Asked by: Damien Moore (Conservative - Southport)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an assessment of (a) the adequacy of the support provided to people making complaints against solicitors and (b) the potential merits of (i) increasing the support provided throughout the complaints process and (ii) simplifying the complaints process.
Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The legal profession in England and Wales together with its regulators, operates independently of the Government. The responsibility for regulating the sector sits with the approved regulators, overseen by the Legal Services Board (LSB).
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is the approved regulator for solicitors. The SRA is responsible for handling complaints regarding solicitor conduct, complaints can be made via their website at https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/report-solicitor/.
If a consumer is dissatisfied with the service provided by a solicitor, they can log a complaint with the Legal Ombudsman. This can be done via their website at https://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/make-a-complaint/.
The LSB recently led a consultation (24 August – 17 November 2023) on proposals to ensure that people who use legal services have access to fair and effective complaint procedures. The proposals aim to strengthen consumer protection and improve the overall quality and standards of legal services.
Their new proposal focuses on bettering the current complaints procedures. It sets clear outcomes for regulators to deliver, including collecting and analysing intelligence on complaints to support the best possible redress system, as well as fostering a culture of learning and continuous improvement. By engaging regulators on key issues, the LSB aims to drive higher standards in the provision of legal services across the board. The LSB will consider the feedback they receive and in turn make appropriate changes to their draft policy. A response to their consultation will be issued in early 2024, alongside the final Requirements, Guidance and statement of policy.
Asked by: Damien Moore (Conservative - Southport)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an assessment of the potential merits of bringing forward proposals to ensure that people who have lost a court case a result of a solicitor's negligence are able to access legal redress in the event that the law firm for which that solicitor worked has gone out of business.
Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The legal profession in England and Wales operates independently of Government. The responsibility for regulating the sector sits with the approved regulators, overseen by the Legal Services Board (LSB). There are several routes in place to ensure consumers have access to legal redress in the event of the collapse of their solicitor’s law firm.
The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) deals with service complaints against regulated legal services providers – including those who are no longer operational. Their website provides information with regards to the different routes available for consumers depending on their personal circumstances.
If an Ombudsman has made a final decision against a closed legal service provider and the consumer has not received any redress, they can decide to enforce the Ombudsman’s decision in court or make a complaint against the firm’s indemnity insurance. The Ombudsman can help consumers with finding contact details for relevant indemnity insurers.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) also considers redress where consumers have lost money as a result of fundamental ethical failures by solicitors that they regulate. Consumers affected by said issues may be able to claim against the provider’s indemnity insurer or the ‘Solicitors Indemnity Fund’ via the SRA’s website, in certain circumstances. The SRA offers support to members of the public in making claims and the relevant form can be found on their website at: www.sra.org.uk/sra-managing-sif . They also may be able to apply to the SRA’s compensation fund if they believe a solicitor owes them money or believe their loss relates to services provided by a solicitor. The form and guidance on this can be found on the SRA’s website at https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/compensation-fund/application-process/.
Asked by: Damien Moore (Conservative - Southport)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make it his policy to increase sanctions on companies that approve credit applications for people subject to Court of Protection Orders.
Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
Asked by: Damien Moore (Conservative - Southport)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to reduce the number of people waiting to change their legal name by deed poll.
Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Increases in applications to enrol a deed poll with the High Court are linked to a reduction in the application fee applied in January 2015, and also a requirement from many foreign government agencies for proof that a UK deed poll has been formally enrolled.
Many applications are returned because the form has not been completed correctly or the supporting evidence has not been submitted in its entirety. This builds in unnecessary delay and re-work in the system. Officials working with the Judiciary have recently undertaken a piece of work to improve and simplify the application form itself and the guidance that supports it.
A new application and accompanying guidance are expected to be available for use on gov.uk in the coming weeks. It is expected that these changes, which are intended to make the process easier for applicants to follow, will reduce the amount of time taken to process applications. This will also remove delays caused by the need to request additional information or amended applications from applicants.
Asked by: Damien Moore (Conservative - Southport)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a comparative assessment of the effectiveness of judicial arrangements (a) before and (b) after the commencement of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 underpins existing arrangements. It made the Lord Chief Justice the head of the judiciary and transferred to that office a number of judiciary-related functions previously vested in the office of Lord Chancellor. The Act therefore shared responsibilities for the administration of justice between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, and it continues to provide the statutory footing for their partnership.
The Act also created the independent Judicial Appointments Commission. The appointment of judges is in general a shared area of responsibility, though the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice have different roles at different levels of the judiciary.
It is not a current priority to review the arrangements that resulted from the 2005 Act or to assess whether further legislative changes might be necessary. The Lord Chancellor remains committed to maintaining an effective partnership with the judiciary within the existing legal framework.
Asked by: Damien Moore (Conservative - Southport)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the (a) effectiveness of the roll-out of body-worn cameras to prison staff and (b) impact of such cameras on (i) safety and (ii) security in prisons.
Answered by Damian Hinds - Minister of State (Education)
The roll-out of body worn video cameras to all prison officers on duty in public sector prisons was completed in March 2023. The roll-out has more than doubled the availability of cameras to staff, enabling every band 3-5 operational member of staff on shift to wear one.
We will be assessing the impact of the cameras over the next year.
Asked by: Damien Moore (Conservative - Southport)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what (a) changes to processes and (b) increases in capacity would be required in the courts and tribunals system to implement the policies set out in the white paper entitled A fairer private rented sector, published on 16 June 2022, CP 693.
Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) is currently working to produce a Justice Impact Test (JIT) that will clarify the implications of repealing section 21 of the Housing Act, the new grounds for possession and the other measures detailed in the White Paper on case volumes, court processes and resources.
A JIT is a mandatory specific impact test - undertaken as part of the wider impact assessment process - that considers the impact of government policy and legislative proposals on the justice system.
Asked by: Damien Moore (Conservative - Southport)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has made a recent assessment of the potential impact of giving renters the right to challenge rent increases on the caseload of the first-tier tribunal in England and Wales.
Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) is currently working to produce a Justice Impact Test (JIT) that will clarify the implications of repealing section 21 of the Housing Act, the new grounds for possession and the other measures detailed in the White Paper on case volumes, court processes and resources.
A JIT is a mandatory specific impact test - undertaken as part of the wider impact assessment process - that considers the impact of government policy and legislative proposals on the justice system.
Asked by: Damien Moore (Conservative - Southport)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has made a recent assessment of the potential impact of abolishing section 21 eviction notices on the caseload of courts in England and Wales.
Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) is currently working to produce a Justice Impact Test (JIT) that will clarify the implications of repealing section 21 of the Housing Act, the new grounds for possession and the other measures detailed in the White Paper on case volumes, court processes and resources.
A JIT is a mandatory specific impact test - undertaken as part of the wider impact assessment process - that considers the impact of government policy and legislative proposals on the justice system.
Asked by: Damien Moore (Conservative - Southport)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to help support people unable to afford travelling to court.
Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has various schemes in place to support court and tribunal users with travelling to court.
The payment of expenses and allowances to prosecution witnesses, where the Crown Prosecution Service is the prosecuting authority, is governed by the Crown Prosecution Service (Witnesses’ etc. Allowances) Regulations 1988. Guidance on expenses and allowances for prosecution witnesses can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/going-to-court-victim-witness/expenses-for-going-to-court.
The First-tier Tribunal (Social Security and Child Support) and First-tier Tribunal (Criminal Injuries Compensation) can pay reasonable expenses for going to the tribunal, including the cost of public transport.
Travel expenses for jurors are provided at the end of jury service but these can be paid these during service if a juror is facing financial hardship.
We have increased the use of remote hearings, where appropriate since the pandemic. Remote attendance may be available within the relevant procedure rules and if agreed with the judiciary, and will reduce the cost of travel.