Judicial Review and Courts Bill (Fourth sitting)

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 4th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Anne McLaughlin]

As I said earlier, suspended quashing orders and prospective-only remedies do not apply in Scottish courts, and will not apply, but because these are UK-wide laws to which the people of Scotland are subject, they will be affected. Because Scottish courts can hear cases of UK-wide law, there will inevitably be an increase in the number choosing to be heard in the Scottish courts. After all, if someone knows that they are more likely to get some remedy for winning their case, why would they not choose the court system offering that? I am always happy to showcase all things Scottish, including our legal system, but who will pay for the increased capacity that the courts in Scotland will need if our system is to be clogged up with UK-wide hearings?

I have already explained why we are concerned about statutory presumption, and the hon. Member for Hammersmith has been very clear, so I will not take up time repeating him or myself. I do not imagine that any Bill Committee has a massive audience at home listening to us—although the hon. Member seemed to think differently earlier—but I think this is something that we should be encouraging people to tune into. After all, it is their lives we are talking about. While I do not think we can rival “Loose Women”, I do know that a number of people will be watching, and I think it is always worth explaining, in language that is as accessible as we can make it, what is going on.

So what do suspended quashing orders mean and why are we so opposed to them? On Second Reading, others and I raised the landmark judicial review that took place in 2017, which I think is worth talking about again. The Supreme Court found that Parliament could never have intended to limit people’s right to access justice by charging them fees to use the employment tribunal. It found in favour of the claimants and the quashing order had immediate effect. That meant that the fees were immediately abolished and the Government were required retrospectively to refund anyone who had paid in the past—and quite right. People had been charged up to £1,200 to access this form of justice. The Supreme Court ruled that they should not have been and they were rightly refunded.

However, if clause 1 had been in place, those extortionate fees could have stayed in place until a date determined by the court, so that everyone who required to ask for an employment tribunal between the date of the ruling and the date decided by the court—say, six months hence—would have to pay those unlawful fees of up to £1,200. The Government would then be given the time to rectify the unlawful policy, although this legislation allows the deadline to be varied if they do not rectify it on time; however, the rectification is the interesting bit.

What that means is that the Government would in effect be able to change the law so that the thing that had just been judged to be unlawful—in this case by the Supreme Court—was suddenly lawful. How can that possibly be? The effect in that case is that everyone who had paid the unlawful fee would be out of pocket, never to be refunded. Everyone who then paid in the intervening six months, or however long the Government were given to make the changes, would also be out pocket, never to be refunded. The Government would then change the law so that everyone in future is required to pay those fees of up to £1,200 or miss out on their access to justice, which is most likely the outcome for many people. We are talking about people losing their jobs, possibly wrongly, and being unlawfully dismissed, losing their entire income, and losing their right to access benefits—people who are sacked do not get support for the long term, because it is deemed to be their own fault.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. Thus far throughout our proceedings, on Tuesday and today, we have heard much discussion about “three bites of the cherry” and the notion that people are enjoying some advantageous aspect of the process. What we have not heard about is real cases where individuals have had the right to take cases to this stage and have them challenged, and where the Government have been held to account for their policy. The case that my hon. Friend has raised is a prime example, so does she agree taking away this mechanism will only further inhibit those who need that protection from the Government’s policies?

[Anne McLaughlin]

Yes, and that is what we are talking about—ordinary people who ordinarily do not have the access to justice that people with perhaps a little more money do. The tribunal system, which we will come on to later, is primarily about more vulnerable people, I would say. We have been talking about the people who had the landmark ruling, whom it affected. Even if they had managed finally to access benefits after losing their job unfairly and waiting to access justice, we all know that benefits are not enough to live on. They do not even cover things like the mortgage. Being wrongfully dismissed has a massive impact on someone’s life. Thank goodness for the Supreme Court judgment and thank goodness it happened in 2017 and not 2022, because if it happened in 2022, it would not make a blind bit of difference to anyone’s life, regardless of the outcome. Despite the effort and cost of going to court, a victim is left without an effective remedy, and the Government or public body, although acting unlawfully, faces no real consequences. We must not underestimate the chilling effect that this will have. For that daytime TV audience not used to legalese, what that means is that it will put people off attempting to access justice in the first place, because who would put themselves through all this for no tangible outcome?

The clause creates a perfect storm, with claimants having no incentive to challenge the Government or other public bodies, while said public bodies and Government proceed safe in the knowledge that they can do what they like. It is the risk of being held to account, the potential for challenge, that drives good decision and policy making. That point was made by a number of Opposition colleagues, at least, earlier today.

The measure also undermines judicial discretion. I know that we have already argued about this today, but it is imposing a statutory presumption in favour of suspended quashing orders. The Minister, in trying to reassure us that the statutory presumption does not mean, “This is what judges must do,” while ruling out removing the provision that says, “This is what judges must do,” did nothing to reassure us.

As Liberty points out in its evidence, IRAL considered prospective-only remedies and chose not to recommend them. It also chose not to recommend a statutory presumption for suspended quashing orders. What was the point of the independent review if the Government were simply going to ignore its conclusions? Therefore, we will vote against clause 1 standing part of the Bill.