The law-making process: consultation over-load?
In Chapter 3 of the book, I suggest that the legislative process passes through a number of stages:
- ideas set out in the party election manifesto of the winning political party;
- (sometimes) publication of a Green paper – setting out ideas for law reform;
- (more frequently) publication of a White paper – setting out firmer proposals for changing the law
- publication of a Bill – putting the proposed changes into draft legislative form.
Of course, real life is not as clear-cut as that.
I was struck, however, by an article that recently appeared in The Times (30 March 2018) under the heading “Hundreds of government pledges the Tories have quietly forgotten”. Investigators from the newspaper stated that, since 2015, 1,661 consultations that have been launched by the present government. In most cases, there is little sign that the results of the consultations are either being analysed or acted upon. And given that consultations cost, on average, £40,000, this represents a waste of cash resources as well.
The authors state “Whitehall guidelines say there should be an official response within three months outlining steps for new policy or legislation. However, the government website shows that almost a third of the Tories’ consultations have had no such response and 202 out of 898 that started before the end of 2016 remain incomplete.”
Thus what might seem to be an important source of ideas for legislative change turns out to be somewhat underwhelming. Sorting out legislative priorities is a challenge for any government, but it is important that, when the public is asked for its views on possible reform ideas, it should feel that its views are taken into account, even if not acted upon in the way respondents might hope for. If the public starts to think that ‘consultation’ – which might imply some action – is being used, instead, as an excuse for inaction, this does not seem to me to be a sensible use of the consultation process – which should encourage engagement in the policy/law-making process.
The Times article is at https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hundreds-of-government-pledges-the-tories-have-quietly-forgotten-6kwt879bg
(This may be behind a paywall).
Slimming down the size of Parliament: the turn of the House of Lords
I have commented before on current plans to reduce the size of the House of Commons from 650 to 600 MPs. The process, taking place under the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, has already been subject to delay. And, there is much speculation that the revised date for implementation (sometime in 2018) will either be further delayed or even abandoned. (See this blog October 30 2017.)
A somewhat similar exercise has been launched in relation to the House of Lords. As the House of Lords is not an elected body, a reduction in size cannot be achieved simply by reducing the number of Parliamentary Constituencies. Instead, other steps have to be adopted if its numbers are to reduce.
In 2017, Lord Burns was asked by the Lord Speaker to chair a Committee on how this might be achieved. The Burns report, which was published in October 2017, sets out a programme for size reduction over the next ten years. Among the recommendations are that membership of the House of Lords should be limited to 15 years (currently appointments are for life); and that until the target number of reached only 1 new member should be appointed for every two members whose appointments end.
To date the report has been debated in the House of Lords (December 2017) and is now being examined by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the House of Commons. Final decisions have not yet been taken.
Lord Burn’s Report can be read at https://www.parliament.uk/size-of-house-committee.
The Lords’ Debate is at https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2017/december/lords-debates-size-of-the-house-report/.
The Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional affairs is at https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-administration-and-constitutional-affairs-committee/inquiries/parliament-2017/lord-speakers-committee-size-house-17-19/
Equal treatment: Guidance from the Judicial College
It should go without saying that, particularly in the legal arena, those who take part in proceedings before courts and tribunals need to feel that they have been treated equally.
This is, of course, easier said than done, as David Lammy’s report on the Criminal Justice System, published in 2017 showed. (See this blog 29 Sept 2017). But for many years first the Judicial Studies Board and now the Judicial College have offered guidance to judges (and by extension to others involved in the justice system) about the best ways to try to ensure that people are treated fairly.
Much of this focusses on the language that judges and others involved in the justice system use generally (for example in relation to litigants in person) and in relation to those from specific sectors of society, who may be defined by their religion, their ethnicity, their sexual orientation, mental or physical disabilities, their gender.
In February 2018, the Judicial College published an on-line updated revision to its ‘Equal Treatment Bench Book’. Bench books were originally devised as a handy guide to key issues which could sit on the judge’s desk, available for him to refer to it that seemed necessary.
I am not sure whether this particular Bench Book can be used in this way. For one thing, it is very long – well over 400 pages. And the issues raised are such that I would have thought judges would need to have considered them before a case or other proceedings have started. (It would not be desirable for a judge to stop in the middle of a sentence in order to look up how a particular person should be addressed.)
But I don’t agree, as some comments in the press have suggested, that the Equal Treatment Bench Book is an example of political correctness gone mad. It seems to me to be an honourable attempt to raise questions and address issues that arise in practice but that many judges may not have thought about before. (Indeed, I think there are some parts of the book that would be of interest to a wider readership.)
I set out the link to the text here, and invite readers to take a look at the Book and come to their own view on its value.
Post-legislative scrutiny : LASPO 2012
The concept of the post-legislative scrutiny was introduced in 2008, following a report on the idea, published by the Law Commission in 2006.
Now called ‘Post Implementation Review’, the Government has decided to subject Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, 2012 (LASPO) to such a review. This is the part of LASPO which deals with legal aid.
The effect of LASPO was to make significant cuts to the provision of legal aid in England and Wales. There have been many calls – from the legal profession, from the judiciary and from those working in the advice sector, among others – for those cuts to be reversed.
The Low Commission (2014) and the Bach Commission’s Report (2017) argued that the cuts had led to legal advice deserts and were having an adverse impact on the citizens’ access to justice.
The Government has recently (March 2018) set out the terms of reference for what it calls the ‘consultation’ phase of the LASPO review and has invited the submission of evidence on the impact of the 2012 changes.
The process is currently being monitored by the Select Committee on Justice. It has recently published correspondence with the Secretary of State for Justice.
It may also be noted that criminal legal aid barristers are currently threatening strike action on the impact of changes to the rates of pay they receive for doing criminal legal aid work.
It is likely that many of the submissions to the review will argue for the restoration of cuts imposed 5 years ago.
My view is that a roll-back to the pre-LASPO position is extremely unlikely. More likely is a renewed emphasis on ways of improving the provision of front-line advice, to try to enable more people to undertake legal work for themselves. There will also be an emphasis on new processes for handling legal disputes which might be easier for people to operate themselves.
It would be nice to think that the innovative ideas of the Low Commission for a new National Strategy for Advice and Legal Support would be put in place, supported by its proposed National Advice and Legal Support Fund. But, in the absence of strong lobbying from the public in favour of these ideas, I have my doubts as to whether these will gain political traction.
For the terms of reference of the consultation, see https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/686576/pir-laspo-terms-of-reference.pdf
The Select Committee on Justice is at https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/justice-committee/.
Innovation in the provision of legal advice
Lawyers do not always get a good press. But an interesting paper, recentlypublished by the Human Rights Group JUSTICE (I declare an interest – I am a member of its Council), shows that there are many who still want to deliver legal services to the most disadvantaged people in our society.
In Innovations in personally-delivered advice: surveying the landscape the paper takes a look at how dedicated lawyers and others in the advice sector have sought to devise new ways of delivering advice to members of the public. The cuts to Legal Aid have not deterred them from wanting to provide a public service.
The importance of these services was stressed both in the Low Commission report in 2015, and the Bach report in 2017 – both of which called for their development. What the JUSTICE report shows is how, in a time of austerity, it is still possible to offer at least some services in new an innovative ways.
A number of important points emerge from the survey:
- First is that taking legal advice to places where those who might want that advice go might be more effective than expecting people to come into solicitors’ offices. Thus the report gives examples of outreach work being undertaken in doctors’ surgeries, foodbanks, prisons, ‘pop-up’ clinics in libraries, branches of Tesco, and university Law Clinics.
- Second, providers may need to consider new partnerships with both the private and charitable sectors to fund new initiatives. The report gives examples of new partnerships with the private sector (e.g. banks – offering advice on debt ) and the charitable sector (e.g. Dementia UK offering advice for dementia sufferers and carers). Moves towards greater corporate social responsibility may offer new opportunities for innovation.
- Thirdly, the report gives examples of advice providers taking advantage of the new rules on Alternative Business Structures to develop new ways of delivering face-to-fact advice services. For example, with Gateshead Enterprises’ Job Law, “the first consultation is free and any further advice required is on a ‘pay as you go’ basis”; the chargeable advice is half price; and any profits are channelled directly back into Citizens Advice Gateshead to ensure it can continue its work.
This is not designed to be a comprehensive report on everything that is happening in the advice sector. But, given how easy it is to assume from the media that the cuts in legal aid and other sources of funding for the advice sector have almost destroyed the advice sector, I think it important to know that dedicated individuals continue try to deliver a service to those who most need such services. The examples given in this paper show that the green shoots of innovation are, if not yet flourishing, beginning to emerge from a very hard economic climate.
I hope the examples given here will inspire others to bring forward their own ideas and initiatives.
The JUSTICE report is available at https://justice.org.uk/innovations-personally-delivered-advice-surveying-landscape/
Understanding the SQE and what it means for me | The University of Law
Excellent summary of pending changes to the route to qualification for solicitors. Further postings will appear as details become clearer and timelines are settled
Source: Understanding the SQE and what it means for me | The University of Law
Practitioners and academics: new alliances
In my book Introduction to the English Legal System, I argue that legal academics play an important role in the development of our understanding of the law and that their role should be given more recognition than it sometimes has had in the past. (See Chapter 9, section 9.10).
Recently, however, my interest has been stimulated by stories in the professional legal press concerning a rather different collaboration between the world of legal practice and the academic world.
A number of firms, particularly those engaged in personal injury litigation, have been working with academic statisticians and ‘decision scientists’ to try to understand what are the variables that are in play when litigation is under consideration and thus trying to understand better the risks of taking particular cases on and to predict better the potential outcome of issues that are being litigated. This may help practitioners to decide whether a case should settle, or be fought through to trial.
The firms concerned think this may be beneficial both for small value large volume groups of claims, as well as high value claims. One finding that has emerged from this work is that the models that are being used suggest that the upper level of the Judicial College Guidelines on damages for different types of injury is almost irrelevant in most cases.
It is possible that this approach might also be used by the Courts and Tribunals service to analyse cases that pass through the courts. It might help, for example, in making determinations on which cases might be suitable for the small claims track or the fast track in the allocation of civil disputes in the county court – a possibility hinted at by Sir Ernest Ryder in a recent speech where he said:
Digitisation will, if we are sensible, provide us with the opportunity to gather data on the operation of our justice systems in ways that we have often been unable to before. It provides us with the opportunity to make our justice systems more adaptive; but again, only after proper scrutiny and discussion.
It seems to me that these initiatives will grow in number in the near future. What will be needed is proper evaluation of these tools to see whether they do in fact assist in both legal and judicial practice, and how they might be developed.
For press reports on these initiatives see https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/hodge-jones-allen-embraces-predictive-modelling-pi-work; and https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/leading-law-firm-joins-forces-lse-professors-find-ways-predict-litigation.
Sir Ernest Ryder’s speech is at https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ryder-spt-open-justice-luxembourg-feb-2018.pdf
Going digital – piloting video hearings
The Transforming our Justice System reform programme has flagged the possibility of much more use of digital technology in the processing and handling of disputes. Following the announcement at the beginning of February 2018 that it is now possible to start divorce proceedings on-line (see this blog for 2 Feb 2018), we now have a new announcement about how cases might be heard using new technologies
This development, announced on 15 February 2018, concerns the piloting of video hearings in the Tax Tribunal. This initiative will be rolled out in a measured way, with potential participants being asked whether they would like their cases to be dealt with on-line.
It seems that the Tax Tribunal has been chosen for this experiment as it is presumed that many tax cases turn on rather complex points of law, rather than major disputes on questions of fact which might require the presence of parties in the same room.
This new announcement builds on another pilot, which ran in the autumn of 2017 in which a number of case management hearings in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber were dealt with through video hearings. The results of these seem to have been very positive and demonstrate that such issues can be dealt with more efficiently on-line without compromising standards of justice.
HMCTS do seem to be taking a measured approach to these developments, wanting to bring all those involved – judges, practitioners and litigants – with them, to ensure that these developments do meet user needs.
Further announcements will emerge in the months ahead.
To read more about the video Tax Hearing pilot, see https://www.gov.uk/government/news/video-hearing-pilot-launched.
For the HMCTS blog on these developments go to https://insidehmcts.blog.gov.uk/2018/02/15/video-hearings-can-make-a-difference-for-court-and-tribunal-users/
Family justice: reforming public law case procedures
Hot on the heels of the announcement of on-line divorce applications (see this blog Feb 2 2018), information has just been published as a blog from HMCTS on developments relating to the digitalisation of procedures relating to public law childrens’ cases.
Emma Petty, Service Manager for the Public Law project, writes:
We want to make the public law process more efficient, ensuring the court, parties and their representatives have access to the right information at the right time to help decide the best outcomes for children involved in public law cases. Based on our early thinking, the aims of the project could be to:
- provide an online application process which speeds up the gatekeeping process and shares information with partner agencies at the point of submission
- improve the process for dealing with urgent applications
- enable users to see the progress of their case and to take action to progress their case online
- provide clear signposting to support available outside HMCTS, to assist parties acting in person and without a lawyer
- enable users to upload and access documents and evidence digitally both outside and inside the courtroom
- ensure suitable facilities and support are provided at hearing centres
- enable hearings, where appropriate, to be conducted online
- provide fast digital access to outcomes of hearings
- ensure those who need it get the support they need to access our digital services.
Over coming months, the Public Law Project team will be working with practitioners and others involved in these types of case in developing practices and procedures to deliver these goals. This is an important development within the scope of the Transformation of the Justice System policy.
Further detail is at https://insidehmcts.blog.gov.uk/2018/02/07/designing-a-public-law-service-to-meet-user-needs/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=
Martin Partington: Introduction to the English Legal System 15th ed 2021
Oxford University Press Learning Link Resources
Martin Partington: Spotlight on the Justice System 