---

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]

I know that the name ““adjudicator”” has been abolished in favour of ““judge”” in the immigration jurisdiction, but in this case it seemed odd. If the Minister is saying that measures will be taken to ensure that the form of address is not ““your honour””, and that the tribunal will remain informal, that would be helpful, and we would certainly like to see that happen. Concerns have been raised about the ability of the new upper tribunal to hear judicial review cases. As the Minister knows, that area of law has traditionally been reserved for the administrative court list in the Queen’s Bench division, because of the nature of the work and the experience and competence that it requires. While we support access to justice for all, and judicial review is included in that, reforms must not be made at the expense of quality decision-making, particularly in a delicate and developing area of law that includes many cases with a human-rights element. We all know of the Lord Chancellor’s recent comment that decisions under the Human Rights Act are common sense and anyone who says otherwise is bonkers. Now, however, he seems to be saying that it would be right for matters of this sort to be dealt with at a lower level than the High Court. Can the Minister explain why that decision was made? Obviously there may be a shortage of High Court judges, but is it really right to downplay such an important role?