Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point. If someone is given a short sentence, it can mean that they lose their home, which would put them in a more difficult position, and then on their release they would be at much greater risk of rough sleeping. We are looking at our options, and I welcome her support. We are running pilots at Pentonville, Bristol and Leeds to see what we can do to address the problem of rough sleeping.

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

I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s much more realistic and nuanced approach to sentencing and the use of imprisonment. Does he agree that it is essential that we have space in our prisons for those whose crimes are so serious that only custody is appropriate, but that we do not overcrowd prisons with those who have mental or medical difficulties, or literacy or social problems, or those who might be better dealt with through rigorous community sentences?

[Mr Gauke]

I completely agree with the Chair of the Justice Committee. There are serious crimes for which a strong custodial sentence is exactly the right answer, but there are also cases for which short sentences, in particular, are ineffective for rehabilitation and do not serve society well. Prison should be used when appropriate, and we should look to develop alternatives to prison wherever possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call Bob Neill—one sentence.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital to ensure continuity of contractual obligations and enforceability of judgments once we leave the EU, which would be prevented by a no-deal outcome?

[Mr Gauke]

Yes.

Joint HMI Prison and Probation Report

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that we have two very well-subscribed debates this afternoon, particularly the one on Holocaust Memorial Day. I therefore ask colleagues to make their questions, and the Minister to make his answers, as brief as possible.

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

I welcome the Minister’s frankness about the extent of the problem. Dame Glenys Stacey is a highly regarded and robustly independent inspector, and what she says is grave.

The Minister has rightly highlighted a number of specific areas that need to be looked at, and I have no doubt that the Justice Committee will wish to take this matter further. In addition to the specifics that he is going to work with, what is to be done to deal with an underlying problem highlighted in the report—the disconnect between what the leadership of the national probation service perceives is being done and what is actually delivered on the ground, with the lack of face-to-face contact, the over-reliance on emails, and the sense that staff are not fully supported? That is a systemic problem, and it is not the first time that the Select Committee and the inspectors have found it to exist. What steps will he be taking to deal with that underlying issue?

Courts IT System

Robert Neill Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about Eurojust and Europol, which are under the direct remit of the Home Office, but we of course work closely with them. I was pleased to see references in the political declaration to mechanisms to ensure that the services and intelligence operations under them will continue.

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

The Minister will know that the Justice Committee has published two reports that set out some of the key areas that will be put at risk for British legal services, British companies and British citizens if we do not have legal continuity, should we face the regrettable event of a no deal. Is that why, perhaps, the Secretary of State was entirely right to write as he did in the Financial Times the other day?

[Lucy Frazer]

I know that my hon. Friend, as Chair of the Justice Committee, has done a significant amount of work on this issue, and I have been pleased to respond to a number of debates that raised these important issues. The deal will allow us to continue working closely with the EU, specifically on family matters, which are important to so many citizens. We will continue to press for broader civil jurisdiction arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

First, let me share our very sincere condolences. It is the most horrifying thing to lose a 22-month-old in that way. Secondly, we are currently consulting on changing the law to have a life sentence for causing death by dangerous driving or by careless driving under the influence. We can do an enormous amount more, both legally and in terms of road safety and driving tests. We must bring down the number of people who are killed. The hon. Gentleman raises a particularly tragic incident, and I would be delighted to meet him to discuss it.

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

Last week, the House passed the Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill, which is an important part of court modernisation. Does the Lord Chancellor accept that there remains a pressing need to introduce the remaining primary legislation necessary to underpin the rest of Sir Michael Briggs’ reforms?

[Mr Gauke]

I share the desire of my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee to do that when parliamentary time allows. Of course, there are currently some pressures on parliamentary time.

Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords]

Robert Neill Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 12th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank my hon. Friend, a former shadow Justice Minister, for his intervention, and I take his point.

We acknowledge that the relevant procedure rule committee will set out the procedural requirements for who can carry out the procedures, but we also know that these committees are predominantly made up of senior judges, so this will have implications for the independence of judicial decision making.

We also believe that such a shift will not match the expectations held by members of the public on the experience and independence of those making judicial decisions about their rights.

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

The hon. Lady referred to the independence of the judges. Is not the whole virtue of this proposal that the rules governing who should be delegated what functions will be made by judges, and should not be made by politicians in any circumstance? Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the former Lord Chief Justice, observed:

“Experience has shown that detailed restrictions on procedure are a very real fetter on the administration of justice.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 2039.]

He counselled against too much restriction of the kind that is being proposed.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

The procedure rule committee obviously has a place in our judicial system, and we accept that judges and others are involved in it, but everyone knows that there are times when, because of financial pressures, services are cut to the bare minimum. We believe that, to protect our judicial system, the functions concerned should be clearly set out, and those that will have an effect on someone should be decided by an authorised person with a legal qualification.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

We are not suggesting that judges will somehow not be independent. As I have said, I have the highest regard for our judiciary in court, although from time to time we might disagree with the decisions that judges reach. In the real world, however, there are often targets to be met and financial constraints to be considered. We are saying that when the procedure rule committee is making rules, it should be guided by Parliament.

[Robert Neill]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

The Government must take notice of the clear limitations of this Bill. They should listen to those who seek to improve this Bill and accept our amendments to ensure that we protect our judicial system.

[Robert Neill]

I hope I shall make a better stab at my speech than I did of being a Teller earlier.

I rise to oppose these amendments, tempted though I am by the way in which they were proposed by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), whom I respect as a fellow lawyer. However, I do have to say that she seeks to go further than is appropriate and seeks to put a needless restriction on the ability of the procedure committee in particular to come to the appropriate balance. I have very great respect for the views of both the Law Society and the Bar Council—I say that with reference to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a non-practising barrister and a consultant to a law firm—but ultimately the scheme envisaged by the Government is a right and balanced one, and reflects in particular the views of the senior judiciary, which I think is important because ultimately it is the judges who are best placed to decide the appropriate level of delegation. They are the people who work day to day with these staff; they see day to day the nature of the boxwork—as it is sometimes called—and the other things that come in.

For these reasons, when the matter was debated in the other place, both Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the recently retired Lord Chief Justice, to whom I have already referred, and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, recently retired president of the Supreme Court, counselled against an undue restriction on the operation of the civil procedure rule committee, already a well established body of the kind the Opposition seek to bring in. I think they also broadly supported the overall thrust of the Bill.

The hon. Lady referred to austerity. That is not the objective of this Bill; there has been a long-standing proposal to modernise the civil justice system. She referred to the work done by Lord Justice Briggs, for whom I have the greatest respect. The Bill is a logical follow-on from the Briggs report, and it is necessary if we are to achieve modernisation and make the courts more accessible for litigants. This is an entirely sensible Bill; that is why the judiciary has pushed for these sorts of proposals, and why Lord Thomas said that he “warmly” welcomed it. It will save some £6 million; he regards that as a realistic figure. That is important in the context of the available resources for the courts system. We all accept that the courts are under pressure, and this is a sensible way forward that does not impede the basic requirements of access to justice or fairness.

Lord Thomas said two further things that we should bear in mind. He spoke about the developments in civil procedures; the rule committee has been an important part of that over the last 15 to 20 years, so it is not as though the committee were unused to dealing with these matters. The committees bring together representatives of the legal profession. As a former practitioner, I agree with his description of that committee as

“a highly representative body with many representatives of the legal profession. Certainly, the committee will always try to reach a view by consensus—when I was a member of it for more than six years there never was a division; we always managed to agree.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 2039.]

Most experienced practitioners will be aware of that. I think we can say the same of the criminal procedure rule committee; these are very well established bodies, and judges do not forget that they are judges when they are there.

It is a little unworthy, I say with respect, to suggest that the judiciary—we have talked about the senior judiciary chairing these bodies—would acquiesce in an inappropriate level of delegation for a purely financial consideration. They would be going against their judicial oaths. I do not think for one second that the hon. Lady really means to say that they would do that. The amendments would, however, put needless constraint on the committee’s work. That is why I quoted before and quote again Lord Thomas’s observation:

“Experience has shown that detailed restrictions on procedure are a very real fetter on the administration of justice”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 2039.]

In the other place, he gave a number of examples that I need not give here showing why that could be counterproductive.

It is also worth considering the speech of Lord Neuberger. He pointed out the following:

“There are two protected factors: one is that nothing can be done without it being in the rules, and the second is that the Lord Chief Justice needs to give his or her authorisation to the person who makes the decision.” .”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 July 2018; Vol. 792, c. 887.]

Those are important safeguards.

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise. What he is saying goes back to the point raised earlier about the possibility of the functions that are delegated having legal significance. Presumably if that was the case, they would not be delegated to start with.

[Robert Neill]

That is precisely right. It is inconceivable that any Lord Chief Justice would give his or her consent to a delegation that was inappropriate or would put the interests of justice at risk. I never sat as a deputy district judge—they used to be called deputy registrars in my day, so long ago was it—in civil matters, but I have many friends who do, and a great deal of what is called boxwork, with which at least some on the Treasury Bench will be familiar, was of a very administrative kind. We expect the district judges in a busy county court to deal with that, whereas it seems perfectly reasonable for many of these matters, which are often of a very interlocutory nature, to be dealt with by an experienced member of court staff who has been in the service for many years. We are not talking about the ultimate determination of the case in any of these matters. That is why Lord Neuberger referred to that safeguard or protection, and the protection that that would be laid before Parliament.

Lord Neuberger made another important observation on the attempt, as it seems to me, to fetter the discretion of the committee. He posed a rhetorical question, as perhaps senior judges and other lawyers tend to do:

“Whether it is right to provide in such clear terms, and such uncompromising general terms, for the circumstances and requirements for”

appeals—which is what he was talking about—seems to him to be questionable. He was making this point:

“Having chaired the Civil Procedure Rule Committee for three years, I can say, as has been quoted in relation to its criminal equivalent by my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas, that considerable care is given to ensure that all the requirements of justice are met. It is very rare, if ever, that I can remember a decision being arrived at which was not arrived at by consensus.”

These questions are considered, not only by the judiciary but by practitioners, including members of the solicitors’ profession and members of the Bar. Plaintiffs’ and defendants’ interests are represented on these committees, as are both ends of the profession—solicitors and barristers—and all levels of the judiciary, from the High Court bench through the circuit bench to the district bench. This is a broad-based body and, as Lord Neuberger said, these

“details should be worked out…by the rule committee”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 July 2018; Vol. 792, c. 890 to 891.]

I think that that is a forceful argument for leaving the proposals as the Government intended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend makes an important point that has a number of aspects. First, my Department had to make cuts in 2010 because of the poor financial situation that we inherited from the Labour party. Secondly, it is important that we deliver justice fairly to those who are part of the justice system, but as he says, we also have a duty to the taxpayer. Overlaying those two points is a third point. Notwithstanding the position we inherited and notwithstanding our duty to taxpayers, my Department is undertaking a significant reform programme that is investing in our justice system. A couple of weeks ago, the Ministry of Justice held a conference at which more than 20 countries from around the world were represented. They talked about their own reform and modernisation programmes, but ours is one of the most ambitious. We are at the forefront of innovation, and we are investing in our justice system to bring it up to date in the 21st century.

[Robert Neill]

Is this not also important in the context of the speech by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd in the other place? He said that

“the operation of the criminal, civil, tribunals and family procedures rule committees has enabled us far more than any other state to keep our rules up to date.”

We need to continue to do that. That is why he stated:

“I urge the greatest caution in trying to put into primary legislation anything that restricts in this way the powers of the rule committees.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 2018; Vol. 793, c. 425.]

[Lucy Frazer]

That is an important point. Our justice system is renowned throughout the world, thanks to its flexibility, which is enabled by the rules committees along with the other measures that allow us to develop our jurisdiction.

The hon. Member for Bolton South East finished by suggesting that we should listen and take the amendments on board, but we have listened and made amendments. We made amendments in the other place to include safeguards and improve the Bill.

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend and, indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker have campaigned hard about the closure of their local courts, and the dispensing of local justice is important in Northallerton, as it is in Chorley. My hon. Friend makes an important point, because, following campaigning by my hon. Friend and his constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), we committed not to close the court on the basis that we would do so only when the technology was in place to ensure that we could continue to deliver justice. We need to move with the times, but we must also ensure that people get fair procedures and justice in the tribunals.

[Robert Neill]

My hon. and learned Friend is being most generous in giving way. Does she also recognise that modernising and simplifying procedures saves money not only for the taxpayer, but for litigants? Part of access to justice is about reducing needless costs for litigants.

[Lucy Frazer]

That is an important point, because when we talk about what we have saved, we often mean what has been saved at the Ministry of Justice, but the reality is that ensuring that justice is served for the people who use it is at the heart of our reforms. Many of our changes have received positive feedback. In a recent trial at the tax tribunal, people were able to access justice from remote locations and not have to go to a physical court. That was well received, because people did not have to disrupt their day by physically entering court. Of course, that will not be appropriate for everyone, but we must ensure that we use the advantages of technology in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

That is an important point. Some people are already carrying out these functions and doing them well, and they will be able to see a future career progression for themselves. The legal and other qualifications they should have will be set out, but they will be set out by the committees, which are judicially led and independent of Government, and include representatives of the legal professions, and court and tribunal users. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, the judges placed on those are leading the procedure rule committees and have significant expertise. It is they who are best placed to assess the appropriate level of qualification or experience for authorised staff, in the light of the functions they choose to allow those staff to exercise.

My hon. Friend rightly said that the member of staff will not be able to give legal advice or exercise judicial functions until they have been authorised to do so by the Lord Chief Justice or their nominee, or by the Senior President of Tribunals or their delegate. Authorisations are therefore ultimately the responsibility of the judiciary, and those people will not authorise staff unless they are satisfied as to their competence.

[Robert Neill]

My hon. and learned Friend will know, and perhaps she will confirm, that the way this works in practice is that either the Lord Chief Justice or the Senior President of Tribunals makes the authorisation. Alternatively, in the case of the civil jurisdiction, for example, this will invariably at least go to the senior presiding judge or the presiding judges of the circuit. We are talking about people who, in their administrative role, never mind their judicial capacity, will have visited and met these—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Minister, come on. And you have had three speeches already, Bob, you don’t need to stretch the imagination of the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). We have had a constructive and civilised debate on both sides. I do not agree with all his conclusions, but none the less it has been a good debate. I particularly congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Minister on the stellar way in which she has taken the Bill through all its stages. I am sure that it will not be the last time she does that.

I support the Bill. I would have liked a bigger Bill, and I would like not to have lost the Prisons and Courts Bill in the 2017 Dissolution, but we are where we are, and this is a valuable step forward. I particularly welcome my hon. and learned Friend’s commitment to introducing further legislation. As she and the House know, this is part of the very important courts modernisation programme, particularly on the civil side, and builds on the work of Lord Briggs of Westbourne. I know that those involved in his review are most anxious that the remaining statutory underpinnings for the updating of procedure rules and other matters be introduced as a matter of urgency, and I urge her to do that as soon as the legislative timetable permits.

I think that the Bill strikes the right balance. I would take issue with the hon. Member for Bradford East over the suggestion that the judges, exercising their oath of office on the procedure rule committees, would allow themselves to be swayed by considerations of convenience or financial matters in deciding upon the appropriate scheme of delegation. There is not a shred of evidence in the history of our modern judiciary to suggest such a thing, and it does a disservice to the judiciary. We should trust the judges.

[Imran Hussain]

I want to make it absolutely clear that—as I am sure the hon. Gentleman, who is Chair of the Justice Committee, will accept—no one in the Opposition is challenging in any way, shape or form the good standing of the judiciary. The point, which has been made time and again, is that certain matters are within the remit of the procedure rule committees, but there are others that this House and the other place should have scrutiny of.

[Robert Neill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and I entirely accept the intentions behind it. We will have to differ on the question where the line should be drawn between which decisions are appropriate for Parliament to decide and which are appropriate for the judiciary, but I am grateful for the sentiments that he has expressed, which I am sure have reassured us all.

I am happy to proceed on the basis of recent advice from senior judges who have been referred to in the debate and on the basis of what is in the Bill. It will make savings, and at this point perhaps I can put in a plug to the Minister. It might be appropriate, for example, to use that £6 million-plus to restore the funding for the Family Drug and Alcohol Court National Unit. I particularly regret that we have lost some of the emphasis on problem-solving courts following the loss of the Prisons and Courts Bill. Perhaps, given that we now have a unified planning court, we could also consider the Lord Flight’s suggestion in the other place for the establishment of a unified housing court.

Having made those suggestions for what might happen in future, I will end by saying that I welcome the Bill and will support it today.

Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords]

Robert Neill Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 27th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I very much agree. We have a judicial system that is widely respected around the world for its independence and excellence, and that must long continue. I suspect that my hon. Friend is hinting at the question of how we can get more outstanding candidates to apply to the judiciary. It is right that we should address that challenge. He is right to suggest that this is one of our strengths as a country. It will be important in the years ahead as we leave the European Union that our legal system should continue to be widely respected. I believe that there are great opportunities for the UK to become even stronger as a legal centre, and I am keen for that to happen.

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

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I will certainly give way to the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Robert Neill]

The Secretary of State makes an important point about the balance that needs to be struck in these areas. He has given an example of the use of artificial intelligence being appropriate for the checking of documents, and work on dealing with disclosure parameters has already been successfully piloted by the Serious Fraud Office. Would he concede that there is a distinction to be drawn between those essentially transactional but important operations, such as disclosure searches, and the application of human judgment that should be brought to, for example, a charging decision by the SFO? Does he agree that any determination of the facts or issues of a case should clearly be done by a human judge, having heard the arguments, and that their workload could be slimmed down but not replaced by the use of AI?

[Mr Gauke]

I agree. I note that my hon. Friends are all quick to make the case for the importance of the skilled human being in these circumstances, and rightly so. We must remember that technology is our servant and not our master.

I make these points because our court reform programme is being undertaken in the context of an embracive technology and the Bill is an aspect of that programme. I will digress no further because it is not essentially a technology-based Bill. However, to follow up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the importance of skilled individuals will continue to be key, and the Bill will ensure that the time of our most skilled individuals—our judges—is deployed as efficiently as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Before I open my speech, I wish to tell the House that today is Lancashire Day. On 27 November 1295, Lancashire sent its first Member of Parliament to attend King Edward I’s model Parliament. The day is well marked and celebrated in Lancashire.

We have been waiting for the arrival of court reform legislation ever since the Government promised in the Queen’s Speech last June a Bill to modernise the court system. One can imagine that expectations were high, but instead we were left disappointed when this wafer-thin Bill, which is both narrowly constrained and obscurely drafted, was finally published. Indeed, most of its provisions were included in the Prisons and Courts Bill that was shelved more than a year ago. That Bill devoted 38 clauses and 13 schedules to the courts and judges, whereas this Bill has just three such clauses followed by a single schedule. As Lord Judge once said of another Government move, it is

“a little too late and…quite a lot too little”.

[Robert Neill]

I intervene only in fairness to the distinguished legal journalist Mr Joshua Rozenberg, for that was his phrase that the noble Lord Judge was quoting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I accept that the senior judiciary, some of whom are in the House of Lords, have said that the Bill is a good thing. However, practising lawyers, barristers, solicitors, the Bar Council and the Law Society have said that it is not right, and that the amendments that we will propose should be considered.

There is disagreement in the judicial community about the Bill. [Interruption.] I will just wait until the Lord Chancellor has dealt with his question. The Lord Chancellor and the practitioners here must be aware that, when judges are involved in delegated functions or non-court sitting judgments, they are making judgments on difficult issues and complex matters of law—for example, a case management hearing, or even something such as asking for an adjournment. We do not know, but, at the moment, the Bill suggests that such work could be done by delegated staff.

When someone asks for an adjournment, all kinds of complications could be involved; there could be issues relating to failure of disclosure and so on. According to the Bill as it stands, many issues would be given to a delegated person. That is one reason why we are asking for clarification about who those people will be, what powers they will be given, and, more specifically, what training they will be given. Although some senior members of the judiciary in the other place have said that the Bill is a positive development, the practitioners on the ground, at the moment, do not agree.

[Robert Neill]

I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, and I am not unsympathetic to her point, but, in fairness to the senior judiciary, is it not worth pointing out what was said by the two noble lords who spoke on this matter? Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, the recently retired President of the Supreme Court, counselled that it would be unsatisfactory to reduce the flexibility of these proposals, pointing out that there will be many decisions where requisite experience is required, but others where less experience is necessary. Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the previous Lord Chief Justice, pointed out that the procedure rule committee had practitioners on it who acted independently. He said:

“Experience has shown that detailed restrictions on procedures are a very real fetter on the administration of justice.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 2039.]

Those are very serious counsels by two very distinguished recently retired judges.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I have respect for the senior judiciary, of course, but Parliament should have control over what is being delegated. Taking away judges’ positions and powers is a matter that should be debated in this House. We do not think that it is a matter for the procedure rule committee. We would have a much better idea about what it should be looking at. I think that we will disagree on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor.

In this debate, there is a danger of allowing the ideal to become the enemy of the good and the deliverable. I rather share the regret of the shadow Minister that this is not a larger Bill. I was a great supporter of the Prisons and Courts Bill that was lost prior to the 2017 election, as were all Members on the Treasury Bench today. There were clauses in the Prisons and Courts Bill that I hope will be brought back soon, and the prevention of cross-examination of victims in domestic abuse cases is certainly one of them. It is important not only that that issue be resolved, but that the court-appointed advocates who undertake that work be properly remunerated, and I say that in the context of the ongoing review of legal aid. It will be necessary for those advocates to prepare the cross-examination with particular care, because such cases always require a particular degree of sensitivity.

Removing the ability of the complainant in person to cross-examine is right and proper, but proper means—proportionate with the equality of arms—must be put in place and properly funded to enable the trial to be conducted fairly. I understand the Lord Chancellor’s point that it may not be appropriate to put that in this Bill, but that is not a reason not to bring forward the fully thought through and worked out provisions at the earliest possible opportunity. That is a digression from this worthwhile Bill, which does a number of valuable things, some of which I will mention.

Reference has been made to the debates in the Lords. The Lord Chancellor was right to say that proceedings in the Lords were conducted in a particularly constructive and co-operative spirit. Maybe that was because of the very high percentage of lawyers participating in the debates in the other place. It was a civilised and careful consideration of the Bill, in which I think there was—with respect to the Opposition Front Bench—rather less attempt to politicise some of these provisions than we have heard this afternoon. Many of the measures in the Bill are important and technical reforms that require a statutory basis, and should be welcomed.

I noticed the discussion of changes to judicial titles during the debates in the other place. If I have a slight regret about this Bill, it is one that I share with the noble Lord Mackay of Clashfern about the abolition of the title of justices’ clerk. I can understand why that is proposed, but having practised in the criminal courts for 30-odd years, I have a certain affection for the title, as did Lord Mackay. But that change goes with this Bill, so maybe it is a price that has to be paid for modernity. Perhaps I am being uncharacteristically reactionary in regretting the disappearance of the title of stipendiary magistrate as well. I always thought that “Mr St John Harmsworth, stipendiary magistrate at Marlborough Street” had a greater ring to it than “Mr St John Harmsworth, district judge (magistrates courts)” might ever have done, but I suppose the change did give a certain degree of standardisation.

We have been talking about appropriate levels of qualification. There was a time when justices’ clerks did not have to be legally qualified. I do not say that was a good thing. I remember appearing quite often, as a very young barrister, at Billericay magistrates court in Essex in front of the last non-legally qualified justices’ clerk in the country. He had some sort of grandfathered rights that went back to a time when one could do 10 years as a justices’ clerk and that was regarded as giving one the qualification for appointment. [Interruption.] I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) is much shocked by these things. We had to be terribly robust in those days. I remember that I managed to persuade that justices’ clerk to dismiss a case at half time on the basis that a rice flail was not an offensive weapon per se, because it might have had a legitimate use for flailing rice. Whether that was going to happen on Basildon high street, I am not sure.

We have moved on, and the justices’ clerks are much more professional now, and much more fully integrated, so despite my regret about the loss of the title, the new one does reflect more adequately the role that they now have as legal advisers to a very important part of our system—the lay judiciary. In fact, the Justice Committee heard evidence from representatives of the Magistrates Association today regarding the updating of our previous report on the magistracy. They can play a critical role in this. I think that they broadly welcome the attempts at modernisation of practice and procedure that this Bill will assist.

[Alex Chalk]

Like the Chairman of the Justice Committee, I welcome these measures to modernise the process. However, this should not be allowed to distract from what remains a fundamental problem, which is that there are not enough people coming into the judiciary. We need to ensure that they are properly incentivised to do so and rewarded for doing so, because the backlog of cases in the Court of Appeal and elsewhere will not be resolved by these measures alone. Does he agree?

[Robert Neill]

I totally agree. These are useful, practical measures on their own, but they are by no means a solution to the problem. In fact, they are but a very small part of the solution.

I am a bit concerned by some of the Law Society’s suggestions in briefings that some of the broader programme of courts reform is posited on making savings in judicial posts and appointments of about £37.5 million. I hope that the Lord Chancellor—or the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), when she responds to the debate—will be able to set our minds at rest on that. We can make savings by using staff qualified at the appropriate level in what one might term purely interlocutory or procedural matters, but all the decisions on issues of substance in any case—whatever the sum involved or whatever the nature of the charge, in a criminal case—have impacts on the individuals concerned, and they should, in my judgment, be taken only by properly qualified lawyers in an open court process. That is important.

We cannot allow the valuable nature of this Bill to take away from the fact that we need an injection of resource into the criminal justice system. We are seeing a shortfall in appointments to the High Court bench on a regular basis. A number of hon. Members have talked about the integrity of our justice system and the importance of its legal standing, and the quality of the judiciary is key to that. We also see difficulties in making sufficient appointments—full time, at any rate—to the circuit bench. It is easier with recorders, I grant, because they are able to sit part time, but there is a real issue there.

There is also a real issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham knows, about morale. I think that the Lord Chancellor and the Under-Secretary of State understand that and take it on board. I do not expect them to be able to wave a magic wand and solve everything overnight, but it is important to stress these things. Technical changes are useful as far as they go, but they cannot underpin what is essentially a people-based system.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the excellent work that the hon. Gentleman’s Committee does on these and many other issues. I agree that there were perhaps things in the Prisons and Courts Bill that have not found their way into this Bill. He may agree that we should, none the less, take the opportunity of this Bill to try to sort out the problem of the previous sexual history of victims in rape trials being dragged through the court and used by the defence in an irrelevant way to undermine the complainant’s evidence, sometimes when applications are not even made to introduce this material. Does he agree that this Bill is an opportunity to deal with that problem? We know that this is happening, and it undermines getting rape convictions.

[Robert Neill]

I very much respect the point that the right hon. and learned Lady is making, but I must say to her frankly that I am not convinced that this Bill is the appropriate vehicle for dealing with that issue, although it is a real one, simply because the Bill is very tightly drawn in scope and relates to function. What she wishes to do—I understand why she may wish to do it—would have significant impacts on the operation of the law of evidence, which is a consideration that deserves to be looked at on its own. We probably have a shared view as to what we might want to achieve, but I am not sure that this Bill would be the right one to achieve it.

We do need to look very carefully at the whole approach to the way that previous sexual conduct is dealt with in rape and other sexual offence cases, but we also have to bear in mind—I say this as somebody who prosecuted and defended in these cases—that we should not assume that these issues will never be relevant to the key issue in the case. A balance has to be struck, and very often that is a decision that can only be taken by the trial judge in the light of the submissions made by the parties. I would not want us to restrict the ability of the trial judge to make that decision, because they are best placed to do that. However, the right hon. and learned Lady’s point about failure to follow the procedures and make proper application in advance, and enforcement of those procedures by the judiciary, is an important one that we certainly ought to take forward.

[Ms Harman]

Can I go back to plan B, then? Even if the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Bill is not the right place to address such a considerable evidential problem—and there is controversy around this—would he not, at the very least, like to see tucked in under clause 3, “Functions of staff”, an obligation on staff to record, when an application under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is made, what evidence was brought forward and what the result of the application was? There is an absence of evidence about what the courts are actually doing. That enables them to say that there is not a problem, when evidence such as that brought forward by Vera Baird, the police and crime commissioner for Northumbria, says that there is a problem. Does he agree that this Bill could at least get us recording that very important information?

[Robert Neill]

That is a very interesting and constructive point, because we do want to have an evidence base. Again, the only caution I have is this: is it appropriate to do that through a form of statute, or is it better done through placing that requirement in the criminal procedure rules? I am going to talk about the procedure rules in a moment. Either way, there should be a means of capturing that information, and I am very sympathetic to doing so. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Lady and I could talk with others about the best way forward on achieving that, because it should certainly be possible, with modern court technology.

[John Howell]

May I take my hon. Friend back to where he left off? Does he agree that the threat to the use of English law around the globe comes about from the efficiency or otherwise of the judges, and that the more that judges are unable to be efficient in giving a judgment, the more there is a threat to the use of English law? Does he agree that this Bill goes a long way towards trying to sort that out?

[Robert Neill]

Yes, I do. That is very important, and that is why it is not surprising that experienced former judges have expressed a view on this. We have referred to the former President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, and the immediate past Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I note also the observations of Lord Thomas’s predecessor, the noble Lord Judge. They all supported the thrust of this Bill in enabling more flexible deployment of judges within tribunals and the assignment of procedural matters to non-judicial court staff. They also warned about not unduly fettering the ability of the court procedure rule committees, which have on them practitioner representatives who are able to set matters in the light of their practical experience. That is absolutely right, and it in no way contradicts the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham about the need to have the requisite number of top-class members of the judiciary. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) that this is a sensible and proportionate Bill.

I want to touch on a couple of other points that relate to the issues legitimately raised by both the Law Society and the Bar Council. It is possible to meet their concerns in a proportionate way. I think it is fair to say that the Bar Council and the Law Society’s main issue, in terms of the scope of the Bill, has been the relationship to authorised staff. They make a fair point about the underlying issue of the courts modernisation programme, which I will touch on later. There was an acceptance in the other place that some types of procedure and hearing do not require a legally qualified person to deal with them.

However, we have to ensure that when the procedure committee draws up the rules around this—I welcomed the Government’s amendment, which gives greater clarity about how that will operate and makes it easier to achieve—it is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham said, placed in the invidious situation of trading off access to rights against costs. I have sympathy, therefore, for what underpinned the concern raised by the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), though I do not advocate the same solution. That balance cannot be allowed to be swayed unduly in terms of the transactional or the financial.

The right of reconsideration is worthy of consideration, and I hope the Government will look seriously at it. It is a question of the appropriate level at which to pitch that. Some of the matters that it is proposed be delegated are almost entirely procedural in nature. We should distinguish between delegating to a court official a procedural matter, such as granting an extension in time, which many of us probably think is not the sort of thing where the fundamental rights of a party are so affected that it requires reconsideration, and something that goes to the issue of the case, such as a summary judgment. The way forward is to give the rules committees the ability to reflect those distinctions, rather than to try to spell things out too much in statute.

It has been suggested that there should be a form of benchmark against which the rules and procedures operations are carried out. That may be worthy of consideration by Ministers, and it may be discussed in Committee. I would not want to tie people’s hands, but we could have some form of benchmark against which that is done, without falling into the trap that Lord Thomas, Lord Judge and Lord Neuberger counselled against, of overly restricting, over-legislating and tying the hands of the judges.

I take issue with the Opposition on this point. It is not right or desirable for politicians—who, by their nature in our system, are partisan animals—to seek to constrain too much the operation of the rules or procedure of the desirably and deliberately independent courts. We have to be careful about how we achieve a balance. Our job is to set the policy and legislative framework within which the courts operate, but if we get too far into the detail, we run the risk of trespassing on judicial independence, and also on efficiency.

There are good aspects to the Bill that I hope the House will take forward. I intervened on the hon. Member for Bolton South East to point out that it was Mr Joshua Rozenberg, the well-known journalist, who coined the phrase

“it is a little too late and quite a lot too little.”

In fact, to be wholly accurate, it was Lord Marks, a Liberal Democrat shadow Minister, who quoted it in the other place. It is a very good phrase, but it is harsh on the Bill. The Bill does good work within the scope that it seeks, but that does not mean we should not support the Lord Chancellor and his Ministers when they seek, as I am sure they will, to find the appropriate legislative time to bring forward measures on a number of other aspects of the former Prisons and Courts Bill, which was lost in the Dissolution.

The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and I have discussed some matters of criminal and family law in domestic violence cases that it is important for us to tie up. I stress strongly that much of these reform proposals stem from the excellent reports of Lord Justice Briggs and Lord Justice Leveson. Their reports were seminal in suggesting a modernising way forward, but taking that way forward requires the underpinning of statute. I urge the Lord Chancellor, who has been very patient in listening to us all, to make it a priority to persuade the business managers to find time for the legislative vehicle that will enable the modernisation of the court procedure rules on all civil matters to be brought forward. The Leveson proposals could have statutory underpinning in the same Bill. There is a real sense of uncertainty, referred to by the Law Society and the Bar Council, about the statutory underpinning for this ambitious courts programme. That was also picked up by the National Audit Office in its inquiry.

I welcome the Bill, and I support it as a valuable and worthwhile step forward, but—I think the Lord Chancellor would be the first to accept this—it is only one part of the programme that we need to deliver. We ought to get the Bill through the House as swiftly as possible and then move on to the next step. I note that Second Reading in the Lords lasted just under two hours, which shows that we can be both erudite and remarkably brief, which is perhaps an improvement on some debates we have here.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell]

I am sure some Members are distracted by that, but I am incredibly pleased that neither she nor I are, and that we are going to concentrate on the Bill in a very big way.

I mentioned in an intervention on the Lord Chancellor that I was actually the first Member of Parliament to go on the Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship in law. It was a particularly enlightening experience. I cannot remember the number of days that I was allocated, but I doubled the number of days I spent on it, because I spent most of the time sitting alongside judges, on the bench, listening to what they did. The number of different courts I saw was tremendous—I remember starting in the commercial courts, which I will come back to in a little while. They represented such a technological advance on all the other courts I sat in on, and that was a really good thing to see.

To go back to a point I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, the first thing that came out of that experience of sitting alongside judges was an absolute admiration for their integrity and for what they did and how they did it. The second thing was an understanding of how overworked they are. As non-lawyers, we perhaps tend to think of judges just turning up, sitting and listening to the case, and giving judgment, but the amount of preparation that goes into hearings is phenomenal. That was a good thing to see and experience, and it applied whether it was the bankruptcy court or the Court of Appeal, in which I sat on two occasions.

The point I made to my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor earlier was about the speed of justice. I am not a great advocate of speed in itself, but I think there is a threat to English law: not Brexit, but the ability of our courts to dispense justice on a timely basis. When I sat in with judges, I saw that they were often so preoccupied with the minor administrative elements of their role they did not have time to dispense justice in what I would consider a timely manner. That was the case whether I was sitting in a higher court or, in particular, in a tribunal—I will come on to tribunals in a moment. Efficiency in making judgments and delivering English justice is one of the hallmarks of the justice system and one that we lose at our peril. If that point alone is made, it is made well.

One issue I would like to raise, which may at first not seem immediately applicable to the Bill, is the age of judges. I believe it does apply to the Bill, because consideration is being given to other people taking on judicial functions. The point about age has also been raised in relation to the magistracy, and it also applies to lords justices and others. When the Lord Chief Justice appeared before the Justice Committee last week, we asked him about the age of justices and he explained that there were mechanisms by which they could be extended beyond the age of 70 in certain capacities. However, that is an artificial cut-off—if we were stopped from being MPs at 70, I think there would be shouts of horror. Some of us—I am nowhere near that age now—would consider that we were being cut off in the prime of our life. The same is the case with judges. They have acquired a tremendous amount of experience, principally as barristers. They have had a lot of judicial experience, and they are just coming to the point where they can use that experience in the best possible way. I therefore think it is necessary to look at extending the age at which judges retire to beyond 70. To be able to do that, we must look at the courts in a holistic way.

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The coalition Government, as I am sure he will know, increased the age at which members of the public could sit as jurors to 75. It seems quite bizarre that a lay person who is fit, healthy and willing to serve can sit as a juror up to the age of 75, but people of that age cannot sit as a judge of the High Court, the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court—unlike in the United States, where they can go on for a considerable time.

[John Howell]

I am not sure I would like to follow the experience of the United States in this matter, but my hon. Friend makes an absolutely first-class point. There needs to be a consistent approach to the age at which we can use people or force them to retire.

There is a lot to be said for the system in the Bill that would enable people to undertake some activities undertaken by judges. As an aside, I said that I am a non-lawyer, but I am currently seeking to extend my ability to undertake arbitration—I hope that that does not cut across or invalidate what I am saying. Such an ability is an important element of the mix that needs to be taken into account when we are looking at the judicial system as a whole.

When I was involved in sitting with judges for the fellowship, I was very much aware of the difference between courts in digitalisation and technology. In the commercial court, the system was utterly brilliant. I sat with a judge who was listening to an English law case in Portuguese. The transcript of the English translation appeared almost instantaneously on his laptop on his desk in front of him. The use of technology to get information out was absolutely fantastic. As I said to the Lord Chancellor, however, employment tribunals might as well have still been using the quill pen, they were so antiquated—not the judgments being made, but how the courts were organised and delivered justice. If we want access to justice, it is absolutely essential that the process of digitalisation in courts is seen through to the end. It materially influences access to justice.

When I sat in the Court of Appeal, prisoners appealed their sentences via video link. It was clearly not a good idea to bring the prisoners into court, so video links were used all the time to great effect, enabling judgments to be made. There were some discrepancies. For example, it took some time to get the focus right for some prisoners. I understand that that was due to the camera equipment, rather than the features of the prisoners.

When I started my work as chairman of the all-party group on alternative dispute resolution, I had the opportunity to speak to Lord Briggs about his proposals for the justice system as a whole. The Bill moves us closer towards what Lord Briggs was after, but it does not take us all the way to it. For example, the digitisation of divorce is welcome, but his proposal for online courts is very valuable. I know that that is controversial among lawyers, but it is important to enabling both the delivery of justice and access to justice. I would like that process to be extended beyond the scope of the Bill, so that we can receive and transmit electronic evidence in the handling of individual court cases. Anything that can move the legal profession into the 21st century is to be welcomed.

If I may, I would like to give a plug to the Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship. Having been the first to go on it, I recommend that hon. Members absolutely do so. The experience of sitting alongside judges is absolutely first class. My first appearance in court—if I can put it that way—was in a commercial court. I went to the court with the judge. We were just about to go through the door and I said, “I shall just go and sit at the back of the court.” He said, “What do you mean? You’re sitting up next to me in the court.” It was a great shock to me—

[Robert Neill]

A great shock to the defendant.

[John Howell]

It was a great shock to the barristers, particularly when I sat in the planning court and the barrister was well known to me. We played a little trick on him by coming in through different doors so that he was unaware of who we were.

The point of all that is that it is a very valuable training scheme. The more that people can go on it, the more there will be an understanding of the issues raised in the Bill and of the need to bring the courts into the 21st century.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I start by acknowledging some of the excellent contributions from Members across the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) passionately made a plea, and a very important point, on the impact on some of the most deprived and how we should always mitigate that. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the much respected Chair of the Justice Committee, made a very important point about the right to reconsideration, which I will come on to in greater depth.

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because it gives me the chance to do justice to his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), and to remind the House of my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which I should have done before. The hon. Lady and I had a minor debate about whether Lord Judge or Lord Marks quoted Joshua Rozenberg. We have now worked out between us that Lord Marks quoted him in a debate on this Bill, but that Lord Judge quoted him in a debate on another occasion—so they both quoted him, and he has been quoted twice here.

[Imran Hussain]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Justice Committee; he has saved me some time, because my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) asked me to clarify that matter in my speech.

I also acknowledge the contribution from the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), who rightly made the point about a consistency in approach across the judiciary and did so very well. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) spoke passionately about making our justice system the best in the world—which it already is, although we can improve it through further and better technology.

When the Government brought the Prisons and Courts Bill to the House, they declared an intention to reform our courts and judicial system. When that Bill fell because of the Prime Minister’s ill-fated decision to call a general election, they restated their intention for reform and brought this Bill before us. In opening the debate today, the Lord Chancellor spoke about court reform, new and innovative technology, and sweeping modernisation, yet the content of the Bill does not match his words. It is devoid of any substantial change that will encourage greater access to justice, and it wilfully omits—and even seeks to avoid—debate on the huge, pressing concerns present in our courts system. When seen in the wider context of the Government’s austerity agenda and cuts to the justice system, it seems to be less about reform and more about squeezing as much money as possible from the courts.

Even at first glance, this is a minimal, even empty, Bill—a view that is vindicated upon reading it in more detail. It contains provisions to extend the redeployment of judges, to rename some of the judiciary and to allow an increased use of the delegation of judicial functions to non-judicial staff. While all those measures have value, in no way do they capture all that is needed to reform our courts and judiciary. They are measures taken by a Government intent on introducing a drip-feed of legislation in the absence of their parliamentary majority, avoiding scrutiny. Not only have they omitted anything substantial, but they have drafted the Bill to avoid some of the most pressing issues facing the justice system. It makes no mention of measures to address legal aid cuts, court closures, judicial vacancies or the protection of domestic abuse victims. It is here where the real failures of reform lie.

On legal aid cuts, access to justice has been decimated. Spending has fallen by one third from £2.5 billion to £1.6 billion per year, and the number of civil legal aid cases has fallen from more than 500,000 in the year to April 2013 to just under 150,000 in the year to April 2017. Vulnerable people are being left unable to defend themselves in areas as fundamental as housing, employment, immigration and welfare benefits, and unnecessary costs are being created for the taxpayer as cases are going to court that could have been resolved earlier. Further costs for the public purse arising from cuts are causing issues such as poor health, homelessness and debt. When people lack the money or knowledge to enforce their rights, those rights are worth nothing more than the paper they are written on, yet the Bill fails to mention legal aid or the urgent need to reverse the changes imposed by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

On court closures, the Bill is silent and has closed down discussion on this equally vital issue for people’s access to justice. It fails to address the significant £1 billion-plus courts reform programme that is being pushed through, as the Lord Chancellor stated earlier—but without any proper scrutiny. Since 2010, the courts and tribunals estate has changed significantly, with hundreds of courts having been closed in the name of austerity, and that has hampered people’s ability to access justice.

Many claimants and defendants must now travel miles to access justice and uphold their rights, the Government having closed their local courts, but many lack either the transport or the finances needed to do so and as a result have lost what should be their guaranteed right to justice. The Government argue that their modernisation programme reduces the need for an expansive courts estate, but we are clear that courts reform should increase access to justice, not ignore its erosion, and that any modernisation of our courts system must not be a smokescreen for cuts and closures that will cause long-term damage to access to justice.

As mentioned earlier, the Bill should have done much more to address the appalling situation of victims of domestic violence being subjected to questioning by those who assaulted them. Women’s Aid found that almost one in four of survey respondents had been cross-examined in this way. That unacceptable situation puts the victims of abuse through yet more torment and hardship, for no conceivable reason. It is cruel and barbaric. Measures to prevent it from happening and protect victims are supported by campaign groups on women’s rights and domestic violence, including Women’s Aid, but yet again such measures are absent from the Bill, despite having been in the Prisons and Courts Bill. There is no excuse for the Government’s not having included such measures in the Bill: that should shame them. I hope they can explain when such measures will be introduced to rectify the situation.

Where there is change, it is change that the Government have failed to impose with sufficient protection, and it is here that we will seek to amend the Bill. On a point of clarification, I should say that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East did not mean to say earlier that we opposed the Bill: we will be abstaining today and tabling amendments in Committee. We are determined to deliver change and reform to the courts and judiciary, even if through the Government’s piecemeal efforts, but we are equally determined that it not be done at the expense of the judiciary, legal protections or judicial independence.

As the Government seek to delegate judicial functions to non-judicial staff, they must be careful of their use; they must not overuse non-judicial staff or use them as substitute judges to fill the significant number of judicial vacancies, which have risen to critical levels on their watch. Judges must absolutely remain at the top of their hierarchy in the courts, and their position must not be undermined by non-judicial staff assuming more and more of their functions. Granting further powers to non-judicial staff not only risks undermining the judiciary, but runs the even more dangerous risk of delegating serious judicial functions to unqualified staff.

It is important for the Bill to contain provisions that prevent excessive delegation, protect the reputation of the judiciary, and protect claimants, prosecutors and defendants from unqualified decisions. The Government ceded amendments to impose in primary legislation some restrictions on the type of judicial functions that authorised staff can discharge, but we need a strong further commitment; I hope that the Lord Chancellor and the Minister will strengthen their stance in that regard.

There are also insufficient protections for the expertise of our judiciary. Those would be provided through the imposition of a minimum standard on staff to whom decisions are delegated. The Government argue that authorised staff will not be making substantial decisions, but in his review of efficiency in criminal proceedings Sir Brian Leveson states that even non-contested elements of cases require experience, and Lord Briggs has said in his report that even if authorised staff are legally trained and qualified, they will not benefit from years of judicial experience in delivering the quality of services that is currently delivered by judges.

It is therefore extremely important that the decisions being delegated to authorised staff are appropriate to their experience and qualifications, as the prospect of non-qualified, inexperienced staff carrying out judicial functions is all too real and worrisome. When such staff make decisions, it is also vital for those decisions to be subject to a statutory right to judicial reconsideration.

The Government state in their factsheet that the functions and responsibilities delegated to authorised staff will be uncontested, but it is easy to see how that could shift in the future to authorised staff making contested decisions, particularly in the absence of a clear definition of what delegation can be given. Justice has said that some of the functions anticipated for authorised staff, such as extending time for service and taking pleas, may well give rise to contested matters and have consequences for cases. It is therefore essential for the Government to impose a statutory right to reconsideration for decisions taken by authorised staff—a view supported by the Bar Council. In not imposing such measures when the public have a real and reasonable expectation that significant contested decisions in a court will be made by a judge—or, if not, that there will at least be a right of appeal or review before a judge—the Government are also playing fast and loose with the public’s trust in the judiciary and the rule of law.

The Government may claim that the procedure rule committees could and would impose similar safeguards in any rules that they produce, but that is simply not good enough, given that their amendments fail to offer sufficient guarantees of a right of review. We think that, and so does the Bar Council, which believes that a further amendment is necessary to abate its concern that the Government could exert pressure on the PRCs to reduce the right of reconsideration to increase the turnover of cases and clear the backlog. We are adamant that any backlog must not be cleared through the removal of a fundamental legal right of reconsideration.

Let me end by confirming that we will abstain today, but look forward to the Government’s seriously considering our amendments in Committee. The Lord Chancellor opened the debate in a spirit of collaboration. I assure him that all our amendments are very reasonable, and I am sure that he is an amiable chap who will view them in the same light. If the Government want to deliver a worthwhile Bill, they must listen to these arguments, not throw them aside. They must consider them in Committee before returning the Bill to the House.

Leaving the EU: Legal Services

Robert Neill Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Djanogly]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Other jurisdictions are also mounting challenges. We must avoid doing anything that might impair the reputation of the sector.

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

My hon. Friend talks of the reputation of the sector. It is also about hard cash. At the end of the day, the legal services sector makes a contribution of about £25.7 billion per annum to the economy. It is really significant for our economic wellbeing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

I will be making the case that the hon. Lady has just put.

On labour mobility, the legal services sector has profited from the ability to attract talent from across the globe and the ability to work in the European Union. Frankly, many people going into the offices of a City law firm would be staggered by the number of nationalities and the depth of EU and world legal experience that we have in the UK. For instance, an American client would quite commonly run its European company acquisition strategy from London—because we speak English, yes, but also because they trust our jurisdiction and courts, and because we have European expertise here in London. We do not want to lose that. It is very important that a labour mobility framework that guarantees those abilities post-Brexit is put in place.

The legal services sector requires legal certainty throughout the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. Law firms and their clients are already, sadly, beginning to implement contingency plans and move business elsewhere. We now have a draft of a detailed transition agreement, and the sector believes, as I do, that that agreement must be confirmed as soon as possible to ensure the sector has the legal certainty that it requires.

[Robert Neill]

Does my hon. Friend agree that having a swift and clear transition agreement is important not just, as he rightly says, to give law firms the certainty they need to continue their operations, but to ensure for their clients contractual continuity and, above all, the enforceability of contracts and judgments in commercial matters and a whole range of other matters?

[Mr Djanogly]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. Avoiding a no-deal scenario and securing the right future relationship with the European Union is of the utmost importance. The APPG supports the view of the legal services sector that a no-deal scenario would be devastating to the sector and should be avoided at all costs. Of course, there have been significant recent developments. Last week, on 14 November, the Cabinet collectively agreed to the draft withdrawal agreement and the political statement on the future relationship. Following a special European Council meeting on 25 November, the Government intend to lay a final version of the agreement before Parliament for debate.

It needs to be recognised that the draft withdrawal agreement contains a number of positive elements for the legal services sector, including provisions on mutual recognition of professional qualifications and on lawyers continuing to obtain qualifications throughout the transition period, and clarity on continued recognition and enforcement of judgments and orders throughout that period. Lawyers will continue to have the right to represent a party in proceedings before the CJEU in all stages of proceedings where a case can be brought by or against the UK. The automatic transfer of an EU intellectual property right into an equivalent UK right before the end of the transition period is very welcome.

The non-legally binding declaration, however, is a work in progress. To be frank, it is worryingly brief and it is vague on services, especially legal services. The relevant part of the political declaration explains that the goal is to secure

“Ambitious, comprehensive and balanced arrangements on trade in services and investment, delivering a level of liberalisation in trade in services well beyond the Parties’ WTO commitments”.

It says that the Government will put in place

“Appropriate arrangements on professional qualifications.”

I have to say that this is pretty sketchy stuff, and so we continue to have concerns about the lack of detail contained within the political declaration between the UK and the EU.

First, it is pretty unambitious for the UK-EU agreement to say only that it will go “well beyond” the parties’ World Trade Organisation commitments, and it is likely to lead to significantly less market access for services. Secondly, like with the Government’s White Paper, there are concerns about the continued focus on regulatory flexibility, as I mentioned before. The preservation of the present system, whereby lawyers from EU member states, EEA states and Switzerland can practise freely across the continent, should be prioritised instead. Thirdly, it is good to see a reference to professional qualifications, but that only goes some way towards giving lawyers the ability to practise in the EU, and generally it is not their preferred route.

Fourthly, it is disappointing not to see a reference either to civil or commercial co-operation, unlike in the Government’s White Paper. The UK and the EU currently enjoy the gold standard in civil and judicial co-operation, which should continue. Fifthly, without an agreement on judicial co-operation, judgments made in UK courts might be unenforceable in EU countries in the cross-border settlement of trade disputes, which might result, for instance, in debts owed by EU entities to UK businesses not being recovered. It follows that uncertainty about whether judgments from UK courts would be enforced could make the UK less appealing as a jurisdiction of choice for contracts and dispute resolution, which would lead to the growth of competing jurisdictions.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) on securing the debate. I congratulate the all-party group on legal and constitutional affairs on its excellent report, which mirrors the Justice Committee’s conclusions in our report in the 2016-17 Session on the implications of Brexit for the justice system, especially in the areas that relate to co-operation in civil and commercial law. Our report, of course, went further and stressed the importance of continuing co-operation on criminal law and law enforcement, but our conclusions on the civil front are exactly in line with those of the all-party group. That is not surprising, because the evidence is entirely consistent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), who serves on the Committee with me, stressed the other issue that we want to raise: family law. This is not just about the clients of big commercial firms. The ability to enforce judgments makes a difference to parents who are seeking to get maintenance from a partner in another EU jurisdiction. At the moment they can enforce their maintenance agreement without any difficulty, but they would be at a grave disadvantage if they were not able to do so.

Many of us will remember the problems that arose in the past with the growth of what is called parallel litigation in family cases, in relation to divorce, financial arrangements and child custody arrangements. The last thing we want is a crash-out arrangement. In theory, that would mean that, as of 1 April next year, a parent in the UK and one in another EU jurisdiction would be capable of commencing parallel proceedings in family matters.

[John Howell]

My hon. Friend is stressing the role of the family courts, but he might also want to mention the ability to handle child abduction equally on both sides.

[Robert Neill]

That is entirely right. Some of the worst examples, before we developed the mutual enforceability of judgments, related to child abduction. In cases involving non-EU states, in which we are a third country, the parent here—frequently the mother—was at a significant legal disadvantage and did not have the protections that we have under the current arrangements, particularly the recast Brussels arrangements. I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that issue.

I want to make two other points very briefly. First, I support my hon. Friend’s point about English law. Those of us who have practised know that, because of the reputation of our system, it is almost the norm to find English law clauses in international contracts. We want that to continue, but it is concerning that the Bar Council and the Law Society have been reporting evidence—so far anecdotal, but strong—that the uncertainty and the risk of a crash-out arrangement without contractual continuity is leading some firms to advise their clients to have clauses excluding English law from contracts. It would be extremely troubling if that were to persist. The longer the uncertainty, the greater the risk.

Simmons & Simmons, a leading law firm, conducted a survey of clients in Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands to look at what the courts in those countries might adopt if we were a third country and could not rely on the current arrangements. It reported that 88% of clients—people abroad buying British services—thought that the Government needed to make an early public statement to remove uncertainty, and 50% said that, without that, they would be inclined to move away from choosing English law or jurisdiction clauses. The situation is urgent, so I will back the withdrawal agreement because it will get us into a transitional arrangement, which will give continuity for that period. More importantly, contracts will run beyond the date on which we leave, and significant commercial litigation will almost certainly take more than two years to work its way through. I hope that those issues will also be taken on board.

Will the Minister consider a couple of suggestions by the City of London Corporation and TheCityUK, to which I am grateful, about failsafe devices—I do not like to use the word “backstop”, because it has certain controversial associations—that we could have in parallel with seeking to get the withdrawal agreement through and get into the transition period? It has been suggested that it would be reasonable to look at a means of copying the text of the Rome I and Rome II regulations into our own private international law. Those regulations, of course, determine the applicable law for contractual obligations. As well as seeking the transition, many lawyers think it would be advisable to copy those texts—in parallel, I suggest, as a belt and braces operation—which are much superior to anything that went before, into our law. It is also important that we consider re-signing The Hague convention as an independent party. That would be a failsafe, not my preferred objective, but we need to have those eventualities in mind. That would assist with certainty.

In her Mansion House speech, the Prime Minister talked about the Lugano convention. I think that most people would concede that Lugano, in its original form, is nothing like as good or effective as Brussels I and II in their recast form. They are the gold standard that my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon referred to. Will the Minister take away the idea that, to get us anything like as good as we have under Brussels, any Lugano would have to be a Lugano plus plus plus?

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice, for giving way. The comments made in this debate bear a striking similarity to those made in the debate that followed the production of the Committee’s report. That just goes to stress the urgency of the situation. Law firms cannot wait forever to get a degree of certainty; the time for action is fast running out. Does he share my concerns about that?

[Robert Neill]

I agree that there is a danger of us becoming a legal version of groundhog day in these debates. I know that the Minister is absolutely committed to achieving continuity, but there is a real sense of frustration among practitioners because, although there are warm words, promises and statements of intent, and a Brexit law committee in which practitioners are involved is being set up, none the less, despite those strong wishes, the detail on future arrangements remains extremely scarce. If the Prime Minister succeeds in moving us on to the next stage, as I hope she does, it is absolutely critical that that detail is fleshed out at the earliest stage. I hope that we will take the opportunity of strengthening the political declaration that comes as part of the package with the withdrawal agreement, as the Prime Minister said today, so that it makes more reference to legal services in particular.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) on securing such an important debate, and I will touch on some of his remarks. He mentioned that the legal services sector contributed £26 billion to the economy. Like him, I look forward to hearing the Minister outline what her Department is doing to prepare for a hard Brexit, should that occur on 29 March.

My colleague on the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), mentioned a point made by Lord Chief Justice on the paucity of judges in the English system, which has come up from time to time in the Committee’s deliberations. I have made it a habit not to disagree with the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), because he is wise and rarely wrong, and he was right again, particularly when he brought up the potential position of family courts post-Brexit. He also mentioned that the discussion is akin to groundhog day, which I am pleased to tell him is on my birthday, so I look forward to a nice bottle of malt from him.

[Robert Neill]

Does the hon. Gentleman want single or double?

[Gavin Newlands]

Whatever the hon. Gentleman can afford; I would be most grateful.

On a more substantive point, we have heard today that Brexit has the capacity to complicate and disrupt every aspect of our lives. Over the decades, European co-operation on justice issues has undoubtedly led to countless criminals and victims getting justice. Brexit seriously risks that successful current arrangement for very little gain. It is vital that the UK Government do everything in their power to ensure that cross-border legal service arrangements are as close as possible to the current arrangements.

At the moment, it is unlikely that the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement will pass the House of Commons. On top of countless other problems, a no-deal Brexit would discard the agreement to have reciprocal recognition of legal qualifications. With their technical notice, the Government have provided something, but it does not provide anywhere near enough clarity on justice arrangements after a no-deal Brexit. I welcome the fact that under the withdrawal agreement, mutual recognition of legal professionals would continue at least during the transition period.

That is just one example that highlights how European Union membership benefits our justice system and society more widely. The Scottish National party will continue to argue that the best course of action for Scotland and the UK’s other constituent nations is full membership of the European Union. Failing that, even single market access via the European economic area and customs union membership would also allow current arrangements to continue unhindered.

We are hurtling rapidly towards a blindfold Brexit, with no clarity on what future arrangements will look like. Despite some of the welcome guarantees, we are still none the wiser about what the arrangements for legal services will look like. We remain gravely concerned about the future of legal services in Scotland and across the UK after transition. I urge the Minister and the UK Government, in the strongest possible terms, to get their act together and address that urgently in the future partnership arrangements.

No one can know for certain what will happen in the next few months, but it is clear that the Prime Minister will struggle to gain approval for the agreement, and a damaging no-deal Brexit is still a real possibility. As we heard from the hon. Member for Huntingdon in his opening speech, the mutual recognition of professional qualifications directive, the lawyers’ services directive and the lawyers’ establishment directive all provide reciprocal arrangements between EEA states for the recognition of qualifications, creating arrangements for European lawyers to register to practise permanently in another EEA state as a registered European lawyer. As the Government’s technical notice clearly states, if no deal came to pass, those reciprocal arrangements would cease to apply, which would result in a sharp end to them on 29 March. As we have heard in great detail, that would be an unmitigated disaster for law firms and lawyers who operate in the EU.

The Law Society of England and Wales carried out research on Brexit. Some £3 billion could be stripped from the sector’s turnover by 2025 if the UK crashes out of the EU without a deal, and a hard Brexit could cut the legal sector’s rate of growth by half. The UK is a world-leading centre in legal expertise, as we have heard, and that standing could be irrevocably diminished because of Brexit—“global Britain” indeed. The Scottish National party has been consistently clear that freedom of movement and all the advantages that it brings should be allowed to continue in Scotland. Ending freedom of movement will jeopardise the continuing success of the legal sector in a country that voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union. That will be heavily damaging and deeply unfair. It is vital that the legal sector continues to receive the benefits of freedom of movement, and retaining freedom of movement is the simplest way to secure that.

Andrew Langdon, Chair of the Bar, told the Justice Committee that

“without the free movement of lawyers nothing else of much importance will be salvaged”,

arguing that lawyers’ ability to represent local clients in cases with EU connections is important for the individuals and businesses they represent.

Stakeholders and leading legal experts are desperately calling out for clarity and decisive action from the Government. A sector that is especially vital to the UK economy is under threat, and our lawyers need answers beyond the transition period. If the Prime Minister cannot get an agreement through the House, we seriously risk subjecting the sector to further irreparable damage. It is therefore better to reverse the whole shambolic process and remain in the European Union, so that we would retain the benefits, not only in the justice system but in countless other areas that have enjoyed benefits for decades. At the very least, we should come to an agreement on retaining membership of the single market and the customs union, but if, as I fear, we do not, I suspect many Scots will feel that they have no choice but to exercise their democratic right to regain all those benefits by choosing an independent path of their own within the European Union.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

That is absolutely essential. More than half of our prisoners are currently presenting with mental health issues. When I shadowed a prison officer in Wormwood Scrubs last week, I had a long conversation with somebody who had attempted to kill themselves and had been hearing voices. That is not unusual. We have to work much more closely with the NHS. I am very pleased at the progress that the NHS is making, and I hope that future investment in the NHS and mental health will go directly into prisons.

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

The work being done by the Minister is very welcome, but will he also recollect that we need to start on preparation for release much earlier than the 12 or so weeks currently built into the contractual arrangements?

[Rory Stewart]

That is absolutely right. The key worker scheme that we are rolling out allows the prison officer to develop a relationship with an individual prisoner, to work with them on their sentence plan and education plan. One reason why it is so important is that it will help us to settle people into the community much earlier in their sentence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I think the Chair of the Select Committee should have a second bite of the cherry. I call Mr Bob Neill.

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

I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State has a particular responsibility to protect the interests of the judiciary. Recruitment to senior judicial office is a continuing problem, and there is a regular shortfall. He has indicated that he intends to consider seriously the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body. When can we expect a response to this, given that a number of important posts are due to fall vacant?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the shortage, particularly at the High Court, and it is right that we should look seriously at the proposals of the Senior Salaries Review Body. I am not going to put a date on when we will have completed that process, but it is important that when we do so, we get judicial recruitment on to a sustainable basis.

Future of Legal Aid

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2018 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I start by referring to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) for securing this debate on a very important topic.

I make no bones about approaching this debate with a rather personal stake. Before I came to this place, the whole of my working life had been as a barrister practising in the criminal courts, almost invariably publicly funded by legal aid to defend or by the Crown Prosecution Service or the Serious Fraud Office to prosecute. I hope I can recognise that this is not merely an academic matter. These things affect the lives of every one of our constituents and every Member of this House, regardless of party. I hope I will be able to approach the debate in that spirit.

It is a long history that we have to review. LASPO is just one step in the changes to legal aid that we have seen over the years. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) referred to the famous quote by Mr Justice Mathew, later Lord Justice Mathew. At the turn of the 20th century, he said that the courts of England are open to all like the Ritz hotel. I am sure the hon. Gentleman was not actually there at the time—I was not either—but it has become a stock phrase. The point, however, is that Mr Justice Mathew was being ironic; for those who did not have means, there was precious little access to the courts of England at that time.

After that period, we developed a system of legal aid over a number of years. I accept that I was to some degree a beneficiary of that system, but the system was necessary to ensure that justice was done. Thereafter, it may be argued—I think it was part of the rationale behind LASPO—that in some areas, the system did not work as efficiently as it might. I can think of rolled-up conspiracy trials that went on for about six months, where two barristers for each defendant would ask about one question a week. Frankly, that was not an expenditure that could be justified, and it was not targeting things in the right way.

The problem is that successive Governments seeking to reform—it is worth remembering that changes to legal aid did not begin with LASPO or the coalition Government; they were set in train initially, in some measure, during the Blair and Brown Governments—have run the risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In cutting down on some instances of needless expenditure that went beyond what was necessary to ensure justice, there is always a risk that the pendulum will go too far the other way. Having looked at the matter and tried as a lawyer to look at the evidence, I am sorry to say that I am driven to the conclusion that that is what has happened here.

The good news is that there is an opportunity to review things. It is a shame that it has taken so long, but we would all say, “Better late than never.” I know that the Minister is absolutely committed to ensuring proper, good-quality access for all who genuinely need it. I know her personal commitment to the Bar, the rule of law and our legal system and her personal experience of it, so I know she will approach this matter in the open-minded way she did when she was in practice herself. I urge her to look at the evidence. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith said, the evidence is pretty compelling that changes are needed. I do not expect her to say what those changes are going to be today, but I hope she will take away the message that the evidence does not purely come from pressure groups of self-interested lawyers. Nothing could be further from the case.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Does he agree that our international reputation is at stake? The legal sector is one of the most important in our economy. If we want to continue to be a country that has a global reputation, generating revenues for our economy in respect of international law, we need to ensure that we hold up equality of access to justice for all as a touchstone of our liberty.

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He speaks with great experience from his time in practice in serious criminal matters and from his work on the Justice Committee, to which I pay warm tribute. We cannot disaggregate the justice system. As part of our post-Brexit strategy and our “Britain is GREAT” campaign, the Minister’s Department is rightly proclaiming the value of our legal system and legal services, which is real and profound. Their integrity depends on the whole system being properly resourced and funded. It is no good simply to say that we have the best means of commercial dispute resolution and arbitration in the world. It is not enough to say we have probably the best system of civil justice across the piece in the world. It is equally important that we can say the same about our criminal justice system, our family law system and our tribunals system. They are increasingly relevant and important to the whole system.

[Ian C. Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech and an excellent point. May I add that we need to have a local justice system that works right across the country? Towns and rural areas also need access to justice for people in those areas. One of the real problems with the Government’s running of the justice system more broadly is that local justice has been profoundly undermined by lack of provision and court closures.

[Robert Neill]

With his experience, the hon. Gentleman makes an entirely valid point. The Justice Committee has looked at a number of those areas over the past two or three years or so, and we have looked at aspects of access to justice in all its forms. It is partly about legal aid, but there are other matters, too. I will concentrate on legal aid because that is the subject of the debate, but his point about other matters is entirely fairly and well made.

There is a clear case that in attempting to right what was perhaps extravagance in some limited areas, we may have inadvertently done injustice to potential claimants. We need to put that right. The first area that I would suggest to the Minister is important is funding advice, as has already been observed. The legal aid change was predicated—I was there at the time, as was the hon. Member for Hammersmith, and I was prepared to take this on face value—on the idea that it would be a good thing to move away from the comparatively adversarial approach to family cases to mediation and something much more collaborative. That has to be the right thing. The Minister’s Department is recognising that in another sense with the sensible proposals to reform the divorce laws to move away from a confrontational approach. The irony is that so far as legal advice and representation are concerned, those good intentions have not been followed through.

As has rightly been observed, early access to legal advice and a solicitor would point people in the direction of mediation. We can invest significant money in having much more public education so that people can assist themselves, but it may be just as cost-effective—I suspect it would be more cost-effective—to restore some measure of early advice in those family cases. Any good solicitor worth their salt will rightly advise their clients to adopt that course of mediation if it fits the circumstances of the case. Restoring the position there would be a sensible investment to save.

[Alex Chalk]

Does my hon. Friend agree that sometimes the best advice that a lawyer can give at an early stage is, “For goodness’ sake, don’t litigate”? If that good advice is given at an early stage, we can have a reasonable expectation that the courts will be properly allocated to deal with those disputes that they should be dealing with.

[Robert Neill]

Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. What he says applies not only to family work, but to any form of civil litigation and, in truth, to criminal work, too. When I defended people, I regarded it as my first and principal duty to give them an honest assessment of their prospects of successfully defending a charge.

[Mr Sheerman]

The hon. Gentleman and I both serve on the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice. I do not think that people are saying that the situation is due to malign intent. Many of the things that we are talking about today are unintended consequences. Certainly, it was not intended that there should be miscarriages of justice, or that people should be unable to get any professional help at all. The Ministry of Justice is tiny in the scheme of things, but its resources have been savagely cut.

[Robert Neill]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I agree that there was nothing malign in the intent. The changes were made at a time when the coalition Government were under considerable financial pressure because of the situation that we inherited. I have much sympathy with that, but to adopt the phrase of John Maynard Keynes, “When the facts change I change my opinion—what do you do, sir?” The Government need to do that too, because the evidence has been built up, and it is powerful.

For a number of reasons, it was thought necessary to introduce the LASPO reforms at some speed. They were probably not fully worked through, there was no chance to do sufficient impact assessments, and they were not tested. Again, it was not for a malign reason. At the time, there was a compelling budget imperative to get on with it, but it created unintended consequences. As the Prime Minister has observed, we are getting to a stage where, thanks to the Government’s good economic stewardship, we might be able to loosen the purse strings a little in some areas. That gives us the chance to adopt that Keynesian approach and adjust our conclusions to the fresh evidence that has come before us.

Early advice is essential. We have talked about family work and its importance in the criminal system. Any lawyer will advise his client, if the evidence against him or her is overwhelming, of the advantageous discount in sentence for an early plea. Proper advice by specialist lawyers saves time and money, and saves witnesses in criminal cases from the trauma of having to go to court. We should not forget that either, as it is an important part of the system.

Early advice is also important in cases of housing and debt, and related matters. People have come to my surgery, in a comparatively prosperous part of suburban London, having been in effect served with an eviction notice because they did not understand the court papers. Bailiffs were literally coming to the door. We cannot expect people who often have multiple problems in their lives necessarily to be able to resolve such things on their own.

We can certainly make the civil justice system easier to navigate. The reforms to an online court, for example, and better means of entering pleadings and dealing with smaller-sized claims are all perfectly worthy and worth while. However, ultimately, even if a computer can process the pleadings efficiently and effectively, it cannot advise someone on whether there is merit in their claim, whether they have a defence to an action brought against them or how they might best compromise the matter so that they do not, for example, end up on the street or saddled with significant debt. All those things require the legal element, and I suggest that there would be a saving in reinstating some funding there.

I keep in touch with many friends and colleagues at the Bar who now sit on the bench. I sometimes reflect that my career took a wrong turn somewhere along the line. The truth is that anyone in the judiciary—whether from the High Court or, perhaps even more significantly, down to circuit judges and district judges, who shoulder the vast volume of the work, as well as magistrates—will say that the amount of time that is now taken up by litigants in person is placing a serious burden on the system. I go to my local county court and talk to the district judges and the county court judge. Exactly the same thing can be seen at the magistrates court, and I have no doubt that it is replicated across the country.

It is generally thought that a litigant in person will take about three times as long to deal with a case than lawyers would, if they were involved. The upshot is that we are saving cost at one end of the system but piling it on in another part. The net benefit to the public purse is nil—perhaps even negative.

[Alex Chalk]

My hon. Friend has been so generous. Does he agree that one of the pillars of our world-renowned legal system is the integrity, skill and impartiality of our judges? It is no secret that they feel quite put upon at the moment, not least on pensions and other matters. Their time is being taken up with extremely complex issues where it is harder for them to achieve justice. Does he not agree that we should take that extremely seriously, so that we continue to have a pipeline of the brightest and the best?

[Robert Neill]

That is right. We could probably have a debate on judicial recruitment and retention.

[Alex Chalk]

Put in for it.

[Robert Neill]

Perhaps we should, and perhaps I will encourage my hon. Friend to join me in doing so.

Litigants in person are a real pressure on the totality of the court system, because if courts are being clogged up by cases that are being slowly presented—where the judge has to hold the litigant by the hand to take them through steadily and ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice—that uses up the time of the court building and the court ushers. It puts pressure upon listing, and means delays in other cases coming on. There are more likely to be adjournments because people will not have prepared the bundles properly or got their evidence together. That is all wasted cost in the system, which some early investment would save.

Those are key areas where more could be done. We perhaps need to look, too, at some areas in relation to tribunals—an increasingly important area of jurisdiction. Not all tribunal cases, of course, need legal representation, but they increasingly deal with more complex matters and more complex areas of law and of fact where it makes sense, for exactly the same reasons, to have proper legal advice.

Joining those thoughts together, I commend to the House the Justice Committee’s reports on access to justice, and on courts and tribunal fees. Although fees are separate from the legal aid regime, the unintended consequence of some of those changes was remarkably similar in making access to justice for deserving—that is the key bit—claimants more difficult. Finally, we recently wrote a report on criminal legal aid. I will end on that—it may be the subject on which I have spent most of my life.

We cannot have a situation where it is extremely difficult to get high-quality young lawyers to go into criminal work. The integrity of our system, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) referred, is seen most visibly in the way in which we deal with criminal cases. If the state, no doubt for good reasons, thinks it necessary to bring charges against an individual to be tested in our courts, it is only right and proper that that individual, having had the resource and power of the state brought against them, has as a matter of equality of arms and basic fairness the ability to defend themselves. To do that properly, they must be able to access lawyers who are as good, as well trained, and as competent as those who prosecute.

To do that, we have to be prepared to remunerate people. We cannot have a situation where criminal barristers are worse off, as they are under some aspects of the advocates’ graduated fee scheme at the moment, if they take on a complex and demanding case—for example, a multi-handed rape—as opposed to a single-handed offence of the same kind, because the extra work is simply not reflected in the fee. Those are precisely the cases— I did many of them myself—where experienced and sensitive advocates on both sides are critical. We are in danger of damaging the supply chain, as far as that is concerned.

It also cannot be right that the system does not remunerate defence lawyers for looking at the unused material in cases. Some of the main cases where miscarriages of justice have occurred, as you will know, Sir Henry, from your experience in these matters, are where there has been a failure in disclosure. Usually it is, as is often the case here, a result of unintended error. Although I have come across one or two cases where I could not say that that was the case, things genuinely go wrong, and it must be possible, in terms of the fairness of a trial, for the defence lawyers to be able to look through the unused disclosed material to ensure that there is nothing that might be exculpatory to their client.

That is only right and proper, and prosecutions have collapsed in high-profile cases because that was not properly done. People have been saved by the integrity of members of the independent Bar, on both sides, who took the opportunity, even though they were not going to be paid for the hours, to go through the unused material and highlight matters that meant that the prosecution could not safely proceed. It seems only right and just that the solicitors and barristers who were on legal aid on those matters should be paid for doing that, because we want to ensure that it is done properly. Let us face it: as those cases highlighted, the sooner it is done the fewer wasted hearings and adjournments, which have bedevilled some of those high-profile cases, there will be. It is not only the right thing but the common-sense thing to do.

We also need to recognise that early advice from solicitors at the police station is critical in criminal cases. Striking evidence was given to the Justice Committee inquiry that the average age of a police station duty solicitor is 47. Young people are not coming into the role because it is simply not remunerated well enough.

That all leads me to the conclusion that Lord Kerr got it right in his Supreme Court judgment on the Unison case. His view, to which I am driven by the evidence, was that regrettably, however good the intentions, the current arrangements under LASPO have adopted too transactional an approach to justice. He said that litigation is not merely a private transaction between parties; it also involves a greater public good. In that case, which was about employment tribunals, it involved the exposure of bad working practices and improvements that might stem from it, but the principle applies to any type of litigation. There is a public good in access to the courts that goes beyond the right—itself important—of the parties themselves to have access to justice. It is a bigger thing—a point that takes us back to our commitment to the rule of law, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham referred to.

I therefore urge a Keynesian approach on the Minister. Keynes was not always wrong, and he was certainly right about this. If we believe in following the evidence, as we all do in any legal process, and if the evidence indicates that things have gone too far the other way and we have the chance to change them, there is no shame in admitting that. It would be honest politics, good government and entirely consistent with the spirit that the Minister and her ministerial colleagues seek to bring to our approach. Where we can put things right, it is better to accept the position, act on the evidence and ensure that we have a better basis for legal funding and access to justice.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry, particularly given your personal interest in and commitment to this field of policy. It is also a great pleasure to follow two superb speeches that set out the broad range of topics that we need to cover. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on securing the debate and on his opening speech. I strongly commend the speech of the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill); I do not think I disagreed with a word of it.

The excellent briefings that we received in advance of the debate from a wide range of organisations come on top of a wealth of analysis that has already contributed to the debate, not only from the Justice Committee but from my own Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which produced a report including an analysis of many of the post-LASPO failings. The case has already been made, as we have heard today, but I wish to make a few remarks to convey not just an analytical concern for the post-LASPO world, but the real anxiety, passion and anger that so many people feel about the environment in which we find ourselves.

Yesterday morning, we marked Justice Week with a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on legal aid. We were very pleased that the Minister came to speak to us and that the meeting was very well attended, including by the Bar Council, the Law Society, parliamentarians, a great many people from the not-for-profit sector, and solicitors. We heard a compelling case for the central role of legal aid and for ensuring access to justice. We heard the message that the Government need to hear thunder reverberating, because every single prediction made before the passage of LASPO has come to pass. We heard that the situation has declined to the point that the criminal Bar has thought it necessary to take strike action and the Law Society is taking legal action against the Government. It is unprecedented in modern times for those organisations to feel compelled to take such strong action, but they want the Government to hear exactly what is going on.

Sadly, in Justice Week, we also learned in the Budget that the Ministry of Justice, which with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has already taken the largest cuts of any Department, is to be subject to yet another cut. It is an unprotected Department, and we now know that its budget will be cut from £6.3 billion to £6 billion. We are making the case for legal aid in a context in which justice funding is falling still further.

As we have heard, legal aid is in competition with many other areas of justice that are also under intolerable pressure. Almost every hon. Member in this Chamber has been present at debates that conveyed our anxiety about other creaking, breaking parts of the criminal justice system, so it is understandable that we are extremely concerned to ensure that the case for legal aid is not made at the expense of the prison service or the other parts of the justice system that are also under absolutely intolerable strain. In truth, the thunder is reverberating; it is just that the Government have not been listening.

I will not repeat in great detail the case that has been made so widely in this House and through the many forms of evidence submitted to the LASPO review about the consequences of areas of service falling out of scope and of the tightening of eligibility. The impact on providers has in turn had an impact on people—often the most vulnerable people—who need to be effectively represented.

[Robert Neill]

I agree entirely with the hon. Lady’s argument, and I am glad that she referred to Justice Week. Does she agree that it might be worth while for every Member of this House to watch the Bar Council’s video about justice cuts, in which several providers, as well as hon. Members, talk about the impact on the individual cases they deal with?

[Ms Buck]

Absolutely. I would love every Member of this House to watch that video and to be made aware of the case being made.

We know what is happening to legal aid providers. Law centres lost 60% of their income from legal aid post LASPO, and in the immediate aftermath we lost eleven law centres. I pay tribute to my own centre, Paddington law centre, which provides such an essential service. I also commend North Kensington law centre—this country’s first law centre, which I used to represent but is now just outside my constituency—for doing such extraordinary work in the aftermath of Grenfell.

Law centres are indispensable; they are an integral part of effective community life. The Chair of the Justice Committee was absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that justice is not a private transaction. These services—particularly law centres, but not only them—are part of a healthy community and a strong civic life. The consequences of undermining them go far beyond the individuals concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on securing what has been an excellent debate.

I start by picking up on a couple of comments from the contributions so far, not least on the matter of self-representation and the fact that it leads to an increased potential for miscarriages of justice. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who has just left his place, mentioned the importance of the rule of law. Over the last couple of years, there has been an increasing reference to the rule of law in this country, as part of the debate on restoring our sovereignty; it is becoming much more important to people and is much higher up the agenda. It must be reflected in a strong and impactful justice system. Without it, we cannot continue to consider ourselves a bastion of extraordinary strength in our legal framework.

More and more in my constituency surgeries, I receive queries on matters such as immigration, although housing, welfare and family matters are also prevalent. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) about the advice that is being given to people in quite complex circumstances. Very often, people arrive at my door having been given advice on Home Office procedure or relevant sections of Home Office codes and regulations by paralegals or so-called legal advisers, who are not solicitors. They have paid thousands for this erroneous advice. Those in my office, who are also not legally qualified, have to untangle the mess. Thanks to the expertise of our own Library and the resources that we have access to, we are able to point them in the right direction and give the right kind of support that they need.

There is much in this debate that I am sure the Minister is listening to very carefully. As has been mentioned, a number of advice briefings have been circulated ahead of this debate. I read the Mencap briefing, which really resonated, especially in terms of the reference that it made to low levels of legal literacy among the general population, and to the fact that there is very limited access even to basic advice, with people increasingly becoming more reliant on organisations that are unable to take on legal cases. They might be able to advise up to a certain point, but they are unable to take the matter forward and provide representation, with the result that people, without that background of knowledge and perhaps without the skills to take their case forward fully are left without a full level of support in their case.

[Mr Adrian Bailey in the Chair]

The Mencap briefing refers to the suggestion that the Government should address the problems with the supply of specialist solicitors. That is the reason why I wanted to participate in this debate and the reason for my concerns about the lack of availability of solicitors, particularly in areas like Grimsby, and around responsive criminal matters. The Library debate pack reminds us that, as we have heard already, there have been

“significant changes to criminal legal aid, particularly in relation to means testing of applicants and to rates of pay for solicitors and barristers undertaking criminal work.”

It notes that most of that has come through secondary legislation. That has made it even harder for solicitors to continue to run their practices.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) highlighted the issue of access to justice in towns, but in towns such as Grimsby, lots of solicitors have closed down their practices and moved to nearby cities, where they are more assured of getting additional work, or they have completely changed their area of speciality. The awful thing is that that fact, which I believe has come about because of the limitations around legal aid, is now being used as part of the evidential base in consultations on future local court viability.

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point about the impact on firms of solicitors. I wonder whether she might be interested to know that evidence given to the Justice Committee suggested that when the Solicitors Regulation Authority took data from some 2,000 firms, 5% were at high risk of financial difficulty and 45% were at medium risk—so half were running some risk of financial difficulty. The prime mover in that was exposure to having more than half their fee income from criminal or family legal aid. It is forcing firms out of business.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I thank the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for applying for this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn).

Every single one of us here has similar concerns about the severity of the cuts. Today we have been highlighting the impact that the LASPO Act has had on our constituents and our communities over the past five years. I will speak specifically about Wales because of the particular issues there. They will of course be common to much that has already been raised, but it is important that particular needs are considered. Wales has experienced the largest decline in legal aid providers over the past five years—a decrease of 29%—and today I will talk about the impact on housing, criminal legal aid, and the experience of victims of crime, particularly in the family court.

Legal aid in the housing sector has been particularly hard hit owing to the rates set by the Government, which have left Wales with only one housing legal aid provider in half of the procurement areas and a host of problems. First, families on low incomes might not be able to travel to see the only provider in their area, which might be located many miles away from where they live, because of travel costs and the availability of public transport. That is particularly true in rural areas. The inability to seek essential legal advice can, in the most extreme cases, result in homelessness. Secondly, one firm in a large area might not have capacity to provide advice to those who need it. People requiring legal aid advice on housing issues often need advice urgently and cannot afford to go on a waiting list. Thirdly, conflicts of interest can arise because one law firm cannot represent both tenant and landlord, or represent a tenant if the landlord is engaged with the firm on another matter. We have a real concern about conflicts of interest.

I welcome the recent High Court ruling in favour of the Law Society, confirming that the UK Government’s latest cuts to the pay of criminal lawyers are unlawful. Criminal law duty solicitors, as we have heard, are already in high demand, and we have good grounds to believe that the situation will worsen if present trends continue. In Wales, where we have a specific need for people who can operate professionally through the medium of Welsh—a very real need in the county of Gwynedd and other communities in rural Wales—the shortage is even more exaggerated. In future, who will be able to provide that which we have a right to—justice in English and Welsh—if we do not have those people coming through?

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Lady might like to know that the figures provided to the Justice Committee in relation to mid and west Wales suggest that 60% of criminal law duty solicitors were over the age of 50. That situation clearly is not sustainable.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

The hon. Gentleman has just anticipated one of my next sentences. We have an ageing specialist profession, many of whom are able to operate through the medium of Welsh, and we are not seeing those skilled and important individuals coming through. Unless the Government reverse the cuts and provide an incentive for more people to train in criminal law, they will seriously threaten the right of individuals to access independent expert legal advice in either Welsh or English free of charge when detained by the police.

Finally, I want to explain how the cuts to legal aid are putting victims of domestic abuse, stalking and harassment in further danger and forcing them to come face to face with their abusers. Even if that was never the intention, that is the result. A survey of 122 victims of stalking and domestic abuse conducted by Plaid Cymru found that 55% of victims had court proceedings taken out against them by their abusers, despite restraining orders being in place, and two thirds of the victims then had to appear in court. Although it might be unintended, that snapshot is extremely revealing. Due to the cuts in legal aid, many abusers were not given free legal representation, so they represented themselves. It is distressing enough for a victim of abuse to have vexatious proceedings—they are too often vexatious—taken out against them and to have to appear in court, but a third of the victims had to go through the trauma of being personally cross-examined by the person who had been stalking and relentlessly harassing them, who had made their lives such a misery that they had had to take out a restraining order against them. Again, that might not have been the intention of the legislation, but that is the result. It is in no circumstances safe; nor is it a responsible or just way to treat victims.

The situation is the result of unyielding cuts to legal aid. I do not think that the UK Government anticipated that victims of abuse would bear the brunt of the cuts in such a way, but unfortunately that is the case. Many people predicted such results, and the evidence that has come to pass proves them correct. Again, I echo fellow Members here when such evidence is presented to us. I sincerely hope and I believe that the Minister feels strongly on this matter, too. We need to resolve this. We have the evidence and time has passed. We are seeing the evidence in our constituency meetings and hearing it from legal experts, of whom I am not one, but this issue cries out to be addressed.

The principle of equality before the law should be upheld. A valid justice system must enable everyone to access legal advice. It must not remain a privilege afforded only to the wealthy.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on securing the debate. As the shadow Justice Minister when the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 was going through the House, he has considerable knowledge of the legislation. He mentioned the law centre in this constituency, but he did not mention that he has been a board member of that law centre for 30 years. I am sure he has contributed to the services that it provides. Like him, I pay tribute to the work that Carol Storer has done over the past decade as the director of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group. This week, she was rightly nominated for LawWorks’ outstanding contribution to access to justice award.

We have heard some very powerful speeches from across the House, and I have listened carefully, as have my officials. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) made the important point that this debate is about matters that affect people’s lives. At various points, an impartial observer might have thought that this Government spend a paltry sum, or no money at all, on legal aid but that is not the case at all. Legal aid has always been and remains available for the highest priority cases where people are at their most vulnerable: when they are about to be made homeless or to lose their children, or they are accused of a criminal offence that may result in the loss of their liberty.

I want to make it clear, as I have many times, that the Government make a significant investment in legal aid. We spend £1.6 billion a year on it, which is a fifth of the Ministry of Justice’s budget. That is in addition to other sources of funding to ensure justice and the fair determination of rights: in the last three years we have spent almost £6.5 million in addition through the litigants in person support strategy.

The Government have not stood still on legal aid. Over the past year, we have improved its provision in a number of areas. In January we broadened the accepted evidence for domestic violence and reduced all time limits. In February we broadened the scope of legal aid for prisoners, and in June we updated the legal guidance for inquests on deaths in custody. I recently committed to laying an amendment to LASPO, to bring immigration matters for unaccompanied and separated migrant children into the scope of legal aid. We are also reviewing the provision of legal aid for parties involved in inquest proceedings, examining both the scope and eligibility criteria.

[Robert Neill]

I recognise and welcome the positive changes that have happened since the Minister has been in the Department. On the total spend, does she agree that, although we provide significant sums and compare well with other common law jurisdictions, a fifth of Ministry of Justice expenditure is a fifth of 1% of total Government expenditure? When we look at the scope for additional funding, we are looking at increasing a fraction of a fraction.

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable and experienced in many matters, including this one. He does a great amount of work on behalf of the legal aid professions and people who use the services we provide through Justice. As always, he makes an important point. I have listened carefully to all the points that have been made in this debate and throughout my time as Minister.

I will answer some of the many points made in the debate—you are right that I will not have time to respond to all of them, Mr Bailey. The hon. Member for Hammersmith spoke about the provisions in the Budget, but failed to mention the provision to build a new prison at Glen Parva, £30 million for prisons, and £20.5 million for the wider justice system.

A number of Members mentioned that legal aid is not provided in a number of areas. It is important to be clear about where legal aid is available and where it is not; we are reviewing where it is not available and has been taken out of scope. One reason why people do not access legal aid may be that they do not think it is available at all. Where we provide it, we need to say loud and clear that it is available. Some Members mentioned the lack of availability for housing and medical negligence, but the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) rightly acknowledged that legal aid is available when a person’s house is at risk of repossession.

Civil Liability Bill [Lords]

Robert Neill Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman’s arguments are ones that the legal community often advance, whether in this arena or others, to justify very high levels of legal and judicial intervention, which is often very expensive. We need to maintain a sense of proportionality, lest legal costs and expenses get out of control.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chris Philp]

I shall in just a moment. I have seen figures suggesting that 47% of the pay-outs made by insurance companies for these relatively minor road traffic injuries get consumed by legal fees. If such a high proportion of pay-outs is being consumed by expenses, it suggests to me that the entire system is out of proportion, and that some reform is therefore needed. I give way to the Chair of the Justice Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

I am afraid that my hon. Friend is not making the best case on the Government side that I have ever heard. Does he accept that lawyers act in the interests of their clients and that when they do, they are bound by professional obligations? Is not a better point that we should assist people through the system by working up a very good and accessible online portal, which the Minister has sought to do, so that we find the means of balancing cost with people’s ability to seek access to justice? I gently say to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) that that is perhaps a stronger point that the Government have been able to advance. The Minister has taken care to delay the implementation of aspects of the Bill in order to get the online portal up and working, and I suggest that that might be a more fruitful area to consider.

[Chris Philp]

I am always delighted to take advice and guidance from such a distinguished, learned and experienced Member as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). He adds further weight to the case by drawing attention to the benefits of the online portal, which I hope could be used to further simplify such matters and enable claimants to manage them, rather than having to rely on lawyers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

Clearly the number of injury claims made via an insurance company is not related to the number of police officers on the street. The hon. Lady mentions the slight but welcome reduction in the number of whiplash injuries. Over the same period, the number of claims to insurance companies for back injuries has increased, so the total number of claims is down only very slightly over the last couple of years, and is still dramatically up over 10 years, which is clearly a more meaningful period. When the two are taken together, therefore, there has not been a significant reduction.

[Robert Neill]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chris Philp]

How could I possibly resist my hon. Friend?

[Robert Neill]

The House will know about my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned claims management companies. Would he agree that some of the concerns about balancing access to justice with discouraging fraudulent claims—we all agree about them—would be met by continuing to revise and strengthen the regulation of claims management companies, which are not regulated to the degree that solicitors are, and in particular by bearing down on the employment of paid McKenzie friends—non-qualified, quasi-lawyers who are particularly rife in the claims management sector? Will he work with me in persuading the Government to move swiftly to ban them?

[Chris Philp]

Once again my hon. Friend makes a very good point—two very good points, in this case. The operation of claims management companies, which have been actively engaged in encouraging the public to commit fraud, has had an extremely negative effect in this area. I want an outright ban on them making cold calls, but I am slightly concerned that even if the Government take all the action that he and I would like, these people, being extremely adept in such matters, would adapt their behaviour to circumvent the legislation and regulation. For example, they might start making cold calls from outside the UK’s legal jurisdiction, as we saw following the ban on referral fees that came into force two or three years ago. Insurance companies were banned from receiving referral fees from claims management companies, but some insurance companies and claims management companies sought to circumvent the ban by setting up what they euphemistically termed “alternative business structures”, whereby the claims management company effectively remunerated the insurance company via an equity stake rather than a referral fee. I am therefore concerned that even if we take all the action we can, these often rather dubious characters will find new and ingenious ways of circumventing the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which should, to some extent, reassure the hon. Member for High Peak, some of whose arguments rested on damages in the workplace. The rise to £5,000 does not relate to damages in the workplace. As has been pointed out, it relates only to whiplash injuries suffered in a vehicle.

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I take on board his point that the appropriate test for a small claims regime is complexity or otherwise, but will he recognise that there is a risk that perceived complexity might make claimants vulnerable to the operations of claims management companies, which do not have the high standards and good regulation of personal injury lawyers, as he rightly recognises? What safeguards do the Government intend to put in place beyond this Bill and more generally to make sure that we do not have a displacement effect from well-regulated personal injuries lawyers to unregulated, unscrupulous claims managers of the kind to which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) and others referred? What more can we do to safeguard against that unintended consequence?

[Rory Stewart]

This is an issue on which my hon. Friend has been very thoughtful in his role as Chair of the Justice Committee. There are obviously three things that we are endeavouring to do and we are open to more ideas. One of them, of course, is that, through this package of measures, we disincentivise claims management companies from having a significant financial interest in pursuing this type of case. The second, as my hon. Friend pointed out, is the setting up of an online portal to reassure individuals that they will have a more predictable, more transparent and more straightforward system for pursuing their claims in person. Finally, through consultation with the judiciary, we are looking at the issue of paid McKenzie friends. We are waiting for the judiciary to report back so that we can take action on that issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Simon Clarke]

It is a pleasure both to speak in support of the Bill and, unfortunately, against the amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero). It is really important that the Bill is proportionate in achieving the outcomes we want of ensuring that the public get the protection they need from injuries that can be so devastating, while at the same time compensating them in such a way that we do not burden the wider consumer with unsupportable bills. Earlier, I spoke about the fact that premiums need to remain affordable.

Amendment 2 would remove the ability to set a fixed tariff for whiplash compensation in regulations. As I mentioned earlier, the tariff system will ensure that claimants receive a proportionate level of compensation. This will significantly reduce and control the spiralling cost of whiplash claims and disincentivise unmeritorious claims. As with any such tariff system, I can understand the concern that it may not provide the flexibility necessary to ensure that compensation accurately reflects the true nature of someone’s injuries.

However, the Government have taken a number of important steps to ensure that such flexibility still exists. First, the tariff would not be flat for all cases, but staggered, depending on the severity of injury. Secondly, in addition to a tariff payment, all claimants will continue to receive special damages covering compensation for any actual financial losses suffered as a result of their accident. Finally, clause 5 gives the court discretion to deviate from the tariff in exceptional circumstances and when it is clear that a higher level of compensation would be appropriate.

This therefore seems to me to be exactly the type of Bill we should be bringing forward. It is sensible, and it does indeed allow us to provide the protection that people need, without the risk of putting up premiums. I do not believe that amendment 2 would achieve very much, other than wrecking the central point of the Bill, which as I say is to achieve such an upsurge in affordability.

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Opposition Members have referred to the Justice Committee’s report, but has he noted that although the noble Lord Woolf was indeed critical of the changes in the terms that have been quoted today, the noble Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, a former justice of the Supreme Court, did not have an in-principle objection to the tariff system? Does he agree that the devil in the detail is what will be in the regulations on the exceptional circumstances uplift and how that will apply? Is he, like me, pleased to see that there is a commitment to consult the Lord Chief Justice on those regulations, and does he agree that it is important that that consultation is real, thorough and detailed?

[Mr Clarke]

My hon. Friend speaks with the authority of not just a Select Committee Chair but someone who thinks deeply about these issues. There are safeguards built into the Bill, precisely to ensure that we achieve the robust, balanced and responsive framework that good legislation should aim for. I noted earlier that the Lord Chancellor will have a duty to keep all the relevant legislation under review on a triennial basis, so there will be checks to ensure that compensation thresholds do not become wildly out of kilter. Indeed, part of the reason why the Bill is necessary is that the thresholds have been allowed to drift for a very long time without being amended. That has led to a more dramatic uplift than is customary or than I would ever hope to see in future. We want to ensure that we always have a rolling programme rather than dramatic changes, which unfortunately affect more people than a more staged mechanism would. However, that does not mean that there is not a case for acting, so unfortunately I cannot support amendment 2.

--- Later in debate ---

Where we are is exactly where we should be: it is absolutely right that we should be setting a tariff on these injuries and that there is some degree of political oversight of that process. It is not right, however, that judges should exclusively be in charge of the tariff rates. There is a role for the courts, but there is also a role for the Executive, and that is captured in this proposed legislation.

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is making some fair points. He says that this is not necessarily a role for judges, but would he conclude that while it may well be, as Lord Brown said in the other place, appropriate for Government to legislate for tariff-isation as a matter of policy, the views of the judges must be fully taken into account by way of consultation in setting what the level or quantum of that tariff should be and how it should operate and what practical impacts it should have?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My understanding given the nature of the Bill is that there is ample scope for a dialogue or conversation between judges—the judiciary—and the Government. However, what I am reluctant to see, and what I think many of our constituents and voters would be reluctant to see, is the power exclusively residing in the hands of judges. The Government have a duty of care to the taxpayers and to people who have insurance to try to keep these costs low. It is very funny to see Opposition Members frowning when I suggest the Government have a role to play. They are on the side of the political argument that believes in wholescale nationalisation; they want the Government to control everything. Yet in this particular instance they are expressing surprise and bewilderment, and I suggest that is completely spurious and fake.

[Robert Neill]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the logic of his position, which I understand, is that if we are to have credibility in taking this policy decision, those savings must actually be passed on to motorists? Does he recognise that there has been some cynicism about that in the past? We need to have mechanisms to measure very carefully that the insurance industry comes up to the mark, because it has not always had a terribly good track record in the past on that?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I agree with my hon. Friend. He is right that the insurance companies have in the past—I stress in the past—had a questionable record on some of these issues, but I repeat what I said on Second Reading: it is entirely unhelpful to bash the insurance industry or denounce it as a bunch of shysters who are ripping the public off. As I said in that debate, the insurance industry is one of our world-leading industries. We should celebrate it and be grateful for it: our insurance industry is a world-beating industry. There are not that many industries left in Britain that we can call truly world class, but the insurance industry happens to be one that is. It was nauseating and disconcerting on Second Reading—it has not happened so much today—to hear speaker after speaker on the Opposition Benches denouncing the insurance industry. They were scandalised that, God forbid, the industry should make profits, as though making a profit were in itself a moral crime. We have to try to shift the nature of the debate. The insurance industry is a world-beating industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) has suggested, we need to have some oversight to ensure that savings are passed through to the customers, our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

I again thank all Members who have participated.

Amendment 2 relates centrally to the core of this Bill, which is about the question of the setting of tariffs. We have discussed this with great verve and vigour from many different sides. The first debate that has taken place in the last hour and a half has been about the purpose of these tariffs: why we are introducing them in the first place. The reason why comes out of a perception of an anomaly. That anomaly can be seen either, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) pointed out, in terms of the fact that the number of car crashes is coming down and cars are getting safer, but at the same time the number of whiplash claims over the same period has increased dramatically; or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) pointed out, in terms of national differences. There are many more whiplash claims from Britain per head of population compared with Germany or France, leading to my hon. Friend speculating on biological differences.

The second debate has been about proportionality. That argument was made by, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke). He was essentially arguing, along with the former president of the Supreme Court, Lord Brown, that there needs to be a closer relationship between the amount of compensation paid and the nature of the injury suffered. As Lord Brown said in the House of Lords:

“lesser injuries were altogether too generously compensated, certainly in comparison to the graver injuries”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 May 2018; Vol. 791, c. 306.]

The idea of proportional compensation for a type of injury was central to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) reminded us that the former Labour Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, had serious concerns about compensation for soft tissue injury and that this form of car insurance is mandatory, putting a particular obligation on the House of Commons when it considers it. But, characteristically, the most “sensible, proportionate and calibrated” speech came from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who, by using those three adjectives to define the nature of the tariffs, brought us, in a huge move, from jurisprudential reflections on the nature of tariff systems to a disquisition on rural transport in Cheltenham. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) brought it down to earth with a good focus on safety in vehicles.

[Robert Neill]

I cannot let the Minister move on from the important and significant points of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) without observing that he emphasised the role of the Lord Chancellor in consulting with the Lord Chief Justice in the setting of the tariffs. That is an important safeguard. Can the Minister tell us a little more about how it is envisaged that that will work?

[Rory Stewart]

Absolutely. This is a concession that we have inserted into the Bill partly due to pressure from my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Justice Committee, and from other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson). It means that the Lord Chancellor, when reflecting on the nature of the tariff in a judicial capacity, will consult the Lord Chief Justice. That concession in the Bill, combined with the strong emphasis on judicial discretion allowing the tariffs to be uplifted, will be central to our attempt to reconcile a tariff-based system with the tradition of English common law. Through it, we hope to address some of the concerns raised by Lord Woolf.

We have discussed the purpose of the Bill, and the way in which getting rid of the tariffs as suggested in amendment 2 would undermine the central purpose of getting a more affordable system into place. We have made a number of concessions in order to meet concerns raised by many distinguished colleagues around the House, including individuals with experience of personal injury law and those with experience as constituency MPs of the honourable and serious work done by personal injury lawyers. I shall show respect to the House and touch on some of those concessions.

In the initial proposals put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn of 2015, the suggestion was that there would be no general damages payable at all. That was roughly the argument made by the former Labour Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw. We have moved away from that position and accepted that general damages should be paid, but we have suggested that there should be a tariff for those damages. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) has said, we will consult the Lord Chief Justice on that tariff and there will be judicial discretion. There is a precedent on tariffs—they exist in Italy and Spain—and there is even a precedent in English common law in the criminal injuries compensation scheme.

The benefits that we believe a tariff system will deliver include a reduction in the cost of this form of transaction and, hopefully, through that, a reduction in the number of potentially exaggerated or fraudulent claims. That would have an advantage for general public policy in that people would not be encouraged to make fraudulent claims. We believe that the system will also provide certainty and predictability to claimants, especially when they are connected to an online portal that will ensure that they follow a particular sequence. They will proceed to the online portal, then, for the first time, they will be required to go to a medical practitioner specialising in whiplash claims who would give them a prognosis of, for example, six months, 12 months or 24 months. On the basis of that prognosis, through the portal, a fixed tariff would then tell them exactly how much they would be given. This should mean that in the overwhelming majority of cases there would be absolutely no requirement to proceed to court. In any cases where we did proceed to court, we would rely on the small claims process in order to settle the claim, using the tariffs to reinforce the process.

The speeches so far have not touched on Government amendment 1, which I hope all Members, including Opposition Members, will be happy to accept. Clause 5(7)(a) states that the term “tariff amount” means

“in relation to one or more whiplash injuries, the amount specified in respect of the injury by regulations under section 3(2)”.

Clause 3(2) refers to the

“amount of damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity payable in respect of the whiplash injury or injuries”.

In other words, clause 3 refers to “injury or injuries”, whereas clause 5 refers simply to “the injury”. The proposal in Government amendment 1, recommended by parliamentary counsel, is that we deal with the discrepancy by inserting “or injuries” after “the injury” in clause 5(7)(a). I hope that the Opposition will be happy to accept that suggestion.

That brings us back to the central issue of the way in which tariffs are set. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) focused a great deal on the notion that the tariffs were somehow inequitable in terms of the damage that individuals have suffered. The hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) said several times that we should not refer to these types of injuries as minor. I want to emphasise that the phrase “minor injuries” is derived from Judicial College guidelines, not from the Government or any political party. It is simply a long-standing convention to refer to injuries of under two years’ duration as minor injuries, and that relates to Sentencing Council guidelines for injuries of under two years’ duration.[Official Report, 3 December 2018, Vol. 650, c. 6MC.]

As hon. Members have pointed out, people who suffer, particularly from whiplash injuries of longer duration, might also lose earnings, have considerable medical costs, have to go to a physiotherapist and so on. Although those arguments were well made, for example by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) on Second Reading, they overlook the central fact that the tariffs will apply only to general damages. An individual who has suffered loss of earnings or who needs extra care costs can apply for special damages in the normal way. The Government propose no change to special damages.

On the arguments of the hon. Member for Hammersmith about the levels of the tariffs, we have attempted to achieve a reduction in the tariff at the lower end. For example, an individual who suffers an injury of under three months’ duration could receive damages considerably less than those in the current guidelines, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that, as we approach a duration of two years, the compensation offered begins to merge much more closely with the existing guidelines at a level of £3,600.[Official Report, 3 December 2018, Vol. 650, c. 6MC.]

In addition, as the Chairman of the Justice Committee pointed out, the levels of the tariffs are currently proposals about which the Lord Chancellor will consult the Lord Chief Justice. He will do that not just once but regularly, on a three-yearly basis, to ensure that our calculations on pain, suffering and loss of amenity reflect judges’ views.

It must be remembered that, ultimately, judgments on pain, suffering and loss of amenity are difficult. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) pointed out, the question of how much compensation somebody receives for a loss of earnings is relatively easy to calculate, because the figure can be derived from the earnings. The amount of money to which someone is entitled for medical costs is, of course, directly derived from the cost of medical care provided. However, in the case of general damages, a judge must attempt to decide the subjective impact of pain on the individual and assign a financial cost to it. That cannot be anything other than a subjective judgment. There is no objective scientific formula for comparing pain with cash, because the cash is designed not to eliminate that pain, but in some way to acknowledge it. Whether we are talking about the criminal injuries compensation scheme, under which our constituents frequently come forward with examples of what they rightly and subjectively experience as a huge discrepancy between the depth of horror they have suffered at the hands of criminals and the amount of compensation offered, or the tariffs for pain, suffering and loss of amenity under the Bill, in the end the compensation provided cannot constitute anything other than a symbolic judgment, with the court or the Government acknowledging that no amount of money can remove the pain, but with the amount designed to be a public recognition that that pain exists.

The former Justice of the Supreme Court, Lord Brown, is an important guide, and his statements in the House of Lords give us all a sense of reassurance on a tricky bit of law. He feels that two important principles are at stake. The first is that there is a moral hazard and societal issue taking place, in that both the incidence of car crashes and, on a national comparison with Germany and France, the disproportionate number of whiplash claims compared with what would be expected both in terms of automobile design and the biology of the human body, need to be addressed—in other words, fraud needs to be addressed. The second is that there has been an anomaly in law whereby some of the graver injustices, and graver injuries and suffering, have been proportionally undercompensated compared with cases of suffering minor whiplash injuries—the majority of cases before the courts—which involve a duration of only three or six months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

Unfortunately, tempted though I am to respond, as you point out, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not entitled, particularly following some of the comic interventions from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), to speculate on what the Scottish Government think they are doing. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, however, that they chose to withdraw from this Bill.

We have talked a great deal about whiplash injuries and how we have attempted to address them, and I am happy for others to return to that question in interventions if they wish to do so, but we have perhaps had less time to address another central issue, which is the second part of the Bill, on the discount rate.

[Robert Neill]

I am pleased the Minister is mentioning that, because although we have concentrated on some controversial areas, putting the discount rate on a more modern footing is important and largely welcome, as is of course the prohibition on settlement without medical reports, which again has not been touched on but is very significant and an advance.

I want to use this opportunity to thank the Minister for what he said about the Justice Committee and the way he engaged with us and me personally. We have raised caveats with some of the objectives, and he has met us on a number of issues, if not all of them, which has enabled those of us who want to keep an eye on this and hold the Government and the industry’s feet to the fire to adopt Lord Brown of, um, Eaton, um—

[Simon Hoare]

Eaton-under-Heywood.

[Robert Neill]

That one. I ought to know him, as a fellow bencher of Middle Temple, and to get his title right. The noble Lord Brown has said that with some reluctance—because it is a balancing act—he can accept the Government’s intentions in this regard. The way the Minister has handled this difficult balancing act in the Bill has made it much easier for a number of hon. Members to do the same.

[Rory Stewart]

I am tempted to reflect on the question from my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee. There is a central issue and challenge at the heart of the Bill. Dealing with this perfect storm of problems—unprovable conditions, high payments, recoverable costs and the actions of the insurance industry—is not easily done through primary legislation, so I pay tribute to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides for their focus on not just the primary legislation but elements of secondary legislation and some of the requirements around it.

The only way this reform will work—the only way to prevent excessive whiplash claims—is by being very nimble in anticipating exactly how claims management companies will operate and predicting how this phenomenon could change in the future. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, that means putting in place an absolute insistence that someone must have a medical examination. At the moment, many of these claims are settled without anybody having any medical examination at all. There must be a medical examination, and it must be conducted by a qualified GP, who is currently allocated through the portal in a random fashion so that people are not in a position to be able to conspire in any way as a result of the kind of doctor whom they are given. An approved GP with the right kind of training, or a medical specialist of another sort, will then give a prognosis that will allow them to proceed in a much more straightforward way.

That brings us to the second aspect, which, again, is not primarily a question of primary legislation. I refer to the design of the online portal. It is important to ensure that, as cases move to the small claims court, people have a straightforward, intuitive way of logging claims. One of the things that we will be doing over the next year is testing and retesting the portal in as many ways as we can to ensure that it actually works.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

My hon. Friend has made a good point, but there is, of course, a delicate balance to be achieved. It is absolutely true that really good online systems can transform people’s lives and make access to justice much easier for them, but, equally, the Government do not always have an unblemished record when it comes to the delivery of IT systems. It is important to ensure that the system really works and that we have tested it again and again before rolling it out, because otherwise a system designed to increase access to justice may inadvertently decrease that access through the malfunctioning of the online portal.

[Robert Neill]

Will my hon. Friend give way one last time?

[Rory Stewart]

Yes.

[Robert Neill]

I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s generosity.

Some of the powerful evidence given to the Justice Committee came from two members of the judiciary who spoke about the potential unintended consequences and adverse impacts on the courts of the inability of an increasing number of litigants in person to work their way through the portal. Will my hon. Friend undertake to ensure that throughout the ongoing work on its design, the issues raised by members of the judiciary will remain central to the discussions, and that they will have a full role in the testing and roll-out?

[Rory Stewart]

The answer to both those questions is yes. An important concession was made in the House of Lords to extend the amount of time for testing, so that there is more time in which to make sure that the portal has been properly tested by, among others, the judiciary.

Part 2 of the Bill relates to the discount rate, and results from a very sudden change in the way in which compensation was paid to catastrophically injured victims. After 16 years in which the discount rate was set at a positive 2.5%, the last Lord Chancellor but one decided to reduce it to minus 0.75%, which radically changed what happens when someone is allocated a lump sum.

Let me remind the House of the formula that is applied. If, Mr Deputy Speaker, you were attempting to receive compensation for a projected 10 years of life, you were seeking £100,000 of care costs for each of those years, and inflation was, for the sake of argument, zero, you would receive only £1 million to cover you for your 10 years of projected life. Obviously, if inflation was higher, the real-terms increase in your care costs would mean that you would have to be afforded more, and the calculation that would need to be made in the awarding of the money would be how much of a return you could reasonably expect to receive for your money. If you could reasonably expect to receive a higher return for your £1 million, it might be possible to cover you for more years, and vice versa: fewer years would mean a lower return. The discount rate has been applied since the 1970s by the judiciary, and since 2001 by the Lord Chancellor, to enable the courts to calculate the fair rate to apply to a lump sum in the case of catastrophic injury. That sudden change from 2.5% to minus 0.75% meant that in the single year 2017-18 the NHS faced £404 million of costs. Projected forward at that rate, there are potentially not just hundreds of millions, but billions, of pounds of costs attached to the public Exchequer and through insurance premiums on the public themselves. Therefore, through the pre-legislative scrutiny conducted by the Justice Committee and the Government Actuary’s Department we have attempted to strike a proportional balance between the interests of often very vulnerable, catastrophically injured victims and those of society as a whole.