Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Wednesday 30th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, with all his experience, that the system of financing litigation by the no-win no-fee system, as it has been called, is working reasonably well. Many noble Lords will remember that the introduction of that system was not without a certain amount of difficulty for those who were promoting it.

I think that it is not correct to say that legal aid has been removed from judicial review. My understanding is that legal aid is available up to the point at which the judicial review is permitted to go ahead or not. Subject to this, the payments to the lawyer in question will depend on whether or not the judicial review is allowed to go ahead from the point at which the respondent to the judicial review has replied to the description of the review that is put forward under the protocol. Nothing else, as far as I understand, is affecting legal aid. That seems to me completely reasonable in the circumstances of judicial review.

The last time I spoke on this part of the Bill, I hope that I made it clear that I cherish judicial review as a very important aspect of our judicial process. However, I have pointed out, and I believe that it is beyond doubt, that the scope for judicial review is a deal greater than it was many years ago when the finality clauses were in force in many provisions of statute. One has to be careful in approaching any restrictions on judicial review, though, as the noble and learned Lord who is the President of the Supreme Court has said. I am certain that the clauses that we are dealing with today, particularly the first of them, are very much in that category, and that considerable care is required.

One of the difficulties about judicial review that has been brought to my attention quite frequently over the past years is the sort of circumstance that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to. I will not preface it in the way that was done earlier—I am sure that he will understand why not. In a village, nearly all the villagers are interested in having a certain decision of the local authority overturned. The villagers go to their lawyer, who says, “Well now, let’s see. Is there anybody in the village who is rather poorly off?”. Perhaps, fortunately for the system, there is no such person, in which case they have to continue on the ordinary basis, without legal aid. However, if somebody in the village qualifies for legal aid, under the scheme that can operate we will find that the whole village is able to go ahead on the basis of legal aid in such a way that if the application is unsuccessful, the litigant who is legally aided is of course protected against a court order.

The last time I spoke I illustrated how that had happened in quite a considerable campaign against the previous Government’s educational policy on academies. In the literature that was produced at the time, one thing that was said was, “So far, all the people who are applicants are entitled to legal aid, so the whole litigation will be at the expense of the taxpayer”. That is a difficult situation. The point is not that the person of little means is being in any way impeded, but that they have become an instrument for attacking the taxpayer generally. I am not sure as yet what the right way to deal with that problem is, but it certainly needs to be dealt with. I suppose that the courts could deal with it, but the difficulty is that there are a lot of individual applications, each of which is usually dealt with separately. In the case of the Government’s policy on academies, most of the attacks were based on local considerations—although, as was said, the whole scheme was being attacked.

I certainly regard it as of the utmost importance that any rules of this kind that are put forward are very carefully scrutinised. It may well be that as phrased in this clause they are somewhat on the wide side. However, it does seem that there is a problem that your Lordships will need to address in some way to preserve justice for the taxpayer, as well as for the litigant. I am not at all in favour of putting any more difficulties in the way of a proper litigant applying for judicial review than exist at the present time. I am concerned at the development of matters around judicial review over the years—and over recent years in particular. To have a shell company that is set up particularly for the purpose of promoting a judicial review strikes me as somewhat strange, and whether the rules are sufficient to cope with that is a matter that I would like to hear about.

The other aspect, referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, is standing. I mentioned the other day that I was nominated as senior counsel for the Crown in the original decision on standing in this House, but the courts have expanded the concept of standing quite fully since then. I am not certain whether it embraces the standing of a shell company set up by people to protect themselves against the possibility of court costs. No doubt those who are more familiar with recent practice will be able to help me on that point. For the time being, it seems to me that there is a problem to be dealt with, and I am anxious to learn whether the proposals in the Bill or the amendments are a better way of dealing with it.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a very helpful and well informed debate on the clauses dealing with the provision of information about financial resources and—it is important to distinguish between the two—the use of information about those financial resources.

As noble Lords will be aware, anyone wishing to bring a judicial review must first obtain the permission of the court to proceed. This is set out in Section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and mirrored in Section 16 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Clauses 65 and 66 relate to the information that an applicant must provide as part of that application and direct the court to consider that information when making costs orders. In order to ensure that the court is properly informed under Clause 65, the court or Upper Tribunal cannot grant permission to proceed with judicial review unless information on funding is provided. Clause 66 requires that the courts have regard to this information when exercising their existing powers and discretion to award costs.

Amendments 73G, 73H and 73M, taken together, seek to weaken the requirement that an applicant applying to the court or tribunal for permission to bring a judicial review provides information on financial resources. The effect of Amendment 73G would be to enable the courts to disapply that requirement in whole or in part. Nothing is provided about the circumstances under which the court may disapply the requirement. Amendments 73H and 73M seek to remove the requirement for an applicant to supply information about financial resources that are “likely to be available” to fund the claim. There is presently no general requirement for applicants to reveal the source of funding they are receiving for a claim. This may hinder the courts in assessing fairly the available financial resources when making costs orders. Requiring the applicant to provide this information, regardless of whether the funding is provided by a formal party to the claim, will assist the courts in better exercising their existing powers and discretion to apportion costs fairly. Also—and this is worth stressing—in responding to our recent consultation on judicial review, the senior judiciary welcomed the greater transparency that this would involve, although not the former judges who have participated in this debate.

We are concerned that potential applicants are able to set up shell companies, with the sole purpose of fronting a judicial review, enabling the individuals or bodies driving the claim to avoid full costs implications, ultimately at taxpayers’ expense. Take the challenge to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Justice’s decision to grant a licence to exhume human remains which turned out to be those of Richard III; a case referred to in Monday’s debate by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. A company was formed to bring that judicial review, protecting the sole director from costs liability and an absolute protective costs order was granted, in part on the basis that the company itself did not have any assets. Noble Lords may be aware that the court in this case recently found that the decision of the Secretary of State for Justice was entirely lawful. However, the taxpayer has been left to foot the Secretary of State’s costs, of £82,000 up to March this year, in properly defending his lawful actions. The wider cost to the public purse has been put at £175,000 and may be higher.

[Lord Woolf]

Is the Minister saying that the powers the court has now would not have enabled it to obtain information about who was behind the shell company to which he referred and if need be to make an exceptional order for costs against the persons supporting it?

[Lord Faulks]

These clauses will require the court to go through the processes described in them. It is true that a particularly inquisitive court might have been able to find out more than—

[Lord Woolf]

Could an application not have been made by the Crown saying it was seeking orders for costs and asking the court to make the appropriate orders?

[Lord Faulks]

The problem was that there was nobody to enforce an order for costs against, effectively. That was the disadvantage that accrued to the taxpayer. Clause 65, which was welcomed by the senior judiciary, provides for information about financial resources to be provided and for that information to be used. The problem was that that case proceeded and there was no way of recovering the costs when it concluded.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

I am sorry to take up the Committee’s time, but I am not sure that the Minister has answered the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. First, there is clearly a power to order the backers of a shell company to pay the costs if a shell company is put forward as the applicant. The question to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, wanted an answer was whether the Minister agreed that in the exercise of that power, or in considering the exercise of that power, the court would not have ample power to require information about the nature and extent of the backing and then to consider orders accordingly. I suggest that it is quite clear that the court has that power.

[Lord Faulks]

The court certainly has power to make orders against non-parties in appropriate circumstances under the existing law. It is not normally the case that that is happening. The purpose of these clauses is to provide a statutory framework in which the court can find the information and use it if it thinks appropriate while retaining the discretion.

[Lord Woolf]

I really must press the Minister. I know he will forgive me rising again. If we do not want to increase the costs of the ordinary application for judicial review, is it not very important that where you have a special case, such as the one to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, referred in his recent speech and the case we are looking at now with the particular circumstances relating to Richard’s burial, applications arise to deal with the particular case rather than putting matters on the general body of applicants for judicial review who receive assistance?

[Lord Faulks]

In many cases, this will be a fairly straightforward procedure, whereas in the Richard III case it would have been a rather unusual, more searching procedure. I am afraid that I cannot depart from the Government’s position that these clauses will put in statute an important process which has not always been adequately undertaken by judges, and which was welcomed by the senior judiciary, in order, in some circumstances—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Can we just establish the facts in relation to the Richard III case? We know that it would have been possible for the court in such a case, if it wished to do so, to investigate the funding of the straw company or the straw man who was the applicant and, if necessary, to have made an order for costs against the backers of that action. We also know that, in that case, that action was not taken. Did the Government make an application for a costs award in their favour on that occasion? In other words, did they attempt to initiate that process in the Richard III case?

[Lord Faulks]

I am not aware that they did. Rather than take up more time discussing the particular facts of that case, I will write to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and explain what course the Government took in relation to it. I think I have probably taken up enough time on the subject.

What we are concerned with is not, in fact, a radical departure from what exists, but sets down clearly the scope of the discretion and makes it a matter of course that in such cases there will be information about the financial resources, and that they will be used. As I have conceded, these clauses do not introduce any new principles concerning the costs liability of non-parties. Their purpose is to increase transparency, so as to allow the courts to exercise their existing powers and discretion more effectively. In other words, more information will be available on which to make any decision that they have to make.

The Government do not agree that the requirement to provide information should be limited or applied only in certain circumstances, as Amendment 73G would provide. We do not accept that the transparency requirements should apply to some people and not to others. Furthermore, we do not agree that prospective funding should be excluded from the information that an applicant is expected to disclose, as Amendments 73H and 73M seek to achieve. It is vital that the courts have before them the full financial picture of a claim. This must include details of any financial resources that are likely to be available towards the costs of the litigation. Noble Lords will surely accept that, were these amendments made, third-party funders who sought to protect themselves from liability would merely structure that funding in such a way that it would not be available on application but only thereafter.

We will be working with the Civil Procedure Rule Committee and the Tribunal Procedure Committee so that the rules can make clear the exact parameters of the information that applicants will be required to provide, together with a duty for applicants to update the information where circumstances change materially. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, suggested that the rules of court would simply reflect what the Lord Chancellor wants. The position is that the Lord Chancellor can direct that they achieve a certain purpose, but the terms are for the rule committee. As I endeavoured to explain last time we debated these matters, the rule committee is made up of some extremely distinguished lawyers, and they will be responsible for the particular terms of the rules. I do not accept that the transparency requirement that Clause 65 permits is an onerous one.

I turn now to Clause 66. Amendments 73N, 73P and 73R are concerned with what the judge does with the information, and seek to change the circumstances in which the court should have regard to information about the funding of the application when making costs orders. Rather than requiring the court to consider the funding information provided under Clause 65, the amendments would allow the court to have discretion to consider financial information, which it would be able to order the applicant to provide if it considered it just to do so. The information would be limited to sources of funding actually available to the applicant, and would not cover sources that were likely to be available. Rather than looking at the applicant’s ability to fund the judicial review generally, the information would be limited to how the applicant would meet the other side’s costs.

Amendments 73Q and 73U seek to replace the duty, conveyed by the word “must”, with a discretion, conveyed by the word “may”, for the court or Upper Tribunal to have regard to information provided under Clause 65 when considering costs awards. These clauses do not mean that applicants have to provide an in-depth breakdown of every aspect of their financial position, but it is right that they should provide information on how they will fund the judicial review generally, and not just the other side’s costs. If necessary, applicants will be able to update the court at a later stage if the position changes. I would expect those who choose to bring a judicial review to consider first how they will meet the costs of doing so. This is what the clause seeks to bring about.

It is right that the courts should consider this information. Let me be clear that this does not mean that a court will be obliged to make a costs award against a non-party. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, made clear, there is a substantial body of jurisprudence as to how the discretion is exercised vis-à-vis a non-party. Rather, the courts are obliged to consider the information properly when deciding whether or not to make such an order.

Amendment 73T would allow the courts or Upper Tribunal to sit in private or impose reporting restrictions to protect the privacy of a person’s financial information which is required to be provided under Clause 65. I fully understand that it may seem that such a provision is necessary, but I hope to be able to provide reassurance that the amendments are not necessary as courts have existing powers in this area. There has long been a general rule that a hearing is to be in public. However, the power has existed for a long time to conduct proceedings in private where necessary in the interests of justice. Rule 39.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules already reflects that power so that if a hearing involves confidential information, including financial information, and if publicity would damage that confidentiality, this information can be kept private. As is the case now, this clause does not change the position that financial information made available to the courts need not be made publicly available.

Amendments 73W and 73X amend the duty on the court so that it need consider costs orders against only those who have actually provided support or, as provided by Amendment 73V, those who have promised to provide support. This would mean that the court would not have to consider making a costs order against those who are likely to contribute to the funding of the judicial review, including not making costs orders against those sheltering behind shell companies created simply to avoid proportionate liability for costs.

Amendment 73V would also mean that those who are likely to fund and drive litigation could escape the appropriate costs liability by not formally promising to provide support. In my view, this would defeat the purpose of the clause and is not a sensible position. It is the Government’s view that those who finance and drive judicial reviews should face appropriate costs consequences in doing so. I shall shortly answer the questions raised on that by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and others. This means that the court should have before it and consider all of the information when making costs awards, and this should include not just those who have provided funding but those who are likely to do so.

In my view, it should not be possible to bring litigation in such a way as to circumvent proper costs exposure. The changes introduced by Clauses 65 and 66 tackle precisely this issue, ensuring that those driving judicial reviews assume a fair and proportionate share of the financial risk, always, of course, subject to the discretion which must exist in these circumstances, given that it is impossible for a legislative provision to define exactly every single type of situation where the matter would have to be dealt with.

There is no question of singling out those who support applicants. In answer to a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and, I think, others, I should say that the power that courts have to order non-parties to pay costs in litigation of whatever character exists and, in appropriate circumstances, would apply to non-parties whether they are in some way supporting one side or another. That power exists.

As to the reduction in legal aid, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay accurately stated the position in relation to legal aid. Unlike in many areas of the law, legal aid does remain in scope for judicial review subject to means tests and merits tests. That is an important inclusion of scope. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2014 are concerned simply with that part of the procedure where an unsuccessful application is made for permission and only in relation to that permission. That, I know, is controversial, but it should not be thought that legal aid is not available for judicial review.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, whose excuse for lateness was, of course, of the highest order, mentioned the availability of conditional fees. These are of course much less available following Part 2 of the LASPO Act, which indeed was supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, among others, on the basis that an unfortunate consequence of the expansion of the original idea of conditional fees—which I think was in modest scope the responsibility of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay—had resulted effectively in a bonanza which was in fact having a number of undesirable consequences. There is a much more modest scope now for conditional fees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

Presumably my noble friend would concede that the claimant who fills out the form is only going get the information from the supporters who are proposing to support him.

[Lord Faulks]

Quite so, but I thought that the inference was that some full disclosure of all financial circumstances was going to be required of third parties, and that is not what the rules suggest.

We suggest that these clauses are not making a radical change in the existing law. They are not, in fact, removing the capacity of those who should be able to bring claims for judicial review; they are simply placing on the statute book what some of the senior judiciary wanted, which was a degree of transparency to stop those rare cases where the taxpayer is having to pay for judicial reviews in circumstances where the true funders are managing to obscure the position in a way that no one in this Committee would like.

[Lord Woolf]

I am sorry once again to interrupt the Minister in his closing address, but does he agree that it is absolutely essential, if the purpose of these provisions is the limited one that he identified, that those who are preparing proceedings for an application for judicial review, who want to know what they have to do because of the provisions of Clause 65 on funding, need to be told that there will be no requirement in that sort of situation to provide particulars of the resources—to take the example we were given—of all the people in a small village who are making a contribution? Some of them may be wealthy and some may be poor, but someone who is wealthy may have a significant obligation.

[Lord Faulks]

The answer, I think, to the noble and learned Lord’s question is that Clause 65(1)(b) states that the information will be specified in the rules of court. The anxieties expressed in the Committee and by those who have provided briefings and written articles are clearly matters that will be taken into consideration, and we do not want to stifle proper judicial reviews or make people feel anxious about small contributions. These matters will be taken into account. However, for the reasons that have also been outlined in argument, we cannot specify in this statute every single, precise situation.

I hope that I have gone some way to reassure those who have sought—

[Lord Goldsmith (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I was taken by a remark he made a few moments ago. I was listening attentively to everything that he and noble Lords have said. He seemed to suggest that these changes were here simply because the senior judiciary had asked for them. Is that what he was saying, because I am surprised if that is the position?

[Lord Faulks]

No, I do not think that the noble and learned Lord was here at the beginning of the debate, but I have not, in fact, suggested that the provisions were there only for that reason. I see the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is nodding. I said that they are there because the Government think that they should be included. However, I did say that the senior judiciary welcomed a degree of transparency. I am not suggesting that that they also endorsed the precise form of the statute, if that helps the Committee or the noble and learned Lord.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The Minister said two things, if I heard him right. One was that the intent of these clauses is not in any way to change the common law basis of the criteria for determining liability for the costs of a judicial review, and that those who are currently not exposed to such liability will not be exposed as a result of the provisions in the Bill being passed. At the same time, he said that there are categories of people who have been getting away with avoiding financial liability for judicial review at the expense of the taxpayer, when they should have been liable. Can I put it to him that those two statements are not logically compatible? Either there is a change in the scope of liability for judicial review as a result of these clauses or there is not.

[Lord Faulks]

I cannot add much to what I have already said. For the first time, in statute—if this clause becomes law—we shall have a requirement for information about financial resources to be provided. We shall also have clear guidance to the court as to how it should exercise its discretion on using that information about financial resources. I think that the noble Lord himself said that it was useful to have some of these things stated in the statute. That is precisely what we are doing.

[Lord Beecham]

The Minister has battled with arguments from around the House with as much valour as Richard III displayed at the battle of Bosworth, and with approximately the same result. The Minister’s arguments fell very far short of providing evidence of the case that the Government are seeking to rely on. We heard from him and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, about two cases. I am not sure whether one of those was hypothetical or not—I think it was a planning matter of the kind that the noble and learned Lord referred to—and the other was the Richard III case. As to the illustration of Islington cited by the noble and learned Lord, I think that the circumstances would be different now. Speaking as someone whose daughter lives in Islington and whose son has just sold a tiny flat for an enormous amount of money in Islington, I think it would be difficult to find anybody who could be described as poor in large parts of that borough. However, leaving that aside, and more substantively, let us look at the Richard III case. There is a point, and it is a fair point, about shell companies being established for that purpose.

[Lord Faulks]

I am hesitant to interrupt the noble Lord, but since he is coming on to deal with Richard III, and I was asked a question about it, I now have a better answer than the one I gave earlier. He may be able to comment on my answer, so I shall give him an opportunity that he might not otherwise have had. The position is that in the Richard III case the claimant—a shell company—got an absolute protective costs order as the company had no assets, so no costs at all were payable when the claimant lost the case.

[Lord Beecham]

I repeat that I think there is a potential issue with shell companies. How many other cases of that kind have occurred? The only one we have heard about, and the only one to which the former Lord Chancellor has legitimately referred, is the Richard III case. How many of the other 336 cases that have been brought for judicial review in the past few years have involved what I agree is an abuse? If there is a problem, which the noble and learned Lord and the Minister are perfectly right to address, could it not be dealt with differently? If necessary, there could be legislation dealing precisely with that situation, rather than a general application of principle which could affect many others who are perfectly legitimately seeking to advance their claim? It is fair to say that the Minister has not given the impression of knowing—I do not blame him, because I am in no better a position—whether the court’s current discretion will extend, as implied by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, to dealing with that situation now. If it did not, we would be prepared to support and discuss what kind of amendment might be made to the Bill to deal with that particular and discrete situation, as I have no doubt other noble Lords, particularly noble and learned Lords, would be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I am afraid that I am unable to resist thanking all noble Lords for their interventions on this debate. They have been extremely helpful, and I mean that. This is particularly in the light of the fact that I indicated at Second Reading—as has been referred to in the course of the debate—that we were listening to arguments about this clause. My honourable friend Shailesh Vara MP also gave such an indication in the other place. We will have benefitted greatly from the debate today in deciding on our final position.

Although the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said that I was grateful for the intervention from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, it is of course the House which is grateful for all contributions on all sides. With great respect, the point about an intervention is not that it assists any one side, but that it assists the court. An intervention is there to assist the court. I noted and agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who said that interventions are extremely helpful. They certainly can be extremely helpful, but not all interventions are equally helpful.

Clause 67 as currently constituted aims to strengthen the cost rules relating to third parties who voluntarily apply to join in a judicial review case as interveners. I stress “voluntarily” apply. These interveners can include anyone who is interested in the issues which the court is considering, and they seek permission from the court to intervene in a judicial review case through filing evidence or making representations. Of course, I accept the fact that interveners can add value and assist, as many noble and learned Lords have said. However, they can also delay and hinder. Sometimes they make arguments beyond those required by the court, or merely amplify or repeat those already made by a party.

Here I must declare an interest. I have been in a considerable number of cases where there have been interveners, at the level of both the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court, and on one occasion I acted for an intervener. In fact, I think that that was in the very same case in which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was also acting for an intervener. I am glad to say that we kept our remarks within the short compass, and our skeleton arguments were similarly brief. I do have experience of the mounting level of interventions in litigation.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to the possible chilling effect on those who habitually intervene; those were his words. With great respect, in his use of the word “habitually” there is perhaps an indication of something about which the Government are concerned. There are of course cases where the court is greatly assisted by interventions brought by a disinterested party, which can bring a particular knowledge or contribution to the debate. However, the court might be less assisted by those who habitually intervene and who have a particular agenda which may require or indicate that they support one side or another.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, who is to decide whether a habitual intervener should be allowed to intervene? What is wrong with the court making that decision of its own volition?

[Lord Faulks]

I was coming to that very point. Interventions can prove difficult for the courts to control. The reason I say that is because on occasions an application is made for an intervener to intervene and, on the face of it, the judge deciding whether or not they can intervene will do so on the basis that they have a knowledge of the case. The judge, having regard to the submissions that he or she receives, considers that the intervener might well be of assistance. The level and degree of intervention is then very often beyond the control of the judge who originally gave permission, so that one can then encounter—perhaps at the hearing of a judicial review, or at the Court of Appeal stage—a very substantial skeleton argument, bundles of authorities, and arguments which range very loosely around the subject matter of the dispute. Here I speak from experience.

Inevitably, this causes expense to all parties involved, whether the applicant or the respondent, because they have to consider the arguments. They cannot rest assured that the judge is simply going to ignore everything on the basis that it might be outside the scope of the intervention. Of course, good judges customarily curtail submissions made orally once the matter gets to the stage of a hearing, and do so effectively. That does not remove the danger of quite excessive levels of intervention and contribution.

[Lord Pannick]

The Minister will accept, I hope, that courts regularly impose terms on interveners. The court says, “You may intervene, but only on the following issues”, “You may intervene in writing, but only 20 pages” or “You may intervene orally, but no more than 30 minutes of oral submissions”. These are very familiar orders. What further powers do the courts need?

[Lord Faulks]

Those are familiar orders. They are not always adhered to or always made, but I entirely accept that they are familiar orders. The point that I am making is that they are difficult to police in a preparation for a trial although easier to police by conscientious judges when dealing with it.

The changes that Clause 67 introduces reflect the Government’s intention of ensuring that interveners have a more proportionate interest in the financial implications of a judicial review. There should be fewer cases in which the taxpayer—or any other party to a judicial review—is expected to shoulder the burden of others’ decisions to argue their case.

Therefore, as currently drafted, Clause 67 establishes two presumptions: first, that the court will order a voluntary intervener in judicial review proceedings to pay their own costs; and secondly, that it will order a voluntary intervener to pay the reasonable costs they cause a party to the judicial review to incur by their intervention. Neither would apply where, in the view of the court, there are exceptional circumstances making it appropriate for the presumption to be rebutted.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, asked me about Clause 67(6) in relation to that, on the exceptional circumstances that are relevant for the purposes of subsection (3) and the criteria that will be specified in the rules of court. My answer to that is the same answer as I gave in the debate on Monday when responding to an amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, about the rules of court. The Delegated Powers Committee suggested that these and other matters should be put in the Bill. We are considering carefully that report and will respond to it. Clearly, what has been said about it is an important factor which we will take into account.

I should, however, be absolutely clear that the clause will apply only to those who voluntarily seek permission, not in those cases where the court invites, as it sometimes does, an intervention because it requires contextual information from an expert group.

Amendment 74 would remove both presumptions and replace them with one new presumption whereby the courts may not order any costs to be paid between an intervener and a party to the proceedings unless there are exceptional circumstances. There, I come back to the rules of court.

In relation to the first presumption, this would have little effect, as the clause as drafted already sets out that a party cannot be asked to pay the intervener’s costs unless exceptional circumstances exist. The first presumption, as was confirmed by many of the responses received to our recent consultation on judicial review, broadly represents the status quo. In practice, interveners are usually responsible, as was pointed out in argument, for their own costs incurred in the judicial review. It will remain a matter for the discretion of the court to decide liability for costs in an individual case, but the Government’s view is that the principle should be set out in primary legislation in order to be transparent and to provide clarity both to interveners and to the parties.

It is, I apprehend, the second presumption which has caused the most disquiet, as is evident from this debate, both in the other place and more widely. I mention the other place because an amendment was tabled there in that respect on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I think by my noble friend Lord Marks’s honourable friend Julian Huppert, although it has to be said that the Liberal Democrat position on Part 4 has ranged rather more widely than it did in the House of Commons, notwithstanding the apparent agreement in the coalition as to the inclusion of Part 4 in this Bill.

I want to set out some of the safeguards that Clause 67 already contains, in addition to the clause applying only to those who are not invited by the court to intervene. It will operate only on an application by a party. In suitable matters of high policy there may be an agreement between the parties and a potential intervener that costs will not be applied for. Even if the parties make an application, the court can decide not to make an award against the interveners.

The only costs in question will be those that the court considers are incurred as a result of the intervention and those costs must be reasonable. Neither defendants nor claimants will be able to ask interveners to pay for their decision to obtain unreasonably expensive legal advice to respond to the arguments the intervener raises. An intervener will never be asked to pay even one penny of the costs that one party has caused the other. This clause is about the financial impact on the parties which the intervention has.

For example, if the intervener raises additional points that are not germane to the case, then a party—which could be either the claimant or the defendant—may ask the court to require the intervener to pay their reasonable costs in addressing those points. This might cover counsel’s time, for example. The court will make the award if it considers that those costs were incurred as a result of the intervention and there are not exceptional circumstances that would make an order inappropriate.

It remains the case that the court will ultimately decide whether to award those costs against the intervener. If the court considers that there are exceptional circumstances that make it inappropriate to award costs against the intervener, it can decide not to make the order. As with Amendment 74, matters for the court to consider when determining whether there are exceptional circumstances will be set out in rules of court. We should not seek to second-guess the content of those rules, which as usual will fall to the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. We can, however, be confident that the rules will reflect the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules, which is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, will know only too well, to enable the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost.

These safeguards reflect the principle that an intervention should not usually cause additional costs to the claimant or to the usually taxpayer-funded defendant. They will operate to ensure that interveners are not asked inappropriately to pay the costs of a party.

I hope that no one can accuse the Government of not having considered the views that have been expressed in relation to this clause; we are continuing to do that, as I indicated. I also indicated that what has been said today will influence our thinking.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, referred to the position of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has its own rules and we do not purport to prescribe how the Supreme Court should reflect the questions of intervention—I am sure that many of them are extremely valuable.

We accept that interveners can bring value. The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, referred to the case of Burke, although she will remember that that decision was reversed in the Court of Appeal when it decided that it was not to be used as an advice centre. I none the less accept the general thrust of her point.

The Government want to ensure that third-party interventions are made in the right cases, for the right reasons and after careful consideration beforehand. This means that interveners should have a fair financial stake in the case.

Bearing in mind our intention to continue to look at the clause—and I hope that the House will accept the sincerity of what I am saying; doubts were expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, although he accepted that some of the Government’s anxiety was reasonable—I hope that I have been able to address noble Lords’ concerns. In those circumstances—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Woolf]

Clause 67 has created a particular type of party, namely a “relevant party”. The relevant party is defined in subsection (8). I have no problem with that definition. However, in his closing remarks the Minister said that if, of course, a person is invited to intervene, as Justice could be invited to intervene, in effect this would not apply. The words are, of course, very specific, because of the presence of the word “must”. I draw attention to the fact that the court could invite people to intervene who are not a relevant party. Would he bear that in mind?

[Lord Faulks]

I shall deal with those interventions in reverse order, I am very grateful for what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said. I will bear that in mind and, rather than answer from the Dispatch Box, I will consider it carefully. Similarly, I will answer the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in writing with details.

As to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, I obviously would not comment on the appropriateness of particular interventions in particular cases. However, I am not sure that I would entirely agree with, or that I apprehend, her thrust, which was that litigation belongs to the parties, and there are disputes—whether civil disputes or judicial review, which involves public law—where interventions may be helpful in deciding between the parties. Where I may differ from her is the approach whereby an organisation of which all of us, I suspect, would approve should nevertheless use judicial review as part of a process. There are other processes available, whether it is lobbying Government or informal processes of campaigning, lobbying or taking part in inquiries: that may be a way to do it. Nevertheless, even though these bodies can have valuable contributions in certain cases, there should be some hesitation before simply saying that this is an issue where we might be able to help.

I conclude by saying that I will take into account all the observations that have been made and inviting the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Pannick]

I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this exceptionally informed debate, including the Minister. I am pleased that further thought is to be given to this clause. I hope that over the summer not just the Minister but also the Secretary of State will think again about Clause 67, because the Government’s defence of this clause is wholly unconvincing—apart possibly from the Minister’s critical comments about the attitude of the Liberal Democrats to Clause 4. I leave that aside: it is something I do not want to intrude into.

Subject to that, the Government have presented no proper defence of this clause, and I ask the Minister to ask himself and the Secretary of State two questions in particular: what is really the mischief that is being addressed here that is not already addressed by the ample powers that courts have, and what will be the inevitable consequences of this clause? The inevitable adverse consequence is that the public interest group that is considering intervening will say to itself, “We simply cannot bear the risk, and therefore we will not intervene”, and the court will be denied the information—the assistance—that courts appreciate and value. For the moment, however, I will withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

Since we are in Committee, perhaps I can try to assist the Committee.

The power derives from restatements of principles which, as the noble Lord said, are inherent in the court’s processes. In the Court of Appeal case Regina (on the application of Corner House Research) v the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in 2005—EWCA Civ 192—the Court of Appeal considered that Corner House, which was an anti-corruption NGO, should, if unsuccessful in the judicial review, exceptionally be protected from being liable for the defendant’s costs because,

“the issues of public importance that arose in the case would have been stifled at the outset, and the courts would have been powerless to grant this small company the relief that it sought”.

It also set out the general principles for when a protected costs order should be granted: first, the issues are of general public importance; secondly, the public interest requires that those issues should be resolved; thirdly, the claimant has no private interest in the outcome of the case; fourthly, the financial means of the claimant mean that the protected costs order is fair and just; and, finally, if the order is not made, the claimant will probably discontinue the proceedings.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

On Clause 68, there is only one amendment in my name, Amendment 75F, which removes subsections (6) to (11). The reason for that is we firmly believe that the making of costs capping orders should be left to the discretion of the court in appropriate circumstances. Of course, those depend on the financial circumstances of the parties, which are mentioned in subsection (5), so they should stay in Clause 68. However, the factors that are set out in subsections (6), (7) and (8) relate to public interest proceedings and might legitimately influence the decision of the court in an appropriate case.

By Amendment 80A in relation to Clause 69—I am proceeding on the basis of a suggestion that Clauses 68 and 69 should be debated together—which is in my name and that of my noble friends Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lord Carlile of Berriew, further factors are listed as factors that the court should take into account.

In relation to the explanation that the Minister has just given of the origin of the costs capping jurisdiction, I fully accept that the Corner House principles limit the jurisdiction to public interest proceedings. I am not sure that that limitation is legitimate or necessary, although it is plainly relevant. The reason I suggest that it is not necessary to limit it in that way is that there may be unusual cases where an individual is so justifiably aggrieved by an unlawful decision of a public body in a case which does not have universal or public importance that a costs capping order or a protected costs order might be appropriate, even though there is no wider public interest.

I fully support Amendments 75 and 75A in respect of Clause 68, which would remove the bar on making a costs capping order until after the permission stage. For my part, I can see no reason for such a bar, unless it were to choke off applications for leave to apply for judicial review for fear of an uncapped costs order. That, I suggest, is an unacceptable reason for stifling proceedings at that stage.

Our Amendments 77A, 80A and 80C to Clause 69 would restore the position that costs capping orders in judicial review proceedings are discretionary. Amendment 77A would require the court, when considering making such an order and then in considering the terms of any such order, to have regard to all the circumstances of the case. There would then follow a list of circumstances to which the court should have regard. This is a common enough formulation: in the provision of a non-exhaustive list, Parliament gives an indication to the courts as to the factors that should be considered. However, in its acknowledgement of the fallibility of lawmakers, and of the range of possibly unforeseeable circumstances, as mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, the requirement that the court should have regard to all the circumstances of the case is, I suggest, a just and sensible one, which would allow judges to make the right decision in the particular cases that come before them.

As I have said, Amendment 80A would add to the list of factors that the courts should take into account all the factors drawn from the present proposals in Clause 68. These factors would not—and, I suggest, should not—be ranked in any particular order of importance. The court would be entitled to have regard to them as it thought appropriate. As I have also said, this does not require public interest considerations to be a precondition for a costs capping order.

Amendment 80C would remove the requirement that a costs capping order in favour of an applicant would necessarily import a requirement that the court make a costs capping order in favour of the defendant at the same time. It would make the imposition of such an order discretionary in any given case. This was the present position, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in answer to the question posed by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. It does not seem to me that there is anything sensible or justifiable in an automatic rule that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It may sometimes be appropriate to make a costs capping order in relation to a defendant’s costs—more rarely, I suggest, because of the nature of the parties, than it is to make such an order in respect of an applicant’s costs. But again, I see no reason for interfering with the discretion of a court to make whatever orders appear to it to be just.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, this has been a useful debate and we have, by agreement, covered two groups. I will therefore respond on behalf of the Government in respect of both groups, which are effectively concerned with the same subject matter—namely, costs capping.

Clauses 68 and 69 would build on case law, particularly the Corner House case referred to by a number of noble Lords, to establish a codified costs capping regime for judicial review proceedings, to govern what is ordinarily or alternatively referred to as a protective costs order. These provisions would put protective costs orders on a statutory footing. At present, a court can make a protective costs order before it has considered whether a claimant’s case is suitable to be given permission to proceed to judicial review. Claimants with what may turn out to be weak cases can thus benefit from costs protection even if the court subsequently decides that their case should not be given permission for judicial review, thereby leaving the public body to pay its own costs of dealing with a case which had no merit. Effectively, a claimant would have had a risk-free process until then.

Subsection (3) of Clause 68 seeks to address this by ensuring that a costs capping order can be made only if permission is granted for the judicial review to proceed. Amendments 75 and 75A would remove this principle, thereby allowing the court to make an order at any stage of the proceedings.

The Government intend to ensure that, when considering bringing a judicial review, would-be claimants give due consideration to the merit of their case, so that public bodies do not bear the financial burden of unmeritorious claims. The provision should not deter those who have cases with substantial and proper grounds for challenging the Government. On the other hand, people are generally cautious about proceeding with litigation in all contexts. They would do so only if they had reasonable prospects of success, having balanced what might be obtained from the litigation and the costs of doing it. We do not therefore think that a measure of proper deterrence is inappropriate in these circumstances.

I am happy to assure your Lordships that under Clause 68 a costs capping order may cover costs incurred prior to the grant of permission, as at present. The applicant can, as now, ask the court to make the order as part of the permission application. It is right, however, that until permission is granted the claimant should bear the financial risk of bringing a weak claim because, ex hypothesi, it will be weak.

Amendment 75E seeks to remove the requirement for the court to be provided with information on funding likely to be available to an applicant when deciding whether to make a costs capping order. I do not agree that prospective funding should be excluded from the information an applicant is expected to disclose or that the court should not be asked to consider it when making the order. It is vital—and this echoes arguments made in the previous group—that the courts are aware of the full financial underpinnings of a claim. This allows the court to assess whether a claim, although notionally brought by a claimant of limited means, is in fact sufficiently well resourced not to require subsidy by way of costs protection. The Corner House principles require courts to consider the financial resources of claimants who request costs capping orders to ensure that any award made is fair and just. This should be reflected in this new regime, firmly to re-establish the principle.

Clause 68 also provides that in judicial review proceedings a court may make a costs capping order in favour of a claimant only if it considers that the proceedings are “public interest proceedings”, and sets out factors the court must consider in making this decision. This reflects the principle in the Corner House case that costs capping orders should be made only if the issues raised are of general public importance and the public interest requires those issues to be resolved. Part of the effect of Amendment 75F would be to remove any public interest requirement, and Amendment 77 would remove the list of factors to which the court should have regard when considering whether the case is in the public interest.

The Government consider that it is right that costs capping orders should be made only in public interest cases, otherwise costs capping orders could be made in cases where no order would have been made under the Corner House principles. In fact, the amendments are therefore effectively a loosening of the established law. The taxpayer should be asked to subsidise cases only where there truly is a public interest in the case proceeding.

[Lord Pannick]

The Minister mentioned the interests of the taxpayer. Can he assist the Committee on how many costs capping orders have, in fact, been made over the past few years, other than in environmental cases, which are dealt with separately in Clause 70?

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Lord mentioned a figure of 30 such cases. I do not have any precise figures.

[Lord Pannick]

I mentioned 20 cases, which covered all the environmental claims. I think that there have been only a handful—two or three—costs capping orders that are not environmental. Does the Minister have any more authoritative figures, because I do not understand the problem to be substantial?

[Lord Faulks]

I do not have any more authoritative figures. I will certainly write to the Committee before Report giving those figures, if they are available. I cannot guarantee that they are available, but if they are, I will certainly assist the Committee. We have, however, to consider not only the past position but the position prospectively. It is necessary in this context to consider what might be done in the future were there, as some of these amendments suggest, to be a loosening of the rules.

It is important that the matters listed in the clause are taken into account. I do not consider the factors to be contentious. Common sense dictates that, in deciding whether proceedings are public interest proceedings, consideration needs to be given to the number of people directly affected and the significance of the effect. It is also right that the court considers whether the proceedings involve consideration of a point of law of general public importance.

Clause 68 sets out three requirements in subsection (6) that proceedings must meet before a costs capping order can be made: first, that the proceedings are “public interest proceedings”; secondly, that in the absence of the costs capping order the claimant would not continue with the judicial review; and, thirdly, that it would be reasonable for the claimant to act in this way. Amendment 75F seeks to remove these entirely and Amendment 76 would remove the third of these criteria.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was concerned about how this subsection would be interpreted.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The noble Lord has just read out the criteria for making a costs capping order in subsection (6). Does he agree that because of the Henry VIII-plus provision in subsection (9), all those criteria could equally well be set aside, waived or completely changed simply by fiat of the Lord Chancellor at any time?

[Lord Faulks]

As the noble Lord would expect, I am coming on to consider the Henry VIII clause, so perhaps he will be kind enough to bear with me until I come to address that particular issue.

In the mean time, I shall deal with the assessment of whether it was reasonable to discontinue the claim, which was a question from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. This was not in the summary of the Corner House case, and it was only a summary that I endeavoured to assist the Committee with. It is a matter that we can find in the case. The provision in respect of the claimant being reasonable in discontinuing their claim comes from the Corner House principles. The court now assesses whether, without a protective costs order, the claimant would be reasonable in discontinuing their claim based on the lack of financial protection. All that we are seeking to do in statute is to confirm what is already in that case. I will come on to the point about the Henry VIII clause.

It was a requirement of the Corner House case that capping orders may only be in cases where the issues raised were of general public importance. The public interest requires that those issues be resolved and if a costs capping order is not made, the claimant would discontinue the proceedings and would act reasonably in doing so. The Government are not of the view that those requirements should be removed. Amendments 75F, 77 and 81 would remove from Clauses 68 and 69 powers for the Lord Chancellor to amend lists of matters within these clauses through statutory instrument. We do not believe that that is a sensible approach. I will set out why.

Removing the powers to amend these lists of matters would prevent us from responding quickly should it become necessary. Over time we have seen the development of the principles governing where a costs capping order should be made. That is clear from the changes that have been made to the principle set out in the Corner House case, referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in his contribution to the debate. It may be the case that there are future developments which mean that it would be appropriate for the courts to consider different matters when deciding whether, for example, proceedings are public interest proceedings. These powers give us the ability to respond quickly should change be needed. While this is done through statutory instrument rather than primary legislation, it does not mean that Parliament will be unable to consider any changes. Both powers are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so any changes will be debated in both Houses before coming into force. I also note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, whose report was discussed earlier in Committee, recommended the creation of a similar model elsewhere in this part.

This is not a question of the Lord Chancellor, as it were, having a free opportunity simply to alter the whole burden or interpretation of the clause. When dealing with the present position of the Lord Chancellor, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the position of the Lord Chancellor generally. Of course, the Government responded to that report, as she will be aware. In particular, it referred to Section 1 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which expressly provides that its provisions do not affect the existing constitutional principle of the rule of law or the Lord Chancellor’s existing constitutional role in relation to that principle. Furthermore, the Lord Chancellor’s oath specifies that his role is to,

“respect the rule of law”.

It suggests that the responsibility of the Secretary of State, for example, regarding sentencing or prisons, undermines the Lord Chancellor’s responsibilities for justice and the rule of law. It is a big question which I understand has been considered by the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment further except to say that, as I think the Lord Chancellor has said on a number of occasions, he is very mindful of his oath and his obligations in that regard. As the noble Baroness herself acknowledged, the change—to put it neutrally—to the Lord Chancellor’s role was brought about in something of a hurry by the party opposite when in power.

I turn to Amendment 75B, which seeks to extend the protection of costs capping orders to those who intervene in judicial reviews even though they are not parties to the proceedings. We see that as a step too far. Under the current scheme, I believe that interveners do not receive such orders. It would not be consistent with their status as a non-party. For example, an intervener could not, as required under the clause and the Corner House principles, meet the criteria of discontinuing the proceedings. I said in the debate on Clause 67 that an intervention should be made in a way that does not incur additional costs for the claimant or to the usually taxpayer-funded defendant. There are sufficient safeguards set out in Clause 67 to render this amendment unnecessary. For example, if the court considers that there are exceptional circumstances that make it inappropriate for the intervener to pay those costs, it will not award costs.

The Government accept that the court should continue to be able to grant cost protection where the issues are genuinely of public importance and the case cannot proceed otherwise because of the costs risk, but we wish to ensure that they are not made widely or in any way routinely. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, they may not be very frequent, but we certainly do not want to increase their use or increase their use in different circumstances. It is only in exceptional meritorious cases, where there are serious issues of the highest public interest that otherwise would not be taken forward, that a public body defendant should have to pay its own costs regardless of whether it wins or loses. The clause retains the principle that the costs are a matter for the judiciary. When considering an application for a costs capping order, it will be for the judge, as currently, to decide whether the particular proceedings are in the public interest and whether an order should be made in an individual case. I am extremely mindful of the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in the context of this and other amendments—indeed throughout Part 4. In his view and that of other noble Lords, it is an encroachment into judicial territory. It is said that Parliament should not be involved in areas where judges can develop the law and where they exercise their discretion. I understand that point. The Government do not seek to fetter the discretion inappropriately but none the less consider it appropriate to set out with some clarity what the provisions are while still permitting there to be judicial discretion, as indeed is appropriate.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Before moving to the next clause, I wonder whether the Minister would be kind enough to address the two questions I asked on how the court will satisfy the obligation that will be imposed on it by the Bill that an applicant would not proceed if a costs-cutting order were denied. My two questions were: would the applicant be asked the question and be required to make a statement saying that he or she would desist from an application if a costs-cutting order was not available? Secondly, in the event that such a declaration was made, would it be enforceable and would the applicant be held to it? In other words, would it in all circumstances be the end of that application, even if other sources of funding could, at that late stage, be found, even if they were not anticipated?

[Lord Faulks]

Those are precisely the circumstances in which we think the matter is best left to the judges. Indeed, judges have been performing such an exercise under the Corner House principles, which would not alter if the Bill is enacted in the way in which the Government suggest.

Clause 69 sets out the way in which a court should approach the decision of whether to make a costs capping order and the terms of such an order if made. It contains a list of five factors that the court must consider as part of this process. Noble Lords will recognise that, with one exception at subsection (1)(e), the factors build on considerations for making a costs capping order which were set out in the Corner House case.

Amendment 78 seeks to make it optional for the court to have regard to these factors. It is right that the court must consider the factors at Clause 69 when considering whether to make a costs-capping order as they are of great importance in ensuring that a costs-capping order is not awarded where it is unnecessary. However, the courts still have discretion, as the clause does not inhibit the courts’ discretion in deciding how much weight, if any, should be given to each factor. In addition, the list is not exhaustive, meaning that courts can have regard to any other factors which they consider to be relevant to the case before them. Amendment 78 is therefore unnecessary in the Government’s view.

In order to understand the effect of Amendment 77A, it is necessary to consider Amendment 75F, which is discussed in a later group and which removes the requirements for making a costs-capping order from Clause 68. When taking this amendment into account, the effect of Amendment 77A is to grant the court a general discretion to make costs capping orders, provided it is of the view that an order would be just, having considered the circumstances of the case, including the factors set out at Clause 69.

Amendment 80A transposes the requirements from Clause 68 that are removed by Amendment 75F into Clause 69, where they become additional factors that the court must take into account when considering whether to make an order, instead of requirements which must be met before an order can be made. Amendment 80 also adds an additional factor to the list of factors for the court to consider, which is the likely effect on the applicant if a costs-capping order is not granted.

Amendments 77A and 80A go too far, particularly when taking Amendment 75F into consideration. The effect of these amendments together would be that a number of the Corner House principles, which must currently be satisfied before a court can make a costs-capping order, would merely become factors for the court to consider, allowing an order to be made in cases where none of those principles was fulfilled. We suggest that that cannot be right. The principles set down in this case must be the starting point, and must certainly be satisfied before the taxpayer is asked to subsidise the cost of the litigation.

Amendments 79 and 80 seek to amend the list of factors in Clause 69 that the courts have to consider. Specifically, they seek to remove the requirement that the courts have regard to: the financial resources of third parties who have provided or may provide financial support to the parties; and the extent to which third parties who have provided or may provide financial support to the claimant are likely to benefit if the claimant is granted a remedy in judicial review.

Amendment 79 would mean that the court would not have to take into consideration the financial resources of third parties who may provide funding in the future. This would mean that the court would not have a full picture available when deciding whether it was appropriate to grant costs protection. We do not agree that this is a sensible position. Courts should consider information relating to potential sources, otherwise it could lead to orders being made in cases where it is not necessary or appropriate and, should the claimant lose, would result in the taxpayer being asked to pick up the bill. Again in the Corner House case, one of the requirements was that the court should have regard to the financial resources of the parties to ensure that any order the court made was fair and just.

I would like to reassure noble Lords that we intend to provide a safeguard so that, where a claimant has told the court—this perhaps answers to some extent the residual query of the noble Lord, Lord Davies—that it expects to receive future financial support and that support is ultimately not forthcoming, the claimant will be able to inform the court so the court can take the change of circumstances into consideration. Clause 68 provides that rules of court will set out the information that a claimant must provide when applying for a costs-capping order. We will invite the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to include the safeguard in those rules. While it may be argued that an alternative to this safeguard would be for the court to take account of financial support only once it has been received, I do not think that this would be appropriate as the making of the costs-capping order may well remove the need for that support, meaning it might never be forthcoming.

Amendment 80 would remove the requirement that the court considers the benefit to a potential third-party funder. The Corner House principles recognise that a claimant’s private interest in a case is a relevant factor when considering whether to grant a costs-capping order. This principle from Corner House is reflected in Clause 69, which requires the court to consider the extent to which a grant of relief in the judicial review would be of benefit to the claimant and third parties who have funded or may fund the claimant’s case. It is right that the court consider the full picture when considering whether to make an order.

Clause 69 also requires that, when a court makes a costs-capping order in favour of the claimant, it must also make one for the defendant—a matter referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech—thereby limiting the defendant’s liability for the claimant’s costs should the defendant lose. Such orders are commonly known as cross caps and are not new. A court will often already make such an order in practice, but we think that in future they should be made in all cases where the claimant is granted costs protection. Amendments 80B and 80C would weaken this principle so that the courts may, or should normally, impose a cross cap. I accept that in most cases a public body has more resources available to it than a private individual. However, they are not unlimited, as the noble Baroness quite rightly said. These resources ultimately come from the taxpayer and it is right that they should also have costs protection. This subsection reflects the general principle in civil cases that overall costs should remain within reasonable limits and that the taxpayer is not asked to subsidise a disproportionately large costs bill.

I entirely accept what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said, that sometimes the courts have to intervene to protect claimants where otherwise a claim simply could not be brought. It is a difficult balance to achieve, begun modestly by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and expanded upon subsequently in a way that effectively resulted in unfairness to the defendant. It is always difficult to establish a regime that entitles proper access to justice, but nevertheless retains a level playing field for all parties.

We say that neither this subsection nor the clause as a whole will take away the discretion of the courts—I emphasise this—to make decisions on costs. The clause does not prescribe the level of the caps; judges will be able to set the caps at levels tailored to the cases before them. The levels of the claimants’ and defendants’ caps may naturally be different, depending on their means. This, I believe, will address any imbalance between the financial positions of the parties. It remains a matter for the court to decide whether a costs-capping order should be granted in individual cases, and the terms of that order. This is the only appropriate way to ensure that these orders are made only in cases that genuinely need them and are set at a level that properly reflects the financial position of the claimant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I will compensate for the length of time that the noble Lord took—quite rightly—in moving his amendment by being commensurately brief in my remarks. On behalf of the Opposition, I support a stand part negative, as it were, in relation to Clause 70, for the reasons that the noble Lord advanced.

Amendment 82B, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kennedy, would effectively disapply Clauses 64 to 69 in favour of the terms set out, which would align the situation to that of the Aarhus convention. I think we are of one mind in inviting the Government to look again into this issue. It is another example of them failing to appreciate the implications—to put it in a benevolent sort of way—of what they are doing in this connection, not just to domestic concerns but to the international obligations to which we subscribe. I hope the Government will listen seriously to the noble Lord’s critique, look again at the amendments tabled, including the amendment in my name, and revise their position before we get much further down the road with this Bill.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords—my noble friend Lord Marks and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham—for their contributions to this debate. Clause 70 enables provision to be made to exclude judicial reviews about issues which relate entirely or partly to the environment from the revised costs capping regime established in Clauses 68 and 69, which we debated in the previous group. Clause 70 is to reflect our obligations under the Aarhus convention and the various European directives which implement it, which set out requirements for access to justice concerning environmental matters. This includes a stipulation that such procedures must be,

“fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive”.

This is relevant to judicial reviews in certain environmental cases. Allowing for such environmental cases to be excluded from the costs capping regime in Clauses 68 and 69 allows the Secretary of State enough flexibility to meet future changes in the international landscape. A separate regime has already been established in the Civil Procedure Rules to govern costs capping orders in such cases in England and Wales. It applies a fixed costs framework under which, in a claim raising issues that fall under the Aarhus convention, the liability of the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs is automatically capped at certain levels. This regime is simple to operate and understand.

Amendments 81C and 82B would seek to exclude certain types of judicial review from the provisions in Clauses 64 to 69. Those claims might be considered very broadly as “environmental”. Amendment 81C defines those cases that are excluded by reference to the Aarhus convention and introduces a requirement that, provided certain conditions are met, costs capping orders should be made in these cases.

Amendment 81C also aims to restore the full recoverable success fee and after-the-event insurance premium structure that the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 removed, implementing the Jackson reforms to reduce excessive costs in civil litigation. Amendment 82C would seek to define what would fall within the definition of an Aarhus convention claim. Amendment 81A is contingent on Amendment 81C. Its effect is to make Clause 69 subject to the changes to Clause 70, which I have already discussed.

Attempting to define these claims in statute risks either being too generous and gold-plating the Aarhus requirements, or alternatively being too restrictive and missing out claims which should be caught by the Aarhus regime. The definition as set out in the proposed new clause is very broad, and appears to err on the side of gold-plating. In particular, we would not necessarily accept that all private law claims falling within the new clause should come under the term “Aarhus Convention claim”.

The Government see no reason for excluding additional cases, particularly such a broad range of cases as would be covered by these amendments. Too broad a definition would create an incentive for claimants to characterise their claims as “environmental”, generating satellite litigation and assisting, for example, those bringing weak claims to shelter from their proper costs liability. In the Government’s view Clause 70, which allows for the exclusion of certain environmental judicial reviews from the new protective costs order regime which Clauses 68 and 69 will establish, is sufficient to ensure compliance with our obligations under the Aarhus convention and the directives which implement it. The proposed new clauses would upset the careful balance between ensuring the proper measure of access to justice in environmental and other matters and ensuring that judicial review is not misused.

I turn now to Amendment 82D. The new clause seeks to amend Section 10 of the LASPO Act, which makes provision about exceptional case determinations for individuals, and Schedule 3 to that Act, which makes provision about exceptional case determinations for legal persons, so that Section 10 and Schedule 3 would both refer explicitly to claims for judicial review related to the Aarhus convention. The Government do not believe that such an inclusion is necessary. First, funding would already be available to bring a judicial review with a potential benefit to the environment, subject to the merits and means test. This is in the scope of the general civil legal aid scheme by virtue of paragraph 19 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to LASPO. Section 10 of LASPO provides for exceptional funding in cases that are outside the general scope of civil legal aid. Secondly, along with the provisions of the Aarhus convention, this amendment is concerned with reflecting EU directives. The current provisions under Section 10 and Schedule 3 already provide for legal aid to be granted where it is necessary to make the services available to the individual or legal person because failure to do so would be a breach of the individual or the person’s enforceable EU rights.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to reviewing the CPR. The Government have committed to reviewing the costs regime for environmental cases when the European Court of Justice handed down its judgment in the Commission v the United Kingdom case. Following that judgment in February this year, and recent case law, we are reviewing the current costs regime. As part of that review, we will consider whether the current costs regime for Aarhus claims should make provision for statutory review proceedings dealing with environmental matters, look at what scope there is to amend the current cap—which is currently £5,000 for individuals and £10,000 for businesses—and consider the principles determining what level of costs in a particular case would be prohibitively expensive, as set out in Edwards v Environment Agency and reiterated by the European Court of Justice in its various infraction judgments, and whether they could be included in the costs regime.

The Government do not accept that all private nuisance claims are caught by the convention requirements. They tend to focus on enabling those with interests in land to protect their private property rights rather than enabling members of the public to challenge environmentally deleterious acts. However, on the occasions where a private nuisance claim relates to actions which do not merely harm the claimant’s private property rights but contravene provisions of national law relating to the environment, there are judicial and administrative procedures which may be relied upon by members of the public.

The Aarhus convention protects the right of environmental NGOs to bring judicial proceedings. It is not necessary to intervene in existing cases, so Clause 67 does not put the UK in breach. As to reviewing the application of LASPO to this area, I recall that during the debate when the LASPO Bill was going through Parliament there was an attempt to carve out an exception for cases of this sort. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the Committee will have heard me say, the Government are committed to reviewing the effect of the LASPO provisions, but it is far too early to do so in this particular context. The review will take place within five years—perhaps sooner than five years, but certainly not much sooner—so as to allow a full review of the effect, bearing in mind in particular that there was a large spike in cases before April 2013, the cut-off date, which may make it very difficult to analyse satisfactorily the effect of LASPO.

Of course, I will reflect carefully on the observations of my noble friend Lord Marks and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, but I gratefully decline my noble friend’s invitation to amend the Long Title of the Bill as currently advised. It is our view that these provisions are sufficient to ensure compliance with our obligations under the convention and the EU directives. I therefore respectfully invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I am bound to say that I am not greatly surprised by my noble friend’s declining to amend the Long Title of the Bill. I merely say that the amendments that I and others have put forward are directed only at making the United Kingdom’s procedures compliant with the Aarhus convention. I entirely take on board what he said about the impending review of the rules in the light of the European case, and I understand what he said about private nuisance claims. It is certainly not the case, and I never suggested that it was, that all private nuisance claims are covered. I am merely repeating the decision of the Court of Appeal that there is no reason why private nuisance claims relating to environmental matters should not be Aarhus convention claims. At the moment we have no costs regime to enable compliance with the convention in respect of those.

As far as legal aid is concerned, I entirely take my noble friend’s point about the review of LASPO that is due. My point is directed only at the fact that at the permission stage there is now a restriction on legal aid for judicial review claims that ought not to apply to Aarhus convention claims. In those circumstances I of course beg leave to withdraw my amendments at this stage, but I do rely on my noble friends having an opportunity to consider what I have said during the Recess and to come back and report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, Amendments 82 and 85 concern legal aid for judicial review and seek to prevent the Government making changes to the eligibility or scope of legal aid for judicial review, including making changes to remuneration for providers. They also seek to annul any statutory instruments that have been made through the powers available under Sections 2 and 9 of the LASPO Act 2012 which have the effect of altering eligibility for, or the availability of, legal aid for judicial review. Amendment 85 would bring the new clause into force on the date of Royal Assent.

Your Lordships will already be aware that remuneration arrangements for civil legal aid cases have recently been amended in regulations made under Section 2 of LASPO, so that legal aid remuneration to providers for work on judicial review permission application is at risk. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, suggested, perhaps inadvertently, that people would not be paid for the work building up to making the application. That is not quite right: you do get legal aid for that and, if your application is successful, you will get all the costs. The only part of the process that is at risk is the application process itself in that you will not be able to get legal aid for that, but you will recover the costs in due course if you are successful. I dealt with that in some detail in my response to the relevant debate. I could, if necessary, refer to the very lengthy speech I made on that occasion, but I hope that I can save the Committee the trouble of listening to that. It is a matter of record and so I will not do so at this juncture.

More generally, if the legal aid system is to command public confidence and credibility, limited legal aid resources should be properly targeted at those judicial review cases where they are needed most. This is why we introduced amendments to the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 to limit the circumstances when legal aid providers should receive payment for work carried out on an application for permission. I should stress that the regulations made under Section 2 of LASPO do not affect the scope of civil legal aid for judicial review or the eligibility for legal aid in judicial review proceedings. Remuneration continues to be paid in the usual way for the earlier stages of a case, to investigate the prospects and strength of a claim and to engage in pre-action correspondence aimed at avoiding proceedings under the pre-action protocol. Indeed, the pre-action protocol will very often result in the matter being resolved without the need to go on to seek permission at all.

The amendments appear intended to stop the Government having the ability to make changes to civil legal aid scope and remuneration for judicial review except via primary legislation. The form of legislation and level of parliamentary scrutiny to which provisions in relation to the remuneration of providers and scope of civil legal aid are subject were considered only recently by Parliament during the passage of LASPO, and we continue to believe that they are appropriate. We have no current plans to alter the scope of legal aid for judicial review. However, the power to make any such changes in the future, including in respect of potential expansion, should not be unnecessarily constrained as proposed. I recall an amendment, to which I think I was a party, which sought to enable the LASPO Bill to contain a power not only to delete but also to add provisions in relation to the availability of legal aid if the situation were to improve.

Making such changes by primary legislation would be a cumbersome process and a disproportionate use of the House’s time, particularly for a minor or technical change. It would stop the Government of the day making necessary but minor changes without primary legislation, even where these were necessary to ensure that the provision remained up to date. Further, there is no basis on which to distinguish judicial review from other, equally important, matters for which civil legal aid is available by necessitating primary legislation for such amendments. Although I do not deny for a moment that judicial review is of great constitutional importance, so for many individuals are their own cases involving significant, as they would no doubt say, violations of their rights, civil rights of one sort or another, or their right to recover damages. In the light of what I have said, I would respectfully ask the noble Lord not to press those amendments.

I now turn to Amendment 82A, which seeks to prevent a residence test being applied to any proceedings for judicial review. Noble Lords are aware that the proposed residence test was recently challenged by way of judicial review. The High Court handed down judgment on 15 July and found in favour of the claimant. We are appealing the judgment and are currently considering the next steps that will be taken. I think it will go to the Court of Appeal first and then perhaps on to the Supreme Court. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will understand that it is not appropriate for me to comment in great detail on that, in view of the ongoing proceedings.

Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, drew attention to the observations that the Secretary of State was alleged to have made, and probably did make, according to the Daily Telegraph—

[Lord Pannick]

It was not that he was alleged to have made them. He wrote an article in his own name in the Telegraph.

[Lord Faulks]

My legal caution found me using the expression “alleged”.

[Lord Beecham]

Perhaps the noble Lord will pass the legal caution on to the Lord Chancellor.

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful for that contribution.

The Lord Chancellor made in the Daily Telegraph various comments which resulted in what was described—not alleged to have been described—as a “kick in the shins” by Lord Justice Moses. All I can say is that, during the time I have been standing at the Dispatch Box, the Lord Chancellor’s shins have been extremely bruised by the number of comments that have been adverse to him personally, to his responsibility to the office or to his disregard for the rule of law. I am sure that he is painfully aware of the harm that has been done to him by the observations that have been made. It is a matter for your Lordships whether you think that is appropriate.

I should also say this. Of course, the withdrawal of legal aid in any context is not something that any Government relish, but throughout the period—and we are now coming to the end of this Parliament—the party opposite has opposed all cuts to legal aid, whether they are civil legal aid cuts or criminal legal aid cuts. They have advanced very skilfully all sorts of arguments about the outrage that has followed. It is time for some clarity to emerge from the party opposite as to whether it will in fact restore legal aid to all these areas where it is said that it has been wrongly withdrawn or whether this is to some extent posturing on their part.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to the difficulties that she described of children in particular in relation to the residence test. Although, as I say, I am not going to go into great detail because it is all to be considered by the court—at least in terms of the vires of the residence test—the Government’s position is that they do not believe that the JCHR should have concluded what it concluded in that respect. The committee appears to have proceeded on the basis that a child needs a lawyer in all cases to represent them and to ensure that their views are taken into account. There have always been cases where the child speaks for himself directly or where a parent or guardian ensures that the views of the child are properly taken into account. The Government are not aware of any evidence before the committee that indicated in such cases the child is not able to express views and participate appropriately in legal proceedings.

Following the ruling of the court in the residence test case, noble Lords will be aware that the draft order introducing the residence test was withdrawn. The amendment before the Committee now would therefore introduce an exception to the residence test in the abstract. I would respectfully suggest that the appropriate place to consider any exceptions would be while considering the residence test as a whole, rather than in isolation and in the context of a free-standing provision for judicial review. Nevertheless—there should be no mystery about this—I should make it clear that we do not agree that an exception should be made to the residence test for all judicial review proceedings. The test reflects our view that individuals should have a strong connection to the United Kingdom in order to benefit from the civil legal aid scheme. In line with those principles, we therefore decided that, in general, applications for legal aid for judicial review proceedings should be subject to the same test.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to certain “concessions”, as she described them. What happened was that, following careful consideration, we proposed certain limited and focused exceptions for judicial review cases that relate to an individual’s liberty, and for certain immigration and asylum judicial reviews. I am glad that she called them concessions; she previously described the Government’s position as a “climb-down”, which is perhaps not a kind way in which to describe the approach that the Government try to take on difficult decisions.

We believe that the residence test is by and large a fair test that should make sure that legal aid is targeted at those cases where it is justified. Moreover, it achieves the essential policy aim of targeting legal aid at those with a strong connection to the United Kingdom. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Pannick]

I am grateful to the Minister. I would be happy to provide him with a copy of Mr Grayling’s interesting article in the Telegraph of 20 April 2014. It is, as I said, written by him. He is not responsible for the headline but it gives a flavour of what he wrote. It states:

“We must stop the legal aid abusers tarnishing Britain’s justice system”.

There is no doubt whatever that, as with anything in life, abuse is possible. However, I take the view that the remedies that the Lord Chancellor is seeking to implement through Part 4 of the Bill are far worse than any disease that the Lord Chancellor has diagnosed. It is that article, with its reference to,

“Another group of Left-wing lawyers”,

taking the Government to court that provoked the response—a very appropriate response—from the High Court that it is the role of the court to decide not who is bringing the claim but whether the claim has merit and substance, and whether the proposals are a breach of the rule of law.

I hope that the Minister, who well understands these points, will be able to convey to the Lord Chancellor the belief of many of us in this House and outside that it would be far better if he would concentrate on the question of substance, of legality, rather than the political characteristics, if any, of the persons who are bringing the complaint. They go to court not to make political points but to make legal points. If they did not do so, the court would immediately tell them that it would not listen to them,

As to the amendments, my objection remains to the use of secondary legislation to make fundamental changes to the availability of legal aid for judicial review. There is no doubt that to restrict legal aid for a permission hearing in circumstances in which leave is not granted—it is often not granted because the defendant has given way and recognised the defect—is a fundamental change in the availability of legal aid. It will make it, and is making it, much more difficult for people to bring well founded claims. The same is true of the residence requirements that the High Court has held to be unlawful.

I am not therefore persuaded by the Minister’s observations, eloquently though they were presented, and unless the Government are prepared to look again at these matters, the House will need to return to these issues on Report in October. For today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I added my name to the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I entirely agree with the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. My concern is that the power the Lord Chancellor has under Clause 73(1) extends not only to “consequential” provisions, which is understandable, or to “incidental”, “transitional” and “transitory” provisions—again, entirely understandable —but to anything that is supplementary. That is an extraordinarily broad power: a power to make supplementary provisions.

In other words, as I understand it, if the Lord Chancellor believes that anything falls within the scope of the general area or subject matter of the Bill, he may, by subordinate legislation, make provision to supplement that which Parliament has anxiously debated and may have amended and approved. Under Clause 73(2), this power extends to repealing and revoking legislation. That is a remarkable power. I can see no reason whatever why such a power should be enjoyed, far less in the context of the very sensitive and delicate issues addressed by the Bill—including, but not only, those in Part 4.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, when one gets to the final provisions in a Bill whose Committee stage has lasted for five days, one might think that the debate has come to an end. However, that is not so. It is hard to avoid the fact that the approach of a number of noble Lords is coloured by the nature of the debate on the clauses that come before those final provisions. In particular, there is the sense, expressed by a number of noble Lords, that this particular Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor does not have sufficient regard for the rule of law and, essentially, there is a lack of confidence that he will exercise his powers in a way that Parliament would find satisfactory.

I do not think it is appropriate for me to provide a personal defence. Here, we are looking at a pretty commonplace provision contained in Clause 73. I say that it is commonplace because noble Lords might like to know that Section 149 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 contains a provision that says:

“The Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State may by regulations make consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or saving provision in relation to any provision of this Act”.

That is identical to the power in Clause 73. Section 53 of the Pensions Act 2014, under the heading “Power to make consequential amendments etc”, says:

“The Secretary of State or the Treasury may by order make consequential, incidental or supplementary provision in connection with any provision made by this Act”.

Section 20 of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014, under the heading “Consequential and supplementary provision etc.”, says:

“The Secretary of State may by order make consequential, supplementary or incidental provision in relation to any provision of this Act”.

Therefore, this—in particular, the use of the word “supplementary”, which I understand those who have proposed these amendments have a particular difficulty with—is not unfamiliar territory.

It is something of an irony that at various stages in Committee I have been subjected to a large number of interventions by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who is not currently in his place. During the debate on a previous group, he ventured an observation in relation to this provision, saying that it was wholly unexceptionable as compared with the terms of clauses elsewhere. Sadly, he is not here to expand upon his views; nevertheless, I draw some comfort from the fact that they had come from an otherwise harsh critic of this legislation.

Despite every effort, it is not always possible to identify every necessary amendment to primary legislation, and it would not usually be appropriate to include amendments to existing secondary legislation in primary legislation. As noble Lords—many highly experienced, and more experienced than I am, in parliamentary procedure—will know, it is usual practice for a suitable power to be included in a Bill to ensure that its provisions can be brought into force. Amendment 83 would amend the power in Clause 73 to make such provisions by removing the Secretary of State’s power to make supplementary provision.

Noble Lords are concerned about the breadth of this power. The power to make supplementary provision was included in this clause in recognition of the complexity of the legislative framework within which sit some provisions of the Bill, particularly those relating to sentencing and the new single justice procedure. The consequence of not being able to make supplementary provision could be to inhibit the proper operation of aspects of the Bill. In relation to sentence calculation, this could even be to the detriment of an individual. The drafting, as I have indicated, is similar to that approved in similar legislation.

[Lord Pannick]

Is the Minister really saying that such examples would not fall within the concepts of “consequential”, “incidental”, “transitional” and “transitory”?

[Lord Faulks]

I am not saying that they would not. This form of words is sufficiently wide, including the various adjectives that it does, to cover a variety of situations, and if one particular adjective does not serve, another will serve. There will be an overlap between the two. I do not accept that the word “supplementary” is as offensive as has been suggested.

[Lord Deben]

My noble friend, rightly, points to the fact that similar, or the same, wording has been used in other Acts. Surely that does not mean that it was right to use it in those Acts. Here is an opportunity for the Government to take seriously the real concerns of people about the way in which this House and the other place control the legislation that goes through them. We have a system that is not very elegant. Therefore, unless there is something about the word “supplementary” that is different and is necessary, it might be better not to have it. If all those other things cover all the points that the noble Lord raised, then “supplementary” is otiose. If it means something more than that, then I would like to know what “supplementary” would cover that none of the other words would. If we knew that, we might well be willing to help the Government by supporting them. If we do not know that, we have a reason to say that perhaps it is better not to have it.

[Lord Faulks]

As a lawyer, I have a particular regard for precedent. The fact that the word “supplementary” has found its way into other Acts of Parliament is at least some indication that previous Parliaments have approved its inclusion. The fact remains that any provision is worthy of analysis, whether it has been in a previous Act of Parliament or not. None the less, I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that it is important that we give, quite properly, the degree of power necessary to the Secretary of State to implement those parts of the Bill that become law. I can reassure him and the House that such powers are narrowly construed by the courts and are available only for the purposes of implementing what is in the Bill, not what is further to the Bill, not in the Bill or what the Secretary of State might like to have been in the Bill.

Amendment 84 proposes to remove Clause 73(2). This would prevent any provision necessary to give full effect to the Bill being made if it required amendments to any existing legislation, whether primary or secondary. Similarly, with the powers subject to Amendment 83, provisions permitting amendment to primary and secondary legislation for these purposes are commonly found and have been approved, and we are concerned that their absence would hamper the Government’s ability to bring the Bill into force.

Of course I accept that it is right that these provisions should be subject to proper scrutiny. That is why we have provided, in accordance with the expectations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, that all provisions made under this clause will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Where provisions amend primary legislation, any regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. With that reassurance, I hope that I can allay to some extent any residual anxiety that the House may have.

These provisions are not novel and we say that they are necessary to implement the provisions of the Bill properly. During the Recess, among the many other things that I have been invited to reflect on, I will reflect on the precise use of the adjective “supplementary” in this context. At the moment, I do not give any indication of a desire to amend it, but I will of course reflect on it. In the mean time, with the reassurance that I have endeavoured to give the House, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Woolf]

I am grateful to the Minister for responding with such care and elegance to the speeches that have been made. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, was not present as I am sure that he would have taken great pleasure from hearing how the Minister was comforted by what he said in his speech. I heard that speech and reacted with surprise at the time.

In his response, the noble Lord said that it was of course right for him, as a lawyer, to rely on precedent. I wonder whether the precedent in this context indicates the dangers of a Henry VIII clause of this nature. What happens in practice is that, once you have a precedent, you think that until somebody protests you can go on making better and better precedents to achieve your purpose, meaning that the powers of this House to scrutinise legislation are thwarted—not totally but to a significant degree. It is because of what has happened in the past that Henry VIII clause after Henry VIII clause appears in legislation, so that now it is considered almost a matter of course to put in a provision of this nature, and it is suggested that legislation cannot work without a Henry VIII clause. I respectfully suggest that that is a most unfortunate situation, and I have a great deal of sympathy for the helpful remarks that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in his very wise comments on this clause.

I suggest that the time the Minister spends contemplating the language of Clause 73 during the coming three months will be very well spent. Bearing that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I do so while making it clear that I may well come back to the subject on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

84A: Clause 75, page 72, line 11, leave out “subsection (2)” and insert “subsections (1A) and (2)”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

86: Clause 76, page 72, line 23, leave out subsection (2)

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

88:In the Title, line 5, after “drivers;” insert “to amend the offence of meeting a child following sexual grooming;”