💻 Delegated Legislation Committee

• Purpose of the Draft Regulations: The draft Online Procedure Rules (Specified Proceedings) Regulations 2025 aim to improve access to justice by allowing the Online Procedure Rule Committee (OPRC) to create rules for specific types of online court and tribunal proceedings.

• Jurisdictions Covered: The regulations will apply to civil, family, and tribunal jurisdictions across England and Wales, with some tribunal proceedings extending across the UK.

• Civil Jurisdiction: In the civil jurisdiction, the OPRC will create rules for property proceedings. This includes digitizing court processes for landlords to regain possession of properties under the upcoming Renters’ Rights Bill.

• Tribunal Jurisdiction: The OPRC will make rules for property proceedings in the first-tier and upper tribunals, allowing certain cases to be managed online as digital systems are introduced.

• Family Jurisdiction: The OPRC will set rules for financial remedies in the family jurisdiction, including contested financial remedies and financial consent orders following divorce, to support existing online services.

• Implementation Timeline: There is no direct link between the timelines of the Renters’ Rights Bill and the implementation of the online procedure rules. The Minister promised to update on rule publication dates.

• Concerns and Assurances: Concerns were raised about potential legal uncertainty if procedural rules are not aligned with the Renters’ Rights Bill, and overlapping rule-making jurisdictions. The Minister assured that the OPRC would work closely with the judiciary and existing rule committees to ensure clarity and avoid confusion.

• Access to Justice: The shadow Minister emphasized that digital services must not disadvantage those with limited digital literacy or access. The Minister confirmed that a paper-based service and digital support service would be available to ensure equal access to justice for all.

• Outcome: The Committee approved the draft regulations, aiming to modernize the justice system through digital processes while ensuring fairness and accessibility.

The session shows some level of disagreement, primarily in the form of questions and requests for clarification from the opposition regarding the implementation of the proposed regulations. However, these points are addressed and responded to by the Minister in a manner that suggests an attempt to reach consensus rather than outright opposition or conflict. Below are specific examples demonstrating the nature of the disagreement:

1. Concern over Timelines: Dr. Kieran Mullan (Con) expresses concern about the timing of the procedural rules in relation to the Renters’ Rights Bill, pressing the Minister for a clear timeline for publication of the rules. This indicates a disagreement on the timing and readiness of the procedural rules, which is a significant point of contention.

   'A key concern relates to the digital possession service introduced by the Renters’ Rights Bill, which will rely on the rules set by the OPRC. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has highlighted concerns that the necessary procedural rules may not be in place when the Bill comes into effect.'

2. Potential for Overlapping Jurisdictions: Dr. Mullan also raises concerns about potential overlaps in rule-making jurisdictions, which could lead to confusion and is a clear point of disagreement.

   'I also understand that concerns have been raised about overlapping rule-making jurisdictions with the Civil Procedure Rule Committee or the Family Procedure Rule Committee, for example.'

3. Digital Literacy and Access: There is a clear expression of concern about how the digital transition might affect those lacking in digital literacy or access. This is not an explicit disagreement but rather a highlighted issue that needs resolution, indicating a potential area of future contention if not addressed properly.

   'Finally, digital justice must not become a barrier for those lacking digital literacy or access to necessary resources, and the rules will be key to that.'

Despite these disagreements, the session’s overall tone is cooperative, with the Minister responding to each query in a conciliatory manner. She acknowledges the concerns raised and commits to providing updates and ensuring that the new system does not jeopardize access to justice.

``` ‘I assure him that that is the guiding principle behind the reforms.’

‘I am happy to update the shadow Minister and other Members as to when those rules are ready.’

‘The Government are also ensuring that there is a digital support service so that access to justice really does what it says, and that all users, but particularly those who are vulnerable or digitally disadvantaged, are able to access our online proceedings.’ ```

Thus, while there are points of disagreement, they are addressed directly and with an intent to resolve, leading to a low level of actual discord. This justifies a rating of 2, indicating minor disagreement with a strong inclination towards resolution and consensus.