Asylum Seekers: Legal Advice

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, all persons detained in immigration removal centres now have access to a duty solicitor and therefore have access to legal advice.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, it should be axiomatic that legal assistance is available to people facing removal and the Minister has made it clear that that should be the case. However, surely the underlying problem is the shameful record of the Home Office in this area. We read regularly that people who have been living in this country for decades, often working and having led a successful life here, are now being ordered to depart. Will the Government review the performance of the Home Office and its policies in this very sensitive area?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the period for which a person has remained illegally in this country should not be and is not a determinant of their right to remain here. It is necessary to apply the relevant law both to the issue of asylum seekers and those who arrive here unlawfully, not even seeking asylum.

Prisons: Careers Guidance

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Beecham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they have cancelled the contract of the National Careers Service to provide careers guidance in prisons.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, the custodial element of the National Careers Service contract has not been cancelled; it will reach its expiry date on 31 March 2018. We are reviewing options for alternative provision as part of wider employment services. We are committed to providing training and advice to deliver effective rehabilitation for the needs of offenders.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, job coaches, who are likely to replace the present people who deal with prisoners, are not people who visit just before release. Others coming into this position will not provide as good a service as the career advisers, who work with prisoners over a considerable time. Can the Minister say what consultations have taken place on this decision and whether the results will be published in due course? Why have the Government refused to provide information as to the likely number of advisers who will no longer be employed?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the contract for the in-custody National Careers Service element could have been extended by a further period of six months maximum from 31 March 2018. A decision was made not to extend it because an internal review of the service being provided indicated that custody contract performance showed significant inconsistencies of service between institutions. As regards its replacement going forward, I note, for example, that community rehabilitation companies already work with every prisoner 12 weeks prior to release to ensure a personalised plan with respect to employment, and Department for Work and Pensions prison work coaches also work in this field. Indeed, it has been noted, particularly in 2016 by Dame Sally Coates in her review of prison education, that there is overlap and duplication within the current arrangements for supporting prisoners.

Prisons: Action Plans and Special Measures

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Clearly, our prisons remain a priority for this Government. There have been challenging issues, which we need to address and we will address. As regards special measures, when prisons go into special measures, they are provided with central support, which can potentially cover a number of areas, including expert advice, provision—in some instances—of further capital, and direction to the governor and staff of the individual prison.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the most disturbing features of the crisis in the Prison Service, highlighted at HMP Liverpool, has been shockingly inadequate healthcare. What discussions have taken place between the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health to improve this situation? Will the Government encourage local authorities, which have responsibility for scrutinising health services, to exercise that function in relation to the provision of healthcare within custodial institutions in their area? I refer to my interest as a member of Newcastle City Council’s Health Scrutiny Committee.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the provision of healthcare within prisons is generally carried out by way of partnership between the prison and the health service. It is on that basis that it is continued. There are ongoing issues over the review of such partnerships.

Legal System: Prosecutorial Policy

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble and learned friend on securing this important and timely debate. Much is heard, and rightly so, of the needs of victims in our criminal justice system, exemplified dramatically in the past few weeks by the Worboys case. The distress occasioned by the apparent failure to prosecute more cases involving this offender and, arguably, the even more worrying failure to notify victims of the offender’s release from prison is palpable.

As the Motion makes clear, there are also significant issues affecting defendants, especially in relation to disclosure of evidence material to a prosecution, which need to be addressed, and there are also concerns about the process of decision-making on whether to prosecute. These issues, although they have come dramatically to the fore in the past few weeks, are not new.

Victim Support published a report last April which recounted failures to comply with the victims’ code. Of 19 requirements laid out in the code, three were not met in more than 50% of cases, including offering a chance to make a victim personal statement and having the consequences of such a process explained, while in no less than 62% of cases victims were not asked about their needs and assessed for an enhanced service. In only four categories did the failure in meeting entitlements fall below 20%, and many were in the range of 30% to 50%. Unsurprisingly victims were much more satisfied when they received all the code’s entitlements than otherwise. There is a clear systemic failure to meet the needs of victims in a range of material issues. The report concluded that more monitoring and enforcement of the victims’ code is required. Can the Minister confirm that these matters will be addressed in the new strategy for victims expected to be published soon?

Disclosure of unused material is another area of concern, as we have heard, which is reflected in the joint report by the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and the Inspectorate of Constabulary last June. As the report pointed out, every item of unused evidence should be retained and reviewed to see whether it could undermine the prosecution or assist the defence and, if so, it should be disclosed. In practice, however, the process was described as,

“routinely poor, while revelation … to the prosecutor of material that may undermine the prosecution case or assist the defence case is rare”.

Sensitive material is not managed effectively, and prosecutors are not managing ongoing disclosure, with an audit process,

“far below any acceptable standard”.

The report concludes that the failure to provide timely disclosure leads to,

“chaotic scenes … outside the courtroom … unnecessary adjournments and … discontinued cases”,

which,

“reflect badly on the criminal justice system in the eyes of victims and witnesses”.

The report made nine recommendations, one for immediate action, six for implementation within six months, and one for implementation within 12 months. Will the Minister update us on progress in the past nine months?

While we are considering the question of resources, it is interesting to note that the Sunday Telegraph—not my usual paper of choice—reported on Christmas Eve that prosecutors were being urged two years ago to boost rape cases but that the CPS,

“found lawyers struggling with deadlines, pressing charges where there was scant chance of conviction”,

and that the service was underresourced, making it difficult to achieve quality casework. The telling headline to the Telegraph article was:

“We warned sex trials would suffer under workload, says CPS”.


The report was published last February. Will the Minister tell us what extra resources have been allocated to meet that difficult situation?

My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti last month referred to two recent cases in which inadequate disclosure of material led to acquittals, after much stress on the innocent defendants, and attributed this to the underfunding of an overstretched CPS and police service, although—one might have thought predictably—one Nick Timothy, the Conservative Party’s answer to Steve Bannon, denied that resourcing was an issue. In fairness, he at least welcomed the acquittal of the unfortunate Liam Allan after two years of police bail on a charge which ultimately fell apart. The Prime Minister’s statement that it is,

“important that we look at the issue again to ensure that we are truly providing justice”,—[Official Report, Commons, 20/12/17; col. 1062.]

was very welcome, but it needs to be followed through by an independent review of process and a commitment to ensure that adequate funding is available to train, employ and supervise the relevant staff in the police service and the prosecution service.

My noble and learned friend Lord Morris asked a Private Notice Question on the disclosure issue in December. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, took the opportunity to ask whether there were,

“adequate resources, by way of legal aid or otherwise”,—[Official Report, 18/12/17; col. 1836.]

to enable defence lawyers to analyse all the pieces of relevant information, to which the Minister replied that that point would be addressed. It was surprising that no assurance on this critical point was proffered at the time. A month on, what is the position? This is surely an issue which could be addressed immediately.

One area on which the Government have appeared to take action is pre-trial cross-examination of victims, with the Attorney-General saying in November that he welcomed the further rollout of this practice. Will the Minister say what progress has been made in this area and what targets have been established for its adoption? It is to be hoped that change of this and other kinds will not be delayed because of resource implications, not least because it could actually save money if properly employed, as well as improving the substantive process and helping victims cope with the stress of reliving their experience.

This has been an interesting and well-informed debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some assurance that progress will be made sooner rather than later in tackling the variety of problems raised not only by your Lordships this afternoon but by other organisations to which I and other noble Lords have referred.

HMP Liverpool

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Thursday 21st December 2017 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Beecham]

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, and if so when, they will publish the recent report by the Chief Inspector of Prisons on Her Majesty’s Prison Liverpool; and what steps they are taking to address the problems identified in that report in order to prevent serious harm to prisoners.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, the inspection report on Her Majesty’s Prison Liverpool will be published on 19 January 2018. A comprehensive action plan is being developed that will urgently address the inspector’s recommendations. Immediate action taken at Her Majesty’s Prison Liverpool since the inspection includes the appointment of a new governor, a review of prisoner accommodation to facilitate refurbishment and urgent work with the contractor to deal with the backlog of repairs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, the situation in Her Majesty’s Prison Liverpool is the latest manifestation of the crisis in our prisons. It is a shameful litany of squalor, sickness and apparently even death. Instead of initially refusing to comment on the chief inspector’s leaked report, the Government should already have published it, together with their response. Will they in particular examine the apparent failure of contractors over a long period to carry out major repair work in a way that did not threaten the well-being of inmates and staff? In addition, will they review the performance, in Liverpool and elsewhere, of an overstretched and underfunded NHS in protecting the health and well-being of our prison population?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, very troubling matters were raised by the report, but I am not going to comment on the contents of a leaked report. What I can say is that the inspector debriefed the Prison Service immediately after and we have responded to that. Her Majesty’s Prison Liverpool was originally a Victorian prison, and there are indeed real issues with the standard of cell accommodation. It is worth noting that no expenditure—not one pound—has been spent on cell accommodation at Liverpool since 1994. In the intervening period, there was a Labour Government from 1997 to 2010.

Brexit: Justice for Families, Individuals and Businesses (EU Committee Report)

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Wednesday 20th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interest as an unpaid consultant at my former solicitors’ firm. I should add that it gives me two tickets for Newcastle United matches, but in the present circumstances I do not regard that as much of a benefit.

It is now 18 months since the referendum and nine months since the Article 50 notice was given. We are only 15 months away from the deadline, yet the first meeting of the Cabinet to discuss the details of a post-Brexit future has only just taken place. Astonishingly, the meeting lasted all of one hour and 25 minutes, with 25 Ministers participating, giving an average of three minutes and 24 seconds per member—possibly exceeded by the likes of the three wise men leading the charge: Boris Johnson, David Davis and Michael Gove.

I congratulate my noble friend Lady Kennedy both on securing this debate and on the European Select Committee’s report, published nine months ago tomorrow. This debate has been a long time in gestation, due primarily to the dilatory response of the Government, which emerged only on 1 December.

Some Members of your Lordships’ House may recall a television series called “Candid Camera”. The picture portrayed by the Government is more like “Candide Camera”, emulating Voltaire’s famous character and giving the impression that all will be for the best in the best of all Brexit worlds. Its eight-page letter contains all of 25 paragraphs of reassurances, many of which, to put it mildly, are somewhat less than convincing.

It begins with the complacent claim:

“Our justice system and our legal sector will continue to be the envy of the world after EU Exit”,


which seven years of attrition in access to justice in this country and growing difficulty in making judicial appointments somewhat belie. It goes on to assert that the Government will,

“need to build a bridge from our exit to our future partnership”.

It is the same aspiration repeatedly voiced by the Government over other areas but not one, apparently, shared by the EU. So, far from building a bridge, we appear in danger of walking the plank. What response has been received to this aspiration and its proposed,

“strictly time-limited implementation period”?

The Government’s response to the committee’s call for provisions in any withdrawal or transitional agreement to address specifically the Brussels I Regulation is, to put it mildly, less than confident.

In the important area of family law, mentioned by a number of speakers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, my noble friend Lord Cashman and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, there is clear concern about the problem of cross-border cases, including international child abduction and financial provision. The Government’s response in August was that they are seeking an agreement to achieve cross-border collaboration in these areas. Perhaps the Minister could indicate what progress, if any, has been made.

As an article in the New Law Journal in October pointed out, while the August paper on cross-border co-operation affirmed an intention to continue to participate in the four Hague conventions to which we subscribe directly and the two to which we subscribe by virtue of EU membership,

“no mechanism for this to happen”,

was included in the paper.

We are dealing here with highly sensitive issues, from divorce and separations to child abduction and protection, adoption, the enforcement of orders for maintenance and the choice of court. Both the former and current President of the Supreme Court have called for clarity on these matters. Where do we now stand in terms of both timescale and substantive proposals?

Paragraphs 27 to 31 of the committee report raise the issue of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which the Government rejects, although the committee was,

“left unable to discern a clear policy”.

The response was flaccid, proclaiming the,

“need to ensure future civil judicial cooperation takes into account regional legal arrangements”.

How do the Government propose this is to be achieved?

The report’s conclusion called for a “coherent plan” for addressing the three sets of regulations covering families, individuals and businesses, to which the response, characteristically, falls back on the platitudinous assertions that:

“Where disputes arise, these will also continue to need to be settled. Cooperation on the civil judicial mechanisms and procedures which underpin these relationships is essential, and the best way”—


I interpolate “in the best of all possible worlds”—

“to deliver that cooperation is through a close and comprehensive agreement between the UK and the EU, that sets out coherent common rules”.

The Government’s contribution to achieving such an agreement consists of an eight-page letter sent on 1 December, but can the Minister say what, if any, progress has been made in the last four months in discussions with the EU?

Much is at stake, not least in relation to the UK’s legal services. The Law Society, in a fuller paper than that provided by the Government, calls, among many other issues, for the ability to recruit skilled individuals from Europe, access to practise in the UK and the maintenance of recognition and enforcement of judgments with EU states. It places emphasis on the need to deal swiftly with cases involving children and asserts that the UK should sign up to international conventions on family law, now covered by its EU membership. It also calls for maintaining participation in the process of serving documents and taking evidence. Do the Government agree, and what assurance can they give that these objectives will be met?

Not unnaturally, the Law Society also points to the significant contribution of legal services to our economy, including £3.7 billion of net export value. It points out that the UK is the second largest legal services market in the world and the largest in the EU, accounting for as much as 20% of all European legal fee income. All of that is under threat. Other countries are already believed to be following the trend in the banking and financial services sectors in seeking to displace the UK as a forum for dispute resolution and the source of legal advice and representation.

The society, in its report of January 2017, referred to two reports it published as long ago as September and October 2015 covering a wide range of substantive issues as well as the implications for the profession. Have the Government responded to that document and to what extent are they reflecting the society’s concerns in their approach?

The committee’s report also addressed the critical issue of the Brussels I Regulation and the potential impact on citizens and businesses of failing to reach agreement on its application after Brexit. In their response, the Government, inter alia, said that they had proposed a time-limited implementation period pending the preparation of new processes and systems. Again I ask: what response have they received?

The Government have also stated that,

“in the event that we do not agree an arrangement for future civil judicial cooperation with the EU, it will be important to have reached a common view on the general principles that would govern how ongoing cooperation in this area could be wound down”.

Given that both the Government and the EU have published their general principles in this area, can the Minister indicate how close or distant the two approaches are?

Today, in an interesting judgment, the European Court of Justice has ruled that Uber is a transport company, not a digital service, and as such its drivers should have employee rights. Is this a decision welcomed by the Government or one they would seek to change under Brexit?

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that we are embarked on a voyage into uncharted waters with no clear destination, a potentially mutinous crew and an indecisive captain. I wish only that we had the equivalent of my noble friend Lord West at the helm.

Probation Service

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, we recognise the concerns identified by the inspectorate and are working hard to address these problems. Many of the performance issues with CRCs stem from the financial challenges that providers are facing, which has meant that we have addressed those contractual terms. However, I observe that nearly two-thirds of CRCs have reduced the number of people reoffending.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, this report is another legacy of the unlamented tenure as Lord Chancellor of Chris Grayling. The chief inspector states:

“Regrettably, none of government’s stated aspirations for Transforming Rehabilitation have been met in any meaningful way … I question whether the current model for probation can deliver sufficiently well”.


She identifies a number of deep-rooted organisational and commercial problems and says:

“We find the quality of CRC work to protect the public is generally poor and needs to improve in many respects”.


She adds that,

“unanticipated changes in sentencing and the nature of work coming to CRCs have seriously affected their … commercial viability, causing them to curtail or change their transformation plans”.

They have reduced staff numbers, some to a worrying extent. Is it not time for the Government to review their ideological commitment to private sector organisations playing a major role in criminal justice, with results often as disastrous as these?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, this is not an issue of ideology. Many of the CRCs’ performance issues stem, as I say, from the financial changes they have faced because of the limited number of referrals they have received, and that has impacted on their performance. We hold CRCs to account for their performance through robust contract management. Where that performance is not good enough, we require improvement plans to be put in place.

Selection of the President of Welsh Tribunals Regulations 2017

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Grand Committee

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a very brief, possibly technical question, which is probably because I am not legally qualified or an expert in this matter. Paragraph 3.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that,

“the territorial application of this instrument includes Scotland and Northern Ireland”.

Further down, under “Extent and territorial application”, it says:

“The territorial application … is the whole of the United Kingdom”.


I was curious why those two provisions were there and whether it is a standard phrase that appears in all these things. It just seemed a little odd.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I of course defer to the experience of the two noble Lords from Wales, who clearly have a greater insight into the position than either the Minister—with due respect—or I could have. Of course, I join them in welcoming the instrument. However, according to the Explanatory Note, the consultation process was very limited, as it was apparently confined to officials of the Welsh Government and the Lord Chief Justice. Was there any consideration with the professions in Wales about this? Presumably many members of the legal profession would have an interest in the matter.

On the concern about diversity, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord is in a position to say—if not, perhaps he could subsequently advise me—what is the present composition of tribunal membership and chairs of the tribunals in terms of gender and ethnicity. Clearly there is an implicit aspiration at paragraph 12.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum to promote diversity. I would be interested to know what the starting point is. Although the question of developing a baseline against which progress can be measured is apparently still incorrect, it would be helpful to see where we are starting from, if not today by a note to those Members present.

This is clearly a welcome step forward. One hopes that it will work well and in particular that the diversity issue will be addressed properly and in a timely way. I join other noble Lords in welcoming the regulations and trust that their impact will be beneficial.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to noble Lords and to the noble Baroness for their contributions. I begin with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I entirely agree with his observations about the importance of maintaining the independence of the judiciary and, equally, of defending the judiciary from inappropriate attack. There is an important distinction to be made between what can be regarded as justified criticism and what is tantamount to abuse. We have to underline that distinction if we are properly to defend the judiciary. Of that there can be no doubt.

On the question of whether these powers should be used, I again entirely agree with the noble Lord. This is the alternative mechanism to be employed, but it is contemplated that it will be employed only in circumstances where there is a breakdown in agreement between various parties. It is not something that is contemplated, but because the Act makes provision for this alternative mechanism it is only appropriate that we should have regulations in place so that, if necessary, it can be employed.

On the matter of who will be the president of the Welsh tribunals and his role so far as defence of tribunal members is concerned, remembering that some of those tribunal members are lay members, it is doubly important there is somebody there who can advise and defend their interests. One of the responsibilities of the President of Welsh Tribunals will be not only the training and guidance of members of the tribunals, but consideration of their welfare. That again is important.

On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on the Welsh language, of course we recognise the importance of the Welsh language in the context of proceedings in Wales, but we have to remember that we are making an appointment to the judiciary of England and Wales. While the proceedings of those tribunals may take place in Welsh as distinct from English, it is not considered appropriate that we should extend the criteria for the appointment of this post to include the Welsh language itself.

Probation Contracts

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

On that last point, I cannot say that the Government will be able to make time for a debate on the subject before the end of the year. On the suggestion of bad contracting, I would point out that contracts were entered into with 21 CRCs, and that those contracts encountered some financial difficulty for one particular reason—namely, it was originally anticipated that some 80% of those undertaking probation would be referred to the 21 community rehabilitation companies. In the event, only about 60% of those subject to probation supervision were referred to the companies, and that impacted directly upon their financial model as determined under the original contracts. For that reason, interim arrangements were made with the CRCs in the year 2016-17, and in the current year. However, the figure of £277 million referred to by the noble Lord is not a fixed figure: it may have to be met, depending on the performance of the CRCs.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, morale in Northumbria’s probation service and CRC is at a low level because of understaffing, with 50% of officers leaving the service, excessive workloads, less supervision and the need to concentrate on high-risk cases at the expense of other cases. This is exemplified by case loads of 40, including four to five high-risk cases, now being replaced by much higher case loads, with a greater proportion of high-risk cases and problems with escalating cases from the CRCs to the National Probation Service. What do the Government regard as a satisfactory case load for officers to manage in terms of overall numbers and the balance between high-risk and other cases?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

There is no fixed proportion as between officers and the number of persons being supervised. That will depend upon the particular CRC and the circumstances in which it is engaged with the individual. The National Probation Service is in the course of recruiting 1,400 additional staff. In addition, the CRC contracts require providers to ensure that they have sufficient adequately trained staff in place. Indeed, results tend to bear that out. Nearly two-thirds of CRCs have reduced the number of people reoffending in the past year, according to statistics up to June 2017.

Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2017

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

Noble Lords will have to wait a little longer for what I suspect will be the most enlightening speech of the evening.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on tabling his Motion, which we on these Benches, and perhaps those who are not, will shortly support through the Lobbies. There are only two things wrong with the Government’s policy in relation to the specific part of the Civil Procedure (Amendment Rules) we are debating: the process from which it emerged and the substantive effect of the policy it embodies.

On process, yet again the Secondary Legislation Committee, composed of highly experienced Members from all parts of the House, finds cause to be highly critical of the lack of information on or a clear understanding of the policy objective and intended implementation of the radical changes embodied in the rules. As we have heard, these are likely to deter challenges to decisions in the planning arena under the Aarhus convention by raising the cap on costs to be paid by unsuccessful applicants—very often, voluntary organisations or other groups of a non-commercial nature—to the benefit of the defendants, who are likely to be better endowed financially and, in this environmental area, may include the Government or public bodies. I concur with the rebuttal—if I may use as strong a term—made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, of the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay.

On process, the committee found that the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the rules apparently forgot to report that fewer than 10 of the 289 responses—some of them admittedly merely replicating answers provided by Friends of the Earth—supported the proposals. The vast majority of the respondents averred that the proposals failed to meet the principles emerging from the Edwards case, to which reference has already been made. The committee stated that the Government should have better explained their interpretation in the memorandum and identified any changes made following the consultation—they did not do so. It went on to point out that, whereas the consultation document pledged a review within two years, no such undertaking is mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum supporting the statutory instrument we are debating. It called for clarification of the Government’s intentions—no doubt the noble and learned Lord the Minister will provide such clarification.

The committee’s conclusion was damning. It proclaimed:

“The Ministry of Justice has not addressed any of these concerns in its paperwork and we therefore draw the matter to the special attention of the House on the ground that the explanatory material … provides insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the … policy objective and intended implementation”.


That is a very severe critique by the committee.

Time and again, we have similar critical reports from the committee and still the Government proceed to adopt a cavalier approach to the process, which, at a time when Brexit is in train, is even more worrying than in the past. What undertakings will the Government make to improve their lamentable performance in the use of secondary legislation not merely in this area but across the whole range of secondary legislation?

It would appear that there is already evidence of the chilling effect of the new regime, to which some references have already been made. As we have heard, Friends of the Earth estimates that the number of cases has reduced by around 25% since the introduction of the new regime. Can the Minister, if not today then subsequently, publish the relevant data so that a proper assessment of the position can be made?

It is instructive to compare the different scenarios before and after the change. Friends of the Earth cites two cases under the old regime which exemplify the workings of the previous system. In one case, the Campaign to Protect Rural England Kent sought judicial review of a planning decision affecting an area of outstanding natural beauty. It succeeded in having the planning permission quashed by the Court of Appeal. Commenting on the case, CPRE Kent said that,

“the certainty of costs protection allowed Trustees and staff to assess the likely expenditure over the duration of such a challenge”.

In another case, this time in Norfolk, residents of Norwich were much exercised over proposals to build a major road which they contended would irreversibly damage the environment, destroy areas of countryside, farmland and wildlife habitats, and increase noise and pollution. A local parish councillor sought judicial review on behalf of the Wensum Valley Alliance and the council, to its credit, accepted that the scheme was unlawful. It was quashed in the High Court. However, the salient point is that the councillor—Councillor Boswell, who was also involved in the case—stated that the local community group, the Wensum Valley Alliance, would have,

“found it impossible … to contemplate legal action without knowing the extent of their financial liability in advance”.

We heard earlier the experience of the Liverpool Green Party, which again illustrates the chilling effect of the new regime. The net result of the changes seems likely to reduce significantly access to justice in this area of the law, in which applicants under the old system were 12 times more likely to succeed than fail. Given that under Brexit, there would be no recourse to the European Court of Justice, the recent developments are even more worrying.

As we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, we await the outcome of a case brought by Friends of the Earth, the RSPB and ClientEarth contending that the changes already made are incompatible with the UK’s obligations to provide access to justice as set out in European law. Can the Minister offer any assurances that, with or without Brexit, UK citizens will not be deterred from challenging authority by the potential exposure to large claims for costs?

I understand that we currently await a report from the compliance committee of the Economic and Social Council on the UK’s compliance with its obligations under the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. I trust the Government will abide by the recommendations of the committee and thereby distinguish this country from some countries in, for example, eastern Europe which seem, alas, to be reverting to a more authoritarian mode of government whereby access to justice and the independence of the courts appear in danger of being undermined.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for tabling this evening’s Motion on this topic. I welcome the valuable contributions from noble Lords across the House.

The United Nations Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, generally known as the Aarhus convention, requires countries which have signed the convention to guarantee rights for their citizens of access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. In particular, it requires those countries to make sure that the public have access to legal procedures to challenge relevant decisions taken by the countries’ public authorities and specifies that those legal procedures should, among other things, not be “prohibitively expensive”. Both the UK and the European Union are signatories to the Aarhus convention, and the convention has been incorporated—albeit in part—in EU law, including the requirement that the legal costs of relevant environmental claims must not be prohibitively expensive.

The costs regimes and the amendments made to them to fulfil this requirement in respect of claims within the scope of the Aarhus convention are similar between England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, there are important differences. In the present context, I address the position in only England and Wales. In seeking to comply with the “not prohibitively expensive” requirement, successive Governments have taken steps to control the costs that a losing claimant may be ordered to pay a winning defendant. I will set out key recent events, although most of them have been touched on at various points during the course of this debate.

In April 2013, an environmental costs protection regime was introduced by amendment to the Civil Procedure Rules, which capped the amount of costs that a court could order an unsuccessful claimant to pay to other parties. Under this regime, the claimant’s costs liability to a successful defendant was capped at either £5,000 for claimants who were individuals or £10,000 for other claimants, as alluded to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. The defendant’s costs liability to a successful claimant was similarly capped, but at the rather higher level of £35,000.