Children Act 1989 (Amendment) (Female Genital Mutilation) Bill [ Lords ]

Lucy Frazer Excerpts

Second Reading Committee debate: House of Commons
Monday 25th February 2019 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park for his support for the Bill, for sponsoring it through the House and for his commitment to protecting young women. Like him, I also pay tribute to Nimco Ali for her campaigning in this important sphere, and recognise the work of Lord Berkeley in bringing the Bill forward.

As others have said, female genital mutilation is a barbaric and illegal act. Many have referred to the effects of FGM; I will repeat them and refer to the leading judgment of Lady Hale in the Supreme Court case, where the question was whether the risk of FGM amounted to persecution. She held that it did, and in coming to that conclusion, she stated that the procedures

“are irreversible and…last a life time. They are usually performed by traditional practitioners using crude instruments and without anaesthetic. Immediate complications include severe pain, shock, haemorrhage, tetanus or sepsis, urine retention, ulceration... Long term consequences include…urinary incontinence…and sexual dysfunction… It is likely that the risks of maternal death and stillbirth are greatly increased”.

The Bill before this Committee is designed to further protect victims of this horrific practice. The Bill ensures that, if a local authority wishes to bring a care or supervision order in relation to a child at risk of significant harm, it can do so during proceedings for an FGM protection order, avoiding the need for separate applications and potential delay. This change in the process, which is the sole purpose of this Bill, is an obvious and uncontroversial remedy for this small gap in the law and will supplement the measures that this Government have brought forward to tackle FGM.

The hon. Member for Swansea East and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole rightly highlighted the lack of prosecutions in this area. They are right to state that we must do what we can to increase prosecutions so that more people can be brought to justice for this horrific act, but, as the hon. Member for Ashfield rightly identified, one of the difficulties in bringing people to justice is that this act is committed within families. Another difficulty relates to the age of the victims, who cannot speak out when they are so young. This is an issue that affects not just this country; there have been only a small number of prosecutions across many countries in Europe.

[Michael Tomlinson]

The Minister is absolutely right when it comes to evidence, but are there any lessons that we can learn from jurisdictions abroad, even though there are equally small numbers of prosecutions in Europe? What more can we learn? What more can we do to ensure that of these 135,000 victims, more than just one case is prosecuted in this country?

[Lucy Frazer]

That is an important point and a challenge; I am sure the Crown Prosecution Service is looking closely at that. Others have made the broader point about education and the hon. Member for Ashfield has challenged the Government on what more we can do. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park, I am very pleased that today the Department for Education has announced that education on the issue of female genital mutilation will take place in schools.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole also asked about how many cases will come before the court in respect of this private Member’s Bill. I answer honestly that we do not expect the number to be large. We cannot say with exact precision how many there will be, but, as others have said, if by some small amendment we can protect any women at all—whether that number is large or small—from the horrific consequences that many hon. Members have outlined, we should do so. Given the impacts, that is what we are doing through our support of this legislation.

Finally, I thank hon. Members from across the Committee for the united and consensual way in which we are proceeding with this legislation. This is the second Bill that I have had the honour of taking through this Parliament with cross-party support, and I see many hon. Members here who were party to the other proceedings on upskirting. These are examples of the Houses of Parliament at their finest, where we identify issues that affect people and bring them forward, plugging gaps in the law, in a cross-party, consensual way. I am privileged yet again to be part of this very important measure. I would also like to mention the contributions by my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash and for Faversham and Mid Kent. Finally, I am pleased to say that I and the Government support this Bill and commend the motion that the Bill be allowed to proceed to Second Reading.

[The Chair]

With the leave of the Committee, Mr Goldsmith, do you want to make a few brief concluding remarks?

Exiting the European Union (Mediation)

Lucy Frazer Excerpts

Monday 18th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Cross-Border Mediation (EU Directive) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 21 January 2019, be approved.

This draft instrument forms part of our ongoing work to ensure that if the UK leaves the EU without a deal our legal system will continue to work effectively for our citizens. It is solely related to our no deal preparations. If Parliament approves the withdrawal agreement, which includes an implementation period, and passes the necessary legislation to implement that agreement, the Government would defer the coming into force of this instrument until the end of that implementation period. Once a deal and our future relationship with the EU had been reached, we would review whether this instrument needed to be amended or revoked.

This statutory instrument relates to mediation. That is a process whereby parties to a dispute attempt voluntarily to reach an agreement to settle their dispute with the assistance of a mediator but without a court needing to rule on it. In the civil and commercial field such a dispute might for instance relate to a contract, a debt or contact with children.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

As my hon. and learned Friend knows, I am hoping to become an associate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitration. I have spent much of my political life championing mediation as a means of settling disputes. To what extent are the Government committed to mediation for the future as a result of these measures?

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend is a member of the Justice Committee and has taken part in many debates on this subject. I know he has extensive experience of arbitration as well as mediation. I am very pleased that he is planning to go further on that. He must rest assured that the Government remain committed to mediation. It is a very important tool in the armoury to help people to resolve their disputes. Outwith this statutory instrument and the EU rules that we already have, as I will go on to explain, we have very strong domestic provision for mediation, and that will continue. The reason to bring forward this statutory instrument and the approach we have adopted is that the current arrangement with the EU is reciprocal and that following our leaving the EU we cannot rely on any reciprocity. This statutory instrument will therefore revoke the EU legislation.

In 2018, the European Council agreed a cross-border mediation directive which sought to harmonise certain aspects of mediation in relation to EU member state cross-border disputes. The aim of the mediation directive is to promote the use of mediation in such cross-border disputes. An EU cross-border dispute can be one between parties who are domiciled or habitually resident in two or more different member states, or it can be a dispute where judicial proceedings or arbitration are started in a member state other than the one where the parties are living. The UK, as a member state, enacted domestic legislation which gave effect to certain aspects of the mediation directive. I say certain aspects, because in many areas, such as ensuring the quality of mediation or information about mediation to the public, our existing arrangements already met the requirements or standards set out in the directive. However, to implement the directive the UK had to introduce some new rules for EU cross-border mediations involving UK parties.

The new rules first specify that if a time limit in a domestic law during which a claim could be brought in a court or tribunal expired during the mediation process, the parties could still seek a remedy through the courts or tribunals should the mediation not be successful. Secondly, the new rules define the rights of a mediator or someone involved in the administration of mediation to resist giving evidence in civil or judicial proceedings arising from information disclosed during a mediation. Various changes were also made to court rules to supplement the changes and to implement the requirements of the mediation directive relating to enforceability of agreements resulting from mediation.

Under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the legislation implementing the mediation directive is retained EU law upon the UK’s exit from the EU. However, should the UK leave the EU without an agreement on civil judicial co-operation, the reciprocity on which the directive relies will be lost. Even if we were to continue to apply the enhanced EU rules to EU cross-border disputes, we would be unable to ensure that the remaining EU member states applied the rules of the directive to cross-border disputes involving parties based in the UK or judicial proceedings or arbitration taking place in the UK that were not otherwise in scope.

Accordingly, and in line with the Government’s general approach to civil judicial co-operation in the event of no deal, this instrument will repeal, subject to transitional provisions, the legislation that gives effect to the mediation directive’s rules on confidentiality and extension of limitation periods. It amends the relevant retained EU law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and in Scotland—in so far as it relates to reserved matters. Separate instruments will amend the related court rules in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is other legislation implementing the directive that is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Government, and I understand that they have decided to bring forward their own legislation in this area.

Turning to the impacts, this instrument is necessary to fix the statute book in the event of a no-deal exit. We have assessed its impact and have published an impact assessment. By repealing the domestic legislation that gave effect to the mediation directive, we will ensure clarity in the law applying to mediations between UK parties and parties domiciled or habitually resident in EU member states. We will also avoid a situation where mediations of an EU cross-border dispute conducted in the UK are subject to different rules on confidentiality or limitation from other UK mediations.

As I indicated, the instrument will change only the rules applying to what are currently EU cross-border mediations, and only in two respects: time limits and confidentiality. On time limits, claimants involved in such mediations who no longer have the benefit of an extended limitation period would, if they wanted more time to allow for mediation to take place, be able to make an application to the court and ask it to stay proceedings. Overall, this instrument will ensure that, post EU exit, UK-EU mediations are treated consistently under the law with mediations between UK-domiciled or habitually resident parties, or UK parties and parties domiciled or habitually resident in non-EU third countries.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

As I read it, fundamentally, for people who are seeking mediation, there will not be much change if the instrument is enacted.

[Lucy Frazer]

That is precisely the position. All that is happening with this SI is that we are going back to the position before the directive was implemented. It was implemented in 2011, so it has been in place for only a number of years, and we will still have all the rules that regulate domestic mediations, which take place across the country in various jurisdictions. This measure will impact only two very small areas—time limits and confidentiality—and as my hon. Friend highlighted, much will remain the same.

As I have set out, without a deal in place on 29 March 2019, certain EU cross-border mediations involving UK-domiciled parties—except for those that had started before exit—would no longer be subject to the mediation directive rules in EU member states. The Cross-Border Mediation (EU Directive) (EU Exit) Regulations fix that deficiency and ensure that both the courts and UK citizens have clear and effective rules to follow during a cross-border mediation dispute.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

I thank hon. Members for their important contributions, and I will respond briefly to some of the points raised. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), made broad criticisms of the Department’s justice planning, but we in the Department take our governmental responsibilities very seriously. We have laid before Parliament several SIs for no-deal planning, many of which we have debated and passed; we have the £17 million from the Treasury to prepare; and we are liaising and working with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the judiciary to ensure that we are ready should we leave on 29 March without a deal. That said, the best way to avoid a no-deal outcome is to approve the Prime Minister’s deal. That is why I voted for it. If the hon. Gentleman would like to avoid a no-deal exit on 29 March, that option is open to him as well.

I will deal now with the shadow Minister’s specific points about the SI. We have always had very high mediation standards. Domestic mediations take place across the country in a wide range of jurisdictions; they did so to a high standard before this directive came into force a few years ago; and they will maintain those high standards when we leave the EU. As I said in my opening speech, we are revoking the EU directive because we cannot rely on reciprocity in the future—that is the approach we have taken in our SIs—and where we will not get reciprocity, we are revoking the instruments by which we are currently bound.

[Imran Hussain]

Will the Minister confirm that as a direct result of the SI standards will be lowered, particularly with regard to mediation, because time limits will be reduced?

[Lucy Frazer]

If someone wants to stop a time limit running in mediation, they need only issue proceedings before a court, because that stops time running. If someone issues proceedings and asks for a stay of those proceedings, time stops running. That measure is available to people in mediation.

I will respond to the few points made by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands). I recognise that the Scottish system is a distinct legal system, but I challenge his claim that we have ignored the Scottish Government. I was in Scotland—in Edinburgh—two weeks ago sitting with members of the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations, and I was pleased to hear Scottish Ministers praise my Department for our work at official level liaising with them on matters of justice. We have, then, been working hard to involve the devolved Administrations in these measures.

For those reasons, and because it will maintain clear and effective rules for our courts and citizens to follow during challenging EU cross-border mediations, I commend the instrument to the House.

Question put:

Draft Judical Pensions and Fee-Paid Judges' Pension Schemes (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Lucy Frazer Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Judicial Pensions and Fee-Paid Judges’ Pension Schemes (Amendment) Regulations 2019.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham.

The draft regulations relate to the contribution rates for members of two judicial pension schemes. Their purpose is to make provision to extend the current member contribution rates and earnings thresholds in two different pension schemes to the next financial year. The schemes are: the judicial pension scheme 2015, which was established under the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015, following wider public service pension reforms; and the fee-paid judicial pension scheme, which was established under the Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) Regulations 2017, following the Supreme Court decision in the 2013 O’Brien case, and related court decisions.

The reason for extending the rates is that the existing provision for member contribution rates will expire on 31 March 2019. The draft regulations are therefore needed to make an amendment to specify the member contribution rates to apply for the next year, from 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020. The regulations will enable us to ensure the continued operation of the schemes by deducting the appropriate member contributions for that year. As we propose to continue the same rates, the amendment regulations simply maintain the existing provisions for one further year. This interim measure is required pending the completion of a broader process that relates to the valuation of the judicial pension schemes. That process has been ongoing for a period, and the outcome of the valuations is to be determined.

It might be helpful to set out some background and to explain the ongoing valuations. Following the reform of public service pension schemes in 2015, as reflected in the legislative framework, Departments are required to undertake valuations of their respective public service pension schemes every four years. That obviously includes the Ministry of Justice in respect of judicial pension schemes. The valuations of public service pension schemes do two things: first, they measure the cost of providing pension benefits to members of the schemes; and secondly, they inform the future contribution rates paid into the schemes by both the employer and the members of the scheme. Work has been under way on the first such valuations of public service pension schemes. The Government, however, have paused part of the valuations process because they are seeking permission to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal in the McCloud case, which concerns pensions.

Let me explain that court decision in more detail. In December 2018, the Court of Appeal ruled that the transitional protection offered to some individuals as part of the 2015 public service pension reforms, including that in the judicial pension schemes, amounted to unlawful discrimination. The issue related to the protection is that, as part of the 2015 reforms, most public servants and judges moved to new career-average pension schemes. However, members within 10 years of their normal retirement age were protected and remained in existing final salary schemes, together with members who were between 10 years and 13 years and six months from their normal retirement age, who were given tapered protection to remain in the existing scheme for a period of time, before they moved to the new scheme introduced by the reforms.

As I said, the Ministry of Justice has applied to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal, and a decision is awaited. As the legal process is ongoing and there is some uncertainty about the impact of the ruling on wider pension reforms, it was considered prudent to pause that element of the valuation, which has the potential to affect future member benefits and/or contribution rates.

Let me turn back to the draft regulations and the steps we took to bring them forward. With a view to reaching an agreement on the proposal, we consulted, in accordance with the relevant requirements, by way of a four-week consultation from 24 October to 21 November last year. We consulted representative judicial organisations with a view to reaching agreement, and received 23 responses, the majority of which agreed with the proposal. Two respondents did not agree, and also raised some points relating to wider pension issues outside the scope of the consultation, which was on the proposal to extend the current rates as an interim measure for one year. For example, they disagreed with the stepped approach for contribution rates and expressed preference for a flat rate to apply, and for a non-contributory scheme. We engaged further, with the aim of reaching agreement, but unfortunately were unable to secure the agreement of the two respondents.

In addition to the consultation, we have laid a report before Parliament that sets out the rationale for the amendment regulations. Furthermore, as the judicial pension schemes to which the draft regulations relate are UK-wide, we have kept the devolved Administrations informed of progress and will continue to engage closely with them on further developments.

Under this interim measure, the cost of accruing pension scheme benefits will remain the same for members of both schemes for the scheme year April 2019 to March 2020. If it is agreed that changes to member contribution rates, or any other changes, are required in future as a result of the valuation process, those changes will be backdated to 1 April 2019 where appropriate.

I conclude by reinforcing the point that the existing arrangements for member contribution rates for both the 2015 and 2017 judicial pension schemes will expire on 31 March, so the draft regulations are a necessary interim measure to continue the effective operation of those pension schemes until a longer-term solution is put in place. I hope hon. Members will agree that the regulations are an important and necessary interim measure to continue the arrangements for member contribution rates and for the effective operation of the judicial pension scheme.

Legislation against Female Genital Mutilation

Lucy Frazer Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities if the Government will introduce further legislation to protect vulnerable young girls against female genital mutilation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on this important matter. Female genital mutilation has no place in our society. It is an extremely painful and harmful practice that blights the lives of many girls and women. The Government have taken the lead in tackling this barbaric crime. We strengthened the law in 2015 to introduce FGM protection orders and help prevent this appalling crime, and nearly 300 of these orders have now been made. Lord Berkeley’s Bill, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), would improve the powers of the courts to protect children, and it is disappointing it was objected to on Friday. I am pleased to say, however, that we are working to bring it back in Government time.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the Minister for her response and I welcome the Government’s commitment on this issue.

We need greater protection for girls at risk of female genital mutilation. The statistics clearly prove that female genital mutilation is on the rise, yet successful instances of protection orders being obtained are as rare as ever, and only four cases have ever been prosecuted. Can the Minister update us on the implementation of the legislation?

The successful prosecution 10 days ago of a mother who had inflicted this practice on her young daughter illustrates the flaw with current legislation: prosecutions only take place after the crime has been committed, and even then rarely. Further protections are needed to ensure that young girls do not have to go through the brutal, life-changing and sometimes life-threatening trauma of female genital mutilation. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government are willing to explore all legislative options, including amending the Children Act 1989, to ensure that young girls do not stay in a home where they are at risk of female genital mutilation?

We have an issue with serial objectors to private Members’ Bills. Mr. Speaker, you will be aware that my private Member’s Bill on upskirting met the same fate last year. Since the failure of Lord Berkeley’s private Member’s Bill on female genital mutilation, seven Ministers and the Conservative Chief Whip have come out in support of the proposed legislation. Can the Minster explain how the Government plan to deal with those of their own Back Benchers who serially object to private Members’ Bills that the Government seem to support?

In 2016, the Procedure Committee made recommendations for improving the process of private Members’ Bills that would prevent this type of situation from arising. Given the outcry caused by last Friday’s objection, will the Government commit to reviewing these recommendations?

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Lady, who I was pleased to work with on her private Member’s Bill on upskirting, raises some very important issues. She is right that we need to protect these vulnerable women, and I am pleased to say that, as she said, we have recently had a successful prosecution in this area.

Since 2015, the Government have introduced a number of measures to protect women and girls from female genital mutilation. We have created several offences, including failing to protect a girl from FGM. We have introduced civil protection orders, and there is a mandatory duty to report known cases involving under-18s. As I mentioned at the beginning, the Government will present a Bill in Government time.

As for the broader question of private Members’ Bills, the hon. Lady will know that many have passed through the House successfully, including important measures involving my own Department relating to emergency workers, to mobile phone technology, and—last Friday—to Finn’s law.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. and learned Friend’s commitment to ensuring that the Bill will be given Government time, but will she give me an indication of when she expects this amendment to the Children Act to be presented to the House?

[Lucy Frazer]

I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise indication, as that is not within my power, but the Government intend to act very swiftly.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on raising this pressing issue.

Female genital mutilation is an abhorrent practice, which can have dreadful consequences for the women and young girls who fall victim to it. Since legislation in 1985, there has been only one—very recent—conviction, although the NHS reports that nearly 15,500 cases presented at hospitals with symptoms of FGM in the past two years. The absence of successful prosecutions in our country indicates the failure of the current procedures. It is essential that we recognise the secrecy and fear surrounding the practice and address the fact that it makes people unlikely to report suspicions or instances of FGM.

The Serious Crime Act 2015 provides for protection orders, which offer a legal means of protecting and safeguarding potential victims. Since 2015, more than 240 orders have been granted to help victims and those at risk, which demonstrates that such protections are effective and can be used as a means of proactive assistance.

The clear need for increased protections makes the actions of the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) even more shocking. His reputation for objecting to important Bills precedes him. Today, I am not using the term “honourable” when referring to our colleague, because “honourable” implies “principled”, and the Member for Christchurch displayed no such principle in the Chamber last Friday. His objection to the FGM Bill sank to new depths. However, the issue should never have been left to be dealt with through a private Member’s Bill.

The Bill will protect countless women and girls, and any delay in its passage puts them at unnecessary risk. The Government should have introduced legislation long before now. Relying on a private Members’ Bill was a risky strategy, given that, as we know, worthy Bills have been talked out or objected to on many such occasions. We cannot now leave this Bill on the sidelines. If the Member for Christchurch has done nothing else, his antiquated and appalling behaviour last Friday has exposed the Bill’s importance. I seek an assurance that it will be back before Members during Government time, and very shortly, so that we can pass an essential piece of legislation.

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Lady cares deeply about protecting vulnerable people, and I am pleased to have met her to discuss a number of matters in the family justice sphere. She makes a number of important points.

It is essential to protect women and girls, and since 2015, the Government have introduced a number of measures to ensure that they are protected. As I have said, the Bill will be dealt with in Government time, but let me clarify what it does. It is not the case that without it, women and girls do not have protection; we introduced protections in 2015. What the Bill will do is enable a judge to make a care order during the same proceedings.

The hon. Lady makes another important point about the number of protection orders. She said that more than 200 had been issued since September. In fact, the number has gone up to 296; so just under 300 protection orders have been granted since their introduction at the end of September 2018.

I want to make a final point because a number of Members rightly identified that not enough prosecutions are successful, and this is a very important point that we must tackle. We are tackling it in a number of ways, through funding for education and through the bringing of legislation, but these are very difficult cases to prosecute for a number of reasons: cultural taboos, lack of information from affected communities and the fact that the age of the vulnerable girls might prevent them from coming forward. The issue we have in this country is not isolated; there is a very low prosecution rate for these kinds of offences across Europe, but this Government are committed to doing whatever we can to protect these girls further from this terrible crime.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

FGM is barbaric and also illegal, and I thank this Government for bringing in FGM protection orders. Can the Minister confirm that closing this specific loophole to make sure the protection orders can come within the definition of family proceedings will be dealt with not only in Government time but as a matter of urgency within Government time?

[Lucy Frazer]

As my hon. Friend identifies, this is an important matter. It will come before the House in Government time; as the Chief Whip has indicated, this is a matter that he would like to proceed with, as would the Government.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

FGM is a violation of human rights. Data released over the weekend showed that in the past two years medics in Scotland’s cities have treated victims of FGM on more than 230 occasions, which is horrific and quite chilling to think of, but we still know very little about the extent to which it is practised despite women being treated who have already suffered FGM.

In Scotland, we have laws in place to tackle this illegal practice and are looking at introducing protection orders also for women and girls at risk, which would give judges the power to prevent a woman or girl believed to be at risk of FGM from being taken out of the country. I know from some of my own constituency cases that that is a very real concern, and some of my constituents have raised it with me. We also have a national action plan to prevent and eradicate FGM.

The more crucial point about this today, however, is that it is disgraceful that this Bill has been blocked. It is becoming increasingly frustrating in this House to have the will of the House circumvented by one male Member, whom such issues will not affect, standing in the way of progress when we want to get on and do good things that would prevent women and girls from being harmed. So what will the Minister do, and will she speak to her colleague the Leader of the House and others to ask for measures to be put in place to prevent this abuse of the House from happening again? The private Member’s Bill system has already been said by the Procedure Committee, on which I serve, to be broken and discredited, and we cannot have faith that Bills will progress if somebody can object to them as easily as we saw last week.

Lastly, the Minister has not given a date for when this Bill will return to the House. I understand that the Leader of the House will make a statement tomorrow in the House after the Prime Minister’s statement; will there be any update on when this will happen then?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am very pleased to hear of the measures being taken in Scotland, because of course this is not a domestic problem that affects any region in particular but is an international problem. The Home Office is working with all regions to deal with this issue, and I am very pleased that when we brought in the legislation in 2015, we extended the reach of extraterritorial offences to ensure we could help prosecute in relation to cases affecting the UK that were carried out elsewhere.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I am pleased to hear the Minister stating that this Government regard dealing with the harms of this awful issue of FGM to be of the utmost importance. We must give a clear message on this, and does the Minister agree that the best way to do that would be by giving time to bring this amendment in this Bill forward as quickly as possible?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that the Government think that this is a very important matter. Across the Departments, we think that it is an important matter, and the Chief Whip has indicated that he does, too. We will be bringing forward this Bill in Government time.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

Like everybody else in this building—and, frankly, in the country—I am disgusted by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). If I were ever to be in charge of a political party, I certainly would not allow him to keep his Whip, should he ever do anything like this in this place again. He is a total disgrace. New laws are very nice but they are often just words on goatskin to the women who are affected by these and other crimes, so what will be in this Bill to make sure that the services that used to exist in Birmingham for victims of FGM and their families will be put back?

[Lucy Frazer]

I know that the hon. Lady takes a great deal of interest in women’s issues, and I have been pleased to work with her on a number of issues that cross my Department. I know that many of them stretch beyond my Department as well. She talks about funding and the importance of working in the community, and she is right to identify the fact that this is not simply a matter of making laws. It is about action, education and understanding. Of course, laws must set the boundaries and tell people what is right and wrong, and this crime is absolutely horrific and must be stopped, but that is not the extent of the Government’s actions on FGM. The Home Office’s FGM unit is driving a step change in our nationwide outreach, and it has done more than 100 events across the country to raise awareness. The Department of Health and Social Care has provided £4 million for the national FGM prevention programme in partnership with NHS England. The Department for Education has provided nearly £2 million for a national programme to improve the social care response to FGM, and it has announced a further £1.7 million to continue that work. That is what is happening in this country; the Department for International Development does an extensive amount of work overseas in addition to that, to ensure that women worldwide do not suffer from this horrific practice.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I am glad that the Minister is granting Government time for this Bill. When I sat on the Opposition Benches and was a regular attender on a Friday, the Labour Government Whip would, as a matter of course at the end of each sitting, object to every Bill that was listed but undebated, whatever the merits of those Bills. That was also my duty on Fridays when I became a Government Whip. Why has the Government Whips Office abandoned that duty to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch? If we want more debating time for legislation, as I certainly do, we know where we can find it, don’t we?

[Lucy Frazer]

This was a Government-backed Bill, which we have supported.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

Women who have been subjected as children to the abhorrent practice of female genital mutilation are much more susceptible to contracting cervical cancer, and it can also make smear tests much more painful, both emotionally and physically. I am proud to be an ambassador for Jo’s Trust, the UK’s cervical cancer charity, and I wonder whether the Minister would commit to meeting me to discuss how we can further support the survivors of FGM.

[Lucy Frazer]

I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady. She has pointed out some of the terrible consequences of this horrific act, and I should like to take a little bit of time to refer to some of the others. In a leading judgment in the Supreme Court in a case concerning FGM, Lady Hale said that

“these procedures are irreversible and their effects last a life time. They are usually performed by traditional practitioners using crude instruments and without anaesthetic. Immediate complications include severe pain, shock, haemorrhage, tetanus or sepsis, urine retention, ulceration…Long term consequences include…urinary incontinence…and sexual dysfunction…It is likely that the risks of maternal death and stillbirth are greatly increased”.

This is a horrific activity, and we must do everything we can to prevent it.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) is delayed elsewhere, on the Committee corridor, but I know that if he were here, he would start by paying tribute to what the Government have done so far and by echoing the dismay being expressed by all Members today at the behaviour of one of our colleagues on Friday. He would also say that it is a pity that our hon. Friend is not here to give an account of himself, because there might be a perfectly good reason for this. Will my hon. Friend the Minister please convey to those who manage procedure and Government business that many of us are just fed up with this kind of behaviour? We want a different system in which this sort of thing does not happen.

[Lucy Frazer]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments and to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) for his sponsoring of the Bill, which the Government supported and continue to support. I am sure that those in charge of parliamentary procedure are listening and have heard those comments.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

From talking to colleagues across the House, I know that we are all upset by the actions of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), so I am pleased that the Minister intends to bring legislation before the House. I understand that business will be quite light next week, so I wonder whether she might take the opportunity to bring a Bill to the House then.

[Lucy Frazer]

My portfolio is quite large, but I am not in charge of parliamentary business. However, I am sure that those who are in charge of it are listening to this debate. The Government are keen to bring legislation forward in Government time and will do that shortly.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Female genital mutilation is abhorrent and barbaric and should never be inflicted on any girl or woman in this country or, indeed, any country. In the spirit of equality, will the Minister update the House on the Government’s policy on male genital mutilation?

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend has a number of concerns relating to family justice that I am happy to have talked to him about over recent months. This Bill was about female genital mutilation, and the Government will be bringing forward legislation to address that matter.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Some people, although possibly very few indeed, will accuse the MPs condemning the behaviour of a Government Back Bencher of virtue signalling. Expressing abhorrence at the deliberate mutilation of young girls and changing the law to protect them is our duty, but if the Government are also to avoid the charge of virtue signalling, will the Minister indicate when the Bill will be brought forward?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am happy to repeat that the Government take this matter seriously. The Chief Whip has identified this subject as a matter of importance, and it will be given Government time shortly.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Female genital mutilation is an abhorrent crime and must be dealt with severely. The Minister keeps saying that this is an important issue and that it is horrific, but let us look at the reality. This crime was made illegal in 1985—34 years ago—but there has been just one prosecution. The Government need to make a little change to the Children’s Act 1989 to include the FGM amendments, but they have relied on a private Member’s Bill, introduced in the other place two years ago, to get the changes through. Until just the other week, the Government had not committed to allocating days for the consideration of private Members’ Bills, so it is completely inappropriate for Her Majesty’s Government to rely on a private Member’s Bill to make these important changes. The Government now say that they will allocate Government time to get the legislation through, and it is about time, too. They should have done that in the first place.

[Lucy Frazer]

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to those points. Under this Prime Minister, the Government have taken a number of actions over several years to ensure that the offence of FGM is properly identified and prosecuted, that funding is allocated to addressing it and that girls are protected. The Government have introduced both a new offence of failing to protect a girl from FGM and civil protection orders, which have been well used since their introduction last September, and have made it a mandatory duty to report known cases involving under-18s. While the matter is important and the Government will bring forward new legislation, I reiterate that these changes would enable a judge to make a care order in the same proceedings. The protections that have existed since 2015 remain in place and will continue to protect individuals.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), the legislative programme for next week is not exactly heavy. The public will simply not understand how such important legislation can be stopped by the shout of one man when it has cross-party support. I repeat the call for the Minister to speak to the Chief Whip about bringing forward a Bill next week. Such a Bill would have bipartisan support and would go through the House very quickly.

[Lucy Frazer]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I understand that the measure has cross-party support. When the Government introduce a Bill, I look forward to its swift passage through the House.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Like one or two other Members here today, I was present on Friday. The Minister will know of the cross-party support not only today but on Friday, too, so I welcome her announcement that a Bill will be introduced in Government time. Will she take back my concern that a Bill be introduced as soon as possible? I echo Opposition Members: if there is time next week, so be it. Let us bring it forward.

[Lucy Frazer]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments and for being in the Chamber for the private Member’s Bill on Friday. His comments have been heard.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I share the deep concern of the Labour Front Bench and other Opposition colleagues about the actions of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope).

How many young girls does the Minister think Britain would be leaving more at risk of female genital mutilation if the proposal by some Conservative Members for a multibillion-pound cut to the work of the Department for International Development were implemented?

[Lucy Frazer]

What we do know is that there are victims of female genital mutilation in the UK, where FGM is being carried out. In November 2018, the Department for International Development announced £50 million to target and prevent female genital mutilation in African countries, and that is part of a wider investment by DFID. So far, through its support, DFID has protected 3 million girls worldwide from FGM.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Offord]

That is correct.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for making a statement today. I also welcome that she does not see a moral equivalence between brit milah and female genital mutilation. There is no moral equivalence between the two. I urge her to bring forward legislation as soon as possible, because I would like to hear the reasons why my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) opposed the Bill. I do not believe it is sustainable to say, “I objected to the Bill because of procedure rather than its content.” Let us bring forward a Bill as quickly as possible so that not only can we hear that defence but, more importantly, we can hear the will of the House by taking a vote on the issue.

[Lucy Frazer]

I can confirm that we will shortly bring forward a Bill in Government time, and I look forward to the cross-party support that I am very pleased to see today and that I experienced during the recent passage of the upskirting Bill, which I co-sponsored, to ensure we do as much as we can to continue protecting vulnerable children and women.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I also thank the Minister for her positive response and for her commitment to act and legislate quickly. Like her and everyone else in the House, I believe we must do all we can to stop this horrific and barbaric mutilation of girls. Will she outline the steps that will be taken to educate communities at an early age, especially given that the first guilty verdict for FGM was against a mother? There is a need to change the thinking in some communities.

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Often we change the law, but what is really important is that we change the culture. That is why the Government are spending sums across Departments to ensure that we educate people. As I mentioned, the Department for Education has provided nearly £2 million for a national programme to improve the social care response to FGM, and it has announced a further £1.7 million to continue its work. That Department is also providing grant funding for two projects to help safeguard girls from FGM. The Home Office’s FGM unit has participated in over 100 engagement events across the country.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I was one of the few Members here on Friday afternoon. I have also used the “object” procedure, mostly to object to Bills that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) is moving to progress without debate. I therefore find some of his reasoning somewhat questionable. It is vital not only that we change the law to bring in this provision, but that it is then used. What work is the Minister engaged in with those who deal with child protection to ensure that once the law is changed, the orders are used?

[Lucy Frazer]

That is also an important point, because laws need to be implemented and be a matter for a number of other agencies, including the Crown Prosecution Service, to look at in taking forward prosecutions.

Draft Non-Contentious Probate (Fees) Order 2018

Lucy Frazer Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2019 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Non-Contentious Probate (Fees) Order 2018.

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. The purpose of the draft order is to implement a new, more progressive banded structure of fees for the grant of representation, commonly known as a grant of probate, which will come into force in April. The banded fees relate to the value of the estate. Let me outline how I intend to structure my remarks. I will talk about what the probate is, what the old regime was, what the new structure will be and the reasons we are bringing it in, and then I will deal with some concerns that have been raised.

Probate is an important service that provides valuable support to those who are bereaved. It is administered by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. It helps to ensure that the estate of a deceased person is passed on to the rightful beneficiaries. Under the old scheme, there was a charge of £155 for grant applications made by solicitors and a charge of £215 for those made by individuals. Those were flat fees that applied to estates worth more than £5,000, and they were set at cost recovery levels.

The new structure is different. It is a banded, fairer structure for probate fees and it no longer applies a flat fee. The threshold at which the new fees become payable will be raised from £5,000 to £50,000. That will exempt approximately 25,000 additional estates per year from paying fees altogether. Overall, more than half of estates will pay nothing, because they are either exempt or do not require a grant of probate. Of those that do pay, around 60% will pay fees of £250, which is comparable to the current fee for individual applications. Moreover, the new model means that revised fees will never amount to more than 0.5% of the value of the estate.

The previous Government initially announced plans to introduce enhanced probate fees from February 2017, following a public consultation. The relevant draft affirmative statutory instrument was laid in Parliament, and the order was debated and passed by a Commons Delegated Legislation Committee in April. The announcement of a general election, however, meant that there was not time for the order to be debated and considered for approval in both Houses.

The Government have looked closely at the various criticisms that were made of the previous order. The top band has now been reduced from £20,000 under the previous proposal to £6,000 under this order. The new banded fees structure does not amend the underlying policy rationale and will retain the same progressive banded structure as the earlier proposal, in which the fee payable relates to the value of the estate.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

I know that the Government are taking the issue of charities and legacies very seriously in the light of research from the Office for Civil Society. Does the Minister agree that there are serious concerns in the voluntary sector? I was reading a submission from the Institute of Fundraising only this morning. When a charity such as Cancer Research UK fears that the changes could cost it £600 million per year, it highlights the real concerns of organisations in the voluntary sector. Does she agree that we should consider having further discussions, as the Institute of Fundraising has suggested?

[Lucy Frazer]

Of course, the charity sector plays a vital role in supporting those in need. The order will not affect the amount paid out to charities when there is a fixed bequest rather than a percentage, but I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the important issue of probate deserves fuller debate, in the main Chamber and in Government time?

[Lucy Frazer]

As I mentioned, the changes that the Government are making were considered previously in Committee and were well documented in the press, and points on the matter have been put to me in the Chamber. We have the power to pass the legislation by way of statutory instrument, and that is how we are doing so.

It is important to have a fair and functioning justice system. I will touch on the service that HMCTS provides. The decisions that are made in courts and tribunals convict the guilty, protect the innocent and help ordinary people take back their lives. The Government are committed to providing a world-class courts and tribunals system that supports vulnerable people. We are investing £1 billion to modernise and upgrade the courts system but, as is obvious, an effective and efficient justice system requires proper funding and it has long been the case that users of our courts contribute towards the costs, reducing the burden on taxpayers. We believe that remains relevant and reasonable.

By asking those who use the courts to pay more, where they can afford to do so, we are able to fund areas where we charge no fees to vulnerable victims and users. That includes, for example, domestic violence protection orders, non-molestation orders and cases before the first-tier tribunal concerning mental health, where applicants do not have to pay a fee at all. In 2017-18, the running costs of HMCTS were £1.8 billion, but we recovered only £710 million of that—less than 40%—in fee income. That position is unsustainable, and it is right that we look to users of the service to contribute more. We anticipate that the new fees will bring in additional income of £145 million in the next financial year, helping to fund our courts and tribunals by reducing the burden on the taxpayer.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I can see a lot of positives in what is proposed. However, given the funding gap between the actual costs of running the service and what is earned, as the Minister has described, is there not an enormous opportunity to charge even more for estates worth over £2 million? The cap seems to be unnecessarily low.

[Lucy Frazer]

That is an interesting point. The figure was higher the last time the proposal was before Parliament—£20,000 for the top fee, rather than the current proposal of £6,000—but the response was that it was too much, and we agree. The £6,000 is more proportionate. It still brings in an income of £145 million, which is essential to fund the Courts Service. Parliament has understood the importance and value of our justice system, and the financial pressures on HMCTS, which is why in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 it empowered the Lord Chancellor to charge enhanced fees.

I wish to deal with some of the concerns expressed by the JCSI and the SLSC. They reported the draft statutory instrument for doubtful vires and unexpected use of powers. They felt that the new fees amounted to a tax and questioned whether the imposition of such levels of fees was anticipated when the primary power was approved. We disagree with those Committees.

The new fees come under the category of “enhanced” fees. As Members are aware, Parliament has expressly given power to the Lord Chancellor to set certain court and tribunal fees above the cost of providing the service, under section 180 of the 2014 Act. The Act gives the Lord Chancellor the explicit authority to impose enhanced fees in order to

“prescribe a fee of an amount which is intended to exceed the cost of anything in respect of which the fee is charged.”

That is what the draft order seeks to do.

In doing so, the Lord Chancellor must have regard to, among other factors, the financial position of the courts and tribunals for which he or she is responsible, including, in particular, any costs incurred by those courts and tribunals that are not met by the existing fee income. The Act is also clear that any income from the fees must be used to finance an efficient and effective system of courts and tribunals. Those provisions clearly demonstrate Parliament’s intention that the Lord Chancellor should be able to set fees above cost in one part of the system in order to subsidise other parts, in order to maintain effective operation of the system as a whole.

The JCSI went on to argue that the basic premise of the fee is that it should be directly related to the cost of the service. We do not accept that. The specific legislative provision in section 180 of the 2014 Act breaks the link between the cost of the service and the fee that may be charged. That was clearly the intention of Parliament. The proposals in the draft order are consistent with the primary power and with the assurances given to Parliament when the Bill was considered. This is not the first time the Government have sought to introduce enhanced fees, or fees that relate to the value of the issues at stake—it has been done for certain civil money claims, for example. We therefore do not consider the draft order to be an unexpected use of the section 180 power.

The SLSC further argued that—

[The Chair]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I wonder whether, for the sake of my own knowledge, she would kindly spell out those abbreviations, as I have no idea what the SLSC is. Perhaps she could explain that to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

I do apologise, Mr Gray. The JCSI is the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and the SLSC is the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the House of Lords. I am grateful for that intervention—acronyms boggle us all.

The SLSC also suggested that, as a result of the anticipated reduction in running costs following reform of the probate service, the fees are disproportionate. We disagree, as the fee is not tied to the cost to the service under the enhanced fee powers.

The reforms aim to make the probate service more efficient. Users will experience a better system, which has benefited from significant investment by the taxpayer. It is right that both the efficiency savings and the additional income are used to cross-subsidise other areas, with vulnerable users and victims not charged a fee at all. We are clear that this is an application fee for a specific purpose—to obtain a grant of representation to deal with a person’s estate—and that it is distinct from general taxation. The primary power states that any income generated by these enhanced fees must be used to fund an efficient and effective courts system. Charging fees is justified as a way of funding our courts system in order to provide access to justice, which the Government are committed to maintaining.

Finally, I will deal with access to justice and affordability. When considering the fundamental principle of access to courts, we need to be careful that nobody finds themselves unable to apply for a grant of probate because of the fee. The fees will never be unaffordable; the probate fee and any reasonable expenses are recoverable from the estate and determined by the value of that estate, so the executor will not be permanently out of pocket, and any difficulty paying the fee will, by definition, be one of cash flow. We believe that in most cases the executor will be able to access funds in the estate to pay the fee, including, for example, bank accounts and savings belonging to the estate. Data from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs indicate that the average estate is around 25% cash, whereas the fee will never be more than 0.5% of the value of the estate.

We have been working with UK Finance, the Building Societies Association and the Money Advice Service. The industry has set out bereavement principles to encourage its members to support the bereaved and allow necessary payments to be made from the deceased’s account to cover expenses, including probate fees, where possible.

Furthermore, when an executor is not initially successful in accessing funds from a bank or building society, the probate service is willing to write to the relevant institution to provide reassurance that are assets are needed to pay the fee. Other avenues of funding will also be available, including a personal or executor’s loan. In cases where people are unable to take advantage of any of those options, they can apply for a limited grant of probate to provide them with partial access to specific funds of the estate, for the sole purpose of paying the fee. That application will not attract an additional fee.

[Catherine West]

I thank the Minister for generously giving way a second time. Does she accept that, despite a consultation and discussions with the voluntary sector, she has not really outlined how she is taking on board, and responding to, the Joint Committee’s objections? Could she give us more of an idea of how she is responding to those objections?

[Lucy Frazer]

The points that the Joint Committee has made are legal ones. It claims that the Lord Chancellor does not have the power to make this provision, but we say that he absolutely does. A specific provision in section 180 of the 2014 Act states that the Lord Chancellor has the power to charge fees in excess of the cost of the service. Moreover, the Lord Chancellor has a statutory duty to provide a fully functioning, efficient and fair Courts Service. That power and duty combined mean that he has not only the power to charge enhanced fees but, I suggest, a duty to do so when there are sufficient funds to run a fair and efficient Courts Service. Under the combined provisions, the Lord Chancellor has the duty to bring in the statutory instrument. In the House of Lords debate, in which there was not unanimity, two distinguished Members—Lord Pannick was one, and Lord Thomas may have been the other—made clear their view that the power could be exercised by the Lord Chancellor.

[Catherine West]

The Minister is being extremely generous in giving way. Will she confirm how many situations there have been in which the Joint Committee has had serious concerns but the Government have pressed on nevertheless? Is this a precedent?

[Lucy Frazer]

I cannot give the hon. Lady an answer to a question that ranges beyond this SI, but the matter has been through the House of Lords. A fatal motion was tabled on the back of the Joint Committee’s report, but it did not pass, so the House of Commons is proceeding with the order.

We are confident that the fees will never be unaffordable, and that it would be wrong to exempt certain estates from fees purely on the basis of cash flow, leaving the taxpayer to pick up the tab. That is why the order also removes probate fees from the statutory Help with Fees remission scheme, because in normal circumstances fee remissions will not be necessary or justified. However, there is a safety net for the rare cases that do not fall into any of the categories mentioned previously. We have retained the Lord Chancellor’s power to offer a fee remission in exceptional circumstances where the executor has exhausted all other options to pay the fee and would suffer undue hardship as a result.

We intend to publish guidance on ways to pay probate fees, outlining all the options for financial support more clearly to those who are applying. We continue to work with external stakeholders to ensure that the guidance is effective, and we will publish it before any fees are changed. We have the power and the duty to ensure that the Courts Service runs effectively and efficiently, we have introduced a progressive system to ensure that the burden will be spread fairly, and we have taken an additional 25,000 people out of liability for the fee. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole and the hon. Member for Ashfield for their thoughtful submissions. I am grateful for the engagement I have had with my hon. Friend and for our discussions about this important area. The Ministry of Justice acknowledges that this fee will affect people—often those who have properties valued in excess of a certain amount—and we have not taken this decision lightly. I am grateful for the points he has made today and during the course of our consideration on how to go forward with this issue.

What we are proposing is an enhanced fee, not a tax. It is not charged by the Treasury and will not be collected as general taxation; it will be ring-fenced for the courts. In fact, we are raising this money because it is our obligation to ensure that we have a fair and efficient Courts Service. My hon. Friend is right to identify that people try to evade various taxes or to manage their affairs—in a legitimate way—to ensure that they do not pay certain amounts to the Treasury. We will of course always tackle illegitimate attempts to do that, but that is not a reason not to take action or bring measures forward. We have identified this measure as suitable to ensure that our Courts Service is properly funded, and we think it is fair and proportionate, which is why we are bringing it forward.

On shared assets, it is interesting that couples—whether married, in a civil partnership or otherwise—are free to choose how to hold their property. Paying probate fees on property held by couples as joint tenants—the most common form of property ownership between couples—would not be required.

I will deal with several points raised by the hon. Member for Ashfield. She suggested that it is inappropriate to charge a progressive fee in circumstances in which the cost does not necessarily relate to the fee charged. I recently read an interesting article—in The Law Society Gazette, I think—that suggested that solicitors actually charge progressive fees for their services in relation to the estate, which may or may not vary according to the work they do. That is a third-party article and I do not rely on it, but it is interesting to consider.

I am quite surprised that the Opposition oppose a progressive fee, with those who can afford to do so paying more. I thought that was at the heart of the Opposition’s way forward on taxation. They regularly suggest that we should pay more income tax if we earn more money. We are putting forward a proposal that allows people to take on a burden where it is fair to do so.

[Catherine West]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lucy Frazer]

I will just finish these points. The hon. Member for Ashfield suggested that the justice system needed more money. Mr Gray, you were right to point out that this debate is on a particular SI. However, our justice system does need more money, and we are putting forward a reasonable, progressive, proportionate way of ensuring that it has that money. For those reasons, I commend the draft instrument to the Committee.

Question put.

Draft Mutual Recognition of Protection Measures in Civil Matters (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lucy Frazer Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2019 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Mutual Recognition of Protection Measures in Civil Matters (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. The draft instrument forms part of the Government’s preparations should the UK leave the EU without a deal. It relates solely to our no-deal preparations. If Parliament approves the withdrawal agreement, which includes an implementation period, and passes the necessary legislation to implement that agreement, the Government would defer the coming into force of the instrument until the end of that implementation period.

The statutory instrument relates to civil protection measures. A civil protection measure is the decision to place restrictions on one individual to protect another individual who may be at risk. Someone may be prevented from going to a place where the person at risk lives or works, for example. They could also be prevented from contacting the person at risk by phone or by email. Examples of civil protection measures in the law of England and Wales include non-molestation orders, under part IV of the Family Law Act 1996, or injunctions, under section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. There are similar measures in Northern Ireland. The SI relates in particular to the recognition and enforcement of those measures. The approach that we are taking is to unilaterally recognise and enforce incoming civil protection measures from EU countries, except Denmark, to ensure that vulnerable individuals will continue to be protected.

What is the current position of English and Welsh law under EU law? The EU regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters, which I will refer to as the civil protection measures regulation, provides for mutual recognition of such protection measures in civil matters across the EU, except Denmark, which does not participate in the European Union area of freedom, security and justice. That regulation’s effect is that if a civil protection measure is granted in one member state, it must be recognised in another, without any special measure to achieve that end. It must be enforced in another member state without any need for a declaration of enforceability and is treated, practically speaking, as if it had been ordered in the other member state.

What will change if we leave the EU without a deal? The instrument provides that an incoming civil protection measure from an EU member state—except Denmark—shall, under the terms of the civil protection measures regulation, be recognised without any special procedure being required, and enforceable without the requirement for a declaration of enforceability.

The instrument also revokes the provision about issuing a certificate in the courts of England and Wales and Northern Ireland, which is required for recognition and enforcement in an EU member state, under the civil protection measures regulation. We are doing that because we cannot legislate unilaterally to restore the reciprocity of approach. That means we cannot require an EU member state to comply with civil protection measures issued by UK courts, because the UK will no longer be an EU member state and EU member states will no longer be bound to recognise or enforce civil protection measures issued in the UK under the regime.

Providing for courts in England and Wales to issue such certificates when there is no certainty that the measure could be invoked in the EU under the civil protection measures regulation would, in our view, be of no benefit to our citizens. Indeed, it could open up the possibility of giving the person at risk a false expectation of continued protection in an EU member state.

The Government accept that that loss of reciprocity means that those with civil protection measures issued in our courts who wish to travel to the EU will be disadvantaged compared with those who have protection measures issued in the EU who wish to come to the UK. We strongly believe, however, that we must do what we can to provide as much reassurance as possible to people, often in vulnerable situations, who have a protection measure issued in the EU. That is because it benefits all citizens, including vulnerable people living in the EU, be they EU, UK or other nationals.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, like all Members of the Committee, I am sure, look forward to being selected to serve on Delegated Legislation Committees. Will the Minister give a practical example that a simple soul, such as a Back Bencher like me, could understand, to show how these regulations will make a practical difference on the ground?

[Lucy Frazer]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I am eager to serve and do my duty, to ensure that our laws are worthy of the citizens we serve. I am grateful to him for serving on this very important Committee. An example would be a molestation order. If a victim of domestic violence has an injunction in France preventing the perpetrator emailing them, visiting their home or workplace, or contacting them in any way, and they come on holiday to England, we will respect that injunction, which will remain valid and enforceable.

[Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)]

On a point of clarification, I understand from what my hon. and learned Friend has said so far that, if we leave without a deal, through this statutory instrument we will ensure that EU citizens are protected effectively if they come here, but the same will not be the case for British citizens in the EU. I understand that we want to create the atmosphere for the best possible relations, but what measures are the British Government taking to ensure that, even in a no-deal scenario, there is some reciprocity for what seems to be a very generous position in this statutory instrument?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

I am pleased that all Members are listening intently. A number of SIs set out reciprocity with the EU, but in most others, where we are taking ourselves away from EU laws, we are not giving reciprocity because it will not be respected. We are taking this approach with this unusual SI because we want to continue to protect vulnerable people. We would like other member states to continue to respect and protect vulnerable people, but we have no power to dictate to them how to run their laws.

We have been liaising primarily with the EU in our negotiations, but we will of course try, in whatever scenario, to have discussions on a bilateral as well as multilateral basis, to ensure that we get the best result, not only for our citizens but for EU citizens using our courts and services.

We have not reached this position without considering the views of others. As we developed our thinking, we discussed the proposal with family law stakeholders and leading family law practitioners. These regulations cover England, Wales and Northern Ireland—this is a devolved matter in Scotland and the Scottish Government are dealing with it separately. However, we understand that they, too, will continue to recognise and enforce incoming protection measures.

The draft instrument ensures that the element of the regime for mutual recognition of civil protection measures, which we will continue to operate under in a no-deal scenario, applies—namely, to continue to comply unilaterally with the civil protection measures regulation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland with respect to incoming civil protection measures from the EU, apart from Denmark. It will therefore provide an effective framework for UK courts to work with. It takes into account the lack of reciprocity in this area, which recognises that we cannot legislate in this area in other member states after we leave.

In conclusion, as far as we can establish, the civil protection measures regime is not widely relied upon in any formal sense, but it can enable at-risk people in vulnerable situations to avail themselves of additional protection when moving between EU member states. The Government consider that removing that additional means of protection would be an undesirable outcome of the UK’s decision to leave the EU. Again, we would prefer to ensure that if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, those granted civil protection measures in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland will be able to avail themselves of the protection currently provided in EU member states, but we cannot; it is not in our gift to suggest that they do something we would like them to do. We are taking a pragmatic approach in order to protect vulnerable citizens and give them as much certainty as possible. We believe that is the best approach to ensure that if we leave without a deal, our legal system will continue to work effectively for our citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

I will respond to a couple of the points made by the hon. Member for Bradford East. He is right to identify this as an important matter affecting families across Europe and the UK. He said that the regulations are one-sided; we have been very up front that this is a one-sided relationship, because we cannot legislate for other member states. All we can do is ensure that our regime provides the best possible protection.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government have failed to prepare. I made it clear at the outset that in this SI we are legislating for a no-deal scenario. The Government would very much like to have a deal. If we have a deal, the EU has been clear, in our discussions and in its written guidance, that it would like to have a strong relationship with the UK in family matters, and to develop further the basic requirements that we would have in a no-deal situation, so that families are protected.

We have liaised extensively with the EU on this matter, and the deal—as set out in the political declaration—makes it clear that the EU is willing to give us a deal on family matters on a reciprocal basis. We cannot come here today and offer that deal, because Parliament did not vote in favour of it. A large number of Labour Members did not support that deal, which is why the Government are in this position.

I would like to make clear the protection that these individuals will have. It is not the case that vulnerable people going to EU member states will have no protection at all; they will be able to make an application in a foreign court for the same protections. It is just that the measures currently in place give automatic protections, so that an order made here is treated like one made in another member state. There are protections, but it would just be more laborious and expensive.

[Imran Hussain]

The Minister conveniently forgets that many Government Members rejected that very bad deal as well. She must accept that some of the most vulnerable people will be put at risk in the case of no deal. She cannot provide any guarantees here to the contrary.

[Lucy Frazer]

We have been up front that the current provisions in civil judicial co-operation in family law matters do provide some protection even without the EU regimes, but not the same level of protection, and this is an example of that. It is not the case that they will get no protection at all, but the protection they have at the moment is better. We accept that, which is one of the reasons I will be voting again for the Government’s deal when, or if, the opportunity arises.

The hon. Gentleman raised a legitimate point about consultation. I can assure him that we have liaised with a number of bodies interested in family law. We have a Brexit law committee, on which sit members of the Bar Council, the Law Society and the City. We also have sub-committees in different areas of law. There is a family sub-committee, with which I have held roundtable discussions. My officials met the sub-committee regularly to discuss these and other areas of family law. We have also met Resolution and the international Family Law Committee, and I have spoken with the Family Law Bar Association. The Ministry of Justice has not taken these decisions in isolation; we have very much engaged with stakeholders to come up with the best possible solutions. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lucy Frazer Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2019 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

The draft regulations form part of our ongoing work to ensure that if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, the necessary statutes will be in place. If Parliament approves the withdrawal agreement, which includes an implementation period, and passes the necessary legislation to implement the agreement, the Government will defer the coming into force of the draft regulations until the end of that implementation. If a deal on our future relationship is reached, we envisage that they will be revoked entirely. They will simply cover the situation if there is no deal at all.

The draft regulations will make changes to the rules in England and Wales, in Northern Ireland and in Scotland to determine which courts should have the power to hear a case with a cross-border element that could involve the EU and the relevant European Free Trade Association countries—Norway, Switzerland and Iceland. They will also change the rules on how to ensure that any judgments or decisions can be enforced across the EU and the relevant EFTA states.

Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained the application of the EU regulations that we seek to replace. The principal measure that relates to civil and commercial law is the Brussels Ia regulation. The Brussels regime provides clear and reciprocal rules on jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters to determine which court hears a cross-border case. Its application is mandatory and leaves no discretion for courts to act otherwise. For example, if a UK consumer or business has a dispute with a party in a state that is a member of the EU or is a party to the Lugano convention, there are clear rules to determine which court in which jurisdiction should hear the case. This prevents the risk of parallel proceedings, or more than one court hearing the case.

Secondly, there is almost automatic recognition and enforcement of the judgments of one participating state in another. If a business successfully sues another business in one state, it can ensure that it enforces the resulting judgment where it needs to without going through costly and time-consuming additional processes. That is possible because all participating states must apply uniform rules of jurisdiction and can trust that jurisdiction was assumed properly and appropriately.

The Brussels regime operates almost entirely on a reciprocal basis. Its effectiveness is founded on mutual co-operation between states: countries respect the jurisdiction of each other’s courts and recognise and enforce each other’s judgments. However, with some limited exceptions, including consumer and employment cases, the Brussels rules do not apply if the defendant in a dispute is domiciled outside the EU. In such cases, the EU member states and the Lugano parties—Norway, Switzerland and Iceland—apply their own national rules on cross-border matters.

What will change if we leave the EU without a deal? In those circumstances, the EU regime for determining these matters will simply cease to apply to us. The reciprocity in the EU regime that I have described can no longer apply to relations between EU member states and the UK after exit, nor will they apply between the Lugano parties and the UK. Furthermore, there are no unilateral actions that the UK can take to compel the EU as a whole to continue to apply the reciprocal jurisdictional rules or to enforce judgments. We therefore need to legislate now to provide clarity about how the UK will determine whether it has jurisdiction in a civil and commercial case and when UK courts will recognise and enforce judgments from EU countries. However, our legislation cannot determine what rules the EU will apply; that will be down to member states’ own national laws.

The Government’s response, which is set out in the draft regulations, is to revert—with some limited exceptions—to the rules on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments that currently apply to cross-border disputes to which the Brussels regime does not apply, namely disputes that involve parties from the UK on the one hand and parties from countries outside the EU and the Lugano convention on the other. The draft regulations are not creating new policy; they are transitioning us to a well-developed and understood set of rules that will provide an effective framework for UK courts to work with and will take into account the lack of reciprocity in the area.

There are a few exceptions to this general approach. Importantly, existing international agreements such as the rules of The Hague convention of 2005 on choice of court agreements would continue to apply, as the UK is acceding to this as a contracting state. This will be brought into UK law, post EU exit, by a separate SI that has been subject to the negative procedure, which means that UK courts would take jurisdiction whenever there is a valid choice of court agreement to which the convention applies. We would also readily recognise and enforce the judgment of a foreign court that is validly selected under an agreement. Courts of other contracting states to the convention would equally recognise and enforce the judgment of a UK court to which the convention applies.

We have sought, where we can, to maintain the jurisdictional protections for UK consumers and employees that are contained in the Brussels regime. These rules are not restricted to EU-domiciled defendants, so we can retain much of the consumer and employee-friendly approach of the Brussels regime while restating them for UK-based consumers and employees, which will largely take away their need to sue abroad in such cases and the expense and difficulty that it brings.

This instrument is necessary to fix the statute book in the event of a no-deal exit from the EU. We have assessed its impact and published a full impact assessment. Broadly, we have concluded that although in certain respects the common law might operate less efficiently than the Brussels regime, to which the UK is a party as a result of EU membership, only negligible costs would arise from this SI, relative to the alternative of leaving legislation on the statute book that would cease to operate effectively in the absence of reciprocity after the UK has left the EU. The Government’s view is that removing deficient retained EU law from domestic law would clarify the rules that apply to determining jurisdiction and post-EU exit recognition and enforcement of judgments. Our approach has been led by engagement with the sector, particularly the Law Society, the Bar Council, the Brexit Law Committee and others.

As I have set out, there would be deficiencies in retained EU law that implements the instruments of the Brussels regime because of a lack of reciprocity should we leave the EU without a deal. This SI fixes those deficiencies and establishes a practical set of rules for dealing with cross-border disputes in civil and commercial matters in such a scenario.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

I thank the Front-Bench Members for their interesting and important submissions. I recognise what the hon. Member for Bolton South East said— that this draft instrument has to be introduced in the circumstances—and I underline the importance of the recognition of judgments across borders.

To answer a couple of the hon. Lady’s points, we published the impact assessment last Monday. On her specific point about cases already before the court, there is a saving provision to ensure that the UK will deal with those cases under the Brussels regime, so far as that is possible. She also highlighted the Lugano convention. I assure her, as we have said at all stages of this process and in relation to the deal discussions, that the UK Government absolutely want to remain a signatory to the convention; it is one of our priorities. We have spoken to the other states party to that convention, whose agreement we will need. However, the EU also has to sign up to that, and we have raised the matter with the EU.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East raised several matters relating to Scotland, including whether there had been consultation on this aspect of Brexit. I highlight that our Brexit Law Committee comprises members of all the key stakeholders in this area—the Law Society, the Bar Council, TheCityUK and several specialists—who we have consulted for their advice and opinions. I have held roundtables with them throughout this process, as have my officials.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have regularly consulted the devolved Administrations throughout this process. I was at an interministerial meeting with all the devolved Administrations in Edinburgh on Thursday last week to discuss this very subject. I was pleased that the Scottish Minister for Parliamentary Business thanked my officials for their co-operative working with the Scottish Government on this matter, as well as on many others. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Law Society of Scotland, which I have spoken to several times to update it on what we are doing.

If the hon. Gentleman would like to raise any technical matters, I am very happy to discuss those with him. However, for those reasons, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lucy Frazer Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

8. What assessment he has made of the effect of recent (a) changes in court staffing and (b) court closures on access to justice.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

I assure the hon. Lady that any decision to close a court is taken incredibly carefully, but in circumstances in which 41% of courts were operating at half their available capacity in 2016-17, it is right that the Ministry of Justice considers how best to spend its resources. We are investing £1 billion in our courts, bringing them up to date, improving back-office systems and making it easier for people to access justice.

[Helen Hayes]

Three years ago, I expressed concerns about the impact that the closure of Lambeth county court would have on the efficiency of the court system and access to justice for my constituents. Lambeth was closed two years ago and the workload was moved to Clerkenwell and Shoreditch. Yesterday, I heard from a local legal aid solicitor that Clerkenwell and Shoreditch county court is completely overwhelmed, that delays of six to eight months to receive court directions are common, and that the contact centre cannot provide up-to-date information on cases. When will the Government act to sort out this shambolic mess?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss that specific situation. The MOJ is taking a number of steps to improve court timeliness, which is of course important. We are digitising a number of services—people can now track their tribunal appeal online—and recruiting more judges to tribunals, with more than 225 recruited over the past year. I am happy to discuss that particular case.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Under the smokescreen of a digital revolution, the Government have taken the axe to our court system. A victim of crime who wants justice through their day in court will now have a much more difficult experience, perhaps having to travel much further after the closure of hundreds of courts, and perhaps finding that the help and support they need are lacking after the sacking of thousands of court staff. Given the recent chaos, instead of forcing through yet more court reforms, will the Minister agree to a moratorium on further cuts and closures, at least until this House has been offered a chance to scrutinise changes that will affect access to justice for decades to come?

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the fact that an IT issue affected courts towards the end of January. That disruption was caused by an infrastructure issue in our supplier’s data and I apologise for any issues for people who were affected. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have consulted on what principles will guide any future court closures, and that consultation has now come to an end.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

9. What steps the Government are taking to ensure that measures in the victims strategy, the forthcoming violence against women and girls strategy and domestic abuse Bill are aligned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

T7. The Government continue to drag their feet on publishing their review of legal aid. Will the Minister tell the House exactly when we can expect it by?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

We said that we would publish the review early in the new year, and we will be publishing it early in the new year. The hon. Lady should expect it shortly. This is a serious matter that takes time. I would like to quote the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who told the Law Society Gazette early last year

“that I would rather the government take this seriously and take their time with it.”

That is exactly what we are doing.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Access to justice was denied to a constituent of mine who had a child taken away from her, after birth, by social services. She has struggled find legal representation because lawyers refuse to take on a local authority with huge financial resources. How will the Government help constituents such as mine?

[Lucy Frazer]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Care proceedings are incredibly important, and when a child is taken away from their parent, it is a tragic matter that affects them for a long time. My right hon. Friend should be aware that legal aid is available for public law cases. I am very happy to discuss that particular matter with her.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

T8. The Minister of State said earlier that the best help for rehabilitation is to have a job. Do we not urgently need to reform the Disclosure and Barring Service system, so we still protect the public from dangerous criminals and dangerous people, but stop blighting the lives of hundreds of thousands of citizens who are trying to turn their lives around?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Over the past eight years, the number of trials listed at Northampton Crown court without a firm date—categorised as floating trials—has increased from 10% to 23%. Why is this, and what can be done about it?

[Lucy Frazer]

This is a really important point because it is important that justice is not only done but done speedily. I should emphasise that listing is a judicial function, but it is important that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service works closely with the judiciary on it. For that reason, I held a roundtable only a few weeks ago—with the judiciary, listing officers, the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association and the Law Society—to solve this issue.

[Mr Speaker]

I call David Hanson—in a sentence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree with the Taking Control coalition of debt support charities that independent regulation of the bailiff industry is necessary to protect the public from the unscrupulous practices that have driven some of my constituents to the point of suicide and despair?

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight that unscrupulous practice by bailiffs is unacceptable. I know that she will be aware that we are looking into the matter, and our call for evidence closes on 17 February, so I encourage anyone who is interested to submit. One of the questions we ask in the consultation is about an independent regulator.

[Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)]

Studies of offenders have suggested that 45% of young people and 24% of male adults screen positive for a childhood history of ADHD. Will the Minister therefore agree to attend the next meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for attention deficit hyperactive disorder to discuss the ways in which we can reform the criminal justice system?

Draft Jurisdiction and Judgments (Family) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Civil Partnership and Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Judgments) (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lucy Frazer Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2019 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Jurisdiction and Judgments (Family) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Civil Partnership and Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Judgments) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

[Lucy Frazer]

As always, Sir David, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. The two draft instruments form part of the Government’s preparations for the event that the UK should leave the EU without a deal. They relate solely to our no-deal preparations.

The Jurisdiction and Judgments (Family) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations relate to the arrangements in family law that will apply when we leave the EU. They deal with the rules that determine which court should hear a family law matter, and they cover co-operation between the courts in the recognition of the judgments of EU courts. They will repeal the EU rules, because the reciprocity of those rules across member states will be lost when the UK leaves the EU; EU member states will no longer apply them to cases that involve the UK. The relevant matters will be governed instead by existing international conventions and a combination of new and pre-EU domestic rules.

Before I go into the detail of the draft regulations, it may be helpful if I outline the existing arrangements in the EU in respect of the law on this area. There are two applicable EU regulations: the Brussels IIa regulation and the maintenance regulation. The Brussels IIa regulation provides the rules that determine which court has the jurisdiction to hear various family cases—for example, whether a divorce hearing in a case with a cross-border element should take place in the UK or in another EU member state. The regulation covers divorce and matrimonial disputes; parental responsibility disputes, such as disputes between parents over the residence of their child or contact with their child; and care proceedings. It also provides for the recognition and enforcement of one member state’s judgment in all member states. Similarly, the maintenance regulation sets out rules about which EU member states’ courts have jurisdiction in cross-border cases that concern family maintenance, and about the recognition and enforcement of judgments.

What will change if we leave the EU without a deal? Without an agreement to cover these matters, the Brussels IIa regulation and the maintenance regulation will no longer operate effectively between the UK and the EU. Even if the UK tried to apply those rules after exit, the EU27 would no longer be obliged to apply them in relation to the UK because we would be a third country. For example, they would not be required under the regulations to enforce or recognise decisions of courts in the UK. In the light of those circumstances, the draft regulations will revoke the Brussels IIa regulation and the maintenance regulation, but that does not mean that we will be left without rules on international co-operation.

The UK is a contracting state to a number of Hague conventions in the field of family law that cover many of the same areas as the Brussels IIa regulation and the maintenance regulation. In particular, the 1996 Hague convention covers similar ground to the Brussels IIa regulation in respect of jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments and co-operation between authorities in matters of parental responsibility. All EU member states are bound by that convention: the UK and all EU member states are contracting parties, so it applies between us and each of them.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

I am confused by paragraph 7.3 of the explanatory memorandum to the draft family regulations, which states that the

“instrument amends domestic law so that the 1973 Hague Convention…will again operate between the UK and those EU Member States party to them where appropriate.”

Are all EU states party to the convention, or are there cases in which certain countries are not?

[Lucy Frazer]

There are the Hague conventions of 1970 and 1996. All EU member states are party to the 1996 convention. In addition, we have the 2007 Hague convention, which contains similar recognition and enforcement rules and provisions on co-operation between authorities as those in the maintenance regulation, and which applies to all EU member states except Denmark.

We have ensured that the UK will, in the event of a no-deal exit, be a contracting state under the 2007 Hague convention after exit. We will continue to use the wide rules in the Family Law Act 1986 for the recognition in the UK of overseas divorces, and those in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 for the recognition of such dissolutions. There will be some gaps in coverage and the potential loss of effectiveness and efficiency. In particular, there is no Hague convention covering the grounds of jurisdiction for divorce or maintenance.

For jurisdiction in maintenance cases, the draft statutory instrument makes provision to return, therefore, to the rules of common law or statutory rules that operated before the maintenance regulation and other relevant instruments came into force. We will also amend our common law in relation to the jurisdiction for divorce cases. The Brussels IIa jurisdiction grounds presently apply to all cases, regardless of whether there is any overseas connection or whether any overseas connection is to an EU member state or to a state outside the EU.

Those grounds have applied for a long time and will have the benefit of familiarity, having been tried and tested. We will replicate in domestic law the applicable Brussels IIa grounds for England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and make a further ground of sole domicile applicable to all cases.

[Mhairi Black]

I am grateful to the Minister for indulging me. To be absolutely clear, does this mean that there will be some EU states with which we will not have a framework for the recovery of such payments, or is it a blanket framework that every EU country will be under?

[Lucy Frazer]

I understand that all member states sign up to the Hague convention. In fact, the EU signs up to the Hague convention, and therefore the member states are signed up as parties under the umbrella of the EU.

There are a number of additional matters to raise. In relation to the first statutory instrument, we are very grateful to family law practitioners for raising two issues about maintenance that we are urgently considering. Both are technical and complex. The first relates to jurisdiction and remedies under the Children Act 1989 and whether, in returning to the pre-EU position, the instrument has inadvertently narrowed the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts and the type of financial awards they can make. The Government’s position is that the current position is appropriate, and there is no intention to reduce or narrow the provision available to families. The Government will bring forward a further SI to address that.

The second issue relates to whether, post exit, an English or Welsh court will have the power to rule on pension-sharing arrangements in cases where a person does not have a connection to England or Wales but is unable to bring the claim elsewhere. Although only a small number of cases will be affected, we will consider whether that issue should be addressed.

I shall now deal with the draft Civil Partnership and Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Judgments) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The UK Government’s position has always been that we will apply the same rules on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement to same-sex divorce and civil partnership dissolution as we do to opposite-sex divorce.

As Brussels IIa does not apply in relation either to civil partnership dissolution or to divorce between same-sex couples, our domestic law mirrors the relevant provision for those cases. It is entirely appropriate to take a similar approach to determining jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement as that taken for opposite-sex couples. That is what the regulations will do.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Many of us in this place would like civil partnerships to be extended to different-sex couples. Would further changes to the regulations be required for their provisions to apply in such cases, or would that happen automatically if we extended civil partnerships to non-same sex couples?

[Lucy Frazer]

That is a matter that we would consider at the appropriate time, but my right hon. Friend makes a very good point. We are looking at those issues and are committed to them.

In conclusion, without a deal in place, there would be no overarching framework between the UK and the EU, as there is under existing mechanisms. We are therefore ensuring that, if we leave without a deal, our legal system will continue to work effectively for our citizens through the international arrangements we have in place and by going back to common law. If Parliament approves the withdrawal agreement, which includes an implementation period, and passes the legislation necessary to implement that agreement, the Government will defer the coming into force of these instruments until the end of the implementation period. If a deal on our future relationship is reached, we envisage that the instruments will be revoked in their entirety.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

Thank you for the opportunity to reply, Sir David.

The hon. Member for Bolton South East was absolutely right to identify the importance of this area. Three million EU nationals live in this country, and the EU has recognised that if we move forward with a deal, it would be interested in co-operating in this area, such is the importance of family law.

I will touch on a couple of important points that were made by Members from across the Committee. On guidance, the Government released a technical notice last September dedicated to civil judicial co-operation that set out what will be our approach in the event that we are unable to reach a deal, so people have had some time to analyse our approach and to think about it carefully.

There has been the suggestion that we have not done a formal consultation. I assure Members and the public that my Department has engaged fully with legal practitioners and the judiciary to understand these complex areas. We have a Brexit Law Committee that advises us, comprised of professional lawyers—both barristers and solicitors—and representatives from the City and the judiciary. It has sub-committees, including a family sub-committee, which regularly meets my officials. I have also done a roundtable on family law matters, to ensure that the difficult issues we face are dealt with.

[Mhairi Black]

I appreciate the Minister’s giving way; she has been very kind to me throughout our proceedings. However, we can only go by what is in front of us. I have no doubt that the Minister has a jam-packed diary, but the explanatory notes to the draft family regulations clearly say:

“There has been no formal consultation on this instrument.”

Given the importance of the kind of stuff we are talking about, we need more than that to be able to support the draft instruments.

[Lucy Frazer]

I understand what the hon. Lady says. While there might not have been a formal consultation, in the governmental sense, I assure her that we look at these issues with professionals, internally and externally, to ensure that we take the right course.

There are impact assessments. They are published online with the draft instruments themselves. I am happy to share those with any Member. My officials have undertaken a full impact assessment for these draft instruments, which found that we should expect a cost increase for Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, because we expect case volumes to increase and there might be the risk of parallel proceedings in other EU countries. However, we are taking steps in relation to those matters.

On the point the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South made about the 1970 Hague convention on divorce and legal separation, it is true that only 12 EU member states are party to it. The convention was implemented in the UK by the Family Law Act 1986. Its rules allow generous recognition provisions for overseas divorces to be recognised in the UK, whether or not the country in which the divorce was granted is a party to the 1970 convention, providing minimum criteria are met. We have been clear that, regardless of the outcome of Brexit, we will support developing the scope and coverage of international family law conventions, including the 1970 divorce recognition convention.

To assuage the concerns of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South about Scotland specifically, Scotland is not necessarily taking the same approach as England, Wales and Northern Ireland to all such matters. The draft family regulations revoke Brussels IIa for England and Wales and Northern Ireland; it does not revoke it for Scotland, except for the provisions of Brussels IIa relating to the child abduction override—otherwise, Scotland is making its own provisions. The instrument revokes the maintenance regulation for all parts of the UK, except in relation to ongoing proceedings. Obviously, the Hague convention issue will apply across the UK.

I hope that I have dealt with the points that have been made. If any remain, or if there are others, I am happy to write to Members. I therefore recommend that the provisions of the draft statutory instruments become law.

Question put.

Courts IT System

Lucy Frazer Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the failure of the central courts IT system.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House on the IT issues facing the Ministry of Justice over recent days.

I start by apologising to those who have been affected by the intermittent disruption, which was caused by an infrastructure failure in our supplier’s data centre. Although services have continued to operate and court hearings have continued, we know how frustrating this is for everyone. The issue is that some of our staff in the Courts and Tribunals Service, the Legal Aid Agency, probation and Ministry of Justice headquarters have been unable to log on to their computers, but we have contingency plans in place to make sure that trials can go ahead as planned.

The Prison Service has not been affected and—to correct inaccurate reporting—criminals have not gone free as a result of the problem. We have been working closely with our suppliers, Atos and Microsoft, to get our systems working again, and yesterday we had restored services to 180 court sites, including the largest ones. Today, 90% of staff have working computer systems. Work continues to restore services and we expect the remainder of the court sites to be fully operational by the time they open tomorrow morning. We are very disappointed that our suppliers have not yet been able to resolve the network problems in full.

This afternoon, the permanent secretary, Sir Richard Heaton, will meet the chief executive of Atos and write personally to all members of the judiciary. I am very grateful to all our staff who have been working tirelessly and around the clock, alongside our suppliers, to resolve the issues.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question, and the Minister for her reply.

Members will be concerned by the failure of the multiple vital IT systems that our courts require, including systems supplied by Atos and Microsoft. Indeed, I saw those failures at first hand last week, when I visited one of the Crown courts. The chair of the Criminal Bar Association described our courts system as being “on its knees” following that failure, and blamed

“savage cuts to the MoJ budget”.

Reports in The Times suggested that there is a risk of defendants being released before trial. Will the Minister confirm whether any defendants have been released without trial? What costs has the failure incurred? Have Atos and Microsoft paid any penalties for failures on the contracts so far? Can the Minister guarantee that all costs arising from the failures will be recovered from the suppliers?

Of course, such failings do not happen in a vacuum. The Ministry of Justice has faced cuts of 40% in the decade to 2020. The Government are pursuing a £1.2 billion courts reform programme, which has seen hundreds of courts close, thousands of court staff cut and a rush to digitise many court processes. Are the plans to cut 5,000 further court staff by 2023 still being pursued?

Will the Minister explain why the Government ignored the Association of Her Majesty’s District Judges, which called for courts closures to be stopped until

“fully functioning IT systems are demonstrated to be up and running successfully”?

Finally, will the Minister now commit to a moratorium on further cuts, closures and digitisation of our courts until a Bill has been brought to the House so that we can fully scrutinise the Government’s plans?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am grateful for the opportunity to answer the points that the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) raised. She suggested that the problems are related to cuts—they are not. They relate to an issue in a contractual supplier’s system. She suggested that defendants were being released. I hope she heard in my initial reply that that was incorrect reporting. No prisoners have been released. The prison system is different from the MOJ’s and I repeat that no prisoners have been released as a result of the problem.

The hon. Lady asked about penalties. As I said, the permanent secretary is meeting the supplier’s chief executive this afternoon and of course we will look carefully at the contracts, which include penalty clauses.

The hon. Lady suggested that the issue is related to a rush to digitisation. I would like to clarify that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service operates on a legacy system, which needs to be updated because issues arise in it, and we are therefore investing significantly in our digitisation programme to ensure that our courts system runs well in the future.

The hon. Lady talked about cuts. I started with that and I will end with it, as she did. We are not cutting our justice system and our Courts Service. Indeed, as she rightly identified, we are putting £1 billion into it.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I am glad to have the Minister’s reassurance that this situation has nothing to do with the common platform, as that is indeed the case. Does she accept that senior members of the judiciary, as I know from my conversations with them, are most anxious that the roll-out of the common platform proceeds, because the difficulties come from the failures of the old system? Will she ensure that the new initiatives that we are bringing in, such as digital portals, are fully and robustly tested before they come into use, so that court users can have full confidence in them?

[Lucy Frazer]

As always, my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Justice Committee makes important points. I am pleased to clarify that the common platform is not affected—it is being trialled—and that in fact the reform programme in its totality is not affected by these issues. Our divorce and probate application systems are not affected. As I said, the point of reform is to ensure that these systems work in future—my hon. Friend referred to the need to ensure that our systems work—and we will be carrying out a rigorous evaluation of our court reform programme.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

Prisons being issued urgent notifications, private probation services needing bailouts, trials collapsing because of disclosure failures, MOJ staff on strike over the failure to pay them the London living wage—and now the court system is in disarray. When will the Minister finally understand that the 40% real-terms cut to the MOJ budget since 2010 has consequences, and that austerity has left the justice system at breaking point?

[Lucy Frazer]

As I identified at the start, this issue was caused by an infrastructure failure in our supplier’s data centre. It is not the result of cuts. My Department received some funding in relation to the building of a prison in the recent Budget, and it received investment into the courts service and into its estates. We are investing £1 billion in our courts service.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

I should declare that as a judge my husband has been affected by these outages, and I am lobbied heavily on this matter at home. In the light of that, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed my understanding that 75% of court staff are now back online and working normally. When will the rest of them be?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am disappointed that my hon. Friend’s husband, whom I should declare I know, is affected, and I send my apologies to him. Indeed, more seriously, I send my apologies to all court staff, judges and professionals who have been affected. This has obviously been a disruption to their business and I am truly sorry for that. As my hon. Friend mentioned, we are working hard to ensure that these issues are resolved, and in fact 90% of staff have working computer systems today. We expect our court sites to be fully operational by the time they open tomorrow morning.

[Mr Speaker]

It looks as though an end to domestic lobbying is in sight. I am sure the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) is extremely appreciative of that important fact.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

We have heard that this incident has caused a great deal of disruption for the judicial system, and the Minister has apologised to staff, but will she also take into account the very many individuals who are awaiting court sentencing and appearances? They have undergone unbelievable stress and gone through a great deal of personal sacrifice and disruption because of this incident, so will she apologise to them and ensure that future investment in the Ministry of Justice ensures that this does not happen again?

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. It is of course users who are at the heart of the justice system. Professionals work in the justice system, but they and the system work for justice for individuals. This morning I was at a court that was functioning—I was sitting at a hearing—and of course there is that continuous reminder that we are there to serve people who want to get justice done.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

I declare an interest, because I am still a member of the Criminal Bar Association. I am grateful to the Minister for her assurances that this situation is not related to cuts, but the simple truth of it is that if we had a better, more fully funded system, there would be proper back-ups and this rumbling problem would have been sorted out a long time ago. I am afraid I share the views of the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association. The system is now reaching crisis point and funding is primarily a problem, but it is not just about money; we could spend the money in better ways. I would be grateful if the Minister would meet me and other members of the criminal Bar in particular to discuss how we can sort out what is, I am afraid to say, a broken system.

[Lucy Frazer]

My right hon. Friend has a great deal of expertise in this subject area and I am always happy to meet her and to speak with her. She talked about back-ups, and I should say that it is because we have recently invested in the courts service that we had wi-fi back-up. The issue was in relation to the server, but because we have invested in wi-fi in courts up and down the country, many staff could continue to work during this incident.

My right hon. Friend mentioned the criminal Bar; I am a big supporter of the independent criminal Bar, as I am of solicitor advocates, who play a vital role in the delivery of justice, which is why we have recently given them £23 million more for the advocates’ graduated fee scheme. We are investing in encouraging them and hope that they continue to do their work.

My right hon. Friend mentioned the CBA; I work closely with the CBA and have met its representatives on several occasions recently, and I also work closely with the Bar Council. I want to continue to work closely with them as we move forward.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

As we must do this, may I declare a personal, rather than a pecuniary, interest? I have been married to a senior member of the west London magistracy for many, many years. Mrs Pound is incandescent with fury, because those on her particular bench find it impossible to operate within the common platform. The iPads with which they have been issued are useless, and many defence barristers and solicitors are having to print out copies of the documentation before they come to court. Will the Minister accept that it is our unpaid magistracy who have been making this system work despite the IT nightmare? Will she take this opportunity, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, to pay tribute to and thank the magistrates for making a broken system work?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am honoured that we have so many well-connected Members of Parliament present in the House to share with us their personal knowledge of the justice system. I thank the hon. Gentleman’s wife for all the work she does. I do indeed recognise the significant contribution that the magistracy makes. I was pleased to go to the Magistrates Association annual conference late last year. Magistrates do indeed make a significant contribution to our criminal justice system.

[Mr Speaker]

I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will present a copy of the Official Report, when it appears tomorrow, to Mrs Pound, or Maggie, as I think she is known.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

The listing team in Chelmsford administers the calendars and diaries for all Essex and Suffolk magistrates and county courts—that is more than 30 different courts sitting every day—so when the computer systems have been down it has been an administrative nightmare. I am glad to hear that nine out of 10 computers are back up and running and that we expect full service back tomorrow. Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that this incident was not because of a cyber-attack and that there has been no loss of data, and will she let us know what is being done to make sure that this situation does not recur?

[Lucy Frazer]

As a diligent MP working for her constituency, my hon. Friend raised the particular issue of the Chelmsford courts with me yesterday, and I was pleased to tell her yesterday that Chelmsford Crown court was included in the sites that were fixed last night. We are currently working on, and perhaps might even have fixed, the combined family and county court, and hope that they will be online. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that this incident was not the result of a cyber-attack.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that it is not quite fair to characterise this as a single or unusual event, and that her Department has been receiving reports of failures in the criminal justice secure email service for at least six months now?

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. In fact, there were two separate incidents in relation to the HMCTS-MOJ site: one that occurred on Tuesday night, which was fixed by the weekend; and a separate incident that occurred on Sunday, which we are continuing to work through. The issue he identifies in relation to the secure system is, again, separate and unrelated. Some 75,000 people were affected by that, which is only 12.5%. By Monday, we had restored user access to 40,000 of those people. We restored access to the remainder on Tuesday, and we have dealt with the issue. I hope people will identify that issues are occurring, and HMCTS is working through the night to resolve these issues. As I have mentioned, we hope that they will be fully resolved by tomorrow morning.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

I, too, declare my interest as a member of the Bar and one who well remembers the frustrations caused by the legacy system. Will my hon. and learned Friend reassure me that her teams are working around the clock to make sure that all court users have access to the reliable IT system they need?

[Lucy Frazer]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Issues have arisen, but HMCTS staff have been working around the clock to resolve them. They have been working extremely hard, and I would like to thank them for that work. Issues have arisen, but we have attempted to resolve them as quickly as possible.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

What compensation will be made available to victims of crime who wait so long to get justice, and to other court users who often give up days of work? There is a massive loss of productivity in the system already, and issues such as this continue to aggravate the situation. Will there be a compensation system that is open, so that people can claim back for such lost productivity and make other claims they may have in relation to this matter?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

The issue that has arisen relates mainly to email systems. There has been minimal disruption, I am told, to the courts system as a whole. Obviously, where issues arise, we will investigate them and look into them thoroughly. Our whole programme of reform is intended to ensure that the users are at the heart of the system and that we ensure swift justice, with effective hearings delivered in the most efficient manner to ensure justice for everybody.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I must say it is a relief to hear that the Prison Service was not affected by this problem. Will the Minister reassure me completely that there is no prospect that any criminal hoping this may allow them to escape justice or be released slightly earlier will benefit? In essence, they will be very disappointed.

[Lucy Frazer]

I am very glad to give the confirmation that the Prison Service system is a different IT system and no defendant has been released as a result.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My constituents have contributed £43 million to the stalled digitisation process, thanks to the closure and sale of Hammersmith magistrates and county courts. Their reward is to travel for an hour or more to courts at Clerkenwell or Hendon. The Minister says the courts system is running well; it is not: it is in freefall. Will she at least postpone any further closures until she can guarantee a working service?

[Lucy Frazer]

I know the hon. Gentleman does a great deal of work in this area; he is very involved in the local law centre and has a great deal of knowledge. He will therefore be aware that we have recently consulted on what our guidelines should be in relation to any future closures. We will be guided by the response to that consultation, which is due out shortly.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

Remote and rural constituencies will often benefit most from technology—especially in my own constituency, where the regrettable closure of Skegness court means there is even greater reliance on it. May I urge the Minister to bear in mind that the use of technology will always produce more good than harm if it is done properly, and that she should proceed on the basis of that maxim?

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Technology has opened the door—not just in justice, but in all areas of our lives—to more efficient and progressive ways of doing things. However, technology should always be our servant, not our master. We in the Ministry of Justice would like to ensure that technology will enable answers, not frustrate traditional ones. The technology that will be rolled out in hearings—if we have video hearings, for example—will always be used at the discretion of the judge, and we will ensure that it enables, not restricts, justice.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Earlier this week, a constituent contacted me because of MOJ cuts. He is concerned that Newcastle county court is at least 22 staff short and is two months behind with its workload. As well as overstretched staff having the added problem of the IT failure, he is extremely concerned that they cannot deliver for the people they are there to serve. How does the Minister respond to these legitimate concerns?

[Lucy Frazer]

Of course, where there are particular concerns in any particular court, I am happy to look at them. If the hon. Lady would like to write to me or meet me, I would be happy to discuss any particular concerns.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

The Minister says that she wants the user at the heart of the system. Under this Government, Wrexham in north-east Wales is run by an administrator in Llanelli in south-west Wales. That has led to our having a magistrates court without any cells—the equivalent of a pub without any beer—and the result is that the users have to go to a different town. All of this is as a result of Ministry of Justice incompetence. How can we have confidence in the administration of the justice system when this sort of chaos is an everyday occurrence?

[Lucy Frazer]

A number of people, such as the hon. Gentleman, have referred to court closures. In circumstances where 41% of our courts were used at less than half their available capacity last year, it is incumbent on a Government to look at where they should use their resources and where they should use their resources well. All money from court closures goes back into the courts system, and we ensure that the money is spent and spent well on our justice system.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

When the Government closed Scunthorpe magistrates and family courts, against the wishes of local people, much was made of the way in which digitisation would mitigate the risk of threats to access to justice. Given this shambles, what evaluation is being done of whether, where there have been court closures, access to justice is still being delivered effectively?

[Lucy Frazer]

It is vital that we continue to reform our courts and to take advantage of what technology offers us. We have had extremely positive reports from people who are using our online services, such as our online applications for probate, online applications for divorce and—I was in a social security tribunal this morning—online applications for social security tribunals. There is the fact that people can get updated on their social security hearing on their mobile phone, and the fact that we are now piloting the ability of a judge to email and liaise with a tribunal applicant before they get to court so that their hearing is ready, effective and useful when they get there. We of course evaluate this at each stage. Our systems are user-based and have been adapted because of the feedback we have had from users in the course of using them, but we will be evaluating the reform programme overall.