Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) is always a difficult act to follow, but it is always a pleasure to do so, and I look forward to hearing the result of his talent contest.

I wish to inject a serious note, because I am asking the Government to rethink their consultation paper, “Judicial Review: proposals for reform”. I speak as someone with experience working for the previous Government on judicial reviews. Yes, they come in thick and fast, but in my view they are a necessary safety valve for society and uphold the rule of law. They are the foundations of our democracy. What is a judicial review? It is a review of a decision by a public authority—a review of legality, unfairness or reasonableness, or of whether there was a personal interest in any decision taken by a public authority.

My first concern is about the consultation period. The paper was published last week, and, in my view, the consultation period is not long enough. I have been in many judicial reviews where judges have expressed concern that there has been little or hardly any consultation. This consultation is taking place over the Christmas period. It is not even the length of a legal term. It will last for six weeks, at least two of which will be taken up by Christmas and new year. That might even be grounds for a challenge. What is the case for change? Page nine of the document states that judicial review has developed far beyond its original intentions. That is not a proper reason based on evidence; it is an opinion.

We are dealing with old powers that go back centuries. Some of the remedies have Latin words such as certiorari, mandamus and even habeas corpus. They have been exercised more extensively, because there has been much more legislation, and that is my second point. The Government are concerned about the growth of judicial review, but, because there is more legislation, there will be more challenges. When decisions are made and discretion goes beyond what Parliament has laid down in legislation, of course there should be challenges. These proceedings are not brought before the court lightly. Judges take very seriously the use and abuse of the court process and do their best to filter out vexatious claims.

My third point is that the Government want to change the process for granting permission to bring judicial review proceedings. Their own evidence shows that permission hearings—first on paper, then orally—are a good filter of cases, so what are the figures? In 2011, 7,600 applications were considered by the court, but only one in six was granted. That makes 1,200. That, to me, shows a court doing its job. It is one gigantic filter. Furthermore, only 300 permissions were granted for an oral hearing.

The oral permissions are important, because they are about getting a fair crack of the whip—to use a judicial review term—and it is right that those cases that have been filtered out get a second chance, because there might be new evidence. Even when they get to the stage of a hearing and an appeal, judges, particularly in immigration cases, are now ordering that the appeal can be pursued from abroad. I am astounded at the suggestion on page 11 that a victory in a judicial review is only a pyrrhic victory. It is a victory in terms of court. It is referred back to the original body for consideration, either because the decision was exercised unlawfully or unreasonably, or on one of the other grounds of judicial review. That is a proper victory within the grounds of judicial review.

I am also concerned about the timeliness aspect. The Government say that judicial review cases take a long time. These are not cases in the Jarndyce v. Jarndyce mould. Where is the evidence that there is delay beyond the three months? Most cases are dealt with in a timely fashion. There is a pre-action protocol that allows information to be exchanged before a case goes to court to be settled. The Government want to reduce the time limit from three months to six weeks in planning cases. That will not make them go away or get dealt with any quicker. What has to be looked at is the listing for a hearing. That is where the delay is. I have said before in the Chamber that we need more judges and more court time. The fact that some of the cases have been heard outside the Strand—in Cardiff, Manchester and other areas where the administrative court sits—is taking cases away from London, and that is a good thing.

My next point concerns fees. The Justice Secretary said that judicial review was being increasingly used by organisations for public relations purposes, but increasing the fees will not make them use it any less. Those organisations can afford it; it is the individuals or the residents groups who will not be able to afford the fees and therefore will be denied access to justice. If we remove access to justice, we remove one of the important parts of a democracy. In my view, the Justice Secretary has not made the case for reform. I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to ask the Justice Secretary what discussions he has had with those who drew up the civil procedure rules about these changes, and what representations he has had from the judiciary, lawyers and others who use the administrative court stating that there is a need for reform.

The case for reform is flawed. As Tom Bingham, the eminent judge, wrote in his excellent book, “The Rule of Law”, judges review the lawfulness of administrative action taken by others; they are the auditors of legality—no more no less. If we are to live in a democracy, we have to expect decisions to be made in cases which are not acceptable to the Executive or Parliament. We would not wish to have a judiciary that agrees with everything the Executive or Parliament does. Judicial review is one of the pillars that hold up a just society. Unforeseen consequences of legislation and the exercise of discretion can be tested in the courts through JR. We not only have great expectations but—in JR jargon—legitimate expectations that the safety valve for society that is judicial review will remain intact. In judicial review, judges exercise a constitutional power that the rule of law requires them to exercise. That is the way it should be.

May I add my voice to others in wishing everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year and in thanking the staff for all their hard work over the year? Let me also say, on this auspicious day—20/12/2012—that I hope everyone’s dreams come true.

Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your now traditional role of the Speaker’s version of Santa Claus, giving presents to the Back Benchers. I hope that next year we will see you enter into the spirit a little more, with something less sombre than your morning suit—perhaps a pair of antlers, a red nose or some such. We look forward to that with great expectation.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), who uses these debates in the way they should be used by Back Benchers. He had great support in all parts of the House as he spoke. We commend him on the resilience he has shown in looking after the interests of the children from Chernobyl. In a way, that shows the value of these debates and, indeed, the Backbench Business Committee, which some colleagues who are new to the House might rather take for granted. Those of us who have been here a little longer know what a hard fought campaign it was—including on our side of the House, through those on our own Front Bench—to get the Backbench Business Committee and give Back Benchers the voice they deserve in their own legislature. I hope we will soon add the other half of the brace that was recommended by the Wright Committee, which is to have a House business committee—the promise is to do that this year—which will allow this Chamber some measure of participation in setting the business of the whole legislature, rather than leaving it entirely to the Government. I hope that colleagues will join together in progressing that over the next year.

I would like to place on record my thanks to the Prime Minister for announcing yesterday that medals will be awarded not only to Bomber Command, but to the Arctic convoys. I have followed this issue for the best part of two decades. If I can be blunt, I think it was a stain on the record of the last Government that so many of us had to work so hard—and fruitlessly—and that by the time the Prime Minister announced this recognition yesterday, so many of the brave men and women who fought in the Arctic convoys, Bomber Command or elsewhere had sadly passed away. Only their families will now have the honour and admiration from all of us for the sacrifices those men and women made. I hope that the Ministry of Defence, which is notorious for its bureaucratic ways and failing to recognise the sacrifice of service people, will have learnt a lesson and will now act expeditiously where the needs of servicemen are raised by colleagues in this House, from whichever part of the House they come.