Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill [HL]

Lord Beecham Excerpts

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

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I support what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Beith. I declare an interest as a barrister practising in offline courts. That was the reason I did not participate at Second Reading.

The Briggs report has been referred to, which said at paragraph 6.13 that there are persons,

“living mainly in rural areas with no access to broadband, those who cannot afford a lap-top or desk-top computer, and those who for a variety of understandable reasons regard moving to computer after a life spent communicating on paper a step too far”.

I agree with previous speakers that it is unacceptable that the Bill says nothing about such potential litigants. The Minister accepts that their interests must be accommodated—they need to be accommodated in the Bill.

That is the view of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, on which I served with the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. Our report said at paragraph 16 that, against the background of what was said by Briggs,

“forcing people to choose between online proceedings or not pursuing legal claims at all risks excluding large numbers of people from the justice system”.

For that reason, your Lordships’ Constitution Committee has recommended that the Bill must place duties on the Lord Chancellor to ensure that adequate provision is made to enable access for the sorts of people I have mentioned.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 10 in my name gives the right to respond, in addition to the person initiating the claim, to choose whether the new procedure applies. Amendment 11 then provides that, in the event of disagreement between the parties, the relevant court or tribunal will determine which course to follow—the matter just referred to by the noble Lord. Indeed, I concur with all the issues raised by the three Members of your Lordships’ House who have spoken already in this debate.

I confess that my drafting is somewhat less than elegant, but this is an important issue, given the difficulty that many will have with an online process, stemming from unfamiliarity with the process or medical or mental health issues. The report of the Constitution Committee of 7 June, to which reference has just been made, raises serious concerns about the process that go beyond the matters referred to in these amendments but are most apposite to them.

The committee declares:

“It is unsatisfactory for legislation to be drafted in a way that fails to acknowledge the fundamental right to a fair hearing, both at common law and under the European Convention on Human Rights. While ministers may have no intention of using the powers provided by the Bill to undermine the right to an oral hearing, it is incumbent on Parliament to frame the powers it confers in a way that acknowledges and respects fundamental constitutional principles”.


The committee expresses its concern that,

“the Bill confers broad powers on ministers to limit oral hearings in a much wider range of cases than is currently envisaged”,

and suggests:

“One way to secure appropriate control over this power would be to require not just consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, or the Senior President of Tribunals where appropriate, but their concurrence”,


in those proposals. In other words, consultation has to be taken seriously in these circumstances—perhaps more seriously than in most, given what is at stake here for the workings of our legal system.

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the intentions of Amendments 1 and 6 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and Amendments 10 and 11 in the name of my noble friend Lord Beecham. In summary, they remove the potential requirement that people must choose between online proceedings and not pursuing legal claims, strengthen judicial discretion on the need for a full court hearing and protect the right of parties to proceedings to seek oral hearings.

It is right that courts and tribunals be modernised, but in utilising new technologies access to justice must not be undermined. The impact assessment notes that the conventional economic rationale for government intervention is based on efficiency or equity arguments. The rationale here is efficiency, referencing,

“outdated processes … costly for both the Government and court users”.

A reliance on an efficiency rationale must not prejudice access to justice, but I fear that that is the Bill’s potential impact. Clauses 1 to 3 give Ministers extremely broad powers to replace traditional proceedings with online ones, allowing for the possibility of online proceedings being the only option in the absence of Clause 3 regulation permitting a person to choose between online or conventional proceedings.

The Minister can give assurances as to the Government’s intentions but they are not binding over time. The Government argue that additional safeguards are not needed, but the Online Procedure Rule Committee’s powers will be far greater than those of any existing rule committees. Indeed, concerns about access to justice are heightened because the Bill confers powers to limit oral hearings in a wider range of cases than was envisaged by Lord Justice Briggs’s recommendation to introduce an online court to resolve low-value civil money claims. I quote the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, at Second Reading:

“Effectively, this Bill covers all non-criminal proceedings … this is a serious, wide-ranging Bill with wide-ranging consequences”.—[Official Report, 14/5/19; col. 1511.]


It may be argued that protecting access to justice is implicit in the Bill, but I believe that Parliament needs greater confidence; it should not rest on judicial intervention or ministerial assurance to address concerns about ministerial powers. I recall the Minister addressing this House on the draft Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013 in response to concerns that such fees would restrict access to justice. He asserted:

“We believe that the mitigations we have put in place will properly protect access to justice for those seeking to bring claims”.—[Official Report, 8/7/13; col. 85.]


In July 2017, the Supreme Court unanimously held that, as the order prevented access to justice, tribunal fees were unlawful and must be quashed with immediate effect.

As many noble Lords have said, curtailing the use of oral hearings will have a particular impact on access to justice for vulnerable court users with limited digital means, digital literacy and general literacy skills. The Constitution Committee observed that,

“the Office for National Statistics concluded that … 5.3 million adults in the UK … could be characterised as ‘internet non-users’”.

However, the committee noted that this figure may understate the problem. It said:

“Such figures do not take into account those with limited digital skills, for whom basic browsing and messaging may be within their capabilities but the complexity of online legal forms may not”.


People with limited general literacy skills will be disadvantaged by proceedings conducted solely in writing without access to oral hearings. As has been referred to, the charity Mind reports how people with mental health problems are disproportionately likely to experience digital exclusion, struggle with digital engagement and are nearly twice as likely to experience legal problems.

The Government’s objective is to devise new rules that will focus on users being able to solve grievances and resolve their issues online at the earliest opportunity, as well as to encourage more people to resolve disputes before they reach the hearing stage. If the Government are right in their assumptions, which are still to be tested, many people will prefer to use online proceedings voluntarily and efficiencies will be gained. However, that is not compulsion; people should retain the right to seek access to an oral hearing. Ministerial powers with the potential to require people to choose between online proceedings or not pursuing legal claims carry the real risk of incompatibility with the principle of access to justice. Amendments 1, 6, 10 and 11 seek to address that risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

My Lords, Amendment 2 addresses Schedule 2 on the Online Procedure Rule Committee, how it relates to proceedings under the standard civil, family and tribunal procedures rules, and when these do not apply. Although I appreciate the importance of a clear process indicating which rules govern proceedings—and giving precedence to one committee does achieve that—I am concerned that the result will be the OPRC being able to make decisions about the appropriateness of online procedures for cases without input from the Family Procedure Rule Committee or other relevant jurisdictional committees. Amendment 2 could resolve this issue by clarifying under Clause 1 that the relevant jurisdictional rule committee must determine which proceedings can be governed by Online Procedure Rule Committee.

On Amendment 8, Clause 1(1)(b) would allow the OPRC to designate any family proceedings to be dealt with online. While I appreciate that the aim of the legislation is to be permissive, with the details to be delegated to the OPRC, I am concerned that no limits are set out in the primary legislation in relation to the appropriateness of online processes within the family court. At Second Reading, I raised concerns about the appropriateness of full video hearings in the family court. The president of the Family Division has said that, in the vast majority of cases, face-to-face hearings would normally be required for contested cases involving oral evidence, multiparty cases concerning litigants in person, or any cases concerning children. It can be the case that not all participants have to be present in court. I know that is fairly common practice in other parts of the country, depending on the distance to be travelled, when turning to the family court. But the general expectation should be that anything to do with the family jurisdiction—any contested matter—should be held in person and not online.

I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I refer to Amendments 7 and 8 in this group. I suspect that the inclusion of a reference to criminal justice proceedings is otiose; I hope so. No doubt the Minister will confirm that, in which case I will not press the issue; it would be entirely unnecessary, as indeed it should be.

There is a concern about possession claims for homes. We in your Lordships’ House are all aware of the great pressure on the housing sector and the vulnerability of a great many people in private rented accommodation in particular. It seems sensible that they should not be included in the general proposition of reverting to digital processes, because I suspect they are the least likely to be able to cope with that way of proceeding. I hope the noble and learned Lord will give that some further consideration, although he may not necessarily respond one way or the other today. Given the state of the housing market and the well-known difficulties experienced by so many tenants—and the difficulties they would have in proceeding under the provisions of the Bill, particularly in the absence of legal aid and advice in so many parts of the country—it would be wrong to include them in a system which would effectively give them no recourse to advice and support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

It is intentionally broad. Again, this is not going to proceed without the input of the judiciary, in particular the Lord Chief Justice, and without application to the formulation of rules of a committee with expertise in all these areas. I suggest it would be counterproductive to introduce at the outset statutory limitations on the operation of these simplified procedures. That is an unnecessary straitjacket, given the way the legislation is formulated and how the simplified Online Procedure Rules will be introduced, not only by the Executive but by the judiciary and relevant committee. In these circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

Did the Minister imply that it would be possible to bring forward provision to include housing, presumably by secondary legislation? Is that what he has in mind? If so, would it be an affirmative or negative resolution?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

To clarify, I believe I said that many housing issues are currently governed by the Civil Procedure Act 1997. They are therefore subject to civil procedural rules and could, in turn, be subject to rules introduced by the OPRC for digital access. There is no present intention to address that in the context of housing. I went on to add that, at present, there is an online procedure for some forms of housing claim, such as possession claims, which can be made through the relevant website. I emphasise that housing cases fall within the wide remit of this legislation, but there is no present intention to embrace them within the OPRC.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Woolf]

My Lords, I hope it will not be inappropriate, in view of the elegant and powerful speeches already made, for me to say these few words. I was a party to the concordat, the importance of which was that it established the new relationship between the arms of government, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, referred, until the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. I hope it will suffice to say that everything said in support of this amendment seems four-square with what was said in the concordat, indicating when the consent of the Lord Chancellor or that of the Lord Chief Justice would be required. These were heavy burdens that my successors as Lord Chief Justice had to carry in consequence of, first, the concordat and then the Constitutional Reform Act. It would be so easy to allow legislation of this sort to undermine the spirit of the concordat and the provisions of that Act by creating a precedent, which could be pointed to subsequently, indicating that the clear distinctions of relevant situations where the consent of the Lord Chief Justice should be required are not as they were previously understood to be.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I simply add that the crowded Benches behind me will support the amendment. We are entirely in sympathy with all that has been said.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I begin with a simple point of clarification, although it may be that confusion reigns only in my mind. Where the Bill refers to the Secretary of State, it refers to the Secretary of State for BEIS, because of his responsibilities with regard to employment tribunals. Where it refers to the Lord Chancellor, that reference includes of course the Lord Chancellor’s appointment as Secretary of State for Justice. I say this lest there be any confusion about the two references in the Bill.

As I indicated at Second Reading, we have a number of concerns about the implications of these amendments. The Bill has been drafted precisely to ensure that the existing constitutional balance is protected. I will elaborate on that in light of some observations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, with reference to Amendment 28, which concerns the Minister’s power to direct the committee to include provision in the online procedure rules to give effect to a specified purpose.

I stress that this is not a novel power, nor would it apply only to the Online Procedure Rule Committee. The same power already features in the legislation which underpins the committees for the Civil Procedure Rules, Family Procedure Rules and Tribunal Procedure Rules. That is because Clause 8 reflects similar provisions in Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act 1997, Section 79A of the Courts Act 2003 and Part 3 of Schedule 5 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. That power was one agreed by the then Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice under the concordat of 2004 and given effect in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The safety valve within the 2005 Act is Section 5, which confers upon the Lord Chief Justice the statutory right to make a report to Parliament if he is concerned about an issue relating to the administration of justice. I emphasise that this is not a novelty. The provisions of the Bill were drafted to reflect the existing statutory underpinning of the other civil rules committees with regard to civil jurisdiction, family jurisdiction and tribunal procedure.

In turn, Amendments 29 and 30 seek to ensure that the Lord Chief Justice concurs before the Lord Chancellor can make regulations under Clause 9. Clause 9 requires consultation with both the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals, the latter in the context of tribunal procedure. Again, we suggest that this is as it should be. It is anticipated that, as in the past, these regulations would be used to make minor revisions to legislation; for example, to regularise and modernise terminology to match that in the new rules and ensure that the rules operate as intended. In other words, they will be used to make operability amendments. It is in these circumstances that consultation is considered to be the appropriate approach.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

15: Clause 4, page 4, line 16, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
“(c) one of each of the following—(i) a barrister in England and Wales, and(ii) a solicitor of the Senior Courts of England and Wales, and(iii) a legal executive, and(iv) a magistrate of England and Walesappointed to the Committee by the Lord Chancellor.”

[Lord Beecham]

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

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

[Lord Judge]

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

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, it appears that we might avoid both potential problems if we retain the present membership of the proposed committee. Before I turn to the detail of the amendments, it may be helpful if I make some general remarks about the committee’s composition. We certainly support the need for a small, focused and agile committee responsible for making new court rules that are simple, tailored for the benefit of ordinary users and, therefore, understandable. In his final review of the civil justice system in 2016, Lord Justice Briggs as he then was anticipated—I accept—a very differently constituted committee of experts from across various disciplines reflecting users’ needs. A smaller committee allows the standing members to increase and adapt their membership quite easily every time they consider a different topic. That therefore allows them access to a greater spread of expertise and to ensure the rules are made by those who have an understanding of how they are most suited to the user.

The purpose of Amendment 15 from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is to add legally qualified members, or members with legal experience, to the committee. As I have indicated, we consider that there is considerable benefit in beginning with a small committee, but one where the membership and expertise can be adapted over time. We consider that adopting the amendment would create issues about who is appointing the membership of the committee and whether there was a disproportionate power of appointment between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice.

I remind noble Lords that the intention is that the online procedure will apply in the first instance to civil money claims up to the value of £25,000, but over time we of course want to widen the procedure’s scope so that it covers the civil procedures, potentially including family and tribunal proceedings. It would be difficult to see the value of insisting on an expanded legal membership at this stage without first gauging the overall value that could be addressed by bringing in specific experts in the area of specific proceedings being considered. In addition, as I said, Clause 6 would allow for the committee’s composition to be changed to incorporate particular experts or disciplines and particular areas of expertise if or when the committee came to address such issues as tribunal jurisdictions or some forms of family jurisdiction.

For similar reasons, we are not persuaded of the need for Amendments 16 and 17, which seek to add an additional member with IT expertise. Again, the argument is the same. Under Clause 6, the committee will have the ability to bring in additional expertise as and when it requires it, and that flexibility is seen as a considerable benefit.

In Amendment 18, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, seeks to ensure a gender balance on the committee. Of course we support the wider aim of ensuring greater diversity among all senior appointments to public bodies but, to be truly effective, public bodies must bring together a mix of people with different skills, experience and backgrounds. The obligation with regard to appointment is always guided by the code of practice of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, which sets out the design principles and procedures for appointments with diversity in mind, including gender diversity. It is by these means that we can preserve accountability for diversity. That process is monitored by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and is subject to a published report each year. We are certainly not complacent about the idea of gender representation at all levels on all committees, but we think it better that it is seen through the wider lens of the Equality Act, which protects a broader range of groups, not just gender. At this stage, we are not inclined to accept that there should be an express provision on gender balance.

Amendments 20 and 21 deal with the number of committee members required to agree the rule changes. Amendment 21 from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, would increase the number needed from three to five, and that would perhaps be a consequence of an extended membership. Amendment 20 from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, would require a simple majority with regard to matters, rather than just the current number of three. I can see that there may be an advantage in having some flexibility here, if we look forward to the point where the committee decides to exercise the powers under Clause 6 and extend the numbers in the committee to embrace further areas of expertise. I would like to give further consideration to that point in light of that, because it seems that underlying this there is a point that we should address before Report. With that, I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments at this stage.

[Lord Beecham]

Does the Minister accept the possibility that if there is not a requirement to reflect gender balance, there should at least be a requirement to report on it periodically, as part of the provision of the Bill?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Respectfully, it appears that there is already statutory provision for just such a report, because the appointments will be monitored by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, who will make an annual report for that very reason.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

19: Clause 6, page 7, line 17, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, this is a fairly simple amendment requiring there to be an affirmative resolution, rather than a negative one. We are perhaps overdone with negative procedures. I suggest that this is an important area which should be subject to the affirmative process instead of the negative one.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, might I be permitted to respond with equal brevity to the noble Lord’s proposed amendment? Our concern is that this should be a small committee which has the ability pursuant to Clause 6, for example, to extend its membership to other areas of expertise, and that it should be able to move relatively swiftly to do that. That is why, in this area and others covered by amendments including Amendments 26 and 27, we embrace the negative procedure. We are concerned that, if we introduced the affirmative procedure, it would be necessary to take the matter through both Houses of Parliament, with the potential for significant delay from time to time. In fact, we simply want to effect new draft rules following consultation with the Lord Chief Justice. Regarding the consultation provisions as well, we suggest that the negative and not the affirmative procedure is appropriate here.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

22: Clause 7, page 7, line 30, at end insert—
“(za) must be piloted by the Government in a period determined by the Online Procedure Rule Committee before they may be fully and permanently implemented,”

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, there are two or three amendments in this group that look to the Government to pilot the processes embodied in the Bill. That seems a sensible way of dealing with these changes. Amendment 24 would require the Minister to publish a written statement on the progress and findings of the pilot scheme. These are major changes in our legal system, so it is necessary to look carefully at how they are working before deciding that they will remain part of the system. This is a major change, and it would help if the Government accepted the notion that progress will be reviewed and an opportunity given to consider how it is working. Further, the procedure should be an affirmative resolution.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, our Amendments 31 to 33 in this group require a statutory review between three and four years from the date on which the Bill becomes law. They also require a report to Parliament from the appropriate Minister, prepared in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals, both of whom will be able to contribute independently to the report, should they wish to. The Minister’s answer to these suggestions to date has been that the Government will carry out a post-legislative review, so there is no need to incorporate a requirement for such a review into the Bill. Once again, I regret that we do not agree. Non-statutory promises have a nasty habit of being fulfilled well outside the time limits promised. Indeed, such reviews often seem to have as many delays as Crossrail. Statutory time limits, while not fool-proof, at least concentrate the minds of Ministers and officials. Furthermore, without further primary legislation, they do not bind future Governments. In any case, the requirement to review and report guarantees a certain thoroughness to the review and resulting report that might not otherwise have existed.

We regard as particularly important the requirement for the Government to consult the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals in preparing the report and to have the opportunity to report to Parliament. That will guarantee that a judicial perspective is brought to bear on the review and formal report to Parliament. In this case, we regard the combination of judicial and political input as very important. Reviewing the operation of the legislation makes that combination important, as with making the changes and decisions that we discussed in the group of the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. We also support the amendments in this group on further piloting these online procedures. Careful piloting and a staged introduction could avoid costly mistakes and improve the procedures as they are developed. Both providers and users will be able to see and report on what works and does not.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I first turn to Amendments 22 to 24, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and address the issue that the rules should be piloted by the Online Procedure Rule Committee before they come into effect. I will then come on to Amendments 31 to 33, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Beith and Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.

I assure the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that when services are introduced, they are already subject to ongoing testing. HMCTS is rapidly testing and adapting new online services, based on user feedback and service data. That is important because it ensures flexibility and improvements in practice and procedures that enhance access to justice. Piloted online services cannot be rolled out to the public more widely without such rigorous independent assessment carried out by the Government Digital Service, and then confirmation that they are fit for purpose. In addition, some projects are also being more formally evaluated through their development by HMCTS itself.

Reference was made to a number of piloted measures in the existing digital portal for debt actions. The difficulty is that, if we accept measures of the kind proposed in these amendments, we will add a layer of bureaucracy to the rule-making process beyond current practice, thereby reducing the flexibility to respond to user needs and technological changes. The Bill permits the use of practice directions, which can support projects through development before formal rules are set out in statute, so one does not have to go to a formal set of rules immediately; one can simply have a practice direction that assists the piloting of particular projects.

I mentioned before the example of online civil money claims and the pilot that went live in March 2019, which is underpinned by practice directions that require the consent of the Master of the Rolls and the appropriate Minister. Such a project worked closely with the judicial sub-committee to develop the pilot. I emphasise that there is already a clear process in place through which such proposed rules are tested, piloted and reviewed. To that extent, we consider Amendment 22 unnecessary.

Amendment 23 would again limit the flexibility of the OPRC to make the small, minor changes required to respond quickly to changes in user needs or perhaps new technology. It would add time and consequently cost to the development of the online process. We do not consider it appropriate to go down that route.

Amendment 24 would require us to publish six-monthly reports. We regard that as simply unmanageable given the number of pilots across the services that we are in the course of transforming. Again, there is the issue of cost, so we are not persuaded of the need for such steps to be taken.

Amendments 31, 32 and 33 would place in the Bill a requirement for a formal review of the Act to which the Lord Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals were able to contribute independently. Clearly, reviewing legislation which has been passed by this House is of great importance. That is precisely why the Government already require departments to carry out post-legislative scrutiny of all Acts within three to five years after Royal Assent. We therefore consider this amendment unnecessary because post-legislative scrutiny of this legislation will be conducted—I emphasise, will be conducted—within that timescale.

Regarding the reference to the Lord Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals, of course, their views are incredibly important and are taken seriously. There would be no question of us laying a report on this or other courts legislation without taking account of their opinions. Again, we consider the amendments unnecessary, understanding the importance of what underpins and has prompted them. I hope that, with these assurances, noble Lords will accept that the amendments are unnecessary and I invite them not to press them.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, having listened to the Minister, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 22 withdrawn.

Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill [HL]

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 24th June 2019 Lords Chamber

“those with limited digital skills, for whom basic browsing and messaging may be within their capabilities but the complexity of online legal forms may not”.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest, as in the register, as an unpaid consultant with my former legal firm.

It is unusual for me to extend congratulations to the Minister, with whom it is usually an enjoyable conflict of arms over the Dispatch Box, but he has made it very clear in his approach to the Bill that the Government are seeking to secure improvements to the legislation. He has tabled nearly half the amendments that we are discussing on Report, which is an unusually high proportion. That says a great deal for his interest in securing support for and improvement of the legislation, and for that he is to be highly commended. I welcome Amendments 1 and 18, and the acknowledgement of the need to have regard to those involved in the justice system who will require support to engage in an unfamiliar process.

Amendment 7, in my name, does not appear to have attracted a great deal of support around the House. It is designed to ensure that either party may choose whether proceedings will be online or offline rather than restricting the choice to the claimant, which is the present position under the Bill. It would allow the relevant judicial officeholder to decide which rules are to be followed where the parties are not in agreement. I am frankly puzzled by the criticism on this occasion from noble and learned Lords with a rather higher status in the legal profession than I ever aspired to or achieved. But since the Bill itself provides under Clause 3(1) that the Minister may,

“by regulations, provide for circumstances in which the person initiating proceedings, or an aspect of proceedings, may … choose”,

one side of the case can choose. However, there seems to be an objection to the other party being able to make a choice with the ultimate decision made, if necessary—if there is conflict on that—by a judicial officeholder.

I understand that the suggestion I have made would make both sides able to opt for a decision—I remind noble Lords that they cannot concur on the decision to be made—by an officer of the court. This is consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights and is strongly supported by the Law Society. I hope that it may be looked at again, in either this Chamber or another place. It seems only equitable for both sides, if any is to have a choice in proceedings, to give an indication and provide for a system where an independent party could, if necessary and by way of being a judicial officeholder, decide which rules would apply.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I propose to address Amendment 5, which touches upon government Amendment 4, and then go on to look at manuscript Amendment 9A and thereafter Amendment 7. I will also touch upon the two technical amendments, as they were termed by the noble Lord, Lord Marks.

On Amendment 5, the use of the word “initiate” was intended to capture all engagement with online services throughout the proceedings, as I indicated on a previous occasion—in other words, “initiate” was taken as a synonym for “engagement”, not “commence”—but I appreciate the uncertainty that is in the minds of some noble Lords with regard to that matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, made the point about comparing the terms of an earlier clause with this clause, where it refers only to “initiate”. I intend to look further at that matter before Third Reading so that we can arrive at a conclusion as to the appropriate wording, because I believe we are as one on the appropriate outcome on that point. In these circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord may see fit not to press his amendment at this stage so that we can proceed with Amendment 4 and address that point further in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Drake]

My Lords, I support Amendment 22 to Clause 8. I will steer clear of debate on Clause 9, being neither a judge nor a barrister or solicitor.

In Committee, deep concerns were expressed about the extent of the ministerial powers in the Bill, which could result in rules that set digital engagement and participation in online courts as compulsory conditions for access to justice in civil proceedings. In effect, the ministerial powers in the Bill have the potential to require people to choose between online proceedings or not pursuing legal claims. The Constitution Committee shared those concerns. The Minister sought to mitigate those concerns by giving assurances as to the Government’s intentions. In Committee, in response to my noble friend Lady Corston, the Minister commented:

“We intend to appoint a committee of experts to formulate these rules, including judicial members. They will have regard to the need for access to justice. Certainly, we have confidence in the ability of such a committee to formulate rules that reflect the need for all members of the community to have access, not only those who are perhaps more digitally alert and astute than the minority. We lay our confidence in the fact that there will be such a committee, that it will make regulations and that it will do it under the aegis of not only the Executive but the judiciary, and the Lord Chief Justice in particular”.


However, Clause 8 explicitly allows Ministers to both instruct and overrule that committee of experts.

On a further occasion, the Minister gave an assurance that,

“judicial discretion … ultimately, is paramount, and nothing in the Bill or that we would anticipate in the regulations to be made pursuant to the powers under the Bill would undermine that judicial discretion, which ultimately has be exercised in the interests of justice”.

However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, so acutely observed in Committee:

“It is not judicial discretion but rules that may require the parties to participate in the hearing by means of electronic devices. Therefore, it is not a question of the judge in charge of the case making that decision; the preliminary rules will require it, and the judge will be bound by that”.—[Official Report, 10/6/19; cols. 287-89.]


In summary, notwithstanding ministerial assurances, Clause 8 confers powers on Ministers to require specific provisions to be included in the Online Procedure Rules which the Online Procedure Rule Committee must comply with. Clause 8 also requires that the rules that the committee is required to make must be in accordance with Clause 7, but that clause gives the Minister explicit powers to disallow rules made by the Online Procedure Rule Committee of experts. Clause 8 gives Ministers considerable scope but fails to frame those powers in a way that ensures access to justice and does not give rise to the potential of a person having to choose between online court proceedings or not pursuing their case.

There are real concerns across the House about the potential of the powers given to Ministers in Clause 7, and I will not replay them here, but the case for Amendment 22, which introduces a degree of control over the exercise of those powers by requiring the Minister to secure the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, who is the head of the judiciary and is ultimately responsible for the delivery of justice, is, I believe, compelling.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s acceptance of the need for the Lord Chief Justice to concur with the creation of rules rather than merely to be consulted. However, Amendments 16 and 19 look to enhance parliamentary scrutiny by requiring the affirmative process. The increasing reliance on the negative procedure has already roused concern in your Lordships’ House, and many Members are further concerned about its application to this sensitive area. The Law Society strongly endorses the amendments prescribing the affirmative procedure on the basis that it would secure further parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations.

Amendments 20 and 21, which are in my name, would empower the committee to decline a government request—in effect, an instruction—to create certain rules, which is really the issue that my noble friend Lady Drake has just referred to. If there is to be a really meaningful role for that committee, to my mind we need an amendment along the lines of Amendments 20 and 21.

Finally, we will certainly support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, if he seeks to take the opinion of the House on the two amendments in his name.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I begin with two general observations. First, I am not conscious of having run out of fuel, but I leave that to others to judge. Secondly, it occurs to me that the Henrician view of executive power does not differ in any practical respect from the Stuart view of the divine right of kings.

Perhaps I should begin by making this point. Under the structure of the Bill, it will be necessary, pursuant to Clauses 2 and 3, to identify proceedings of a specified kind that may be subject to the Online Procedure Rules. In the light of the Government’s amendments, that can be done only with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, as indicated, and subject to the affirmative procedure.

It is not open to the Online Procedure Rule Committee to make Online Procedure Rules in respect of procedures that are not of a specified kind—that would simply be ultra vires. There is scope the other way, for the Online Procedure Rule Committee to provide that certain proceedings that are of a specified kind are not to be governed by the rules; that is pursuant to Clause 1(6). So the point I seek to emphasise at the outset is that the definition of specified procedures—the specified kind of procedures—sets out the framework within which the Online Procedure Rule Committee can operate. If the Minister were at any time to direct the Online Procedure Rule Committee, pursuant to Clause 8, to make rules in respect of proceedings that were not of a specified kind, that would be ultra vires; that is quite clear. He can direct them to make rules only in respect of proceedings of a specified kind pursuant to Clauses 2 and 3.

It is not possible to utilise the Clause 8 power in order to run roughshod over the provisions in Clauses 2 and 3, which clearly set out the need for the Lord Chief Justice to give concurrence to the proceedings that will be subject to the rules. Perhaps I am stating the obvious, but it occurred to me that one or two observations made in the course of this debate were inclined to suggest otherwise. I do not accept that. One has to look at the entire structure of the Bill and have proper regard to the way in which Clauses 2 and 3 will operate in that respect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, this group of amendments, beginning with Amendment 10, concerns the composition of the committee. I will therefore address Amendments 10, 15 and 17. The purpose of the amendments is fourfold: first, to increase the number of judicial members of the Online Procedure Rule Committee; secondly, to enable the Lord Chief Justice to appoint one judicial member as chair of the committee; thirdly, to provide that, when making rules, the majority of the committee must sign the rules, rather than the current requirement that they be signed by three members; and fourthly, to ensure that, where the committee is tied on the making of one or more rules, the chair’s signature will act as a casting vote.

These amendments, alongside our proposed amendment on concurrence in Clause 2, seek to ensure sufficient safeguards in the Bill to balance the role of Ministers on the one hand and the judiciary on the other in the making of online rules. The amendments aim to achieve a balance of nominees of the Lord Chief Justice and of the Lord Chancellor, such that each would have three nominees to the committee. In addition, one of these judicial nominees will now be designated by the Lord Chief Justice as the chair of the committee and will have the casting vote should the committee be tied on the making of any rule.

On the issue of committee members signing rules, the previous iteration of the Bill simply stated “three” as that would have been a majority of the five committee members. However, having considered the observations of noble Lords, and having made a small change to ensure that in future the committee increases in size, a simple majority of members will always be required to make rules. In this instance, where there are six members, should the committee be tied, the chair, as I said, would have the deciding vote. The consequence would be that the judicially appointed members of the committee would in such circumstances always have the majority on the committee. It is in these circumstances that I commend Amendments 10, 15 and 17 to your noble Lordships.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments in my name, Amendments 11, 12, 13 and 14.

Amendment 11 seeks to enlarge the Online Procedure Rule Committee to include members covering the legal profession and the magistracy, all of whom should be familiar with the difficulties experienced by people unused to the digital process. Importantly, Amendments 12 and 13 amend the provision of Clause 4(2)(d), under which two persons are added to the list of the committee members, one of whom must have experience in the advice sector, and the other two of whom must have IT experience and knowledge of end-users’ experience of internet portals. The amendment would add a third member with experience in representing the views of people who are digitally excluded. We regard this as imperative, not least in the light of the appalling experience of universal credit, which the organisation Mind cites as an example of “digital by default”, whereby 25% of people with long-term health conditions could not make claims online. Mind also cites a case, LH Bishop Electrical Co Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, in which the First-tier Tribunal ruled that requirements to file VAT returns online discriminated against disabled people, older people and people living too remotely for digital access.

Mind, while supporting increasing the choice for core users and making the system easier to navigate, rightly avers that it is essential to make sure that there are safeguards to ensure that people who are digitally excluded are not locked out of the justice system. It goes on to suggest that the Online Procedure Rule Committee’s powers should be limited so that it cannot require that proceedings be initiated online without providing an alternative that is clearly advertised and provides for each stage of the proceedings. This reinforces the case with an approach that does not leave the decision as to whether proceedings should be online with one party. This is consistent with the view expressed in Lord Briggs’s report, which sought to include non-lawyers with the requisite skills. These amendments are supported by the Law Society.

Finally, Amendment 14 seeks to promote and ensure gender balance in the membership of the committee and invites further work by the Government to achieve that.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

12: Clause 4, page 4, line 21, leave out “two” and insert “three”

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill [HL]

Lord Beecham Excerpts

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I support not only the amendments to which my name is attached but all the amendments proposed today. Taken with the earlier amendments which the House considered and which the Government have added, this makes for a much better Bill than ever it was. The particular point I wish to emphasise is that, as a result of these changes, the House, and in particular the Government, have recognised the impact of the constitutional reforms of 2005. The emphasis ought now to be recollected whenever there are any proposals to address the way in which the courts system works. Beyond that, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for his personal contribution to the discussions and improvements—and, through him, I thank his team.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I join noble Lords who have spoken in this very short debate in thanking the noble and learned Lord for the way he has approached the Bill. He has sought very clearly to achieve consensus; he has been open to discussion; and he has obviously been persuaded to make important changes. It is something he might like to have a word with other ministerial colleagues about, because it has not always been the case that Ministers have responded so constructively to debates in the Chamber. On this occasion, I am sure that the House will unanimously agree these amendments. Certainly we on these Benches—such as we are this afternoon—will do so.

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

My Lords, I wish simply to join in the unanimous praise and gratitude for the Government’s acceptance of those amendments that they have accepted, and their tabling of these amendments today. The Online Procedure Rules are intended to introduce a new and simplified procedure. We were concerned to ensure that litigants who were going to find it difficult to use that procedure, particularly in so far as it was a digital procedure and they would not be using paper means to conduct proceedings, should not be excluded by difficulty from approaching the procedure and should have afforded to them the kind of assistance they would need to handle litigation, without the need for lawyers, under the Online Procedure Rules.

We are particularly grateful for the Government’s acceptance of Amendment 4, which imposes a duty on the Lord Chancellor, as the Minister has explained, to provide assistance or support for digitally excluded people, and these amendments tie in the obligation to have regard to the needs of those people in conducting that litigation. I was particularly concerned about the use of the word “technical” in relation to that assistance, because it seemed to us that that might be unduly restrictive. I am grateful for the excision of that word from the amendments.