Judicial Review and Courts Bill (Fourth sitting)

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 4th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 35, in clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 10 and 11.

This amendment removes the ability to make a suspended or prospective-only quashing order subject to conditions.

Amendment 40, in clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 15 to 18.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 12.

Amendment 41, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, leave out “or (4)”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 12.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again today, Sir Mark. I welcome all members of the Committee. I hope we can look forward to an interesting and robust debate on this important Bill.

I welcome the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Hammersmith, to his position. He is returning after six years, I think, to a similar post. While he obviously looked in significant detail at the Bill, he almost strayed into political caricature, suggesting somehow that we, as a party, thought all lawyers were lefties—I think that is the phrase that was used. That is quite interesting, not least if one thinks of the Secretary of State, for example, who is a lawyer by background, but not, I think, a leftie. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is a solicitor and is certainly not a leftie, and neither was the late, great Baroness Thatcher, who was a barrister by training and one of the greatest Prime Ministers in our history—a victor in the cold war, no less.

My hon. Friends the Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham and for Dudley North were not as chronologically comprehensive in their contributions as the Labour spokesman, but they made some extremely important points. Both of them stressed the point about trusting the judiciary. We certainly do not see lawyers as lefties, nor are we engaged in any kind of conspiracy or attempt to somehow engineer a confrontation with the judiciary. On the contrary, the whole basis and premise of the Bill is to trust in the ability of judges to use their discretion to reach judgments that reflect the most appropriate remedy, given all the factors in a specific case at hand. That is the underlying principle.

The amendments in this group relate to the measures on so-called prospective-only quashing orders—those being quashing orders with limited or no retrospective effect—and the ability of the courts to apply conditions when using either a prospective-only or suspended quashing order. Amendment 12 attempts to remove entirely the ability of the court to permanently limit or remove their retrospective effect. The belief behind the amendment seems to be that limiting the retrospective effect of a quashing order will always unfairly affect the claimant—the person who has brought the judicial review. We wholly reject that argument and take the contrary view.

I believe there is significant benefit in providing powers to limit or remove the retrospective effect of quashing orders, obviously in specific cases. Normally, when a decision is quashed, the effect of that quashing is retrospective, in that it deprives the decision of ever having had legal effect. As such, regulations and decisions are deemed never to have been made, and therefore a person undertaking what they thought was a lawful act on the basis of those regulations or decisions may in fact have been relying on something that had no legal effect whatsoever. That is particularly problematic for certain regulations that many people rely on every day in good faith.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith said that the sort of cases where there would be wide-ranging side effects from a quashing order, particularly of an economic or social kind, would be rare. They are certainly not huge in number. The Public Law Project—an organisation that we all recognise has significant expertise in this matter—did a study in 2015, which found that, of a sample of 502 judicial reviews, 18% related to procedure and policy and 8% to wider public interest. These judicial review cases that have much wider impact are not insignificant in number, but there is a much more important point to be made. Even if the number is small, the number of persons affected is likely to be many thousands. That is why it is so significant.

I raise again the real case study that I brought up on Second Reading. I will keep coming back to it because, while there are many other examples one could use, it neatly summarises where one would use one, if not both, of the remedies we are introducing, and do so not to undermine the rights of the claimant or the victory in court that they obtained—far from it—but to avoid detriment in the real world to our constituents.

I gave the example on Second Reading of general licences for the control of wild birds and the chaos that was caused when those licences were revoked, leaving farmers unsure whether actions they had taken in the past on the basis of those licences would suddenly land them in trouble. I remind the Committee that it was Natural England that immediately decided to revoke the licences, through fear of a judicial review. The case did not go through; it was the fear of one that meant Natural England was given advice that it should withdraw the licences.

As a rural MP, I received the correspondence at the time, so I know that that caused great concern, frustration and, as I quoted the National Farmers Union saying on Second Reading, anger among farmers and others. It is all about this point of good faith.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The Minister is right, and of course the fact of the matter is that judicial review is available to responsible and sensible people who are pursuing a grievance, but it is also available to vexatious and irresponsible people who are pursuing an argument that has been settled elsewhere, but that they seek to perpetuate through the process of law. That is why it needs to be redirected to its proper purpose in the way the Minister is outlining.

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has considerable expertise in these matters and speaks on them very well. By the way, I am not suggesting that the Natural England case—it did not go to court, but there was a threatened judicial review from an organisation called Wild Justice, which I think Chris Packham is associated with—was vexatious. I make no comment on that. The point is that it would have achieved its aim, which was to have those particular licences declared unlawful, so the claimant would have been successful.

As I said at the time, had the remedies in the Bill been available, the legal advice could have assumed that at least one, or both, would have been used. If the prospective remedy, which we are debating in respect of these amendments, had been used, it would have made the many thousands of farmers, gamekeepers and others who were using those licences for shotguns far more certain that there would not be some kind of action, which from their point of view would be essentially retrospective, regarding the way they had used those licences that could undermine their rights, even though at the time—this is always the key thing about retrospectivity—they would have been using them both in the belief that they were lawful and in good faith. That is why this point is so important.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

The Minister is talking about giving judges the right to use suspended or prospective-only quashing orders, but that is not what the Bill is about. The Bill is about the presumption that they will use those orders unless they can demonstrate good reason not to. Why not do what he is saying this means, and what other people seem to think this means, and just allow judges to use these orders?

[James Cartlidge]

We will debate the presumption in more detail, because there are a number of amendments to it in the later groups. With the greatest respect for the hon. Lady, I would simply say that that is an erroneous interpretation of the presumption. First, the Bill does bring in those new remedies, irrespective of the presumption, but the presumption is there. It does not force the judge to use them; yes, it highlights the fact that they are there and that we would expect them to be used were it appropriate, but what it ensures is that, whether they are used or not, the reasons and the thinking are written down. In a nutshell, this is about encouraging and expediting the accumulation of jurisprudence, which is incredibly important in a common-law system.

I understand the concern that such orders should not be used to prevent claimants from getting just outcomes. That very point was made on Second Reading by the Chair of the Justice Committee. However, I submit that the clause as drafted already protects against that. The list of factors for the court to consider in using the new remedies, which is set out in subsection (8), includes at paragraph (c) a requirement for the court to have regard to

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

In other words, it must consider the interests of the person or persons who has brought the judicial review.

In addition, the presumption at subsection (9) requires the court to use the new modifications for quashing orders only where it would offer “adequate redress”. Furthermore, subsection (2) allows the court to impose conditions on any remedy it gives, which is another way that the court can tailor any remedy to ensure it properly serves the interests of justice.

I therefore submit that the ability to limit or remove retrospective effect does have a clear purpose and that there are already sufficient safeguards in the provisions before the Committee to ensure the interests of the claimant are fairly balanced against the interests of good administration. The clause gives the courts the necessary flexibility to tailor its remedies appropriately.

Amendment 35 seeks to remove the subsection that states:

“Provision included in a quashing order under subsection (1) may be made subject to conditions”.

However, the whole point is that the ability to set conditions is very important, so that the court can strike the right balance in how it gives a remedy. For example, to avoid detriment to a claimant or those in the same situation, the court might specify that the defendant cannot take any new action to enforce the impugned decision, but is nevertheless afforded time to amend or correct it by virtue of a suspended quashing order. Removing the court’s ability to set such conditions would not be in the interests of justice or flexibility.

The final two amendments in the group, amendments 40 and 41, were originally connected to amendment 39, which the hon. Member for Hammersmith has withdrawn, and now relate to amendment 12. They are consequential amendments that remove elements of the clause that seek to provide further clarity in respect of the ability to limit or remove the retrospective effect of quashing orders. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if we were to accept amendment 12, those amendments would logically follow. However, for the reasons I have explained, we do not accept the rationale of amendment 12 and, as such, we also oppose amendments 40 and 41. I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Welcome back to the afternoon sitting, Sir Mark. I can reply fairly briefly to this short debate.

The hon. Member for Dudley North said that a power grab by the Government was not what was happening in this Bill. However, whatever language is used, the Bill does alter the balance of power. In that sense, it is a movement of power from the courts to the legislature, for reasons I will explain more under the next group of amendments. He said that it adds powers to the judge’s armoury. Technically that may be true, but if the net effect in reality is to create uncertainty and fewer protections for claimants, that is not a welcome development.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

Thank you, Sir Mark.

On the power to issue a suspended quashing order with the option of prospective-only effect, the Bill says:

“the court must exercise the powers in that subsection accordingly unless it sees good reason not to do so.”

Our amendment 27 seeks to remove the word “must” and replace it with “may”. Given that Government Members are claiming that that is what they really mean, they ought not to have any problem supporting the amendment.

The word “must” clearly directs a judge’s reasoning and interferes with judicial independence and discretion, and the Government claim they do not want to do that. It is not just members of this Committee who have said so. The Secretary of State for Justice, the Lord Chancellor himself, said on Second Reading that the Bill

“gives judges greater flexibility in judicial review”.—[Official Report, 26 October 2021; Vol. 702, c. 195.]

As the Public Law Project pointed out, however, the inclusion of the statutory presumption contradicts that stated aim by tying the hands of judges so that they are required to use the new remedies in certain circumstances. If the powers are to be created, they ought to be the exception and not the norm, as the report of the independent review of administrative law suggests and as a number of Government Back Benchers, including the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) also suggested.

The PLP helpfully goes on to say why a statutory presumption is harmful, which is that it sets modified quashing orders as the starting point in all cases, which the judge then deviates from only if the court sees a good reason to do so. Even those who support that statutory presumption can list only a small number of cases in which such remedies might be appropriate. From what hon. Members have said this morning, however, they do not support the statutory presumption aspect, so they will have no difficulty in supporting amendment 27.

I do not know whether this is the appropriate time to say so, Sir Mark, but as the hon. Member for Hammersmith is pressing amendment 22 to a vote, I will be happy to withdraw my amendment and to support his instead.

[James Cartlidge]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady. I would not characterise the comments of my hon. Friends about judicial discretion as implying that they would therefore willingly see the presumption removed. I will not quite call it cheeky, but that is certainly a presumption of its own about our position on the matter and not entirely correct, as I hope we will discover should the amendment be pushed to a vote—it sounds as if it will be.

In her intervention on the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North, and in her speech now, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, although she clearly has a strong view on presumption, did not deny the point, which is significant in terms of the previous group of amendments, that under the Scotland Act 1998 the Scottish Government—and, under other legislation, the other devolved Administrations too—have a power to make prospective-only orders. That is important. I am not suggesting that the power is used frequently, but it exists, although admittedly without the presumption.

[Anne McLaughlin]

But the Minister’s last point was that it is without presumption, and only in certain circumstances. As I understand it, in certain circumstances in England and Wales those orders can be used anyway. Basically, we are trying to turn things on their head so that judges are told, “This is what you will do, unless you can convince us otherwise.” That is not comparable with the Scottish system at all.

[James Cartlidge]

I entirely accept that the hon. Lady disagrees on the point of presumption, which I will come to in a moment, but in terms of the first group of amendments, which were primarily about the important changes to quashing orders—that is, the prospective-only remedy—all of this underlines the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North said, these things far from unprecedented in our constitution.

Before I turn to the specific amendments, one of the most interesting points made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith—which he made early on—was that people who bring a judicial review do not do so because they want a declaration; they want a quashing order. They want, as it were, the full bifta, rather than a relatively toothless outcome. On that point, an extremely important case to draw on is Hurley and Moore v. the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. That was an important decision regarding university tuition fees. Lord Justice Elias, one of the key judges, basically made a declaration against a quashing order—I quote the reasons why—saying that it

“would cause administrative chaos, and would inevitably have significant economic implications, if the regulations were now to be quashed.”

In my view therefore—this is important—the very presence of the new remedies, which as Conservative colleagues have said give more flexibility, makes it more likely and, dare I say, easier for a judge to issue a quashing order, rather than being restrained to the extent that the judge would otherwise simply issue a declaration. That is from the perspective of the best interests and the desire of the claimant to get their pound of flesh—their remedy—and to see their justice served. It is important to remember that point.

I turn now to the many amendments in the group. They deal primarily with the presumption, which the hon. Member for Glasgow North East was just talking about, in proposed new section 29A(9) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, and the factors that the courts must consider when deciding whether to use the new modifications—the quashing orders—at subsection (8).

There are two general points to stress. First, the Government’s intention in including both the presumption and the list of factors that the courts must consider is to assist in developing the jurisprudence around the new remedies. As the courts begin to consider cases where such remedies might be used, they will build up a body of case law about when the presumption is or is not rebutted and when the relevant factors apply. That will increase legal certainty, which is to everybody’s benefit. Secondly, I remind the Committee that we consulted both on the presumption and on which factors might be relevant in applying the new remedies. We reflected on the responses to that consultation. Respondents’ suggestions were helpful, particularly in allowing us to come up with the list of factors at subsection (8).

I turn now to amendments 22 and 27, tabled respectively by the hon. Members for Hammersmith and for Glasgow North East, which seek to remove the presumption at subsection (9). The amendments are based on a flawed assumption that the presumption is somehow intended to force the courts into using the new remedies where they are not appropriate. That is not the case. The Bill encourages the courts to use the remedies only where appropriate. It will be entirely up to judges to decide whether they offer adequate redress. If judges consider that they do not or that there is some other good reason not to use them, the court can rebut the presumption.

[Anne McLaughlin]

While the subsection says that

“the court must exercise the powers”

and amendment 27 asks for it to say that the court “may” exercise them, the Minister’s interpretation is that courts may exercise them. Does he understand why we want to amend the subsection? What he describes is what we are trying to amend it to.

[James Cartlidge]

That is a fair point. The words “must” and “may” often have significant meaning in Bills. The Bill’s wording does not seek to force a court’s hand but provides a clear message that Parliament expects to see the new powers used where appropriate. With respect, I think that clarity comes with the Bill’s wording.

However, the presumption also plays another important role in ensuring that the principles and practice around the new remedies are developed quickly. Jurisprudence can be a slow-moving beast, and the presumption will expedite the process and bring greater legal certainty. While removing the presumption from the Bill would not necessarily prevent the new modifications to quashing orders from operating effectively, we continue to believe that there is merit in providing this indication to the courts that they should properly consider the use of the new remedial options available to them, and to develop the case law as to their usage more quickly.

I turn now to amendments 24 and 34, the central purpose of which is to change the wording of the test that the court must apply when considering the presumption. The hon. Member for Hammersmith proposes “effective remedy” as an alternative to “adequate redress”, which he argues would be a more stringent test. I fear that we are getting pretty close to what we call semantic arguments. The Government’s intention is that the remedies are used only in circumstances where it is appropriate. We are not seeking to deny or restrict justice to claimants. I am not, therefore, persuaded that his wording would result in a higher test or make any material difference to the clause.

Amendment 24 also seeks to ensure that, in considering the “effective remedy”, the court considers the interests of not just the claimant but other affected persons. The way in which our “adequate redress” test is framed in no way prevents the court from considering the impact on persons other than the claimant. Indeed, when it is considered in conjunction with paragraph (c) of the list of factors at subsection (8), I contend that that is already captured by the clause.

Turning to amendment 23, which would remove the presumption contained at subsection (9) and replace it with a precondition—I think we are moving into smorgasbord territory—I submit that that would constitute a significantly more restrictive approach, which would limit the court’s flexibility to adapt the remedies to the situation before it. The amendment is redundant since the current presumption and list of factors provide an appropriate guide to the use of the new remedies. I do not see how it would make the situation clearer than the current drafting.

Let me turn now to a series of amendments that relate specifically to the list of factors at subsection (8), which is crucial to the operation of the new remedies. Amendments 13 and 21 seem to suggest that we need to tell the courts that the remedies that they use in judicial review cases should be used in the interest of justice and add a vague direction that

“good administration is administration which is lawful.”

The problem here, which confuses me, is that the implication of what the hon. Member for Hammersmith is suggesting appears to be that the courts would not otherwise act in the interests of justice or consider that lawful administration is a good thing. I do not think he necessarily trusts the courts to understand those rather fundamental concepts.

I argue that these amendments would add nothing of value to the Bill, as judges will retain the ability to use remedies in a way that they feel offers adequate redress for the claim brought. Our new remedies do not seek to change that. We are also struggling to find a clear justification for why a theoretical inquiry into the relationship between “goodness” and “lawfulness” needs to be made. Those concepts are very open to interpretation, and the amendment gives no indication as to their meaning in this context, while, in contrast, the current drafting makes the meaning clear and focused on practical issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and makes it better than I did. When one starts down this tinkering route—as the Government have in the Bill—and starts trying to nudge judges one way, putting in lists of qualifications and conditions with matters that have to be taken into account, altering the time period over which orders will take place, there are bound to be consequences. We have already said that there is likely to be uncertainty and satellite litigation, but genuine harm could also be caused in this way. I agree, as well, about red tape. It is all very well to try to cut through in that way—and it sounds very good when Ministers say it at the Dispatch Box—but unfortunately it leads to tragedies such as Grenfell Tower. Without the protection given by legislation and regulation on issues such as health and safety, the public are put at risk.

Even where a case has been brought and a decision has been found unlawful, the Bill stands to threaten the ability of people to bring collateral challenges. Proposed new section 29A(5) states that when a prospective-only or suspended quashing order has been made, the unlawful act is

“to be treated for all purposes as if its validity and force were, and always had been, unimpaired by the relevant defect”,

either retrospectively or until the quashing comes into effect. That situation, in which the court pretends that an unlawful decision was valid for a period of time, would appear to inhibit the ability of the person to rely on its unlawfulness in other proceedings. In other words, a person could be arrested under a regulation ruled unlawful by a court, but they would not be able to use that in their defence. The IRAL report quotes Professor David Feldman, whom we heard from, on the “intuitive revulsion” felt against that state of affairs, and concludes:

“We readily acknowledge that the law would be in a radically defective state if such collateral challenges to the validity of administrative action were impossible.”

Clause 1 fails to protect the ability of individuals to rely on the finding of unlawfulness of a measure in other contexts—for example, as a defence to criminal proceedings. A further subsection should be included to protect collateral challenge and third-party rights and defences where a remedy under proposed new section 29A(1) is ordered. The possibility of collateral challenges should be expressly protected by proposed new section 29A(5A), which is what amendment 15 seeks to do by ensuring that if a prospective-only or suspended quashing order is made, the illegality of the delegated legislation can be relied on.

That is really the only point I need to make on this group of amendments; of course, the other amendments are consequential on amendment 15. I hope that the Minister has taken the point. I ask him, in responding, to say first whether he supports amendment 15; if he cannot, as I say, we will press it to a vote. Would he then accept that this is an issue that needs to be dealt with? It clearly is. It may be unintended, but it is nevertheless a consequence of what the Government have set out to achieve in clause 1. Before the Bill comes back, it really needs to be dealt with.

[James Cartlidge]

The amendment aims to ensure that illegality of decisions can be relied upon when using the new remedies. I am also responding to amendments 16, 17 and 18, as they are dependent on the adding of proposed new section 29A(5A) and would require courts to consider proposed new section 29A(5A) when considering the effect on validity.

This new addition seeks to address concerns regarding claimants relying on the illegality of rulings as a defence in criminal proceedings or prejudicing their access to compensation. I would argue that we have already factored in such considerations and given the court ability to make special provision in such a case.

I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 1(1), in which proposed new section 29A(8) lists a number of factors that the court should have regard to when considering the use of our new measures. These importantly cover the interests or expectations of persons who would benefit from the quashing. One would presume that the ability to raise a defence would be one such benefit. Fundamentally, proposed new section 29A(8)(f) states,

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

ensuring that such factors can be covered in any eventuality

I would argue that the factors listed, or any that the court feels adequate, would be used in good faith to ensure that the rule of law is upheld. Having considered those factors, the court can use its powers by virtue of subsection (2) to add any conditions to its order, for instance that the defendant does not take any further action to enforce the unlawful decision, such as bringing forward criminal proceedings. With the powers in the Bill the court can make clear, to its satisfaction, the precise effects of the order that it makes. That ensures that there is greater flexibility for the courts to arrive at a positive outcome for all those affected.

The list of factors and the ability to add conditions already allow what the hon. Member for Hammersmith is suggesting. Therefore, the amendment would make no useful change to the Bill. I urge him to withdraw it.

[Andy Slaughter]

The Minister has made my point for me in drawing attention to proposed new section 29A(8) in clause 1, which does not deal with this point other than under the non-exhaustive provision—

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

It is too serious and too specific to be left to be casually dealt with in that way. Therefore, I wish to press amendment 15 to a vote.

I would ask the Minister to go back and look at this provision, and whether we need further, specific qualification of the kind that I have outlined that could be introduced at a later stage of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[James Cartlidge]

It is an interesting thought that the way we are going to measure the success of our debates is whether we can compete with “Loose Women” on the viewing figures front. I think that that is highly unlikely, no matter how wonderful our language and discourse, but if there is someone who has watched all the way through—good luck to them—I think that it would be hard for them to refute the idea that we have had a pretty thorough debate on the key issues of clause 1, which is very important.

I will answer one point from the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, and this is really where the disagreement, to which the hon. Member for Hammersmith was referring, exists about the extent to which we put our faith in judicial discretion. Yes, there is the point about the presumption, but as I said, that is about jurisprudence, from our point of view. To go back to what the hon. Member for Glasgow North East said about, I think, the case to do with tribunal fees, she was arguing in effect, “They would not have been refunded if these remedies had existed, because they would have applied prospectively,” but that would be only if the judge chose to use that remedy. That point is absolutely fundamental. There would be absolutely no requirement for them to do so.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The Minister keeps saying that, and I keep saying this, so I will just keep saying it. The legislation says that judges must—they must—use those orders unless they can demonstrate otherwise. Why not just say that they “may” do this, and give them the opportunity to do it? Otherwise, they will have to dig deep and find lots of reasons that are acceptable to the Government for not using it.

[James Cartlidge]

I did address that point in some detail in my speech on the last batch of amendments but one, but I will repeat the point. We want there to be certainty that judges should be considering these remedies, but that does not mean they have to use them. Rather, they should state the reasons, whether they do or do not, so that we build up that log of jurisprudence, which, as I said, is very important in a common-law system.

There has been an in-depth debate on this clause, so I do not intend to go much further. I just want to make one more important point. As far as Government Members are concerned, these measures strengthen quashing orders by giving judges more flexibility and more tools in the judicial toolbox, and thereby strengthen judicial review. On the question of whether they should be used, of course that is a discretionary matter.

Perhaps the issue is this: we see the glass as half full. We do not feel that the new measures would be used detrimentally for our constituents. On the contrary, we think that they would be used in ways that support better public administration while still protecting the right of the claimant to obtain their justice, but ensuring that quashing orders do not have detrimental side effects when used. That is why I say that we are not forcing the judges’ hands.

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Cartlidge]

For one last wafer-thin intervention.

[Andy Slaughter]

I have been very restrained with the Minister. He puts his case in a moderate and reasonable way: he believes that the clause will improve not just the armoury of the courts, but their performance. Why does he think that, in bringing judicial review claims, almost every claimant, organisation and practitioner does not think that, but thinks it will hamper them? Would it not be quite perverse if they were saying that without actually believing it from their own experience?

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He obviously was not listening to the same experts as I was on Tuesday, when we heard some strong support for the remedies. There is recognition from the experts that the remedies give more flexibility. I have explained the sorts of circumstances in which they may be used, but if they are not appropriate, they will not be used. However, we would at least understand the reasoning. I do not want to put the horse before the Cart, which we are about to come to. [Laughter.] It is a very important matter on which I am sure colleagues want to speak.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

I am not sure I have bought into that. I know it has become a mantra in the Bill, but I am not sure I have bought into the cherry analogy. I would rather say it is horses for courses.

[James Cartlidge]

Back to the Cart. [Laughter.]

[Andy Slaughter]

Bolting the stable door—whatever. If the hon. Member for Burnley gives me a few more moments, he will see that my argument is that the way the Supreme Court has configured this is sensible, because it works. There is a problem with Cart and Cart cases. Far from being otiose or an extravagance, the ability to review these cases is very necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 2 intends to remove a vital safeguard against life-altering decisions being forced on people due to mistakes based on faulty statistical reasoning. The reversal of Cart will lead to people who would otherwise have won their cases being deported or made homeless, entirely because of the Bill.

[James Cartlidge]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Slaughter]

I will in a moment. Under clause 2, that crucial and focused review will be lost, and with it the potential for fundamental injustices to be prevented. I am coming on to talk briefly about amendments 43, 42 and 44, but I will give way.

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman used the phrase “faulty statistical reasoning”. In 2004, when the current shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), was a Minister, he tried to bring forward a similar measure. Can the hon. Member for Hammersmith remind us of the percentage reasoning used to justify that measure at the time?

[Andy Slaughter]

Along with “bites of the cherry”, I cannot comment on the shadow Justice Secretary’s activities before I was elected to the House. It might be approaching lèse-majesté for me to intrude on that, particularly given that he dealt with it effectively on Second Reading.

[James Cartlidge]

I am happy to help the hon. Gentleman.

[Andy Slaughter]

I would never refuse an intervention.

[James Cartlidge]

In a Bill Committee, the statistic that the right hon. Member for Tottenham, as Constitutional Affairs Minister, used to justify getting rid of Cart JR was 3.6%—an incredibly similar statistic, which suggests that there is some merit in that figure.

[Andy Slaughter]

We have heard every figure from 0.22% up to 9.6%, and some of the experts made the case for it being substantially above 3%. I am making a separate case, however, which is why I wanted to read into the record some of those case summaries of complex cases. They indicate: first, that they are compelling cases; secondly, that there are a significant number, even if they are a minority; and thirdly, that the figures that we are talking about—I wish we could get more accurate figures; perhaps the Minister could go away and help us with that—are likely to be substantially above 3.6%. I know that the Government have moved only that far at the moment, but perhaps they can be persuaded to move a little further.

I fear that I will not finish today, but hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I am near finishing. I will say a few words on what are essentially probing amendments 43, 42 and 44. As I said at the beginning, they are our way of making the best fist of improving clause 2—they are not our finest hour.

We would like to understand why it is proposed to exclude the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court to consider upper tribunal decisions to refuse permission to appeal, where it is arguable that the statutory appellate process is tainted by bad faith or fundamental breach of natural justice, unless that question is one of bad faith or breach of natural justice by an act of the upper tribunal itself. Clause 2 permits very limited exceptions to the ouster of the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over the statutory tribunal appeals system.

Proposed new section 11A(4) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 sets out the limited exceptions. Proposed new section 11A(4)(c) provides for an exception where a question arises as to whether

“the Upper Tribunal is acting or has acted…in bad faith, or…in fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice.”

That restricts the jurisdiction of the High Court when the bad faith or a breach of natural justice is on the part of the upper tribunal in refusing permission to appeal. If, however, the statutory tribunal appellate process has been otherwise tainted by bad faith or a fundamental breach of natural justice, whether before the upper tribunal or in the first-tier tribunal, the High Court’s jurisdiction would continue to be excluded. That might, for example, be on the part of the tribunal below or on the part of a party to the appeal.

Any appeal that is tainted by bad faith or a fundamental breach of natural justice would therefore not fulfil Parliament’s purpose in establishing a statutory appellate tribunal. Therefore, in the interests of both justice and parliamentary sovereignty, any appeal tainted by either of those factors should not be excluded from the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. The amendment could expand the current exception in clause 2 to ensure that it applies to any bad faith or fundamental breach of natural justice.

I pause to catch my breath before I go on to amendments 43 and 44, just in case the Chair was about to interrupt me. If not, I will begin. It is unclear what is proposed by clause 2 having regard to the existing and pending limitations of the tribunal system in securing access to justice for appellants before it, particularly in relation to the function of that system as guarantor of the safety and fairness of administrative decisions. The Bill could be amended to provide a further list of exceptions to the ousting of the High Court’s jurisdiction proposed by clause 2. I propose an amendment that gives examples of circumstances in which there must be special concern about the capacity of the first-tier tribunal to deliver an effective appeal for the appellant for reasons beyond the control of the tribunal.