Legal Aid: Social Welfare and Family Law

Debate between Lord Beith and Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

Monday 18th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Of course, I am sympathetic to the point the noble and learned Baroness makes. As she said, I have substantial experience of dealing with litigants in person in family courts. The debate about early legal advice is also being considered as part of the allocation arrangements as a result of the Budget, but I am sympathetic to the point she makes.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister concerned about the combined effect of the restrictions on scope for legal aid, the enormous complexity of trying to get an exceptional circumstances funding application through, and the creation of advice deserts in many parts of the country? These are severe barriers. The Minister has been strongly in support of legal aid over many years, as I know well, but does he have any hope of making progress on this matter?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question, specifically on the point of advice deserts. There is no doubt we are facing substantial challenges in that respect. The previous Government allowed the number of duty solicitors available to drop by 26% between 2017 and 2023. The MoJ and the Legal Aid Agency are working with providers where there are specific issues; for example, setting up a list of providers available to provide immigration advice to clients in the south-west.

Arbitration Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Beith and Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

3rd reading
Wednesday 6th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the Bill has now benefited from the scrutiny of two parliamentary Sessions, following its introduction in the last Parliament and examination by a Special Public Bill Committee. It has undergone further scrutiny since its reintroduction by this Government.

I take this opportunity to thank some of the noble Lords who have engaged with and supported the Bill over the past year. I begin by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, in chairing the former Special Public Bill Committee. He marshalled and managed truly expert feedback on these reforms from across the arbitration sector and the judiciary. The committee process resulted in several technical improvements to the Bill, introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. I also extend my thanks to the noble and learned Lord for his commitment to driving forward these reforms, while always recognising the importance of getting the details right.

The Bill has been improved during this Session’s Committee stage too, thanks in no small part to the considered and well-informed input from the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson and Lord Verdirame, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, who advised that the previous Clause 13 did not adequately reflect the case law on arbitral appeals that it sought to codify. We remedied this issue through my amendments in Committee, fixing a long-standing error in what is otherwise considered a supremely well-drafted framework. Based on sector feedback, the Government also made an improvement to Clause 1 ahead of introducing the Bill a second time, ensuring that its default rule on governing law did not apply inappropriately to certain investor-state arbitrations.

I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Hacking for his contributions, both as a member of the former Special Public Bill Committee and as an active participant throughout the Bill’s passage. I appreciate his continued interest in full and proper arbitration law reform, after witnessing at first hand so much of its development over many years.

The legislative scrutiny provided by this House has served only to give optimal effect to the Law Commission’s recommendations, made after two extensive consultations. I record my thanks to Professor Sarah Green and her colleagues at the commission, Nathan Tamblyn and Laura Burgoyne, for their brilliant work. I also thank the Bill managers, Iona Bonaventura and Harry McNeill Adams, along with the government lawyer, Wan Fan, the parliamentary counsel, Helen Hall and Neil Shah, and my policy lead, Lee Pedder. I also thank my private secretary, Paul Young.

The measures within the Bill have been much sought after by our arbitral community. I am hugely grateful for its support and engagement with these reforms since the Law Commission’s first consultation.

I conclude by reminding noble Lords of the Bill’s benefits. By reforming and modernising our arbitral framework, it will make dispute resolution more efficient, attract international legal business and promote UK economic growth. We pass the Bill to the Commons in excellent condition, and I hope its passage can be completed swiftly. I beg to move.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and I share the distinction of being the only people participating in the proceedings on the Bill who have neither presided over arbitration nor appeared before arbitrators. We have had a panoply of very expert noble Lords taking part in proceedings, none more so than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the Public Bill Committee.

This is an important—although small—Bill, because it will effectively underpin an important export earner and an important opportunity for this country to assist in many issues across the world, because of the popularity of London as a centre for resolving disputes. It has had two Law Commission consultations, a very well-argued Law Commission report, excellent drafting and two processes through the full proceedings of this House. Not much legislation gets all that. As a consequence, we can be pleased about what has been achieved and wish it well in the Commons.

Criminal Justice System: Capacity

Debate between Lord Beith and Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, gave us some interesting historical context, but I had expected an apology—or at least a guilty plea, with the plea in mitigation that he chose to leave the previous Government before the ceiling really started to fall in. They left an appalling situation: overflowing prisons, a huge backlog of untried cases, record numbers of remand prisoners, and victims seeing no outcome or closure to what they had suffered. This Government now have to deal with that, and they are running out of their few options to do so. I welcome their decision to have a fundamental review of sentencing policy and to invite David Gauke to carry it out. I very much agree with the noble and learned Lord on that; he is a good choice and I wish him well in the task.

Why are we filling prisons with more offenders than any other western European country? Why are we failing to recognise that we are putting resources into a prison system that is institutionally ill equipped to do the kind of rehabilitative work that is clearly necessary? Unless we see a significant reduction in prisoner numbers, what hope is there that rehabilitation programmes can work in prisons?

With so few options available to them, it seems logical and sensible for the Government to make use of the available time of magistrates who are willing to sit on more serious cases, freeing up time in Crown Courts. However, last time, this was not found to be very effective; it led to an increase in the demand for prison places. The Lord Chancellor conceded in the Commons:

“That is what happened and what I expect to happen again”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/10/24; col. 1011.]


It is not even a temporary solution. Do these plans overlook the possibility that some defendants will opt for a jury trial when they no longer have the incentive that magistrates can sentence them only to six months? That means longer sentences and larger prisoner numbers. Will special training be provided to magistrates to try to ensure that good use is made of them in cases dealing with more serious offences that require a longer sentence, but that the new powers do not simply inflate sentences that would otherwise have been given to potentially shorter-sentence prisoners?

The Lord Chancellor has said, and I agree with her, that

“people have to know and believe there are consequences to breaking our laws”.

This is not achieved when prisoners are released without completing their sentences or any serious regard to why they were imprisoned for a long period. Neither is it achieved by using a significant part of our resources in a prison system which is ill equipped, ill resourced and ill prepared to rehabilitate offenders. If this announcement buys the Government some time, can we have some reassurance that it will be used for fundamental change?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

I thank both noble Lords for their questions. I will first address some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and then turn to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen.

On the noble Lord’s final point about buying time, that is the Government’s objective with SDS40; the standard determinate sentencing going from 50% down to 40% is indeed to buy time. As he will know, there was a Statement in the House of Commons today on a sentencing review, which we are very grateful that David Gauke has agreed to chair. That Statement will be repeated in this House in due course, so we can debate the issues raised in it.

The noble Lord, Lord Beith, asked some specific questions, including whether increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers from six to 12 months will incentivise defendants to opt for jury trial. In the brief interlude when that happened before, there was no statistical data to say that might be the case, so on that particular example we are confident that there will not be any appreciable increase in the number of defendants opting for a jury trial.

As far as training goes, there will be refresher training available to magistrates. When I was in opposition, I personally did the training for the increase in sentences. It was not that long ago, but if some magistrates feel they want the refresher training then it will be available to them.

The central point that the noble Lord made was about filling up prisons. As my noble friend Lord Timpson often reminds me, if you do nothing then the prison population will go up by 80 a week. That is the reason we are initiating this review of sentencing, which will get under way very quickly.

The closing remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, were much more acceptable than his opening remarks. In his closing remarks, he acknowledged the complexity of the situation, that there are many interacting factors in the situation we have arrived at today, and that there needs to be a multifaceted approach to try to turn the tide on the ever-increasing number of people we find in our prisons. I agree with the point he made in his closing remarks.

I think the noble and learned Lord might have been tweaking my nose with his other point. He said that magistrates cannot resist a vacuum, but he knows that that is absolutely not true. Magistrates sentence within the sentencing guidelines, as do district judges. The problem with magistrates and district judges is that they sentence quicker than Crown Courts, not that they sentence more harshly. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, is nodding her head, because she knows that what I have said is correct.

The overall objective of this announcement is to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers back from six to 12 months. I look forward to answering more questions from other noble Lords on that matter.

Arbitration Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Beith and Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, in this group I will speak to Amendments 3 and 4, tabled in my name.

It has come to light that Clause 13 does not adequately codify the case law on appeals under Part 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996. I have tabled Amendment 3 to replace Clause 13 and correct the root cause of this issue: a drafting error in the 1996 Act that provided for an incorrect approach to appeals under Part 1 of the Act. Allow me to explain both the underlying issue and the approach I am taking to resolve it.

Clause 13 of this Bill as introduced seeks to codify case law regarding leave to appeal decisions on staying legal proceedings under Section 9 of the 1996 Act, namely the House of Lords decision from 2000 in Inco and First Choice Distribution. As such, the current Clause 13 inserts into Section 9 provision that

“the leave of the court is required for any appeal from a decision of the court under this section”.

During the passage of this Bill, certain noble and learned Lords raised the point that Clause 13 as drafted would permit leave for appeal to be sought only from the High Court—the High Court being what is meant by “the court” in the provision. However, the current situation established by case law provides that leave to appeal can be sought directly also from the Court of Appeal. It seems that Clause 13 as drafted would have the effect of inadvertently narrowing the existing position, which was never the intention.

The root cause of this issue is that the 1996 Act made an incorrect consequential amendment to Section 18(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and Section 35(2) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. In Inco and First Choice Distribution, the late Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead identified that this provision in the Senior Courts Act was originally meant to give effect to restrictions on the right to appeal contained in Sections 1 and 2 of the Arbitration Act 1979. The Senior Courts Act then needed updating to reflect additional appeal restrictions in the 1996 Act. But, as Lord Nicholls put it,

“for once, the draftsmen slipped up”.

The provision in the Senior Courts Act, when read literally, suggests that no appeals against decisions under Part 1 of the 1996 Act are allowed, except where expressly provided for in the 1996 Act. However, the intended and correct position is that appeals are indeed permitted unless expressly restricted by the 1996 Act. Due to this misunderstanding, Clause 13, in inserting its express language on appeals into Section 9 of the 1996 Act, establishes restrictions on those appeals. Accordingly, the provision that

“the leave of the court is required for any appeal from a decision of the court under this section”,

as used in other sections of the 1996 Act, is intended as a restriction providing that leave under those sections can be sought only from the High Court. As it was not the intention of the Law Commission or the Government to add such a restriction on Section 9 appeals, we must correct it.

Simply amending Clause 13 to permit direct appeals to the Court of Appeal under Section 9 could raise questions about other sections of the 1996 Act and whether similar provision should also be made elsewhere. Deleting Clause 13 would maintain the current appeal process but miss the opportunity to fix the issue properly. This seems remiss, given that the clear objective of this Bill is to refine and clarify our arbitral framework.

Amendment 3 therefore rectifies the underlying issue. It replaces the current Clause 13 with amendments to the Senior Courts Act 1981 and the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. These clarify that appeals against High Court decisions under Part 1 of the 1996 Act, including under Section 9, may, subject to provision in that part, be made to the Court of Appeal. This will establish beyond doubt the current position on appeals.

Amendment 3 also necessitates a change to the Bill’s Long Title, which is currently:

“A Bill to amend the Arbitration Act 1996”.


However, under Amendment 3, it will now also amend the Senior Courts Act 1981 and the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. This will not practically widen the scope of the Bill, given that it modifies that other legislation only to the extent that it relates to the 1996 Act. Nevertheless, Amendment 4 is required and updates the Long Title, adding “and for connected purposes”. I beg to move.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, we support this amendment and are grateful to the Government for bringing it forward. The Minister’s remarks could usefully be framed and provided as an object lesson in the fact that drafting really does matter and that, when it goes wrong, the consequences mount up in subsequent legislation. He illustrated that well.