← Back to House of Commons Debates
Independent Review of Administrative Law
18 March 2021
Lead MP
Robert Buckland
Debate Type
Ministerial Statement
Tags
Parliamentary Procedure
Other Contributors: 20
At a Glance
Robert Buckland raised concerns about independent review of administrative law in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Government Statement
The Minister Robert Buckland announced a Government response to the independent review of administrative law, emphasising judicial review's role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that powers granted by Parliament are used within legal limits. The review, chaired by Lord Faulks, highlighted concerns about an expanding remit of judicial review and suggested measures to restore balance between Parliament and the courts. Key proposals include legislation to remove Cart judicial reviews, which involve excessive layers of appeals with a low success rate. Additionally, the Government plans to consult on further reforms such as ouster clauses for certain decisions, prospective-only remedies to limit retrospective effects, and procedural changes to improve efficiency. The Lord Chancellor's role is to ensure that judicial review remains vital while fine-tuning it within constitutional arrangements.
David Lammy
Lab
Tottenham
Question
The MP inquired about the publication of all submissions to consultations, questioning if the Government would make certain decisions beyond judicial review's reach. He also sought guarantees that judicial reviews on pandemic-related issues would not be affected by proposed changes.
Minister reply
The minister acknowledged the need for caution and further consultation but did not provide specific commitments regarding publishing all submissions or guaranteeing no impact on pandemic-related judicial reviews.
David Lammy
Lab
Tottenham
Question
May I begin by thanking the panel for their work? We will study the proposals carefully and note the announcement of further consultation. We would like to see all submissions to the consultations published; can the Secretary of State confirm whether he will do that? I also note that, as feared, the Government are considering making certain decisions of Parliament beyond the reach of judicial review... [full detailed question]
Minister reply
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. First, those contributions to the review call for evidence that are quoted in the report have been published today. The other public responses to the consultation will be published next week. Government submissions to the consultation will be summarised and published within the next 10 days... [full detailed answer]
Question
I thank both the Lord Chancellor for the tone of his statement and the members of the panel for their work. The Lord Chancellor was very clear in his commitment to the importance and the fundamental nature of judicial review in our constitutional arrangements... [full detailed question]
Minister reply
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee. His reference to the late Lord Bingham and the description of the audit role is an invaluable intervention. That is precisely what the Government seek to do here. It is all about protecting the role of the judiciary as well... [full detailed answer]
Stuart McDonald
SNP
Glasgow East
Question
The Justice Secretary’s concerns about perceived expansion of judicial review should be approached with scepticism. The Opposition is concerned that the reforms are more about anger towards specific court judgments and aim to constrain democratic safeguards. Successive Conservative Governments have sought to restrict legal aid, protest rights, and charity regulations. We question whether these proposals relate to immigration issues and if they impinge on reserved Scottish jurisdictions.
Minister reply
The Cart jurisdiction is a reserved matter concerning immigration that applies to Scotland as well. The Government’s approach to the rule of law does not equate with reactionary actions like those seen in 1790s France. Proposals aim to enhance legal certainty and avoid overly wide ouster clauses.
Sarah Dines
Con
Eddisbury
Question
Does the Lord Chancellor agree that Opposition Members would be hypocritical to oppose judicial review reforms, given they proposed abolition of judicial review in immigration and asylum matters?
Minister reply
The proper use of legal process is crucial for rule of law. Some lawyers abuse procedures by delaying and frustrating processes which detract from fairness. Previous Governments have argued for wide-ranging ouster clauses but now aim to find a balanced approach.
Wera Hobhouse
Lib Dem
Bath
Question
There is no justification for restricting people’s access to court through judicial review reforms. Instead, the Ministry of Justice should focus on improving conviction rates for crimes against women and girls.
Minister reply
The proposals do not curtail judicial review; they enhance options available to the judiciary by introducing suspended quashing orders which could help campaigners avoid administrative chaos.
David Simmonds
Con
Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner
Question
From personal experience in local government, I know that judicial reviews can bring significant uncertainty to decisions made by democratically elected bodies. Will the Lord Chancellor outline benefits of these reforms for local authorities?
Minister reply
The proposals will allow minor administrative errors not to result in entire policies being struck down, reducing uncertainty and administrative headaches for local authorities.
Andrew Slaughter
Lab
Hammersmith and Chiswick
Question
Successive Conservative Governments have spent significant time restricting judicial review. Will the Lord Chancellor’s legacy be one of undermining judicial discretion and rights of citizens to challenge Executive power?
Minister reply
The proposals aim to increase judicial discretion, allowing a more precise approach to issues rather than blunt remedies like quashing decisions or making declarations of unlawfulness.
Felicity Buchan
Con
Christchurch
Question
How will the Lord Chancellor ensure that we find the right balance between protecting individual rights and ensuring government can proceed effectively without vexatious legal claims?
Minister reply
The proposals streamline processes to ensure claims are dealt with quickly, fairly, and in proper places by maintaining reliable appeal routes.
Tan Dhesi
Lab
Slough
Question
Will the Government limit how a judicial review can be used in asylum cases by stopping automatic referral of cases to senior judges? Is this anti-immigrant sentiment?
Minister reply
There is no base motive behind these proposals. The aim is to create a system that works better for applicants, reducing delay and anxiety while maintaining appeal processes necessary for rule of law principles.
Robbie Moore
Con
Keighley and Ilkley
Question
Judicial reviews are a vital part of the justice system. They help test the lawfulness of decisions by public bodies but can be expensive, making it hard for people to challenge flawed decisions. Could the Lord Chancellor comment on how the judicial review process can be made more accessible and affordable?
Minister reply
The Minister acknowledges the importance of judicial review and highlights that procedural reform proposals aim to streamline and simplify the process, making it more accessible. He also emphasises the role of judicial reviews in ensuring better decision-making by public bodies.
Question
When this review was announced, the Member reminded the Lord Chancellor that Scotland's independent legal system is protected by Article 19 of the treaty of Union and devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Will he join her in celebrating another victory for Scotland’s independent legal system?
Minister reply
The Minister congratulates Joanna Cherry on her birthday and assures her that proposals will apply only to England and Wales, respecting Scotland's independent legal system. He also mentions learning from the Scottish jurisdiction.
Tahir Ali
Lab
Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley
Question
The time limit for bringing a judicial review claim is extremely short compared to other types of claims, making it harder for individuals to access justice. Will the Lord Chancellor guarantee that he will not make time limits stricter?
Minister reply
The Minister reassures Tahir Ali that proposals aim to remove restrictions rather than impose new ones, and the three-month limit will remain, with discretion available in some cases.
Question
Judicial review has grown significantly over the last 40-50 years. Will the Lord Chancellor accept congratulations for his review of judicial review and expedite it?
Minister reply
The Minister acknowledges the importance of expediting the review but also emphasises the need for proper scrutiny, as the matter is part of the Government’s approach to rebalancing the constitution.
Rachael Maskell
Lab Co-op
York Central
Question
The Member criticises the Government's use of law to clamp down on justice seekers protesting and prosecuting cases, suggesting that narrowing judicial review scope is part of a hostile environment. Will he publish all submissions, including those from the Home Office, and an equality impact assessment?
Minister reply
The Minister responds by clarifying that public order reforms are well-established legal practice aimed at balancing freedom of expression with societal rights.
Question
Can we quash hyperbolic nonsense about incidents on Saturday being due to poor enforcement of badly drafted covid regulations? Will the Lord Chancellor update the House on the constitution, democracy and rights commission?
Minister reply
The Minister confirms that he appeared before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and explains that a review is part of an ongoing process to rebalance the constitution.
Question
The Faculty of Advocates advised against substantive statutory intervention in judicial review, stating it risks stymying development. Why has this advice been disregarded?
Minister reply
The Minister assures that advice has not been disregarded but emphasises that the review panel carefully considered evidence and concluded that a wholesale codification is unnecessary.
Question
Will the Lord Chancellor set out for the benefit of the House the advantages of these measures?
Minister reply
The Minister outlines several benefits, including enhanced rights for individuals through options such as suspended quashing orders that allow authorities to correct their behavior.
Bury South
Question
Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the consultation process will be interactive, engaging with interested parties in all regions and nations?
Minister reply
The Minister confirms a fully engaged consultation process, welcoming participation from people and organisations who provided evidence last autumn.
Shadow Comment
David Lammy
Shadow Comment
The Shadow Minister David Lammy criticised the Government's response, expressing concern over expanding the use of ouster clauses and undermining judicial review. He highlighted instances where the current Government has shown disdain for parliamentary scrutiny and rule of law, such as unlawful prorogation and restrictions on protest rights. Lammy emphasised the importance of judicial review in holding public bodies accountable, citing examples from the pandemic period. The Labour Party will defend judicial review to ensure accountability of an 'incompetent and untrustworthy Government'.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.