not already made a protection claim? What about those people?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

The noble Baroness must have had access to my notes, because that was just the point I was going to make. I have written down here that I know the Committee will ask about individuals who are not receiving legal aid for their protection or human rights claim—and sure enough, the Committee did. My answer is that there could be multiple reasons for an individual not receiving legal aid in those circumstances. The individual might not have passed the means or merits test, and those two tests, as the Committee will know, are there to ensure that legal aid is targeted at those most in need who cannot afford advice themselves. That is one possibility, and I will come back to that in a moment. Another possibility—and this does happen—is that the individual has just made an application to the Home Office by themselves and has not sorted out a lawyer. If so, I would strongly encourage them to seek out a legal aid lawyer, who would be able to provide more than the seven hours of advice that could be provided.

Turning to Amendment 94A, the short answer to why we have specified up to seven hours in Clause 24 is that a balance must be struck between giving free legal advice and using taxpayers’ money responsibly. Seven hours is intended to reflect that this is an opportunity for initial legal advice to help individuals understand what the notice is and what it is requiring them to. It is available on a non-means-tested and non-merits-tested basis. That means that anyone with a PRN is guaranteed access to legal aid for up to seven hours, but it does not mean that, after seven hours, there is no further access to legal aid. Some individuals will need further advice; it is not intended that seven hours will resolve every immigration issue. At the end of the seven hours, any individual who has an issue within the scope of the legal aid scheme and who passes the means and merits test will be eligible for ongoing legal advice funded by legal aid until the matter is resolved.

I am conscious that that gets us into the territory of means and merits tests. I answered an Oral Question in this area on Tuesday, when I said that there was a review of the means test under way at the moment, on which I have personally spent a lot of time. I hope very much that we will soon be able to go out for consultation on that. We are conducting a really thorough review of the means test.

Finally, I will address the noble Baroness’s concerns that the exceptional case funding scheme might not be up to standard. Respectfully, I disagree. That scheme is specifically designed to act as a safety net and to provide legal-aid funding to individuals who can demonstrate that, without it, their human rights might be breached. In 2019-20, of the immigration cases that applied for exceptional case funding, 80% were granted legal aid, so that shows that the system works. We are continuing to work with legal aid practitioners and the Legal Aid Agency to improve the scheme if we can.

For the reasons that I have set out, I hope that the noble Baroness, speaking also for the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will be content to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

Before my noble friend responds, could the Minister at least acknowledge that it is not just a matter of hours? It is a matter of the difficulties of finding a legal aid lawyer and the very clear existence of legal aid deserts and so on? Even when it is not a desert, there are difficulties which are, to a very considerable extent, related to the terms for the lawyers themselves. I do not know whether it ever occurred to the noble Lord that he might pursue a career in legal aid; he probably felt as guilty as I used to, when I was in practice as a solicitor, that my firm did not do legal aid, or at least it gave up doing it. That is partly because you need to specialise in legal aid, as well as the subject that you are dealing with, and that is very difficult for a lot of lawyers. It has led to two classes of lawyers, and that is a very bad thing.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

The noble Baroness’s question is quite broad. She knows that we have had a number of discussions about legal aid, which will continue. I did not do much legal aid in my practice. I do not want to advertise from the Dispatch Box, but my brother-in-law is one of the finest criminal legal aid solicitors in London—I am sure that no one here will ever need his services, but he is absolutely brilliant, none the less.

More seriously, I am very conscious of the need to make sure that people have access to a lawyer with the relevant skill set, because a general right to legal aid is not much use if you cannot find a legal aid lawyer—I absolutely appreciate that. On Tuesday, I explained some of the efforts that we are making in this area. To say any more now might trespass on the Committee’s patience, but I am obviously well aware of this point.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I appreciate the care with which the Minister has responded to these amendments. Although he started by saying that they were unnecessary, he conceded that there is a group of people who do not get legal aid. We might differ in our views on how meritorious they are in any claim for legal aid, but he said that they could find a solicitor and get legal aid that way—but that might not be the easiest thing in the world, for reasons that include what was just discussed. I am afraid that I am not really persuaded.

I will read the Minister’s remarks in Hansard, but I do not think that he denied that there are people who do not get legal aid. The fact that the anti-slavery commissioner was on the case with the JCHR shows that it is not just these Benches over here that think that this is an issue. For the time being, I have to accept that the Minister has given his response and I cannot get any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

In this group, I have the Clause 26 stand part amendment, and Clause 26 requires the Tribunal Procedure Committee to create a fast-track route for certain appeals made from detention. The accelerated process would apply where the Secretary of State “considers” that an appeal brought in relation to the decision would

“likely be disposed of expeditiously.”

Of course, that raises the question of the basis on which the Secretary of State will decide that an appeal brought in relation to the decision is likely to be disposed of expeditiously. Will it be done on a whim? Will it be done on the basis that we need to speed things up and this may be the way to do it? Will they be getting legal advice on whether they should consider that it is likely to be disposed of expeditiously? What happens if they do decide that an appeal brought in relation to the decision is likely to be disposed of expeditiously, and they then find that it cannot be disposed of expeditiously? What is the redress in that situation?

The Explanatory Notes state:

“This clause aims to establish an accelerated route for those appeals made in detention which are considered suitable for a quick decision, to allow appellants to be released or removed more quickly.”


As far as the Explanatory Notes are concerned, it is being done for the highest of motives, and nothing to do with simply trying to speed up the process.

The Law Society, Justice, the UNHCR and the Public Law Project have recommended that the clause be removed from the Bill. They raise that the fast-track system largely replicates, as has been said, a system that was already found to be unlawful in 2015 in a Court of Appeal ruling.

We support the amendments and concerns raised in this group, but I intend to speak only to the amendment in my name, which is to oppose Clause 26 standing part of the Bill. The concerns are very clear. As I said, various organisations have recommended that the clause be removed from the Bill. Their basis for saying so is that it amounts to a new detained fast-track procedure that was found to be unlawful in 2015 due to being “structurally unfair”. The Court of Appeal described the timetable for such appeals as

“so tight that it is inevitable that a significant number of appellants will be denied a fair opportunity to present their cases”.

It held that the policy did not sufficiently appreciate

“the problems faced by legal representatives of obtaining instructions from individuals who are in detention”,

nor did it

“adequately take account of the complexity and difficulty of many asylum appeals”

and

“the gravity of the issues that are raised by them”.

Since that ruling, the Tribunal Procedure Committee has repeatedly taken the position not to introduce specific rules in relation to cases where an appellant is detained. In its report of March 2019, the TPC concluded that

“a set of specific rules would not lead to the results sought by the Government. If a set of rules were devised so as to operate fairly, they would not lead to the increased speed and certainty desired.”

Following the clear and somewhat damning court ruling and the position of the TPC, the Government’s response has been, as we now see, to legislate to reintroduce a fast-track procedure by forcing the TPC’s hand and requiring it to create one.

The questions for the Government are fairly simple. What is it about this scheme that is significantly structurally different from the scheme that was found to be legally unsound? What about this scheme will prevent it having a timetable

“so tight that it is inevitable that a significant number of appellants will be denied a fair opportunity”?

Why, and on the basis of what evidence, do the Government disagree with the TPC when it says that such rules should not be brought in since they cannot both operate fairly and achieve the desired result of speed?

One wonders whether the Government are risking further judicial proceedings in replicating a scheme that has been found to be unlawful or, indeed, whether they would care too much anyway if there were such future judicial proceedings. I await the Government’s response.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I will come to the amendments in a moment but, since we have had a number of references to the old detained fast-track scheme, I will start by saying a word about that.

Obviously we considered carefully the legal challenges to the detained fast-track. We are confident that the new accelerated detained appeals route will ensure fairness as well as improving speed. It is right to say that the courts have been clear, in upholding the principle, that an accelerated process for appeals made in detention, operated within certain safeguards, is entirely legal. We believe that the new accelerated detained appeals route will contribute significantly to the timeliness with which appeals can be decided. We will be able to remove swiftly people found not to be eligible to remain while those people with valid claims can be released from detention more quickly, which is also important.

So far as the Tribunal Procedure Committee is concerned, the Bill sets out a clear policy intent but, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, says, changes to tribunal procedure rules are for the TPC to draft and are subject to its statutory consultation requirements and procedures. We have already begun to engage with the TPC on the elements of the Bill that will require tribunal rules to be made or amended and will continue to do so as the Bill progresses and passes into law.

I turn to the amendments before the Committee. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and, in his absence, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for Amendment 97. I understand the motivation behind it. It is right that appeals made from detention should be dealt with in a timely way so that, as I have said, people are not deprived of their liberty for longer than necessary, but we recognise that not all appeals made from detention will be suitable for the accelerated detained appeals route. So Clause 26 specifies that if a decision is certified as suitable for an accelerated detained appeal, in those circumstances the Secretary of State must consider that any appeal to the decision is likely to be disposed of expeditiously. Importantly, the tribunal may remove a case from the accelerated detained appeals route if that is the only way to ensure that justice can be done in a particular case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I may not have been listening as attentively as I should have been, but if the Minister has already said it I ask him to repeat the criteria under which the Secretary of State will make the decision that he or she considers that the appeal is likely to be disposed of quickly, which was a question I asked. Another point rises from something he said—that the clause now sets an extremely high bar for an appeal to be released from the scheme, and provides that it can be done only where

“it is the only way to secure that justice is done.”

Am I not right in saying that this has been amended by the Government during the Bill’s passage, and that the original language permitted the release of a case if the tribunal

“is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so”?

Why is it no longer the case that “the interests of justice” are a good enough reason to take action?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I shall reply to the second point first, if I may. The language in Clause 26(5) is essentially the same language as in Clause 23(7).

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Is it the same or essentially the same? My understanding, and I may be wrong, is that the Bill now says that

“it is the only way to secure that justice is done”,

where previously it said

“that it is in the interests of justice to do so”.

They may be similar but they are not the same words.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar]

My Lords, I think we are at cross-purposes. I was not saying that the language had not changed; I was saying that the test in Clause 26(5) is the same test as in Clause 23(7). On the question of whether the language has changed, I think the noble Lord is right. I will write to confirm the position—I do not want to get it wrong at the Dispatch Box—but I think there was a change in this clause. The test as set out is entirely proper. Is the only way that justice can be done to take the case out of this tribunal? If that is the only way justice can be done, it ought to be done. If this tribunal therefore, by obvious logic, can deal with the case justly, it should do so.

On the first question, I am not sure how much more I can say. The Secretary of State must consider, in order to certify a case as suitable for an accelerated detained appeal, that any appeal to that decision would be likely to be disposed of expeditiously and that the other conditions are met. In coming to that conclusion, the Secretary of State would obviously have to look at all relevant factors. I am not sure that I can take it much further than that, but let me look again at the noble Lord’s question in Hansard. If I can add anything more, I will do so, so he is in possession of everything I can say before we look at it again—no doubt on Report.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord again for his detailed responses. On the first point, on Amendment 97, I just hope that we do not find ourselves back in litigation. He asserts that the Bill avoids the pitfalls that the Court of Appeal found in 2015 and that the Tribunal Procedure Committee found later. Let us hope so, because obviously, resorts to litigation will also be something that gums up the system, which the Home Office already says is broken. Time will tell if this is going to stay as it is.

On Amendment 99, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is right. If my memory serves, the wording has changed since the Bill was in the other place. Certainly, the JCHR would suggest that wording that says that the tribunal “must”—not just “may”—if the interests of justice and fairness require it, take an appeal out of the accelerated detained system is stronger than the wording that is there at the moment. It says that the tribunal “must” if—and it is a broader test—it is in the interests of fairness and justice. It is a better test, and a fairer and more just test, so I am disappointed that the Minister does not like that amendment—although I guess I am not terribly surprised. On that note, I can only withdraw my amendment.