Cross-Border Mediation (EU Directive) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21 January be approved.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

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

[Lord Beith (LD)]

Is it the Government’s policy, if they are negotiating in a transition period because they have got an agreement, to seek to continue the kind of provisions that are in these regulations when we come to the end of the transition period?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The Government—in the event that we have a withdrawal agreement—will enter into negotiations on our future relationship with the EU, and that will include a desire to ensure that we have addressed the full panoply of judicial co-operation issues that exist at the present time. We cannot say unilaterally that we will secure all of those, but clearly we have an interest in carrying on that negotiation. That is why, at the end of any implementation period, it may be that we can simply revoke these instruments without them ever having to be applied.

The instrument relates to mediation, which is, as noble Lords will be aware, a structured process whereby the parties to a dispute attempt on a voluntary basis to reach an agreement to settle their dispute with the assistance of a mediator, but without a court needing to rule on the dispute. In the civil and commercial fields, such a dispute covers a wide range of contractual and other issues, but also touches on family issues such as access to children.

In 2008, the European Council agreed what it termed a “cross-border mediation directive” which sought to harmonise certain aspects of mediation in relation to EU member states’ cross-border disputes. I should note that the directive does not apply to Denmark, so when I refer to “member states” in this context, I am not including Denmark, which has an opt-out under Protocol 22 of the Lisbon treaty. The aim of the mediation directive is to promote the use of mediation in such cross-border disputes. An EU cross-border dispute can be one between parties who are domiciled, or habitually resident, in two or more different member states, or it can be a dispute where judicial or arbitration proceedings are started in a member state other than the one where the parties are living or domiciled.

The United Kingdom then enacted domestic legislation which gave effect to certain aspects of the mediation directive. I say “certain aspects” because, in many areas—such as ensuring the quality of mediation, and information about mediation for the public—our existing arrangements already met the requirements or standards set out in the 2008 directive. However, in order to implement the directive, the UK had to introduce some new rules for EU cross-border mediations involving UK parties. These new rules first specified that if a time limit, or limitation period, in domestic law during which a claim could be brought in a court or tribunal expires during the mediation process, the parties can still seek a remedy through the courts or tribunals should the mediation not be successful. Secondly, the new rules defined the rights of a mediator, or someone involved in the administration of mediation, to resist giving evidence in civil or judicial proceedings arising from information disclosed during mediation. Various changes were also made to court rules to supplement these changes and to implement the requirements of the mediation directive relating to the enforceability of agreements resulting from mediation.

Under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the legislation implementing the mediation directive is retained EU law upon the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU. However, should the UK leave the EU without an agreement on civil judicial co-operation, the reciprocity on which the directive relies would be lost. So, even if we were to continue to apply the enhanced EU rules to EU cross-border disputes, we would be unable to ensure that the remaining EU member states applied the rules of the directive to cross-border disputes involving parties based in the United Kingdom, or to judicial proceedings or arbitration taking place in the United Kingdom.

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

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

As I indicated earlier, the instrument will change the rules applying only to what are currently EU cross-border mediations, and then only in two respects: time limits and confidentiality. On time limits, claimants involved in such mediations who no longer have the benefit of an extended limitation period would, if they wanted more time to allow for mediation to take place, have to make an application to the court to stay proceedings and would have to pay a fee. We are unable to assess how many cases this would affect. Limitation periods can extend from three years, to six years, to 10 years in some instances, and can either bar a case from being brought or extinguish the claim in its entirety. They are extensive periods in any event, but they may be impacted by these changes

Overall, the instrument will ensure that, post exit, UK-EU mediations are treated consistently under the law with mediations between UK domiciled or habitually resident parties, or UK parties and parties domiciled or habitually resident in non-EU third countries.

I have set out to deal with the issue of EU cross-border mediations because, without a deal in place on 29 March 2019, such mediations involving UK-domiciled parties would no longer be subject to the mediation directive rules in EU member states. The regulations now moved will fix deficiencies and ensure that both the courts and UK citizens have clear and effective rules to follow in such circumstances.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

One of the most difficult issues that we grappled with during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill was child abductions and disputes about child custody. I assume that this affects that issue; can the Minister tell us how? The single most disturbing aspect that came out of that is that it might be harder to deal with cross-border issues of child abduction after Brexit. I am keen to understand whether this maintains the status quo as far as possible. Does this mean that effective remedies will be available to the court to deal rapidly with issues of child abduction?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

First, this instrument is not concerned with the role of the court: it is concerned with the role of mediation outside the court. Secondly, it is not usual to discover mediation as a form of resolving a child abduction case. The very nature of an abduction is such that the parties are not amenable to agreeing a voluntary mediation to resolve the matter. We have already made provision for civil orders in relation to child abduction.

With regard to criminal orders, it is impossible to replicate the existing provisions of EU law because, under the relevant provisions of EU law, an EU court would not recognise an order from a UK court in any event, and therefore it would give false hope to a party to grant them an order that was not enforceable. Overall, therefore, my answer to the noble Lord is that mediation does not impact directly on the sort of issue that has been raised. We recognise the importance of trying to ensure, as far as possible, that there are means of enforcing child abduction orders. The only qualification if we leave without a deal is that there would be no right of the originating court to make an order that trumps the order of the court in the country to which the child has been abducted. That is simply because in the absence of reciprocity, it is not possible to make such an order enforceable. Otherwise, my understanding is that we will be able to proceed.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I think I am right in saying that we are party to a treaty about child abduction that extends well beyond the EU. I have had experience of a case involving abduction where one of the parties was resident in Australia and the other one in Norway, which, of course, are outside the EU network. We have rules about the speed at which cases can be dealt with, but the basic treaty arrangements are unaffected.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The noble and learned Lord is quite right. The Brussels convention on these matters reflects the terms of the Hague convention to a large extent. The one qualification is the element to which I referred about the trumping order, which is not available under the Hague convention. However, it works very effectively in respect of non-EU states and there is no reason it should not continue to operate. I believe that a week or so ago, I addressed these matters in this House when moving other regulations relating to exit, so I hope I have not contradicted myself since then.

Finally, although the confidentiality provisions in the EU directive will no longer be law in the context of mediation in England and Wales, it is usual for parties, when agreeing to mediation, to have an agreement on confidentiality as well. Indeed, even in the absence of such agreement, there is a provision from the High Court in the case Farm Assist Ltd in 2009, which says that such a confidentiality obligation would be implied in any event. It would, of course, be subject to the interests of justice, but we are not going to lose entirely the benefit of the confidentiality provisions if we leave without a deal. In these circumstances, therefore, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this instrument sits against a backdrop of completely inadequate planning for justice co-operation after Brexit. The danger is that that inadequate planning could put vulnerable people in our society at risk. Across Parliament, including from the Justice Select Committee, there has been concern that the Ministry of Justice has failed to provide sufficient detail or certainty about how co-operation on justice will be managed after we exit the European Union.

As we all know, we currently benefit from well-established, frequently updated and comprehensive reciprocal justice arrangements within the EU. Without an agreement with our European partners on what the future of those reciprocal arrangements looks like, people forced to go to court or mediation to protect their rights can face extremely damaging consequences.

We on this side of the House have consistently said that Brexit must not be used to lower standards or reduce rights. There is a fear of that. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Beith, is a little sanguine about how significant that is in this instrument, but I am a bit less so. It nevertheless breaches that principle about a reduction in standards and rights.

Noble Lords will recall that the instrument was laid for sifting by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on 16 November last year. The European Statutory Instruments Committee recommended that it be upgraded to the affirmative procedure because of its large volume of amendments to primary and secondary legislation, but also because it could diminish rights by disengaging from European Union obligations.

I may have misheard the Minister. He referred to an impact assessment. I do not know whether that included a consultation or whether he is instead relying on the Government’s general civil judicial co-operation framework. If it is the latter, the European Union Sub-Committee on Justice found that the framework contained little detail on how the Government’s aims for co-operation would be achieved.

This statutory instrument will repeal legislation enshrining the mediation directive. The directive extends time limits for bringing some civil claims—including child maintenance claims and employment tribunals—to enable mediation. I am sure we all agree that this is a very good thing. The directive is one of many examples whereby we have raised legal standards and protections across Europe through co-operation with our European partners.

The European Statutory Instruments Committee considered whether this instrument could diminish rights and found that it repeals legislation that extends the time limit for bringing certain claims in civil courts and employment tribunals to enable mediation. Shortening time limits in that regard can have significant consequences, prohibiting parties from reaching mediated solutions in child contact cases, for example. This statutory instrument clearly breaches the principle that standards should not be lowered; it lowers the standards for enabling cross-border mediation from the higher EU standard to a lower international one.

The Government accept that the UK could unilaterally continue to apply the mediation directive post exit but have decided not to do so. The noble and learned Lord will correct me, but my understanding of the Government’s position is that, if someone wants to stop a time limit running in mediation, they should issue proceedings before a court and apply to stay or stop those proceedings. That is unfair and unrealistic for so many people in their current financial circumstances, let alone in the context of the obliteration of civil legal aid, which we have discussed in your Lordships’ House so many times.

Put simply, this statutory instrument does what Ministers promised—in this House and elsewhere—would not happen: it breaches the principle of not reducing standards in people’s access to justice. That is very disappointing.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

On that last issue, I am somewhat puzzled by the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, is endeavouring to make in this context. The time limits we are talking about are measured in years—three, four, six or 10 years. If a party is intent on mediation before they raise proceedings, it is unlikely that they will be so disinclined or uninterested in the issue that they will wait years before even attempting to go forward with mediation. Let us be realistic and practical. However, where they have already commenced proceedings, they may then be directed by their lawyers or others to consider mediation as an alternative means of resolving the dispute. In those circumstances, they have already dealt with the time limit by raising the legal proceedings. Pending mediation, all they need to do, if necessary, is stay those proceedings—or sist them, in Scottish terms—putting them on hold while the mediation process is carried on. I do not see that this is a diminution of rights at all.

I come to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beith. On the question of no deal, I understand his point entirely. If no deal occurs—which nobody wants—it will not be a case of switching off the lights and leaving the building. Clearly, we will want to continue discussing with our immediate European neighbours how we can best resolve any differences between us on judicial co-operation. One would hope that that would happen in any event, but I note the noble Lord’s point and cannot disagree. It might be more difficult in a no-deal scenario than during an implementation period, when we are negotiating a future agreement between ourselves and the EU 27.

On another point, it is not an issue only of preferential treatment—that is, the idea that parties from the EU would somehow have preference over those in the UK. There is a danger that we might mislead people if we do not deal with the directive provisions in this way. People may continue to believe that they are protected from having to raise proceedings beyond a limitation period because of the EU directive. We will have to make it clear to people that this will not be the case.

There is not the same issue with regard to confidentiality. The absolute confidentiality imposed by the directive is not immediately replicated in the law of England and Wales, but there is the usual provision for contractual agreement of confidentiality of the mediation process. In any event, as I sought to indicate, there is at least one High Court decision from 2009 that says that, even in the absence of an express contractual term, the court would readily imply an issue of confidence with regard to mediation.

In a way, then, the impact will be minimal, but I do not dismiss it out of hand. We are conscious that we are moving away from an EU-wide provision on mediation and we have to accommodate that at present. Our hope is that we will move into an implementation period when we continue to enjoy this reciprocity. We hope that, in due course and in the course of such an implementation period, we will agree future judicial co-operation, but that will require reciprocity. In these circumstances, I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Assisted Suicide

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blackstone]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of Geoffrey Whaley’s case, what assessment they have made of the Crown Prosecution Service’s Policy for Prosecutors in respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, CPS policy on assisted suicide provides guidance to prosecutors on assessing the evidential and public interest stages in reaching decisions in cases of encouraging or assisting suicide. The policy sets out the public interest factors that must be applied in reaching decisions in these cases and balances the various important factors that need to be considered. There are no plans to reassess the CPS policy in relation to such cases.

[Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his reply, but does he really think that it is a good use of police time to interview, under caution, the wife of a dying man who wishes to choose how he dies? In the light of the Whaley story and loving families being treated like criminals, does the Minister think that the law on assisted dying is working well?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, it is for the CPS to apply the law, not to make the law. Every case has to turn on its own facts and circumstances. Where matters are drawn to the attention of the police relating to an assisted suicide or potential assisted suicide, they will investigate. They are bound to investigate what is potentially criminal conduct in terms of Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961. I therefore see no reason why they should pause those investigations, given the current state of the law.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Does the Minister recall that the CPS policy was adopted after the decision of the Appellate Committee of this House in 2009 in the Debbie Purdy case—I declare an interest as her counsel. The Appellate Committee required a policy because of the uncertainty of the law. Does the Minister accept that there continues to be considerable uncertainty in this area, as indicated by the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, which is causing enormous distress to those at the end of their lives and their families?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The noble Lord is quite right that a consultation was prompted by a decision of the courts in England and Wales. That led to a consultation exercise that commenced in September 2009, to which there were more than 5,000 responses, and resulted in the publication of the CPS policy document in 2010. I consider that that policy is working well at the present time.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend understand—I am sure he does—that, for people with a terminal illness who have no hope of recovery and are suffering great distress, the current law, which prevents them being able to end their own lives in dignity, is condemning them to great and unnecessary suffering?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

We are of course conscious of the difficulties and challenges facing people in the situation that the noble Lord has outlined, but I emphasise again that it is for the CPS to apply the law, not to make the law. In doing so, it follows a policy that addresses not only an evidential test but a public interest test with regard to such cases. The consequence is that, of the 140-odd cases referred in the last nine years to the CPS, there were prosecutions in respect of Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 in only four of them, resulting in one acquittal and three convictions.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord has implied, the police are only enforcing the law, so it is really the law that is the problem rather than the police. When will the Government bring in a new law to free the police from having to treat loving families like criminals?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, it is not a case of having to treat loving families like criminals. It is a matter of having to look at the facts and circumstances of every case, in situations where the victim may be extremely vulnerable. As the Government have said before, it is therefore a matter for Parliament because it is a matter of conscience. It is not a matter for government to bring forward such legislation. The noble Lord will be aware that such legislation was proposed in 2015 and did not succeed.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, given the statistics which the noble and learned Lord has just quoted, does he not consider that that in itself is an indication that the law is not working properly?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

No, I do not. As I say, only in a small minority of cases has there been a successful prosecution. I should also add, however, that there have been a number of instances in which the case taken forward involved prosecution for homicide, not assisted suicide.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, indeed Geoff Whaley did die a dignified death in Switzerland last Thursday, but most people cannot afford to take their family to Switzerland for such a death, or they cannot get the medical report from their doctor to enable them to have such a death. Does the Minister agree that, in a civilised society, someone in Geoff Whaley’s position should be able to avoid months of being unable to swallow, eat, drink, speak or move—totally, therefore, cut off from communication? Will the Minister discuss with his colleagues what can be done to change the law?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

It is not the intention of the Government to seek to change the law in this area. I emphasise that every case has to be considered according to its own particular facts and circumstances. I readily acknowledge that many of these cases are extremely tragic.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, whatever the conflicting views—and there are many—on public and prosecutorial policy in this area, I hope we can all agree that the current situation presents loved ones of people with motor neurone disease and similar conditions at the end of their lives with an emotional, ethical and legal minefield. Is the Minister confident that these people, at a very difficult time, are getting the advice and support they need to navigate that?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am not in a position to say where such people seek advice on these matters, but such advice is available, and the policy of the CPS with regard to this matter is publicly available.

Cairncross Review

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, I see that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, has decided to take flight. With the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend Jeremy Wright, the Secretary of State for DCMS:

“With your permission, I would like to make a Statement about the publication of the Cairncross review. I would like to thank Dame Frances Cairncross for leading the review, along with the expert panel and officials who have worked with her to develop it.

This review comes at an important time. In her report, Dame Frances paints a vivid picture of the threat to high quality journalism in this country. There are now around 6,000 fewer journalists than there were in 2007. Print circulation of daily national papers fell from 11.5 million in 2008 to 5.8 million in 2018.

In this same time period, circulation for local newspapers has halved. As the review makes clear, there are many reasons for this, but the main driver is a rapid change in how we consume content. The majority of people now read news online, including 91% of 18 to 24 year-olds. As this shift takes place, publishers have struggled to find ways to create sustainable business models in the digital age. As the review sets out, between them, Google and Facebook capture the largest share of online advertising revenue and are an increasingly important channel for the distribution of news content online. Not only this but they hold an array of data on their users that news publishers cannot possibly hope to replicate, which further strengthens their position in the digital advertising market.

This combination of market conditions threatens to undermine the future financial sustainability of journalism. Even publications that have only ever been online are struggling, and this should concern us all. Dame Frances notes that, while high-quality journalism is desirable, there is one type of journalism that society and democracy cannot do without, and that is public interest journalism. This is the type of journalism that can hold the powerful to account and is an essential component of our democracy. It helps us to shine a light on important issues—in communities, in courtrooms in council chambers and in this Chamber. This type of journalism is under threat, especially at the local level. The review cites numerous examples of what happens to communities when a local paper disappears. So Dame Frances’ report comes at a vital time, and I welcome her focus on public interest journalism.

This is clearly an important issue and I wanted to set out to the House today how the Government intend to respond. There are many substantial recommendations in this review. There are some areas where we can take them forward immediately, and other more long-term recommendations on which we will be consulting with stakeholders about the best way forward.

First, I will deal with the recommendations we are able to progress immediately. Online advertising now represents a growing part of the economy and forms an important revenue stream for many publishers. But this burgeoning market is largely opaque and extremely complex, so it is at present impossible to know whether the revenue shares received by news publishers are fair. The review proposes that the Competition and Markets Authority conduct a market study into the digital advertising market. The purpose of this study would be to examine whether the online marketplace is operating effectively, and whether it enables or prevents fair competition. It is right that policymakers and regulators have an accurate understanding of how the market operates and check that it is enabling fair competition, and I have today written to the CMA in support of this study. I will urge Professor Jason Furman to treat the review as additional evidence as part of his ongoing inquiry into digital competition in the UK, which is due to be published in the spring. I also recognise that online advertising has given rise to a wider set of social and economic challenges. My department will therefore conduct a review of how online advertising is regulated, starting in the coming months.

The Cairncross review also cites concerns from publishers about the potential market impact of the BBC on their sustainability. They argue that the BBC’s free-to-access online content makes it harder for publishers to attract subscribers. The review also questions whether the BBC is straying too far into the provision of softer news content, traditionally the preserve of commercial publishers, and suggests this might benefit from the scrutiny of Ofcom. Let me be clear that the Government recognise the strong and central role of the BBC here. As the review states,

“the BBC offers the very thing that this Review aims to encourage: a source of reliable and high quality news, with a focus on objectivity and impartiality, and independent from government”.

However, it is right that the role of the BBC, as a public service broadcaster, be appropriately transparent and clear. The review recommended that:

“Ofcom should assess whether BBC News Online is striking the right balance, between aiming for the widest reach for its own content, and driving traffic from its online site to commercial publishers, particularly local ones”.


Of course, some of these questions were addressed as part of the charter review process, but I have written today to ask Ofcom to look carefully at the review’s recommendations and identify if there are any new concerns deserving attention. For instance, there may be ways in which the BBC could do more to drive traffic to commercial sites, particularly the local press.

Another recommendation from the review was a proposal for two separate forms of tax relief for news publications, one of which is intended to bolster the supply of local and investigative journalism by enabling it to benefit from charitable status. The review noted that in the USA, philanthropic donations provide, on average, 90% of the total revenues of non-profit news publishers. Although we have a different media landscape, as the review sets out, charitable status could reduce the costs for those producing this essential public interest reporting, and pave the way for a new revenue stream through philanthropic donations. I recognise that this avenue has been explored previously and that some hurdles will have to be cleared, but I believe we should pursue it, so I have written to the Charity Commission and look forward to hearing how it can help move this forward.

As I set out earlier, there are also areas where we will need to consult further and respond in further detail. First, Dame Frances recommended the establishment of an institute for public interest news to promote investigative and local journalism. The review proposes that this institute would act as a convener for those organisations with the means to support public interest news, including the BBC and online platforms. It would also be tasked with generating additional finance for the sector, driving innovation through a proposed new fund, and supporting an expansion of the BBC’s Local Democracy Reporting Service. This BBC-funded scheme is a shining example of what can be done. The first of its kind in the industry, it has embedded 150 journalists within local publishers to produce local democracy reporting, particularly relating to local councils. I met some of these reporters last week and they have produced 50,000 stories so far between them—all stories that may not otherwise have been heard. The Government will explore, with others, what more can be done here.

The review also calls upon the Government to do more to incentivise the publishing industry’s transition to digital. It proposes extending the current scope of VAT exemptions so that they apply to online payments for all news content and not simply print news content, and new tax relief for public interest news providers. I am aware that there is passionate support for this within the publishing sector, and we share its ambition for a healthy and sustainable industry. As this House knows, the Government always keep taxes under review, and any decision to amend the UK tax regime is, of course, a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer as part of the annual fiscal cycle. I will be discussing this matter further with industry and my colleagues at the Treasury.

I want to highlight two recommendations in the review that cover similar ground to work already taking place within government. One is the review’s sensible proposal that the Government develop a media literacy strategy, working with the range of organisations already active in this space. Evidence suggests that there is also a correlation between media literacy and greater propensity to pay for news, so improving media literacy will also have an impact on the sustainability of the press. Making sure people have the skills they need to separate fact from fiction is the key to long-term success in tackling this issue, and I welcome the focus that Dame Frances has placed on it. We welcome this recommendation, which relates closely to the Government’s ongoing work to combat disinformation. Last month, my honourable friend the Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries hosted a round table on media literacy, and the Government are actively looking at what more we can do to support industry efforts in this area.

The other recommendation is the review’s call for the creation of new codes of conduct between publishers and the online platforms which distribute their content. These would cover issues relating to the indexing of content on platforms and its presentation, as well as the need for advanced warning about algorithm changes likely to affect a publisher. The development of these codes would be overseen by a regulator.

The review also proposes that regulatory oversight be introduced as part of a ‘news quality obligation’ upon platforms. This would require that platforms improve how their users understand the origin of an article of news and the trustworthiness of its source. Dame Frances recognises that platforms are already starting to accept responsibility in this regard. These two proposals deserve the Government’s full consideration and we will examine how they can inform our approach. This includes our work as part of the online harms White Paper, due to be published shortly.

This report sets out a path to help us put our media on a stronger and more sustainable footing. However, Dame Frances is clear that her review is just one contribution to the debate. We cannot turn back the clock and there is no magic formula to address the systemic changes the industry faces, but it is the role of any responsible Government to play an active part in supporting public interest journalism. We will consider this review’s contents carefully and engage with press publishers, online platforms, regulators, academics, the public and Members of this House as we consider the way forward. I remain open to further proposals that may go beyond the recommendations or scope of this review.

I know that this issue is of great concern to Members across the House, and today’s review is an important milestone. At the heart of any thriving civil society is a free and vibrant press. The Government—and, I have no doubt, the House—are committed to supporting it through changing times and ensuring that it can continue to do its job. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, paints a romantic and nostalgic picture of the local press, and he is right to do so. But, in trying to solve the problems that face us in somehow helping the Burry Port Star, we must beware. The press owners have come with a begging bowl. They earlier proclaimed their resistance to any government interference, but quite ready to dip their hands into the public purse are very large and rich companies, many of which have delivered redundancy after redundancy to local papers in favour of their shareholders.

That is one of the reasons why local journalism is in the state that it is in. I also suggest that the National Union of Journalists might be added to the list of people to consult that the Minister read out. There is a serious challenge to local media. Dame Frances set it out very bleakly in her report and the Minister repeated it. There is massive technological change and that impacts on how news is received and—particularly with the under-25s—how it is digested.

I welcome some of the actions announced by the Minister to refer some of the recommendations to relevant bodies. However, the ambitions of the Government and newspaper proprietors would be more credible if they had not been so eager to bury the Leveson report and ignore its call for the establishment of a regulator set up by royal charter which could do many of the tasks called for in this report.

As I said, freedom from Government does not seem to stop the press barons from dipping into the public purse. Therefore, although I welcome the recommendations on digital and media literacy, online advertising and news quality obligations, we should be hard-nosed about how and where tax relief and innovation fund money is spent. It is not there simply to line the pockets of Newsquest, JPI Media and Reach, which are all big, profitable companies that have taken the lion’s share of the existing Local Democracy Reporting Service, which costs the BBC £8 million.

Some of the powers advocated in this report could be taken on by the Press Recognition Panel, the independent body established by Parliament under royal charter. The recommendations on how to bring the FANGs within the rule of law go wider than the issues covered by this report but its recommendations on new codes of conduct for online platforms are to be welcomed.

But what do we find in the report? As usual, it is a quick dive to try to weaken the BBC. In almost 40 years of being involved in this I have explained to various media proprietors that 90 years ago a Conservative Government had the common sense to nationalise the BBC as a public service broadcaster with a mandate that consciously distorted the market in favour of public service broadcasting. They want to have a go at the BBC online because it carries the same credibility and weight as the broadcast BBC. I hope that although the Minister has asked Ofcom to look at this, Ofcom will be very sceptical about trying to weaken one of the strongest public service journalism outlets in this country, one which should be defended.

I hope also that the Minster will use his good influence to secure a full day’s debate in this House. This is an important report; so is the one published today by the Press Recognition Panel. This is an ongoing debate and the knowledge that exists in this House would be of benefit in taking a very wide agenda forward.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I thank the noble Lords. I entirely concur with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, and the emphasis that he laid on local journalism and its impact on and importance to local democracy and indeed to wider societal issues that arise at a local level. To that extent, I believe that we are all pleased with the steps taken by the BBC with regard to the Local Democracy Reporting Service, which has been effective. The conundrum now is how to redress the balance. I believe that a starting point is for the CMA, which has experience and expertise in this area, to look at how the market is working. That will not be a solution in itself but it will give us a starting point from which we can work. As regards a regulator, that is a medium-term or longer-term ambition. Again, we will have to look at how we can develop that, but we are conscious of its importance.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, made the perfectly valid point that many of our printed press corporations remain profitable. The difficulty is the disparity between the profitability in some areas and the poverty in others, as illustrated recently by the demise of one of the largest publishers of local newspapers in the country. In so far as the press industry seeks to, as the noble Lord put it, put its fingers into the tax pot, it is fair to say that he can anticipate that the Treasury will be pretty hard-nosed about that. We will seek to ensure that any benefits that can be provided go to the right place for the development of public-interest journalism.

I do not see this as an attempt to weaken the BBC, although there might be issues there that we will look at. I appreciate the importance of the BBC as a source of reliable journalism, but perhaps there are areas where it goes where it would not have gone before. I am not sure that it is necessarily in the public interest to have “Love Island” news online—although I may be corrected by some. It seems to me that these are areas where, for example, more commercial enterprises might be allowed into the market. I will just raise that as an issue.

I welcome the comments that have been made. We will want to review matters. The noble Lord raised the question of a debate. Of course, we have the forthcoming White Paper as well, and it may be that, in the light of that, a wider debate will be appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I thank the noble Lord for his contribution. As I have already indicated, I understand why this House is asking for further time to consider the detail of this report. It appears to me that that might be appropriate once we have the White Paper that I referred to earlier and when we have made progress on the initial stages of implementing the recommendations of the report, perhaps setting out a plan for how we intend to take forward its longer-term recommendations. However, I am sure that those responsible for the time of this House will have heard the observations. It is beyond my pay grade but I am confident that they will have listened.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I join my noble and learned friend in congratulating Dame Frances on producing a compelling report, which sets out both starkly and boldly the real commercial pressures which are facing all publishers. I declare my interest as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group. Given the scale of the challenges and the punishing pace of change in the industry, which come over so clearly in this report, does my noble and learned friend agree with me that speed is now of the essence and that the most important thing is to move urgently to implement, where possible, some of the review’s major recommendations, particularly in areas such as VAT and taxation, which could bring immediate commercial benefit and allow publishers to invest in the quality investigative journalism that the report highlights?

In other areas, there is much for the CMA and Ofcom to undertake. Does my noble and learned friend believe that the CMA has the capacity to deal swiftly with issues surrounding the advertising market in view of its post-Brexit responsibilities, and does Ofcom have the powers needed to review the BBC online without the need for further legislative change?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I can advise that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has written today to the chair of the CMA, inviting him to respond as quickly as possible as to whether it is the view of the CMA that it can take on these issues, and he has also written today to the chair of the Charity Commission—so we are intent on taking these issues forward as swiftly as we can.

Prisoners: Acquired Brain Injuries

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and declare an interest as chairman of the Criminal Justice and Acquired Brain Injury Interest Group.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, all children and young people within the secure estate are screened for brain injury through the comprehensive health assessment tool. If an adult prisoner presents with a significant brain injury, a specialist neurological referral is made. We have formed a cross-government group to develop a more strategic picture of ABI within the criminal justice system.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that somewhat disappointing reply. This is not new; indeed, I have been campaigning for assessment of head injuries for 20 years. In addition to the horrifying figures for women prisoners that the Disabilities Trust has just produced, it has proved that 40% of males and 47% of young offenders are suffering from acquired brain injury. The point about an assessment is that, if you know which part of the head has been hit or damaged, you can predict behavioural outcomes. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister dropped the prisons part of the Prisons and Courts Bill, in which we hoped to have made the assessment of head injuries compulsory. I ask the Minister whether he will make it so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the NHS England prison healthcare national standards service specification requires providers to screen individuals where it is suspected that they may have an acquired brain injury. Clearly, we want to take this further in light of the recent report from the Disabilities Trust. We have now formed a cross-government group with the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and the Prison Service to develop a more strategic picture of acquired brain injury within the criminal justice system. We hope to be able to report to the group chaired by the noble Lord by the end of March.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I am very heartened by the Minister’s response. This shocking finding explains the possible source of many difficult and counterproductive behaviours one sees in the prison population, which can seriously hamper the ability of prisoners to cope inside and outside prison and of professionals to help them. The brain injury screening index provided by the trust is freely available, and its use and effectiveness among prisoners at Drake Hall is tremendously encouraging. Will the Minister agree to add his voice to the Disabilities Trust’s demand that all prisons should adopt it?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Clearly, we are reviewing this matter with a degree of urgency, and to that extent I add my voice. There is an issue about the extent to which we can apply particular test criteria in the context of prisoners. These cannot be over-complex because of the nature of the people we are dealing with, so this has to be a matter for further consideration. However, we are looking not just at those already in prison but those who come into contact with the criminal justice system. It is equally important that they, too, should, where possible, be assessed for the sort of vulnerabilities referred to by the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Corston (Lab)]

My Lords, as I understand this survey, 62% of the women reported that their brain injury was sustained as a result of domestic violence, so these women are not only domestic violence survivors, they are brain-damaged and are locked up for ridiculously short periods. Does that not beg the question of whether they should be there at all?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I cannot say that it begs the question of whether they should be there at all, given that the nature of their offences may vary quite widely. But clearly, the findings of the Disabilities Trust are extremely disturbing and give cause for concern. That is why we have made them the subject of a review.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the National Mental Capacity Forum. Do the Government recognise that many people have had head injuries in their pre-offending behaviour? They are in touch with social workers, yet poor social work training does not include functional assessment of them. Ordinary assessments of capacity do not pick up the functional impairment that results in their later offending behaviour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am not in a position to say what the scope of social work training is with regard to that point, but I quite accept the observation made by the noble Baroness. However, where it is anticipated that someone will be subject to imprisonment, or where they have come into contact with the criminal justice system, NHS England has commissioned liaison and diversion services aimed at identifying those who are vulnerable. It is anticipated that by 2020-21, that service will cover the whole of England.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that much more serious than head injuries is the high incidence in these prisons of obesity? Obesity cannot be blamed on poverty: it is due to prison authorities feeding prisoners too many calories. Will the Government look into that?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am not aware of any serious issue of obesity within our prisons, but there may be some limitations on exercise, including cross-country running.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. The Statement is as follows:

“I should like to make a Statement to inform the House that we have concluded our post-implementation reviews of Parts 1 and 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012—better known as LASPO—as well as the outcome of our inquests review. Earlier today I laid all three reviews for consideration by both Houses, alongside a new legal support action plan, which sets out how we will build on those findings.

After an extended period of expansion that resulted in an annual spend at the time of over £2 billion, the coalition Government brought in Part 1 of LASPO to make significant changes to the scope of, eligibility for, and fees paid under, legal aid. This was essential to bring spending under control and target limited resources available at the most vulnerable and highest-priority cases. The extent of the changes LASPO introduced meant that the Government committed to carrying out the comprehensive review I have published today.

Throughout a year-long process of extensive evidence-gathering and analysis, we have engaged with more than 100 different stakeholders, professionals, providers and, of course, many in this House and in the other place, drawing together a wealth of research and evidence to inform this detailed review. We have heard that the legal aid system has for too long focused solely on delivering publicly funded advice and representation, at the expense of understanding how we can help people find early resolutions and avoid court disputes. Legal aid is, and will remain, a core element of the support on offer, and last year the Government spent £1.6 billion on legal aid funding.

We want to move forward with a new vision, focusing on the individual and their needs—be that through legal aid or otherwise. We will provide a breadth of support that is tailored to people and increases our ability to intervene earlier and catch their problems sooner, before they escalate. We must deliver a system that enables people to receive the type of legal support that is right for them, at the right time.

I am therefore delighted to publish, alongside this review, our new legal support action plan. The action plan responds to the evidence heard and includes immediate action to ensure that vulnerable people, particularly children, can access legal aid when it is needed. We will launch a review of the legal aid means-testing framework, specifically focused on the thresholds and criteria in place for someone to qualify for legal aid. We will simplify the exceptional case funding scheme to ensure it works effectively. We will expand the scope of legal aid to include immigration matters for unaccompanied and separated migrant children, and to cover all special guardianship orders in private family law cases. And we will reinstate immediate access to face-to-face legal advice in discrimination, debt and special educational needs cases.

But we also need to collect further evidence on what works and at what stage. We will invest up to £5 million of funding to encourage and support providers to develop new and innovative services; double support for litigants in person to £3 million for the next two years; launch several support pilots that will test how effective legal support at an early stage can help people avoid the escalation of problems; and test and evaluate the benefits of early advice in an area of social welfare law. Elsewhere, I am also announcing today that we will continue to support dedicated criminal legal aid practitioners by completing a comprehensive evaluation of the criminal legal aid fee schemes and structures.

Separately, I want to make the House aware that I have published the Government’s review of the changes made by Part 2 of the LASPO Act. Part 2 introduced a number of changes recommended by Sir Rupert Jackson, aimed at reducing costs in civil litigation. The evidence gathered indicates that these objectives have been met. Fewer unmeritorious cases are being taken forward, and access to justice at proportionate cost is generally being met.

Lastly, today I have also published the outcome of a separate year-long review of the provision of legal aid for inquests. The review was commissioned in response to a number of key independent reports and their recommendations. The final report is the culmination of this thorough review, undertaken with senior coroners, the legal profession and other key stakeholders, as well as—most importantly—bereaved families themselves. It considers a number of specific concerns, and looks at where we can make further improvements, including improving guidance and advice and ensuring that the inquest process is more sympathetic to the needs of bereaved families, looking into further options for the funding of legal support at inquests where the state has state-funded representation, and working closely with other government departments.

The publications that I launch today mark not only the completion of hard work already undertaken, but the beginning of more to do to meet our challenges. I place on record my thanks to everyone who has contributed evidence and expertise to these three reviews. It is essential to me that this engagement continues and that we collect more evidence, exploring with our partners and stakeholders innovative ways to support people to access the justice system and placing early intervention firmly at the heart of legal support”.

I commend the Statement to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, after a delayed process that took an entire year, we now have the post-implementation review of LASPO. I will focus on legal aid.

Of its four stated objectives, the MoJ claims success in just one: significant savings have been made. Well, we know that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, pointed out, the savings wildly exceeded what was expected. However, on each of the other three objectives—discouraging unnecessary and adversarial litigation at public expense; targeting legal aid at those who need it most; and delivering better overall value for money for the taxpayer—the answer is an unimpressive “Don’t know”, dressed up in weasel words such as, “It is impossible to say with certainty”. I suspect that an independent review would have come to clearer conclusions.

The review identifies six themes echoing the experiences of all of us involved in the justice system. First, these changes in the scope of legal aid undermine value for money, particularly by preventing early intervention. Secondly, financial eligibility and operational requirements limit access to legal aid too harshly. Thirdly, the exceptional case funding scheme is not working well. Fourthly, legal aid fees are now so low that future provision by practitioners is at risk. Fifthly, increasing numbers of litigants in person increase costs and risk the perception of a two-tier justice system. Finally, advice deserts across our country threaten access to justice.

The legal support action plan seeks to address those issues, at least in part. I am more hopeful than the noble Baroness in saying that the action plan is welcome. Among the Government’s pledges, some of which were mentioned in the Statement, they promised to review eligibility requirements, increase public awareness of how to access legal aid, broaden the scope of legal aid in some immigration and family cases—that will not go nearly far enough—improve the exceptional case funding scheme, review criminal legal aid, widen access to the telephone gateway, increase support for litigants in person and examine complementary ways of providing legal support. Both those pledges and the others made must be kept and implemented soon. We will have further demands for improved support. We will hold the Government’s feet to the fire.

Can the Minister do two things today on this vital topic? Together, the four documents represent a massive report. Will he please use his influence to secure a debate, with adequate time and soon, on the reports and the action plan? Secondly, will he reassure us that where the promises in the action plan are not backed up by implementation dates—and some are—the MoJ will treat them with urgency?

Notwithstanding the warnings in the paper and in the Statement that all this cannot be delivered overnight and is the first step in the process, the rescue of our legal aid system and the improvement of our legal support system needs more urgency than was ever accorded to this review.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for their contributions. I am a little disappointed by the response of the noble Baroness. These reports have been welcomed in many quarters, although not universally and not without qualification. However, that is hardly a surprise because, let us be clear, this is a difficult and controversial area.

Let us look for a moment to the background. We had a financial crash in 2008. It is easy to say that austerity is a political choice but essentially it is not; austerity is a consequence. Furthermore, after that financial crash, which impacted right across our society, we had the party manifestos for the election in 2010. The Labour manifesto said explicitly that it would be necessary to address the cost of legal aid provision, and that was its intent—the cost was too high. That was recognised by other parties and indeed by the coalition Government themselves, who brought forward the LASPO Act to try to bring some degree of control over the ever-spiralling actual financial cost of legal aid. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, acknowledged this.

We not talking just about the immediate cost of legal aid but about the wider issue of access to justice and the means by which we can ensure that there is legal assistance as well as legal aid for all in our society, but particularly for the most vulnerable, who truly require it. That is why I am thankful that the noble Lord has welcomed the action plan which is designed to look not only at the provision of financial resources for legal advice and assistance but the manner in which we can deliver legal support for people at the right time and in the right place. To do that, we want to see the development of web-based products, for example. We want to see proper signposting and advice for people. Moreover, we want to encourage that sort of advice and signposting at an early stage because there is a belief that if we can do that, we can help resolve people’s issues before they develop into major and costly litigation. All of that is to be considered.

In addition, we are going to test the impact of early legal advice by promoting certain pilots, particularly in the area of social welfare law, to see what results can be secured. I note the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, about the need for implementation at pace, and indeed we are committed to the implementation of all of these recommendations as soon as we can. For example, we will be looking at the financial levels for qualification for legal aid and we intend to bring that to a conclusion by summer 2020 so that these matters can be addressed as soon as possible.

There are areas where we face difficulties with regard to the provision of legal advice. The noble Lord referred to legal advice deserts. In fact, in the areas of housing and debt, we are generally well covered across England and Wales so far as advice is concerned, but I accept that there are still gaps which have to be filled by, for example, telephone advice, which is not the ideal. Indeed, one of the reasons we want to roll out the web-based access that I mentioned earlier is to address the demand for legal advice and assistance in rural areas and other areas outside urban centres where that is more readily to hand. That is certainly part of our proposed action plan,

On the assurances the noble Lord sought, he readily appreciates that it is not in my power to secure a debate in this House, but no doubt the usual channels will have heard his observations. I concur with his reference to the depth and breadth of these reports, and perhaps the need to look at them in more detail to figure out just where we are going forward and how quickly we should go forward on these issues. As I sought to reassure him earlier, we are concerned to ensure that there is implementation of these proposals as soon as it is possible to secure it.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to early advice in the area of social welfare law. He will understand my interest in this area, given the review of advice and legal support in the area of social welfare law that I chaired. Could he tell us more about what is envisaged from the pilots in this area and perhaps say something about the Government’s thinking about public support for sustainable advice services generally?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lord. Looking more generally at advice and assistance, we want and propose to look at how we can engage with people at a very early stage, so that we can evaluate their legal problems—and, indeed, sometimes problems that are not entirely legal but that lead on to legal issues if not addressed quickly enough.

In the specific area of social welfare law, we will seek pilots that evaluate various technological solutions and look at the cost benefits of trying to approach matters in that way. I mentioned earlier the idea of web-based material and the development we have seen in digital access to legal advice. For example, we have already instituted such digital access in the areas of uncontested divorce and debt, so that people can, without the need for legal advice, be guided through what should be a relatively straightforward process for the resolution of certain legal issues.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, in thanking my noble and learned friend the Minister for repeating the Lord Chancellor’s Statement, I declare an interest as a member of the private Bar, albeit I do not do any legal aid work.

The Minister said he was disappointed by the reaction of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord to the Lord Chancellor’s Statement. I was the Opposition spokesman in the Lord Chancellor’s Department from 1997 to 1998, and then variously shadow Attorney-General throughout the Blair and Brown Governments. I can assure my noble and learned friend that I made exactly the same sort of speeches as the two opposition Peers made just now. This is a continuing and almost intractable problem, and it is of course a question of judgment and priorities when resources are scarce. But there is much to commend in what my noble and learned friend has said, albeit I would like to see plenty more done.

I welcome the £3 million support for litigants in person. However, it is fair to say—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marks—that the increasing presence in our courts of litigants in person not only makes our court system more sclerotic but feeds into the lessening of morale in the judiciary. Although not immediately germane to the post-implementation review, that is a factor that needs to be thought of within and outside its scope.

Finally, and most gently, I urge my noble and learned friend to see whether the Secretary of State and the Treasury can do something more—I know they have been doing some things—to assist in the funding of the criminal legal aid system. If there is one aspect of the criminal justice system that most worries me, it is the underremuneration of criminal legal aid lawyers, both solicitors and barristers.

I daresay that many will say, “Here’s one fat lawyer seeking to protect other fat lawyers”, but it really is not like that. I urge my noble and learned friend to do what he can to enhance the remuneration of legal aid lawyers in the criminal justice system. They have taken a pay cut of 10% or 20% over the last few years. Until that is recovered, our criminal justice system will be much hampered and hindered.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, we recognise the importance of a viable, properly trained and effective criminal Bar in order to maintain suitable access to justice for all. That is demanding in the present circumstances. Quite recently, as my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier will know, we have increased the level of fees for criminal justice work. That was done in discussion with the Bar Council in order that it could be suitably targeted to the areas where it was most needed. But I will not suggest that no more needs to be done. I quite understand the observations made about the need to maintain a viable, effective criminal Bar in that respect.

We are conscious of the issue of litigants in person, particularly of the need to avoid the simple matter of cost transferring: in other words, you relieve one area of costs by reducing legal aid provision only to find that you increase costs elsewhere because of the demands on the court system and the judiciary, because with an increasing number of litigants in person, we may find that court hearings take longer and are more demanding. We are conscious of that when looking at this overall. I reiterate that legal aid provision as such is only one aspect of a wider ecosystem that is designed to ensure access to justice.

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, it is not so long ago in history that Mr Nabarro claimed to the nation, after a rather sensational motoring case, that British justice was unequalled in the world so long as you could afford to pay for it. We have come a long way since then, or we had. We can summarise the exchanges that have already taken place by saying that the quality of justice is essentially related to access to justice. Therefore, the priority for all Governments must be ensuring that access is equal and it is not just the administration endeavouring to be equal.

There has been reference to criminal law, and I am very glad that the noble and learned Lord opposite made the point about the dedicated work done in this sphere by insufficiently recognised lawyers. We also ought to bear in mind the tremendous amount of work done in this area by voluntary organisations and the rest, which strive to cover the gaps that are there. We should not have this exchange without recognising that work—by people who are really dedicated to the cause of equality in justice. It is rather important that we get this right as urgently as possible, at a time when we are parading around the world the concept that we cannot possibly operate with the European Court of Justice because our entire system is so perfect. I do not see our system as perfect at all while this problem remains.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for his observations. I certainly acknowledge the point he made about the contribution of the voluntary sector in this area. Citizens Advice and other bodies make a very material contribution and we seek to support them in that endeavour. In addition, we are expanding the funding available for advice to litigants in person. Again, I hope that that will help some of the more vulnerable.

The design of legal aid is to ensure that it is targeted at the most vulnerable in our society. That is essential. Indeed, very often we hear complaints not from the most vulnerable but from those who would be perceived to have a relatively comfortable income who find that they are called upon to make payment in respect of legal support—legal defence in some circumstances—where 10 or 20 years ago that would not have been the case. I refer in that context to, for example, the recovery of defence costs in the context of criminal trials, which are now the subject of limitations that did not exist many years ago. The intent here is to target legal advice, legal assistance and legal cost at the most vulnerable in our society. We have sought to expand that by improving access to legal aid, and by seeking to improve the exceptional case funding system and to simplify it for parties seeking to use it.

House adjourned at 2.35 pm.

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

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 and 12 December 2018 be approved. Considered or debated in Grand Committee on 29 January.

Motions agreed.

Female Offender Strategy

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in implementing the female offenders’ strategy.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, the Female Offender Strategy, published in June 2018, outlines the Government’s long-term vision for improving outcomes for female offenders in custody and in the community. The strategy sets out a programme of work that contains a number of commitments that will take some years to implement. A new women’s policy framework was published last December, and my noble friend Lord Farmer’s review of family ties for female offenders is expected to report in the coming weeks.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, I welcome that information from the Minister, which follows many positive commitments to the female offender strategy. However, we are still awaiting news of residential pilots, action to strengthen links between probation services and women’s centres, the report from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and a national concordat. Given that many of the strategy’s commitments have no clear timescales—indeed, in some cases the suggested deadline has already passed—how does the Minister plan to effectively monitor progress and stay on track?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, we are concerned to ensure that these recommendations are implemented as soon as practicable; indeed, the women’s policy framework was implemented as of 21 December 2018. We are taking forward further work in partnership with other groups and parties. I note the work of the Nelson Trust, which I know the right reverend Prelate is directly involved in, which recently put in a bid for additional funding from the ministry to further its community work. We are encouraged by the strength of that and similar bids, and want to take that forward as soon as possible.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, if my noble friend Lady Corston were here, she would be enthusiastically supporting the right reverend Prelate in pressing for the review to be implemented as quickly as possible, not just on moral grounds but because the additional investment that the Minister has referred to is “spend to save”. We could save an enormous amount of money by diverting into prevention and early intervention, rather than having women prisoners in the kind of conditions that I saw when I was Home Secretary.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I entirely concur with the noble Lord’s observations. Indeed, our Female Offender Strategy seeks to build on the seminal report of the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, which of course goes back to 2007.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, the extension of mandatory post-custody supervision has disproportionately affected women. Recall numbers for men have risen by 22% since the changes were introduced but for women they have grown by 131%. Women are trapped in the justice system rather than being enabled to rebuild their lives. The Prison Reform Trust has called for mandatory post-custody supervision to be abolished. Does the Minister agree that the present system is not working, and does he have plans to review it?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the idea of mandatory supervision for those serving a sentence of less than 12 months was introduced only quite recently. There is a disproportion between male and female offenders in that context—I quite accept that. Indeed, that manifests itself in various other parts of the prison and custodial system. At the moment, we are seeking to extend community centre services, to help to accommodate those released after short sentences, and to combine community services with treatment requirement protocols.

That is extremely important, particularly for female offenders, where we see a vast proportion who have reported elements of mental health difficulty or who suffer from alcohol issues and, very often, drug abuse issues as well. Over and above that, an enormous proportion of these female offenders have at times been subject to domestic violence. We are trying to direct these services at these issues and will continue to do so.

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)]

Does my noble friend accept that in recent years there have been a considerable number of pregnant women in prisons? Can he assure us that in every case the person concerned will be treated with sensitivity?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

This is a very important issue for us. In all cases where a female offender is in custody, we endeavour to ensure that birth does not take place within the prison system, but sometimes that cannot be avoided. We have extensive services for mothers and children up to the age of 18 months when it is necessary for them to be in custody—I emphasise the word “necessary”. When an offender is reaching the end of a short sentence, steps are taken to try to ensure that mother and child are kept together. However, of course this cannot be done in circumstances where there has been a serious offence that results in a mother being in custody for a lengthy period.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate referred to the strategy envisaging greater use of residential and community services instead of custodial sentences. To what extent is that occurring? Are the Government still adhering to their policy of limiting funding of the strategy to £5 million over two years, replacing their previous plan to spend £50 million on five new prisons? If so, what is happening to the other £45 million?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, there is an important shift in policy away from custody as a means of trying to resolve these issues. That is why we moved away from the proposal for five community prisons; we hope they will not be required. Instead, we have shifted the balance in the direction of community services. We will pilot such community residential services in five areas to see how they work. For that purpose, we have committed funding of up to £5 million over the next two years, but of course that will not be the end of the matter. We will address the consequences of the pilot in these five areas and see how we can take things forward from there.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

Does the Minister recall that 15 years ago, during my noble friend Lord Blunkett’s custodianship of the Home Office, the Sentencing Guidelines Council approved indeterminate sentences for more serious crimes, on condition that there should be a significant reduction at the lower end for less serious crimes, particularly for women and women with debt? Unfortunately, from the judiciary’s point of view, that has never been fully implemented. May I congratulate the Government on moving away from custodial sentences and ask them to look to this long-standing recommendation that has never been fully implemented?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I agree with the force of the noble Lord’s point. In fact, Section 152 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 clearly requires the courts to consider imposing non-custodial sentences unless otherwise justified. The Sentencing Council guidelines from 2016 reinforce this move. In addition to that, we have a judgment from the criminal Court of Appeal in the case of Petherick in 2012, which set out the criteria for sentencing in cases involving, for example, a female offender with dependent children. We have been moving in the right direction, but I accept that we have not moved far enough and we are determined to see if we can do that.

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

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Mutual Recognition of Protection Measures in Civil Matters (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, the Committee will be aware that as part of the no-deal preparations we have, as I indicated earlier, published a series of technical notices to outline the implications for citizens and businesses. I referred earlier to the technical notice published on 13 September 2018 which made clear that we are committed to unilaterally recognising incoming civil protection measures from EU countries to ensure that vulnerable individuals would continue to be protected. This instrument amends the retained EU law to give effect to that policy.

Before I set out the effect of the instrument, it might help if I first explain what I mean by a civil protection measure and how the rules are currently applied both in the United Kingdom and across the EU. A civil protection measure is a decision ordered by an issuing authority of an EU member state in accordance with its national law that imposes restrictions on one person with a view to protecting another when the latter’s physical or psychological integrity may be at risk. The civil protection measure imposes one or more obligations on the person causing the risk. For example, they may be restricted from entering the place where the at-risk individual works or resides, or from contacting them by telephone or other means.

Examples of civil protection measures in England and Wales include non-molestation orders under Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 or injunctions under Section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and there are similar provisions in the law of Scotland. In the law of Northern Ireland, such measures include non-molestation orders under Article 20 of the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 and injunctions with regard to harassment.

Regulation 606/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters, which I will refer to as the civil protection measures regulation, provides for the mutual recognition of such protection measures in civil matters across the EU. The effect of this is that a civil protection measure granted in one member state must be recognised in another without any special procedure for achieving this and it must be enforceable in another member state without any need for a declaration of enforceability. It is, in effect, treated as if the civil protection measure had been ordered in the member state addressed.

If we leave the EU without an agreement then, as presently drafted, the retained EU law will become deficient as the UK will no longer be a member state and will therefore be unable to recognise and enforce an incoming protection measure from any EU member state under the terms of the civil protection measures regulation as retained. Accordingly, the instrument provides that an incoming civil protection measure from an EU member state shall, under the terms of the civil protection measures regulation, be recognised without any special procedure being required and enforceable without the requirement for a declaration of enforceability.

However, the instrument revokes the provision relevant to issuing a certificate in the courts of England and Wales and Northern Ireland which is required for recognition and enforcement in an EU member state under the civil protection measures regulation. The reason for this is that we are unable to legislate unilaterally to restore the reciprocity of approach. That is something I mentioned earlier. We cannot require an EU member state to comply with the civil protection measures regulation with respect to a civil protection measure issued by a court in the UK when we will no longer be an EU member state. The consequence is that EU member states will no longer be bound to recognise, let alone enforce, civil protection measures issued in the UK.

It is our view that to provide for courts in England and Wales to issue such certificates when there is no certainty that the civil protection measure could be invoked in the UK under the EU regulation would provide no benefit for citizens. Indeed, on the contrary, that runs the risk of giving a person at risk a false expectation of continued protection in an EU member state. To give a simple example, if after exit we were to issue such a civil protection measure to an individual who was going to Poland, they might go to Poland in the belief that they enjoyed some degree of protection because of the order made by the English court, but in reality they would enjoy no element of protection when they got there because the order would not be recognised by the Polish court. Of course, for reasons that I have mentioned before, we hope to take that forward in the context of negotiation. The instrument is designed to address the issue of a no-deal exit from the EU.

Although the Government accept that this loss of reciprocity means that those with civil protection measures issued in our courts who wish to travel to the EU will be in a disadvantageous position as compared to those with protection measures issued in the EU who wish to come to the UK, we believe that it is right that we do what we can to provide as much reassurance as possible to persons, often vulnerable persons, who have been granted a protection measure issued in the EU. This is to the benefit of all citizens living in the EU, whether they be EU or UK nationals.

Frankly, we did not come to that conclusion on our own. The proposal that, post EU exit, civil protection measures and certificates issued in EU member states continue to be recognised and enforceable in the UK was discussed with family law stakeholders and leading family law practitioners as we developed our thinking on the issue.

These regulations cover England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the issues here are devolved to Scotland. The Scottish Government are dealing with this matter separately and are determined to bring forward their own legislation in this area. However, we understand that they also intend to continue recognising and enforcing incoming protection measures.

This instrument ensures that the element of the regime for mutual recognition of civil protection measures that we can continue to operate under a no-deal scenario applies—namely, to continue to unilaterally comply with the regulation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland with respect to incoming civil protection.

The civil protection measure regime is not, so far as we are able to determine, widely relied on in any formal sense. However, it provides for hapless people in vulnerable situations an additional protection when moving from an EU member state into the UK. It is for that reason that we have decided on this unilateral approach to this particular issue. It is perhaps a pragmatic approach, but it means that we do what we are able to do in this situation for vulnerable individuals without creating a false expectation of protection for those who may be in the UK and contemplating going to other EU states. We therefore consider that this is the best and most appropriate approach to take if the United Kingdom leaves the EU without a deal.

It is in those circumstances that I commend the instrument to the Committee—adding the caveat, again, that we hope to exit with a deal and to engage in fruitful and constructive negotiations about judicial cooperation at all levels going forward.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, about half-way down page 3 there is a reference to “participating Member State” and that it means “a Member State other than Denmark”. Am I right in thinking that, although it is dealt with specifically there, there is no change as far as Denmark is concerned because it does not participate in the EU regulations? Is it purely a matter of drafting that this provision appears?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The position as I understand it —I mentioned this earlier—is that pursuant to Article 22 of TFEU, Denmark has an opt out from all of these issues but has a bilateral agreement with the EU in respect of them. I have been corrected. It does not have a bilateral agreement in respect of this one but it does with the others—I apologise—and that is why Denmark is excepted.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

It is really a clarification in the drafting—it does not change anything. That is my point.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

That is entirely right.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this statutory instrument has the effect of preventing UK courts from providing similar protection measures and certificates to secure the recognition and enforcement of their judgments in the EU while, paradoxically, recognising such measures and certificates issued by the EU courts. This is extraordinary. There is not an impact assessment as far as I know—if there is I have missed it—and no indications as to what steps will be taken to ensure reciprocity by the EU on this subject. The noble and learned Lord mentioned that possibility en passant without substantive clarification.

The Law Society recommends that there should be an explicit clarification that protective measures issued in the Scottish and Northern Irish courts will be recognised in England and Wales. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will deal with that when he replies to the debate.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has recommended that this SI should be upgraded to an affirmative, stating:

“To allow UK civil courts to issue certificates post EU-exit would, potentially, mislead protected persons as to the recognition and enforceability of their UK issued protection measures in EU Member States post exit potentially placing them at risk”.

That sounds significant and I wonder why the Government have chosen to adopt the procedure they have rather than make this an affirmative, given the potential implications identified by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It points out that it is unclear what measures would be taken to ensure UK judgments would be recognised after Brexit and that there is an assumption that the EU states will not respect civil protection measures issued in England and Wales. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that?

Finally, there is a question about the potential cost to the UK Government, the courts and the police of enforcing EU-issued protection orders, which will still be valid, while ours will not be valid there. It looks one-sided: the cost will fall on us as a nation because contrary positions have been taken up. Can the noble and learned Lord clarify that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beith (LD)]

I agree entirely with my noble friend. Oddly enough, we had not consulted each other beforehand, but we reached the same conclusion from the same basic principles: where people are particularly vulnerable, when the arrangements we make in this country can afford them some protection, we should do so without regard to the reciprocity we would prefer, which we might not be able to have.

It is particularly depressing to have to see through this statutory instrument which says to people in desperate family situations threatened with violence, “Sorry, but, whereas we have been able to issue a procedure in the past which gives you some protection, even if you are going elsewhere in the European Union”—which they may be doing because there are grandparents or aunts and uncles for their children to see—“we can no longer offer you that, and you are that much more vulnerable as a consequence”. We really must negotiate our way to a better position. Like my noble friend, I think it is right that the Government should continue to offer protection when a court elsewhere in the European Union has deemed it necessary.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions. No matter how divisive the issues that we face on Europe, we should seek to do good where we can in the present circumstances. We consider that we can do this by accepting these unilateral measures for the benefit of EU and UK citizens.

Regarding the issue of reciprocity, we would clearly like to see the development of a reciprocal regime similar to that which is presently enjoyed, but the way negotiations have been carried on is such that they will not be salami-sliced, if I can put it that way. Going forward, we are going to have to negotiate judicial co-operation as a whole. It is therefore not possible to pre-empt the Commission on these matters by taking them one by one, however regrettable the matter might appear to be.

On the matter of costs, I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Beith: in a sense, it is a matter of no real concern whatever that cost might be, given the individuals that we are concerned with. However, I understand that these orders are very few and far between and that there will be no major impact on our public authorities.

On Scotland and Northern Ireland, the regulation does not apply intra-UK; it applies to the UK as a member of the EU. Intra-UK, these matters are determined by our domestic law, and I see no reason to anticipate that the Scottish Government will alter the present system whereby within domestic law you can have suitable reciprocal enforcement of orders in this area. It is a matter for the Scottish Government to bring forward their own instrument in this regard, and I am not in a position to pre-empt them on that.

Against that background, I am obliged to noble Lords for having welcomed this instrument, at least to the extent that it is doing some good. I therefore commend the draft instrument to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Jurisdiction and Judgments (Family) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Jurisdiction and Judgments (Family) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, I turn to two further draft instruments that form part of the preparations for a no-deal exit. They are, as before, concerned solely with no-deal preparations. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has reviewed these SIs and has no substantive comments to make about them.

I have already referred to, so shall not return to, the terms of the technical notice published on 13 September 2018 that covered these issues as well. I should say that prior to the publication of that notice my officials met on several occasions with key family law stake- holders, including leading family law practitioners and representative bodies, to ensure that our policy proposals provide certainty for citizens, legal practitioners and the court system in so as far as is appropriate as we transition to a post-exit arrangement in the event of no deal. That engagement has continued alongside the development of the instruments that we are discussing today, which are designed to implement the policy outlined in the technical notice of 13 September last year. I will come on to comment on a number of points that will arise concerning a further instrument in connection with some of the somewhat technical issues here, which I will endeavour to deal with as shortly as I can.

The first regulations we are considering in this debate are the draft Jurisdiction and Judgments (Family) (EU Exit) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2019. These make changes to the current EU rules governing cross-border family law disputes that involve courts in the UK and EU member states. Again, the instrument remedies deficiencies that would arise from retaining these EU rules in the event of us exiting without a deal.

The second set of regulations are the draft Civil Partnership and Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Judgments) Regulations 2019 which amend rules governing the jurisdiction and recognition of orders in relation to the dissolution of civil partnerships and divorce of same-sex married couples, which currently correspond to the EU rules. The effect of these regulations is that the rules relating to the dissolution of civil partnerships and the divorce of same-sex married couples will instead correspond to those for the divorce of opposite-sex married couples made by the first set of regulations—namely, the first instrument that I refer to. In other words, we are concerned to ensure that all these parties remain aligned.

It may be helpful if I outline the existing EU rules in this area. There are two applicable EU regulations: Brussels IIa, as distinct from Brussels Ia, and the maintenance regulation of 2009. The Brussels IIa regulation provides rules to determine, in cases where those involved come from or live in more than one member state, which court has jurisdiction—that is to say, has the right to hear a case—in relation to divorce and matrimonial disputes; matters of parental responsibility such as disputes between parents as to residence of and contact with their child; or care proceedings. It also provides rules for recognition, and enforcement where necessary, of a judgment from one member state in any of the others.

This includes a provision supplementing the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. That provision empowers the court of the EU member state of the child’s habitual residence to make an order requiring the child’s return to that state even if an order has been made by the member state to which the child was taken or in which the child was retained, that the child should not be returned. The regulation also provides rules on the availability of legal aid in these cases and for co-operation between central authorities in EU member states. As far as jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in matters relating to parental responsibility is concerned, the Brussels IIa regulation covers similar ground to the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, to which I will turn later.

The second applicable EU regulation, the maintenance regulation, sets out in a similar manner to Brussels IIa the rules governing which EU member state court has jurisdiction in cross-border cases concerning family maintenance, together with rules governing the recognition and enforcement of decisions in these cases and provision about legal aid and central authority co-operation. This covers similar ground to another Hague convention: the 2007 Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance. It is interesting to note that many regulations of the Brussels regime developed from Hague convention provisions. Like the 2005 convention, the 2007 convention was signed by the EU on behalf of all member states; again, we have taken steps to apply to become an individual state signatory to the 2007 convention. That application has been accepted already; on exit, we anticipate that in the absence of a no-deal exit, we will be a party to that convention from 1 April 2019.

Should the UK leave the EU without an agreement covering these matters, the Brussels IIa and maintenance regulations will no longer operate between the UK and EU member states since these regulations rely on reciprocal action between member states. Even if the UK were to purport to apply these rules after exit, the UK’s status as a third country would mean that the regulations as they bind the EU member states would not apply to the UK. For example, EU member states would not be bound to afford recognition or enforcement under the regulations to decisions of courts in the UK. Retained provisions of the regulation would also overlap with the Hague convention provisions to which I have referred; that in turn would be liable to create confusion and potentially undermine the operation of those conventions because people would be left in doubt over which regime they should have regard to or recourse to in such circumstances. It is this deficiency in retained EU law, which would otherwise remain on the statute book, that we seek to remedy.

The principal means of addressing this deficiency is to revoke the Brussels IIa and maintenance regulations, subject to transitional arrangements for cases that are in train on exit day; there would be recognition for those cases for transitional purposes. However, they will be removed, as they form part of retained EU law, by the jurisdiction and judgments regulations. As I touched on earlier, this will not, however, leave us without rules or international co-operation in these areas. The UK is already a contracting state to a number of Hague conventions in the field of family law which cover many of the same areas as the Brussels IIa and maintenance regulations. In particular, I would mention the 1996 Hague convention, which covers similar ground in respect of jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments and co-operation between authorities as the Brussels IIa regulation; all EU member states are bound by that 1996 Hague convention. The UK is already a contracting state to that convention, so it will apply upon exit with no deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I do not propose to address the same matters of detail that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has done. I said a great deal of what I wanted to say about the general impact on judicial co-operation and co-operation in legal matters in the debate on the first of these statutory instruments. But let the Minister and the Government be in no doubt that the issue of co-operation in family justice, and the replacement of the system we have now by the bitty and only partial system he has outlined, is the substitution of a much less satisfactory and much less smooth step backwards—which is to be deplored—from the extremely well-respected and widely understood system that we have now across the European Union.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentioned 16 million cross-border family disputes. The European Parliament estimates that 10% of European citizens are married to people of a different citizenship, and a very large number of those are married to other European citizens. I am one of them; many in your Lordships’ House and the other place are also married to other EU citizens. Even Nigel Farage is—or was—married to an EU citizen of another state.

We have a system now that works well and is widely respected across the whole gamut of domestic law. Jurisdiction is the area where I think there has been the most difficulty because the first court is the place of jurisdiction in divorce rulings, which was difficult to accept but is now widely understood. Recognition and enforcement are absolutely crucial. Going back to the Hague rules will be unhelpful by comparison with what we have now. The system of child abduction goes back to the Hague convention of 1980. Yes, it was there but the override that we have under Brussels IIa makes the system work far better, far more effectively, far more cheaply and with far more co-operation.

Judicial co-operation across the European Union has generally been helpful and beneficial and we have all gained immeasurably from the co-operation across different jurisdictions. Legal aid is available in respect of cross-border disputes within the European Union, which will not be available after we leave it. The new arrangements for the maintenance regulations are absolutely hopeless compared with what we currently enjoy for intra-European disputes, as anybody who is involved with divorces between, for instance, UK and US or other third-country litigants well knows.

I entirely accept the Government’s argument that we simply could not insist on losing reciprocity and nevertheless maintain unilateral arrangements in the case of these convention advantages, the reason being that we would put UK citizens at severe disadvantages when their relationships with other EU citizens broke down. Nevertheless, the Minister and the Government should not rest on the consultation that they have had by discussion with some family lawyers. The Government should be in no doubt that family lawyers generally deplore the loss of the European regime, which is what would face us if we went through with a no-deal exit.

The Explanatory Memorandum produced by the Government is in similar terms to, and shares the faults of, that in respect of civil and commercial cases. It says at paragraph 12.2 on page 6:

“In the event of a no deal EU Exit, the impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies (being those that advise, represent and support individuals and families engaged in cross-border family law matters) of this instrument will, on balance, be positive. The amendments provide a basis for continued reciprocal cooperation with most EU Member States through the UK’s participation with those Member States”.


It then goes through the Hague conventions that will be available. That is a comparison with the prospect that we would enjoy if we had no statutory instrument to cover this position. The Explanatory Memorandum faces reality later on in that paragraph, where it says:

“However, the change to Hague Convention rules and the new domestic rules on divorce etc jurisdiction, maintenance jurisdiction and parental responsibility legal aid will require relevant businesses, charities and voluntary bodies to familiarise themselves and adjust their administrative arrangements to deal with the new rules. In some cases (especially divorce etc jurisdiction) the new rules could lead to greater disputation and complexity”.


Greater disputation and complexity always means greater cost. In family cases it is greater stress, unhappiness and mental health issues, and severe damage to children. One sees in so many of these cross-border cases the added damage to children, even with the present benign arrangements, because their parents are in different jurisdictions. The Explanatory Memorandum goes on:

“In the event of a no deal EU Exit, the impact on the public sector is expected to be an increase in case volume and complexity of cases before the family court due to the changes in divorce and maintenance jurisdiction rules. However, this instrument will have positive impacts on the family court as it ensures there will be workable rules governing cross-border family law disputes”.


Once again, this is confusing the two issues. Yes, there will be workable rules and, yes, that is better than no rules at all, but it is far worse than what we have now.

Of course, I accept the other statutory instrument that same-sex marriage and civil partnerships should be put on the same basis as opposite-sex relationships, but we are once again facing a situation where it is my view—and, I suggest, a view that ought to be taken seriously by the Government—that the loss of co-operation in family law and relationship law generally would be very serious, and that those prepared to countenance no deal should take that into consideration far more than they do at present. I know that the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, take these matters seriously. I wish other members of the Government would do the same.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to noble Lords for their contributions. I reiterate what the relevant comparators are for impact assessments in consideration of these instruments. This Parliament determined to make a law by reason of which we leave the EU on 29 March 2019. The Executive not only have to respect that law, as made by this Parliament, but have to make appropriate plans and arrangements to allow for that in the event that no withdrawal agreement is in place as at 29 March. So, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, we are carrying out a relevant comparison within the impact assessments in that context.

I will not gainsay the comments about the benefits we have enjoyed from the Brussels regime, whether in the context of divorce, maintenance, child abduction or the wider issues we have already discussed today of commercial and civil cases. We have all benefited from that regime, but we cease to be a party to it because this Parliament has made a law determining that that would be the consequence on 29 March 2019.

On the issues of family law, fortunately we have, in essence, the foundations for all that we find in Brussels IIa. We have the 1970 Hague convention on recognition of divorce and separation and the 1980 Hague convention on child abduction. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, is quite right that it does not contain the override, but then it cannot because we will not be in a position to make an order overriding an order of an EU state court when we have left the EU. We simply cannot do that unilaterally, so we have to accept that. We have the 1996 Hague convention on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, enforcement and co-operation in family matters. In the context of maintenance, we have the 2007 Hague convention. All of that will be in place and, as I indicated earlier, we are also applying to be a party to the Lugano Convention, although my understanding is that the Lugano Convention is on civil and commercial rather than family matters. Nevertheless, we are taking all the steps we can at this stage to cover all bases.

On the question of future co-operation, the political declaration refers to the intention to negotiate these matters, but it takes two to tango—as is sometimes observed—and therefore the pace at which we can negotiate these issues is dictated not only by us but by the EU, and we have to take that on board.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to the European protection order. That is a particularly difficult issue because the European protection order is in the form of a directive, which is quite specific in its terms. It says that an EU court can issue an EPO only to another EU jurisdiction, and that an EU court can recognise an EPO only from another EU jurisdiction. It is simply not possible even to apply a unilateral aspect of the EPO, but we have done that with regard to the civil protection orders that I referred to earlier.

We have done as much as we can in preparation for a no-deal exit—a no-deal exit of which no one, as far as I am aware, is truly in favour. But we have to plan for that contingency given the state of the law as it has been determined by Parliament. It is in these circumstances that I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Beecham]

I am grateful to the Minister. He cites the difficulty with the restriction of the powers of the European court. Could that be addressed, not as part of a no-deal situation, but in the event of a negotiated deal? I assume that it would, but it would be welcome to have that on the record.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am not in a position to say what will or will not be addressed in the context of negotiations that are not yet under way, and that are pursuant to a political declaration that is attendant upon a withdrawal agreement that is not yet an agreement. So I am reluctant there. I observe, however, that it would be necessary for the EU to amend the relevant directive. It would have to amend it quite significantly to afford that benefit. No doubt parties will bear in mind the potential benefits of such an order going forward.

There is only one other matter that I will mention. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to me meeting the Resolution Foundation—in fact, it was my officials who met it, not me, to be clear on that. With that, I commend this draft instrument to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

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

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Civil Partnership and Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Judgments) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Motion agreed.