Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

8. What steps his Department is taking to modernise the courts system.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)]

We are investing £1.3 billion in transforming the justice system, including by introducing 21st-century technology and online services to modernise the courts. Digital reforms and simplified services are removing simple cases from court; cutting down on unnecessary paperwork; and helping some of the most vulnerable people, who are facing difficult situations, to get justice as quickly as possible. That is also critical to enable us to recover workloads in courts and tribunals, which are still experiencing the impacts of the pandemic.

[Andrew Lewer]

It takes private landlords an average of about nine months to repossess a property through the courts, and the end of section 21 repossessions will lead to more cases. The rental reform White Paper committed to improving the courts system. Will the Minister commit to those reforms being in place before the Government make changes to the way that private rented tenancies operate?

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend asks an important question. I can confirm that on 16 June, the Government published their response to the “Considering the case for a Housing Court” call for evidence. Moreover, we are injecting more than £10 million a year into housing legal aid through our reforms to the housing possession court duty scheme. By 2023, we will modernise how the courts deal with possession claims as part of the Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service reform programme that I referred to. We will further streamline the court process to ensure that landlords can get possession in the most urgent circumstances. Finally, we will continue to make administrative efficiencies to maximise bailiff resource for enforcement activity, including the enforcement of possession orders.

[Craig Williams]

I thank the Minister for his substantive reply. Modernising the courts system is essential if we are to clear the covid backlog and get victims the justice they need. I ask him to update the House on video technology and remote hearings, and how they can help.

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. We have to understand that when the pandemic hit, it presented the greatest challenge to collective access to justice for many decades. We cannot underestimate the way that technology in every jurisdiction, including Scotland and England and Wales, helped to ensure that we maintained access to justice as far as possible. To confirm, more than 70% of all courtrooms, including more than 90% of Crown courtrooms, are fitted with our video hearings platform, which enabled up to 20,000 cases to be virtually heard every week at the height of the pandemic. Of course, whether a specific hearing is heard remotely or in person is a matter for the independent judiciary, but I confirm that we work closely with it through HMCTS to look at what more we can do to increase throughput and output in our courts by the use of technology.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

What is the point of having a modernised courts system if we do not have the lawyers to go with it? On what date will the Minister meet members of the Criminal Bar Association to discuss pay and a modernised courts system?

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. Further to the question of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), I can confirm that I have met the chair of the Criminal Bar Association seven times since the publication of the independent review of criminal legal aid. My officials meet representatives of the CBA almost weekly, so there is lots of engagement going on. I meet frequently with the Bar Council and the Law Society, because we have to remember the criminal solicitors’ view in all this as well. I can clearly confirm that we have decided to increase most of the key criminal legal aid fees by 15% from the end of September. We think that is a generous offer, as I am sure most of our constituents would agree, in the light of what is happening with the economy. I urge those engaged in disruption to reconsider so that we can get back to reducing the backlog, instead of threatening to increase waiting times.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The courts system relies on litigants having access to appropriate advice and representation, so why are the Government cutting funding to the Support Through Court charity and extending fixed recoverable costs to housing cases that will prevent law centres and other providers from having the means to represent vulnerable tenants against bad landlords, including in disrepair and unlawful eviction cases?

[James Cartlidge]

On the hon. Member’s first point, I have provided a written answer, which I will happily forward to him—I cannot remember if the question was from him—in which the existing position on funding was clarified. I am confident that we have put in a huge funding package across the justice system, with £477 million to support court recovery in the spending review. That is a significant investment, but I am more than happy to look at what has happened to funding for specific charities.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the Minister considers how to modernise the courts system further, he might want to reflect on the lessons learned—or not—from a court case in 1984, when 37 workers from the Cammell Laird shipyards were unjustly imprisoned at a maximum security prison, and as a result were sacked, blacklisted, and lost redundancy and pension rights. Will he commit today to examine what papers his Department and the rest of Government hold on this case so that such an injustice can never happen again?

[James Cartlidge]

If the hon. Member writes to me, I will be more than happy to get my officials to look into that historical case.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

My hon. Friend talks about implementing the Bellamy review, but that recommended a 15% rise immediately. As I understand it, the Government are saying there will only be a 15% rise from September, and that will only be in respect of new cases. Why do the Government not commit themselves to implementing the Bellamy review, thereby ensuring that our courts are not blocked as they have been?

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as ever. What the Bellamy review said was that the increases should be delivered as soon as is practicable, and I am 100% certain that we are doing so. We had to consult, which is a requirement under public law principles, and we have to legislate through a statutory instrument, which is the parliamentary procedure, but I am confident that we are delivering this as fast as we can. There have been calls for the increases to somehow be backdated to existing work, but there are huge legal questions about that and it is also very difficult practically. How practical would it be, politically, to start delivering backdated increases in public sector pay?

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

10. What support his Department is providing to the International Criminal Court’s investigation into war crimes in Ukraine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

13. What assessment he has made of the effect of availability of duty solicitors in England on access to justice.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)]

The Legal Aid Agency keeps market capacity, including the number of duty solicitors on each local duty scheme, under constant review, to ensure that there is adequate provision of legal aid throughout England and Wales. The LAA is satisfied that there continues to be sufficient duty solicitor coverage across all duty schemes in England and Wales, and it moves quickly where issues arise to secure additional provision and ensure continuity of legal aid services. Provision under the duty scheme is demand led, so there may be variations in numbers across each local rota, or other fluctuations in numbers. A procurement exercise for new criminal legal aid contracts commenced on 1 October and is currently under way. The LAA will publish lists of providers and duty solicitors under those contracts, once the contract has commenced.

[Kim Johnson]

I send my solidarity and support to the barristers in Liverpool, and to those striking nationally over unsustainable cuts to pay and conditions and the failing justice system. Merseyside and Vauxhall law centres in my Liverpool, Riverside constituency do an excellent job providing legal support to people losing their homes. What steps is the Minister taking to review the shortages of duty solicitors at housing possession court, and what are his plans to improve that, because it is not a consistent approach?

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Lady says that she stands in solidarity with the striking barristers. I remind her that back in February, before the publication of our response to the independent review of criminal legal aid, she attended a debate on legal aid in the north-west. Every Labour MP who spoke supported a 15% increase in fees, including three Labour MPs who would subsequently go out with the RMT. They supported 15% then, as did those on the Opposition Front Bench. Do they still support 15% now? If they do, they should not be supporting the strike action when we have that offer on the table. By the way, that 15% increase includes duty solicitors. It will increase the police station scheme funding. That is why it is good news for the criminal legal aid solicitors the hon. Lady is talking about.

[Janet Daby]

Last week I visited Boothroyd Solicitors, who provide legal aid services in my constituency. They told me that despite being very busy, the business costs of their work, mixed with cuts to criminal legal aid, mean that they and many other criminal duty solicitors are in financial difficulties. They are receiving promises from the Government, but no action. Boothroyd Solicitors warns that access to an availability of duty solicitors will be severely impacted in the years ahead, if it is not tackled now. Will the Government urgently address that?

[James Cartlidge]

We all want to see thriving duty rotas in our police stations, and it is incredibly important that we support funding for criminal legal aid for the police station scheme. That is why we are increasing those fees by 15%. Indeed, I confirm that in relation to police station fees, the actual increase overall is 18%, as that will include expected additional expenditure, including pre-charge engagement. In total it is an 18% increase for police station duty solicitors. In addition, we want to see a new generation coming through, so we will also be ensuring that those with Chartered Institute of Legal Executives qualifications can more easily participate in the duty solicitor scheme.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The Minister knows that the Justice Committee welcomed the Government’s acceptance of Sir Christopher Bellamy’s review, which relates to fees for both barristers and solicitors in criminal work. We all want barristers and solicitors to return to accepting instructions in all forms of case. The Minister will also remember that Sir Christopher’s review stated that the £135 million that is being paid, I grant in tranches, and subject to certain reforms, was

“the minimum necessary as the first step in nursing the system of criminal legal aid back to health after years of neglect”.

The “minimum necessary” first step. Will the Minister reassure practitioners of both professions that he accepts it is a first step, and that the Government are willing, able and ready to engage with the professions on the second step? Reassuring that good faith would make it easier to resolve the current impasse.

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful, as ever, to the Chair of the Justice Committee. He may have seen that on Friday I published an article in the Law Society Gazette where I said that now that we have confirmed we will be legislating to deliver 15% increases to most criminal legal aid fee schemes by the end of September, I am keen that we move on to the next phase of reform. I am keen to engage with all parties, including the Criminal Bar Association, on how we can deliver that next stage. Everybody, including the CBA and the Bar Council, wanted this to be done in stages so that we could get in the initial increases as fast as possible, and that is what we are committed to.

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

14. What recent progress he has made on the implementation of the recommendations of the Lammy review.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)]

We have implemented almost all the actions that we committed to in response to the Lammy review and our work continues on the longer-term recruitment targets for HMPPS. That work is firmly embedded in the HMPPS race action programme: a significant three-year investment to deliver long-term change in inequality. We recognise that the Lammy review was an important start, not a complete solution, and our work has evolved considerably. Central to that are our commitments in the inclusive Britain strategy.

[Kate Osamor]

The Government’s offensive Sewell report sought to dismiss evidence of institutional racism in Britain, yet we know that systematic discrimination remains rife in the criminal justice system, such as the proportion of prisoners from ethnic minority backgrounds on remand. Will the Minister commit to publishing further progress updates on the Lammy recommendations so that the Government’s progress can be publicly held to account?

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Lady makes a fair point. We obviously want to be held to account, and I am more than happy to write to her with further details of the progress that we are making. To give just one example, in our inclusive Britain strategy, we committed to a special pilot in police stations that is ensuring that juveniles receive legal advice. As she knows, many juveniles—and, it must be said, particularly those from ethnic minority backgrounds—were not engaging with the system; in the pilot, they must proactively choose to opt out. I have personally been to Wembley police station and to Brixton, where the trial is happening, and I am pleased to say that so far the results are incredibly encouraging: they suggest less time in custody for those juveniles who are participating. Most importantly, some of them are more likely to have an out-of-court disposal. We are trying to break that chain of getting stuck in the criminal justice—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Keep going.

[James Cartlidge]

It would appear that it happens whenever I am speaking, Mr Speaker. I do not know if it is personal.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that important question. As I said, I will write to her with further details and update her.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

16. What assessment he has made of the impact of ending Friday releases on reoffending rates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

20. What steps he is taking to tackle delays to trials for (a) child and (b) adult victims of sexual offences.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)]

The Government are committed to supporting the recovery of the courts for all court users, including those who face delays in accessing justice in serious sex cases. Of course, the listing of cases is a judicial function, and judges continue to work to prioritise cases involving vulnerable complainants and witnesses such as serious sex cases.

Timeliness is improving. The time that it takes for adult rape cases to be completed from charge continues to fall and is down by five weeks since the peak last year. I do not have the figures for child cases, which are not broken down on that basis. I confirm that we are increasing funding for victim support services to £192 million by 2024-25.

[Nadia Whittome]

I thank the Minister for his reply. In Nottinghamshire last year, for cases involving rape the average time between a case arriving at the Crown court and being completed was 470 days—more than a year and three months. I am sure he agrees that that is completely unacceptable. I welcome the pilot of specialist courts to prosecute rape cases in just three areas, but that will not tackle the root causes of the backlog, which was growing long before the pandemic and which the Victims’ Commissioner says is due to underinvestment. When will the Minister reverse the cuts and ensure that everybody receives the justice they deserve?

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She talks about the backlog being a problem before the pandemic, but I have to point out to her that the backlog was lower going into the pandemic than it was when Labour was last in power. There is always a backlog of cases. There are always outstanding cases. The point is that when the pandemic hit there was a complete and total collapse in our courts, because they were closed, and then we had two-metre social distancing and they took a long time to recover. But they have recovered and the backlog is coming down. She talks—[Interruption.] I am answering the hon. Lady’s question. She talks about funding. I can confirm that we put in almost half a billion pounds of funding into the spending review. That will ensure, for example, that this year, for the second year on the trot, we are removing the ceiling on sitting days in the Crown court. Provided we reduce the disruption we are experiencing now, we should be able to continue to reduce the backlog and deliver swifter and better justice for our constituents.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

The Lord Chancellor claims that protecting women and girls is his No. 1 priority, yet victims of domestic abuse face an invasive legal aid application that turns many women and girls away. The recent means test review is a step in the right direction, but it still does not go far enough and leaves many vulnerable women representing themselves in court. Will the Minister outline what steps he is taking to increase legal aid accessibility for victims of domestic abuse and violence?

[James Cartlidge]

I can confirm, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, that our consultation on the means test threshold would result in 2 million more people having access to legal aid in civil cases and more than 3 million people having access in the magistrates court. In both cases, that could of course include domestic abuse. An important point in that consultation is that we are proposing that where property assets are in dispute in a domestic abuse case in relation to the means test and the capital test for civil legal aid, they would be removed. That underlines again, not just in criminal legal aid but in civil legal aid too, that the Government are putting in significant investment and driving very positive reform.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)]

T6. Does the Minister agree that the many people who give their time free of charge to act as magistrates are a fantastic asset to this country? They are the backbone of our justice system: without them, it could not function effectively.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that magistrates are the backbone of our criminal justice system. When the pandemic hit, output completely collapsed in the magistrates courts, but individual magistrates, their legal advisers and staff in our magistrates courts have worked incredibly hard to recover the position. In March, we had the highest number of disposals in magistrates courts since before the pandemic.

We have taken two key measures to strengthen magistrates: we have increased their sentencing powers from six months to 12 months, and launched a £1 million recruitment campaign. I am pleased to say that we have had 33,000 expressions of interest so far, which bodes well for the next generation of our volunteer judiciary.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

T3. Prosecutions for rape cases are at an appallingly low 1.3%—even an increase of two thirds still translates to less than 2%, which is truly shocking—and drop-out rates are at more than 40% because of court delays and onerous evidence requirements. What is the Minister of State doing for victims of rape, to significantly increase the number of prosecutions and convictions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

T4. There is only one legal aid provider for immigration in Brighton and the surrounding area of Sussex: BHT, which is currently operating a waiting list and is only prioritising unaccompanied minors. Lawstop, a legal aid provider in other areas, has applied to the Legal Aid Agency for immigration legal aid support, but has been told that there is no demand in the area. How can that be, if the only other provider has to operate a waiting list and is only able to help unaccompanied minors? Is it not now time to change how legal aid contracts are given, so that all those who request it can get access to legal aid?

[James Cartlidge]

We are making a significant investment in additional funding for legal aid in immigration cases. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with the full details of that important step change. On the wider issue of access to legal aid, I spoke earlier about our consultation on civil legal aid reform and the means test, which will enable 2 million more people to have access to civil legal aid and 3 million more people to have access to legal aid in the magistrates courts. Combined with the £135 million that we are investing in criminal legal aid in response to the Bellamy review, that is a significant investment, by any measure, in legal aid in all our constituencies.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Further to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) asked, I commend the courts Minister for his announced intention to meet representatives of the criminal Bar. May I press him to do so at the earliest opportunity? Will he make the subject matter of that meeting the implementation of the rest of the Bellamy reforms, notably the reforms to the advocates’ graduated fee scheme and the composition and remit of the advisory board?

[James Cartlidge]

My right hon. and learned Friend has made an extremely good point. He is aware of the article to which I referred in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—the Chairman of the Select Committee—in which I made clear my wish to engage with the Criminal Bar Association on the next stage of reform, which includes the advocates’ graduated fee scheme and some of its core elements that were not in the first phase. As I have said, we adopted that two-phase approach precisely in order to deliver the initial increase in fees as soon as practicable, and it will be introduced in September: a 15% increase for criminal barristers working in magistrates courts and police stations and for those in the AGFS. We think that that is a very generous offer, and we hope the members of the CBA will think about it and stop their disruption of our courts.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

T8.   I understand that the Government have now received the recommendations from the Prison Service pay review body for a rise in prison officers’ wages. I do not know whether the Secretary of State chats to any security guards on the House of Commons estate, but many of them are former prison officers who left the service because of poor pay and bad terms and conditions in our prisons. When will the Secretary of State respond to those recommendations, and will he agree to follow them in full and not pick and choose, which is what has been done for the past three years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

T10. In the wake of legal aid cuts and, now, cuts in a few charitable services—such as Support Through Court, which, as we heard earlier, has had its core funding cut—and given the cost of living crisis, how do the Government expect people who cannot afford lawyers to navigate court if the last remaining services that could help them are lost?

[James Cartlidge]

As I have just made absolutely clear, as a result of our consultation we will be increasing access to legal aid. Two million more people will have access to civil legal aid, 3 million more will have access to legal aid in the magistrates courts, and there will be £135 million of additional funds for criminal legal aid following the independent inquiry conducted by Sir Christopher Bellamy, now Lord Bellamy. We think that this is a significant and positive reform, which, incidentally, will help to drive wider reform of the criminal justice system and civil legal aid.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

The Government are consulting on SLAPPs—strategic lawsuits against public participation. How will this ensure that action is taken against candidates who seek to use litigation and threats of it in an oppressive way to shut down debate during elections?

Assisted Dying

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I congratulate the Petitions Committee and the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on securing the debate. Introducing a debate on a matter like this means speaking at a very pressured moment. I thought she spoke with bravery and set the tone for what has been a very moving, powerful debate with high-quality contributions on both sides. It has shown Parliament at its best, as is often the case when we are freed from pre-set whipping, Government positions and so on.

I am grateful to the more than 155,000 people who signed the petition. Obviously, we must not forget the role of our constituents and the public in this matter. This debate is a welcome opportunity for the House to debate, for the first time in this new Session, an issue of such profound sensitivity and importance. We all experience the death of people we care about and, wherever one stands on the underlying issue, we must surely all want dignity and compassion for those in their final phase of life.

Before turning to the Government position and contributions from colleagues, I want to start with a note on the language, as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar). Some people draw a distinction between assisted dying, which they see as allowing dying people to have a choice over the manner and timing of their imminent death, and assisted suicide, which they see as helping people who are not dying to choose death over life. To be clear, the criminal law currently makes no such distinction; under section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961, the offence is “encouraging or assisting” suicide, and my use of the term “suicide” reflects that. It does not indicate prejudice either way, and it is not an indication of the Government taking one side over the other.

The Government’s view remains that any relaxation of the law in this area is an issue of individual conscience and a matter for Parliament to decide. To be clear, that does not mean that the Government do not care about the issue at hand—far from it. It means that the ultimate decision on whether to change the law is for Parliament to decide, in the tradition of previous matters of conscience that have come before the House.

While I note the petition’s call for the Government to bring forward legislation to allow assisted dying for adults who are terminally ill and have mental capacity, our neutral stance means that such a change would have to be made via private Members’ legislation. If, at a future date, it became the clearly expressed will of Parliament to amend or change the criminal law so as to enable some form of assisted dying, the Government would of course undertake the role of ensuring that the relevant legislation was delivered as effectively as possible.

Turning to the many contributions made by colleagues today—I apologise if I do not cover all of them—I think it is fair to say that there is a strong consensus on the need to ensure that we have high-quality palliative care. Those on both sides of the debate agree strongly on that. As my hon. Friends the Members for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and for Devizes (Danny Kruger) mentioned, the Government have shown in recent legislation the importance that they attach to the matter.

I can confirm that NHS England is developing an ambitious programme focused on transformational approaches for the next five years. The programme will build on the work of the palliative and end-of-life care strategic clinical networks, which sit across the seven regional footprints. The Government recognise that high-quality palliative and end-of-life care should include the opportunity for individuals to discuss their wishes and preferences so that they can be taken fully into account in the provision of their future care—also known as advance care planning.

Of course, resources matter. Many Members made that point, including the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), who has NHS management experience. Obviously, the Government strongly agree. We are providing £4.5 billion of new investment to fund expanded community multidisciplinary teams providing rapid, targeted support to those identified as having the greatest risks and needs, including those at the end of their life.

On hospices, my constituency neighbour and right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) —the former Health Secretary—made a point about the joint funding model. Most hospices are independent charitable organisations, and they receive around £350 million of Government funding annually to provide NHS services. As part of the covid response, which my right hon. Friend of course oversaw, more than £400 million has been made available to hospices since the start of the pandemic to secure additional NHS capacity and enable hospital discharge.

Turning to some of the core issues raised today, a number of colleagues referred to what is happening in other jurisdictions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and others made the point that change is happening in many other jurisdictions and argued that we should be reflecting that. Equally, however, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) made the point that some evidence from those jurisdictions may be negative. I think she referred to the experience of the medical profession in Canada. Clearly, whatever we do and however we move forward, we should always be cognisant of what is happening in countries and jurisdictions where the law has changed.

Perhaps the key point of principle here, which is where this becomes a matter of conscience, is choice—choice versus the risk, shall we say, of abuse, and the need for safeguards and so on. Many colleagues spoke about choice, including my hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said it is about the right to choose “a good death”.

I was particularly moved by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who said that we should consider the choice not just of the individual but of their family, who, because of fear of the criminal situation, may feel that they cannot discuss the matter. His was one of the most moving speeches I have heard in my time as an MP, and I hope that people on all sides respect the fact that he spoke under great duress, shall we say, but added much to the debate.

Equally, there is a concern that choice is restricted by income, particularly when we are talking about Dignitas. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) and others. However, against that—we must remember this—the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), whom I support, spoke eloquently about the risk of pressure on those who may feel that they have to take an action that they would not have felt they should take before any change in the law. That is an incredibly important point. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) made a similar point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, who said that it could be argued that that actually restricts choice because of the pressure it implies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) spoke about the proposed change implying death on demand.

On the position of the public, polling does seem to have shifted. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk and the hon. Member for Gower both referred to what is happening with the opinion polls. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) made the point that a poll is not an argument and we are, after all, a representative democracy. Ultimately, it will be for this House, through a private Member’s Bill or another mechanism, to make the change.

As there are only three minutes left, I will rattle through my remaining points. There was much talk of the slippery slope from the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and others. I just say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough that if a doctor were injecting drugs with the aim of ending life, that would not be assisted suicide or assisted dying; that would be murder under common law. [Interruption.] I am afraid that, because of the time, I will finish with this point.

I think that colleagues on both sides are calling for a national conversation and, if not an inquiry, then certainly an investigation by the Health and Social Care Committee, for example. Obviously, if any of those steps go forward, the Government will do their best to assist, within the constraints of their neutral position, which I take very seriously. The matter was recently debated at length in the House of Lords. It is for hon. and right hon. Members, if they wish, to bring forward private Members’ Bills or debates in the usual way, such as through the Backbench Business Committee.

Wherever we stand, I think we can all say that this has been a very passionate debate that has moved forward the public’s understanding of the key positions on both sides. We should all be proud of the way in which the Petitions Committee has allowed the public to see all the arguments, and I am grateful to all hon. Members who contributed to the debate.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

I call Tonia Antoniazzi—you must conclude before 7.30 pm or the motion will lapse.

Criminal Legal Aid

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2022 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)]

In December the Independent Review of Criminal Legal Aid made clear the need for fee reform. Among a number of recommendations, the review called for an immediate pay increase of £135 million across the various criminal legal aid fee schemes. In response to these recommendations, in March, we consulted on proposals that would mark the most significant reform to criminal legal aid in more than a decade—and would include an additional investment of £135 million.

Our reforms are twofold. First, addressing the immediate fee increase as called for by the representative bodies, and second, focusing on longer term systemic change. We took this approach precisely because we recognise the urgent need for fee reform, and so we can act swiftly and decisively in the interests of our criminal legal profession. We have been working hard to analyse the responses of all stakeholders, so all our decisions are rooted in evidence. We will be publishing our formal response in due course, but I can confirm that we will be implementing a fee increase of 15% across the majority of fee schemes.

As set out in the consultation, there are a small number of schemes we are not uplifting at this stage. This includes the uplift to payment related to pages of prosecution evidence which the review found to encourage “perverse incentives”. We will be looking at how to address this as part of our longer term reforms and have set aside £20 million for those reforms initially. As well as reform to fee schemes we are considering wider issues, such as the potential roll-out of the successful “opt out” pilot for children, currently taking place at Brixton and Wembley police stations.

We want to make sure practitioners get paid properly for all the work they do. So, in addition to increasing fees, we are extending the scope of payment for pre-charge engagement work to cover work done ahead of an agreement, or where an agreement is not reached, in appropriate cases, in line with the Attorney General’s disclosure guidelines. We also intend to abolish fixed fees where individuals elect to have their case heard at the Crown court, and go on to plead guilty. We will lay a statutory instrument by 21 July, which will bring these changes into effect on 30 September this year. Considering the parliamentary process and operational changes required to do this, this is the quickest we are able to deliver this uplift. Solicitors and barristers will start to receive increased fees this year and our modelling suggests that over two thirds of the additional funding will have entered the system within the first year.

Our response to the longer term proposals, including details on the longer term funding and structural graduated fees schemes reform, will be published in the autumn, driven by the evidence in our consultation. Of course, we want to continue engaging with key stakeholders, including the Bar Council and Law Society as we develop our final policies. We are also considering the role of an advisory board as recommended by the review and plan to work closely with the Law Society and the Bar Council to design it with the intention of ensuring legal aid keeps pace with a modern justice system. Further details on the board including a terms of reference will be published in the autumn. If implemented, our longer term changes are good news for the criminal legal profession, helping us to build a sustainable sector that is fit for the future. Most importantly, they are good news for victims and everyone relying on the criminal justice system.

[HCWS168]

Community Payback

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

When people talk about crime, all too often the focus is on the crime itself and not the impact on victims and communities. Drug dealing leaves people scared to go out of their homes, knives are taking away young people’s lives, and rapes are going unconvicted, leaving victims feeling they have nowhere left to turn and completely powerless. Under this Conservative Government, rape is effectively legalised, and when they had the chance to toughen up the laws and actually get on with the job of governing, their perverse priorities meant that a statue was better protected than me or any of my constituents. Any of the meaningless figures reeled off by Ministers do nothing to redress the years of cuts to policing in our communities.

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Lady just said that rape has been legalised under this Government. That is a shameful thing to say. Whatever differences we have about the detail of waiting times and so on, the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) made it clear earlier that we are all working hard on this matter. I ask the hon. Lady to retract what she has just said.

[Sarah Owen]

I will not be retracting that. I said “effectively” legalised. When only 1.6% of reported rape cases are prosecuted, the crime is effectively legalised. It is a shameful statistic for a Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)]

Let me start by saying how grateful I am to all those who have contributed to this important debate today. In particular, I join the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), who has just spoken, and all my colleagues who have paid tribute to the brilliant work of those in the probation service. They have put in a hell of a shift through the pandemic. They have delivered exemplary service since then, and we all know the value they add in our communities and the key role they play in the criminal justice system. In particular, I thank them for the role they have played in helping us to achieve a situation whereby the proportion of offenders released from custody who reoffended within 12 months of release fell from 51.5% in 2010 to 42.2% in 2020. That is a significant improvement through reducing the reoffending rate.

The key point is that we have heard from the Opposition that they are now the party that is tough on crime, but as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime and Policing said at the beginning of the debate, we have to judge politicians by what they do, rather than what they say. Opposition Members cannot run away from the fact that they voted against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which recently received Royal Assent.

Let us just remind ourselves of the measures in that Act that the Opposition voted against, which include doubling the maximum penalty for assaulting an emergency worker; mandatory life sentences for unlawful act manslaughter of an emergency worker in the line of duty; a starting point of a whole-life tariff for premeditated child murder; increasing from 14 years to life the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving; increasing from 14 years to life the maximum sentence for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs; and, among many other measures, abolishing automatic halfway release for serious, violent and sexual offenders. That is what is being tough on crime. Voting against that measure is being weak on crime.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[James Cartlidge]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Easington.

[Grahame Morris]

I thank the Minister for giving way. He is absolutely right about the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, which comes into force today, but the problem we had was that it was take it or leave it. We had to take the whole thing or reject the whole thing. Can I ask the Minister whether it is a good use of taxpayers’ money and police resources when more than a dozen of the Metropolitan police and several vehicles were involved in the arrest of Steven Bray under the terms of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act for using a loudhailer outside Parliament? I think it is outrageous.

[James Cartlidge]

These are operational matters for the police, who are independent of Government. The point I am making is that the Opposition could have chosen to support those many measures. If we look at those measures as a whole, they send a signal that this party is tough on crime. The Opposition voting against them sends a wholly different message.

[Sarah Owen]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

I will take one more intervention, from the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown).

[Ms Brown]

Can the Minister explain to me, if he is so tough on crime, why he did not accept our amendment on minimum sentences for rape?

[James Cartlidge]

I am pleased to confirm to the hon. Lady, because it comes back to the speech of the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who said that we were somehow legalising rape, that the average sentence for adult rape in this country was around 10 years in 2021. I can confirm that that amount has increased by 15% since 2010—not decreased; increased. Those are very tough sentences for what is a very serious crime. I think that when we speak in this House, we should send a message that deters people from carrying out these horrific crimes, instead of sending messages that somehow people are going to get away with it. That does not help anyone. It does not help my daughter and it does not help anyone in this House or any one of our constituents.

Turning to the contributions in this important debate, the hon. Member for West Ham made a very good point about the impact of community payback on women. She talked particularly about the effects of alcohol and drugs. When we talk about community sentencing, the rehabilitative part is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) mentioned. As the hon. Lady knows, we are piloting residential women’s centres, and we announced in May that the first one will open in Swansea. I hope that she will support that.

[Ms Brown]

Indeed.

[James Cartlidge]

I am glad to hear that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) speaks with great expertise. He made the important point that the motion criticises us for what happened to unpaid work, but it ignores the reality of the pandemic. He also made the crucial point that the Opposition would have kept us in lockdown for longer. Last December, they wanted us to have a lockdown because of omicron, but we resisted, which was the right thing to do for the country. If they had done that, it would have taken even longer for us to deal with the backlog in the courts, the backlog of unpaid work and everything else.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for being persistent on the subject of persistent offenders. He had a Westminster Hall debate on it last week, to which I enjoyed responding. As a constituency MP, he continually raises the case that he has written to me about—I promise that I will respond to him—and he is a champion of his constituents. We obviously disagree on some of the matters that he raised, but he is right to pay tribute to prison officers. We certainly cherish the huge role they play and appreciate all their efforts.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) was typically robust and forthright in telling it like it is. He said that prisoners should go to work, and in the spirit of that point, I say that it is crucial to ensure that there is every chance for people to get a job when they leave prison. That is why I am proud to confirm that the number of persons released from custody who were employed six months after release is up by 66%. That is testament to the strength of the economy and to the Government’s commitment to reducing reoffending.

The hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who is no longer in her place, made a very good speech. She made an important point that the evidence shows that, in many ways, if someone has a short prison sentence, it has less of an impact on reducing reoffending than community sentences can have. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with that, and it is certainly what the evidence suggests.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) made some good points. He encouraged his constituents to get involved in schemes and nominate where work can happen. If there is a problem with fly-tipping in a constituency, people should go to their parish councils, which should in turn go to the police and crime commissioner and say, “What about getting some of that unpaid work resource into our constituency?” He also made an excellent point about alcohol and the increasing use of sobriety tags; all hon. Members on both sides of the House surely know the impact of alcohol on crime. The Minister for Crime and Policing is committed to making more of that.

The Government have a clear plan to increase the number of community payback hours delivered via robust outdoor placements. We have made significant investments to bolster staffing levels and we continue to strengthen our engagement and collaboration with key local stakeholders to ensure that placements visibly improve the communities in which they are served. In that way, as the most timeless common law principle says, justice can be seen to be done.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes that the number of community sentences handed down fell by one quarter in the last three years; further notes that completed hours of unpaid work carried out by offenders has fallen by three quarters in the last three years; notes with concern that despite the end of lockdown restrictions in 2021, the number of offenders permitted to complete unpaid work from home has continued to rise; and calls on the Government to create community and victim payback boards to place communities and victims in control of the type of community projects that offenders complete to restore public faith in community payback.

[Sarah Owen]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask the Minister to correct the record. He inadvertently misled the House by saying that I had said that rape is legal. That is clearly not the case. I find it particularly distasteful that the Minister is seeking to put responsibility for prosecuting rapists on a woman Opposition MP. I offer him the chance to correct that at the Dispatch Box, if not in Hansard.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. Obviously, it is not for the Chair to interpret what Ministers or other Members may say. She has put her concern on the record and the Minister will have heard it, so I suggest that we move on, unless the Minister wishes to say something.

[James Cartlidge]

indicated dissent.

Sentencing: Repeat Offenders

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir Gary. I note your background as a solicitor, albeit not a criminal one, and that you served as a Minister under our Department’s predecessor in the Lord Chancellor’s office.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) and congratulate him on bringing forward this important debate on a topic that, despite the turnout, creates great interest on all sides. I think there is a lot of consensus on the key points. I am aware of his letter and was waiting for the debate to respond. If I do not cover any points today, I can return to them in writing. He knows, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly), that when it comes to specific cases, it is a constitutional fact and convention that we have an independent judiciary, and Ministers do not comment on individual sentencing decisions. That is an incredibly important point.

The hon. Member for Easington finished his speech with a few specific questions. I will start by answering those before going into the body of the speech on reoffending. He asked about prison officer and police officer numbers. Between October 2016 and December 2021, the number of prison officers rose from 17,955 to 22,156—an extra 4,201 full-time officers. That in itself is a way of improving their safety. There are also specific measures, such as rolling out pepper spray in the adult male estate, which we will be doing to protect officers, and the introduction of 6,000 body cameras across the estate.

On police officers, in response to the hon. Gentleman’s question I am pleased to confirm that we are at 13,500. I was pleased to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) about the number of extra officers in Cheshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) mentioned the number in South Hams. Perhaps most importantly, we heard from the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), that Lewis Cunningham has joined that number and will be serving on the frontline. We all pay tribute to him and are grateful to all those officers. I join the hon. Member for Easington in paying tribute to those who serve in our communities to bring law and order to our streets.

I want to comment on what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North said It probably will not be known to most hon. Members that he was my Parliamentary Private Secretary until a few days ago. The baton has now passed to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), and that brings the great advantage that he is now able to speak on Ministry of Justice matters. He has great experience as a criminal solicitor, as we have heard.

The hon. Member for Easington spoke with great passion, particularly on the case that has blighted his constituency. But a fundamental fact is that the proportion of offenders released from custody who reoffended within 12 months fell significantly from 51.5% in 2010-11 to 42.2% between April 2019 and March 2020. That significant fall was seen in both adults and juveniles.

We have a strong record in tackling reoffending, but we recognise that reoffending rates are still too high across England and Wales. In 2020, 80% of offenders cautioned or convicted had at least one previous caution or conviction. That is far too high. In many cases, repeat or prolific offenders commit low-level crime, continuously revolving in and out of the criminal justice system. We also know that they often have high levels of complex and interweaving needs that drive their offending: roughly 61% of prolific offenders have coexisting needs of accommodation, employment and substance misuse. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North saw that on his very first day as a criminal solicitor, and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South will have seen it many times in front of him on the bench.

This Government understand the concern and harm caused by repeat offending, as described by the hon. Member for Easington. As I am sure Members will appreciate, this is a complex issue. There is no easy answer. There is certainly no magic wand, as my hon. Friend for Bury North said. We are committed to action and I can reassure the House that we are pursuing an extensive package of measures to tackle it, which I will set out.

Turning first to the sentencing framework, sentencing in individual cases is wholly a matter for the independent judiciary. However, it is the responsibility of Parliament to ensure that the courts have the sentencing framework they need to sentence offenders appropriately.

Turning to the PCSC Act, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked how it would affect the subject of the debate. Under the Act we made several changes to legislation to deliver our manifesto commitments and ensure that the worst offenders spend longer in custody. The Act also introduces specific measures designed to tackle repeat offending. For example, the law provides for minimum sentences for certain offences known to have a large community impact, including threat with or repeat possession of a knife, a third conviction of domestic burglary and certain class A drug trafficking offences.

We heard the concern that too many offenders were receiving sentences below the minimum term. Indeed, in 2020, at least 50% of adults convicted of a third domestic burglary received a sentence below the minimum prescribed by Parliament. I can confirm that the PCSC Act, which just received Royal Assent, changes the law to ensure that courts may depart from the minimum sentence only in exceptional circumstances. I believe the word imputed is “particular” circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South, who sits as a magistrate, knows that that sort of wording is very important and we feel it will have an impact.

We are clear that delivering public protection is not just about better use of custody. Evidently, not all offences warrant a custodial sentence. Lower-level offending is often better handled via a non-custodial sentence. To that end, our sentencing White Paper set out our plans for tougher, better monitored and more effective community sentencing options that can tackle prolific offending by providing appropriate punishment, while also addressing the underlying drivers of offending and offering support for those who want to turn their lives around.

Going further, the PCSC Act enables closer supervision of certain offenders and introduces the option for tougher and more flexible use of electronically monitored curfews to better reflect the punishment intended, better support rehabilitation and better protect victims. It also reforms criminal records disclosure to increase the number of ex-offenders able to find work, which we know plays a crucial role in reducing reoffending.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North referred to the extremely positive data that we have seen on increasing the rate of employment among those leaving prison. I think that a two-thirds increase in the number of people who left prison between April 2021 and March 2022 who were still in employment six months after release is a very positive development indeed.

The PCSC Act also introduced powers to pilot problem-solving courts, which will combine supervision and multi-agency interventions with regular court-based reviews of progress overseen by a single judge or dedicated magistrates, with clear, consistent and graduated consequences for non-compliance.

However, this process is not just about sentencing options. The PCSC Act also reforms adult out-of-court disposals, to allow the police to deal swiftly, proportionately and appropriately with low-level offending and to reduce the burden on courts. Under our new framework, cautions must have conditions attached, to enable the police to target the cause of the offending behaviour and to refer people into appropriate support services. Basically, to date there have been quite a number of out-of-court disposal options, including those that are effectively a warning. What we are moving to with the PCSC Act is two sets of out-of-court disposals, which is a much simpler system that is more unified across the jurisdiction, and—importantly—there will always have to be an action associated with a particular disposal.

I turn to our sentencing framework. This is an essential element of tackling repeat offending, but we are clear that criminal justice agencies must also be armed with the tools they need to manage challenging offenders effectively.

The hon. Member for Stockton North asked about probation. As he is aware, in June 2021 we launched a new unified probation service across England and Wales. Unification of the probation service, underpinned by increased funding of £155 million per annum to recruit additional staff, will help to reduce overall case loads, enable robust management of offenders in the community and support better public protection. That means that we can supervise offenders with rigour and discipline, as well as enforcing the consequences of non-compliance.

Our “Beating crime plan”, launched in July 2021, announced our refreshed integrated offender management scheme, which is another crucial element in our efforts to tackle repeat offending. Under the scheme, over 9,000 persistent and problematic neighbourhood crime offenders across England and Wales are subject to intensive supervision by the probation service and the police, who work together with partner agencies to keep those offenders accountable and support them to reform.

|Another form of community order that we have heard about is unpaid work. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North spoke about this activity, which we call community payback, and the hon. Member for Stockton North, who speaks for the Opposition, spoke about his party’s plans in this regard. Just to be clear, we are investing an additional £93 million over the next three years to allow us to increase community payback delivery, up to 8 million hours a year—I repeat, up to 8 million hours—with a particular focus on delivering more outdoor projects that improve public spaces and, crucially, allow the public to see justice being done. Seeing justice done is a core, common-law principle that underpins our system, which is why the visibility of offenders who are out there clearing a canal or scrubbing graffiti off a wall is so important, and I hope that I have set out how we intend to go much further.

The hon. Member for Easington made a very good point when he cited a particular statistic. Heroin and crack cocaine addiction is linked to almost half of all acquisitive crime—he used that exact figure—including burglary, robbery and theft, and drugs are associated with almost half of all homicides. As set out in our 10-year drugs strategy, which was published in December 2021, this Government will invest £780 million over the next three years in drug treatment services, including £120 million to support offenders to engage with treatment. We are very much looking at the big picture when it comes to drugs.

Of course, we also know that alcohol is another key driver of offending. To that end, last year we introduced another innovative use of electronic monitoring, which is using alcohol tags to monitor offender compliance with alcohol bans in community sentences. In the first year of their use, we have seen over 3,500 alcohol banning orders being imposed, with over 97% of days monitored being alcohol-free. I repeat: 97%.

Building on that success, last week we completed our roll-out of alcohol monitoring on licence across England and Wales, allowing us to deploy this intervention across the criminal justice system. Over the next three years, around 12,000 offenders will wear an alcohol tag.

[Andy Carter]

Will the Minister talk about the changes to Friday release that have been announced? Having visited several prisons, it has always struck me that there are virtually no support services for prisoners when they are released into the community on Fridays. What was the thinking behind the changes?

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and he is absolutely right about the impact of the changes. He will be aware that our hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) will introduce a private Member’s Bill to tackle this very issue. As we bring that Bill forward—hopefully with support from all parties—it will address my hon. Friend’s point.

On the matter of release, the hon. Member for Strangford asked a specific question: how do we notify the victim when the perpetrator is being released? I cannot comment on the arrangements in Northern Ireland, but we have a victim contact scheme in our jurisdiction. Where an offender receives one year or more in custody, bereaved close relatives and victims of serious sexual and violent offences are automatically referred to the scheme, so that they can choose to receive information on the following: first, when the offender is released or considered for release or conditional discharge; secondly, if the prisoner moves to open conditions; and thirdly, what the court sentence means for the offender’s detention in prison or hospital. We recognise that the point of release is a key moment to help offenders turn their lives around, which is why the issue of Friday release is important. As such, our prison strategy White Paper outlined our ambitious plans to ensure that prison leavers have the accommodation and employment support they need on release to help them to stay away from drugs and crime.

The hon. Member for Easington asked about prison education, and I can confirm that we set out our plans in the prison strategy White Paper to deliver a prison education service within this Parliament and to raise numeracy, literacy and skills in order to secure jobs on release. I have already highlighted the real progress that we are making in securing employment for prisoners, and we will change the law to enable them to undertake apprenticeships for the first time. In combination with our commitment to support prisoners to engage with community treatment ahead of release, we are confident that the measures will help reduce reoffending.

Specifically in relation to female offenders, who are more likely to commit low-level offences, we are delivering on our commitment to pilot a residential women’s centre. This will offer an intensive residential support package in the community for women at risk of receiving short custodial sentences, supporting them to address the underlying causes of their offending behaviour, including drug, alcohol and mental health needs, and to move on to settled accommodation. Last month, we announced that the first residential women’s centre will be in Swansea. The centre will now be subject to planning permission, but it will run as a pilot for five years and has received £10.6 million of spending review funding.

Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Easington for securing the debate. As I said, this is a matter that greatly concerns all our constituents. There is a lot of consensus about the measures that need to be taken, and I assure him that the Government understand the issue and are committed to tackling the harm caused by repeat offending.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 5, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) to the words so restored to the Bill.

Lords amendment 11, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 4, 6 to 10 and 12 to 22.

[James Cartlidge]

I begin by discussing some of the key changes made to the Bill in the other place as a result of amendments brought forward by the Government and I will then turn to the other Lords amendments. Since we last debated the Bill, further measures have been added by the Government with unanimous support from the other place.

First, Lords amendment 7 seeks to give greater flexibility to the online procedure rule committee when it comes to establishing standards relating to dispute resolution conducted online before court proceedings are initiated. It will enable parties who tried to resolve their dispute online prior to commencing legal proceedings, but who do not resolve some or all of their dispute, to then transfer into the legal process seamlessly.

Secondly, Lords amendment 10 will allow coroners to provide registrars with additional information to help to ensure that deaths do not go unregistered. It will address an anomaly whereby, in a small number of cases, families do not register a death when coroners authorise the disposal of a body before any formal death registration has been completed.

Finally, Lords amendment 12 will allow pro bono cost orders to be made in tribunals in much the same way as they are already available in the civil and family courts. It captures the majority of tribunals in which cost orders might be made, but it also creates a power for the Lord Chancellor to bring additional tribunals within the scope of the power through secondary legislation. I urge hon. Members to support those amendments.

A series of minor and technical amendments were also made to the Bill by the Government. I do not intend to go through them in detail, but if any hon. Member has a question about them, I will endeavour to address it in my response to the debate. [Interruption.] I shall expect a flood!

I now turn to the amendments that the Government did not bring forward in the other place. Lords amendment 4 removed the presumption, which provided that a court would have to use the new quashing order powers if they offered adequate redress and there was no good reason not to do so. Lords amendments 1 to 3 remove prospective quashing orders from the Bill.

The courts have several duties with regards to judicial review. They have a duty to individuals who may have been adversely affected by a decision or action, a duty to Parliament to review whether a decision was taken in accordance with the process and procedures set down by the law, and a duty to respect their own limitations and not review the merit of a policy decision or artificially constrain a decision maker’s discretion. They also have wider duties to justice, fairness and the public interest. On many occasions, these duties align and the best outcome for a case is clear, but on other occasions these duties can conflict with the result that the nuance of the circumstances can be lost in the bluntness of the remedy.

The new powers brought forward in this Bill, as introduced, would allow the courts to respond flexibly. As such, I was disappointed that the other place voted, albeit narrowly, to remove the power for quashing orders to be made with limited or no retrospective effect, and I do not need to speak hypothetically. In Canada, another common law country, prospective remedies have been used for some decades to good effect. They have been used, for example, to help vulnerable people maintain important workplace protections that would have ceased to exist had a quashing order applied retrospectively.

Turning to the presumption, I can be brief. The Government do not accept the argument that the presumption fetters discretion or is in some way dangerous. Its purpose is to precipitate the rapid accumulation of jurisprudence on the use of these new powers. In furthering that purpose, however, we have heard persuasive arguments that it is in fact unnecessary. I am reassured, particularly by the learned former members of the judiciary who contributed to the debates in the other place, that judges will use these powers and consider their use regularly without the need for the presumption. Consistency and predictability for their use are further fostered by the list of factors in clause 1(8). I can therefore confirm that the Government will not be bringing back the presumption.

Lords amendment 5 replaced the ouster clause used to remove so-called Cart judicial reviews with a measure that would only prevent such challenges reaching the Court of Appeal, preserving the route of challenge from the upper tribunal to the High Court. I am very grateful to the other place for bringing forward this suggestion, and while I appreciate the sentiment behind such a compromise position, the Government cannot accept this as a meaningful solution to the problems we have set out. While it would tackle some of the resource question, it does nothing to reduce the burden on the High Court or upper tribunal—approximately 180 judge sitting days per year—which is where the burden mainly falls. It also does not tackle the current anomaly of a further challenge to a permission to appeal decision after that application has been rejected by both a lower and a senior court—what has come to be called in this debate, “three bites at the cherry”. The Government propose to bring back the original ouster clause, along with a technical amendment on the Northern Ireland carve-out, to ensure its terminology is consistent with other provisions.

Finally, Lords amendment 11 seeks to provide legal aid for representation for bereaved people at all inquests where public bodies—for example, the police or an NHS trust—are legally represented. While the Government are sympathetic to the intentions of those in the other place, I am afraid I do have concerns about this amendment. As drafted, this amendment would make access to legal aid in these circumstances automatic, removing the means and merits tests, and leading to significant and open-ended costs to the taxpayer. This would go against the principle of targeting legal aid at those who need it most by allowing funding for those who could comfortably afford the cost themselves.

I am very grateful to the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) for meeting me several times to discuss this issue, including with colleagues in the other place. I have assured them that the Government are continuing to make changes to help ensure that bereaved families are truly placed at the heart of the inquest process. Aside from our recent removal of the means test for successful applications for representation through the exceptional case funding scheme, we are also proposing to remove the means test for legal help in relation to any inquests where there is a potential human rights breach or significant wider public interest as part of the means test review that is currently out for consultation. These changes will genuinely help them navigate the inquest process, where appropriate, and I urge hon. Members to await the outcome of this consultation before pursuing further legislation on this issue.

I am grateful to the Members of this House for all their scrutiny of the Bill so far, and I hope today we can accept the changes proposed by the Government on the amendment paper. Even if there remain some small disagreements between us, I am sure all hon. Members here today would like to see this Bill reach Royal Assent, particularly as it contains a number of important court recovery measures. I therefore urge hon. Members to accept the compromises the Government have made, and allow the Bill to finish its passage through both Houses as quickly as possible.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

No; I am conscious of time and Madam Deputy Speaker is anxious that we proceed.

The principle should not be party political but one shared across the House. It is disappointing to see the Government pushing ahead with plans to restrict judicial review by opposing the amendments. Unamended, the Bill is described by the Law Society as “chilling”; clauses 1 and 2 undermine judicial review. Prospective-only quashing orders could be hugely harmful to those seeking justice: they would not only deny redress to someone who had been harmed by a public body’s unlawful action, but actively serve as a disincentive to those seeking justice through judicial review.

Let us imagine a person who had incorrectly been deemed ineligible for carer’s allowance by the Department for Work and Pensions. That person successfully challenges the decision through judicial review. Prospective-only quashing orders would mean that the person did not receive the back payments unlawfully denied to them. Those payments could mean the difference between a person heating their house or going cold, or between eating or going hungry.

To make matters worse, extensive delays in courts mean that decisions could be put off for even longer. Prospective-only quashing orders arbitrarily discriminate between those affected by an unlawful measure before a court judgment and those affected after one. There are numerous examples. In 2017, the High Court ruled that a Home Office policy to deport EU rough sleepers was unlawful and discriminatory. The policy was scrapped. If a prospective-only quashing order had applied, then potentially only those receiving a removal notice would be protected; all those who had already faced removal or had had a removal notice issued against them would still have faced deportation. That would not have been justice.

Important as they are, the damaging effects of prospective-only quashing orders go far beyond individual cases. They damage the basic principle that underpins our democracy: that individuals must have the power to challenge the powerful when the powerful get things wrong. If the Government or public bodies are spared the risk of retrospective legal consequences, the motivation for good decision making is lower. Public bodies will take their chances, particularly in issuing welfare benefits, because the cost of getting things wrong would still be lower than getting them right in the first place. That is bad not only for those seeking redress from the courts but for all of us. It should ring alarm bells for all of us.

The Bill is just another Government programme of constitutional reform that weakens the institutions and rights that hold them to account. We saw that in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the Nationality and Borders Bill and the Government’s voter ID proposals. We Liberal Democrats will continue to stand against any attempts to weaken the institutions and rights that hold the Government and the powerful to account. I urge Members across the House to do the same and vote in favour of Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3.

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to all those who have spoken about the Bill today. I have only a short time, so I will briefly canter over the points raised in this important debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) for recognising that we have made a significant concession on the presumption; we, in turn, are grateful for having been enabled to bring important reforms to judicial review through clauses 1 and 2.

On the issue of judicial review and prospective-only quashing orders, I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) made a good point to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) in saying that we cannot have it both ways. The Bill gives new powers and flexibility to judges; we should not at the same time fetter judges and try to predict what they would do in individual cases. That is the key point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), Chair of the Justice Committee, said, this is about giving judges an extra club in the bag—a golf analogy; I said that it was another tool in the toolbox. Whether we use DIY or sport analogies, we all understand that there is an extra tool for the judiciary—more powers and flexibility.

On the issue of Cart JR, my hon. Friend made a really important point. The resource issue is about High Court judges, particularly in the Queen’s bench division, who after all hear some of the most serious cases around the country, not just in London.

I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from, and concerns from all hon. Members, when it comes to legal aid. I have previously expressed my strong sympathy—particularly for MPs in the north-west, who have had a long experience around Hillsborough. Of course we are looking at that and other matters.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith is aware of the measures that we have already introduced. Even if we agreed on this measure, the Opposition would surely have to accept that it simply would not be possible for such a significant measure to be introduced at such a late hour in the course of a Bill. Were we to continue to go back and forth on this, we would risk undermining the Bill—and we must not forget that it also contains very important measures on criminal procedure, not least changes in magistrates’ sentencing powers. As soon as those new powers come in, they will start to have an impact on our backlog by ensuring that cases that would otherwise be dealt with in the Crown courts can be heard in magistrates courts. I therefore think it important for the Bill to receive Royal Assent.

As I have said, I am pleased to commend the vast majority of the Lords amendments to Members, but I ask them to join me in disagreeing with Lords amendments 1, 2, 3, 5 and 11, and agreeing to the Government’s amendment (a) while disagreeing with Lords amendment 5.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Judicial Pensions Regulations 2022

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2022 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 319).

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, I think for the first time.

Our justice system is rightly held in high esteem, with an international reputation to be proud of. Joining the bench as a judge needs to remain an attractive option for the best legal candidates. To support that, we have committed to delivering a pension scheme that will attract and retain high-calibre judges.

Turning to the purpose of the statutory instrument before us, the judicial pension scheme 2022 established under these regulations is designed to be fair to the taxpayer and attractive to the judiciary. All other judicial pension schemes are closed to future accrual following the passage of the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022, which received Royal Assent in March 2022. From 1 April, this month, the judicial pension scheme 2022 has been the only scheme open to judges for future accrual.

Our judges uphold the rule of law, and the decisions that they take are of the utmost importance. Throughout the pandemic, the judiciary continued to administer justice, working hard to ensure that our courts and tribunals kept operating. Having enough judges now and in future will be vital to help the justice system to continue to recover.

Unfortunately, over the past few years, we have experienced unprecedented recruitment and retention issues across the judiciary. We need more high-calibre judges to help us reduce case times and to deliver justice more quickly. Justice delayed often impacts on the most vulnerable. In family and county courts, children and other vulnerable people rely on access to justice for emergency orders and injunctions. More judges will mean that more cases can be heard in a timely manner.

The judiciary’s reputation for integrity and impartiality plays an important role in attracting international business to the UK. Having sufficient judges will help us to continue to compete internationally in legal services, an important contributor to the UK economy worth about £29 billion per year.

In 2018, a two-year comprehensive review by the Senior Salaries Review Body linked the 2015 pension reforms to the recruitment and retention problems within the judiciary. The pension changes made in 2015 were consistent with those made to other public sector pension schemes, but they did not take into consideration the judiciary’s constitutional role or unique situation. The 2015 scheme moved judges to a tax-registered scheme, so for the first time their judicial pension benefits became subject to the annual and lifetime tax allowances. The JPS 2022 restores them to a tax unregistered scheme. That is particularly important, given the unique career path of judges.

Appointment as a salaried judge in the UK is a culmination of a barrister or solicitor’s career, rather than a career path in itself. Judges often join judicial office at a later stage in life, having already accrued private pensions, so tax charges are felt more acutely. Furthermore, judges need to be highly experienced legal professionals to deal with important and complex judicial work. They therefore come with years of training and successful practice behind them, and many will have taken a pay cut to join the bench. Their pensions are consequently of particular importance to them.

The judicial pension scheme 2022 is designed with judges’ unique situation in mind. As I said, the scheme will, importantly, be tax unregistered. Several of the scheme features, such as the member contribution rate, flow from that tax unregistered status. The scheme also has no service cap, so there is no limit on the number of years that a judge may accrue benefits. We have also provided the option for judges to receive a lump-sum payment on retirement, in return for giving up part of their pension.

This is a modernised scheme, however, which has also been designed with fairness to the taxpayer in mind. It remains consistent with the principles set out by the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission’s review of public service pension provision chaired by Lord Hutton. The judicial pension scheme 2022 will have its benefits calculated on a career average, rather than a final salary basis. It will have a normal pension age linked to the state pension age, and it will be subject to a cost control mechanism.

We have engaged with the judiciary on the design of the scheme for the past few years. We ran two consultations: in 2020, we formally consulted the judiciary on the design and features that the scheme should offer; in 2021, we consulted on a draft of the scheme regulations. We carefully considered the responses.

For example, we proposed that the new scheme should have a uniform contribution rate. However, with the move to a tax unregistered scheme, that does mean that some judges would see a reduction in their take-home pay. To address that issue, the regulations offer a temporary option that allows eligible judicial office holders to reduce their contributions to the scheme for three years in return for a corresponding reduction in the accrual rate. Overall, the responses received to these consultations were positive, and the judiciary were supportive. This strengthened our view that this scheme will help achieve our main objective of addressing the serious recruitment and retention issues identified by the Senior Salaries Review Body, while still being fair to taxpayers and affordable in the long term.

To conclude, this statutory instrument establishes a pension scheme for the judiciary that is sufficiently attractive to recruit and retain high-calibre candidates to the bench, while ensuring value and fairness to the taxpayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her overall support of the measures. She is right to mention the McCloud case; it is obviously complicated to talk about the impact on any specific, individual judicial office holder, but overall, this new pension scheme is generous. It takes into account the unique circumstances of judicial office holders, and the key to it is the tax-unregistered nature of the scheme. Because of that, it will be broadly beneficial, but I am happy to reflect on the hon. Lady’s points and respond if I can address any of the issues she mentioned about specific impacts, particularly at lower levels, which are very important.

The hon. Lady mentioned the backlog. I should put on record what I have just announced: for the second year running, we have removed the cap on sitting days in Crown courts, which should mean that we can go even further in reducing the backlog. It is a serious issue, although I would point out that that backlog has fallen by 2,500 since its peak in June last year. As the hon. Lady knows, a key factor in that backlog was that as we went into full lockdown in April 2020, courts were closed, and the issue of 2 metre social distancing in jury trials was a fundamental problem. However, we are making huge progress on the backlog. We have a range of measures in place, not least to clear up space in courts, but if we have rooms, we need judges to hear those cases. That is becoming a key capacity issue as well, which is why these measures are so important: at their heart, they are about the recruitment and retention of judges. We have many other measures going forward— I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the magistrates recruitment drive, which I am pleased to say has received over 35,000 expressions of interest, with 25% of potential applicants from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. That is very positive.

My final point is that, compared with the 2015 scheme, no individual judge will be worse off. That is the key point; it all comes from the tax-unregistered nature of the scheme. I think it is a very good scheme, and I hope you agree, Mr Efford, that this statutory instrument is necessary. I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Personal Injury Reform: Consultation Response

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)]

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) has made the following statement:

I announce today the publication of Part 2 of the Government’s response to the ‘Reforming the soft tissue injury (‘whiplash’) claims process’ consultation paper on www.gov.uk.

In November 2016, the Government published a consultation that set out proposed measures to tackle the number and cost of road traffic accident related personal injury claims. This consultation covered both legislative proposals for tackling the number and cost of whiplash claims, and a ‘Call for Evidence’ on several related issues.

The Government response was split into two parts, with Part 1 covering the primary and secondary legislative measures which made up the Whiplash Reform Programme, and Part 2 covering the ‘Call for Evidence’. Part 1 of the response was published in February 2017, but a decision was taken to defer work on Part 2 to enable focus on developing and implementing the significant whiplash reform measures.

Now that the whiplash reforms have been successfully implemented, it is appropriate to revisit the issue of publishing the deferred Part 2 Government response. The newly published response includes a summary of stakeholder views and specific analysis of the responses received on issues relating to credit hire, rehabilitation, early notification of claims, recovery of disbursements, Insurance Fraud Taskforce actions, and consideration of a Barème scheme. It also details the next steps to be taken in relation to these topics.

In considering the responses received, we have acknowledged that these were views provided in 2016, and that in some areas, developments in the sector have altered the position considered in the ‘Call for Evidence’. We will continue to monitor several of the areas identified and remain open to working with specific stakeholder groups to develop and implement industry-led solutions to issues in areas such as rehabilitation and credit hire.

The consultation response paper can be found here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reforming-the-soft-tissue-injury-whiplash-claims-process.

[HCWS707]

Criminal Legal Aid Proposals

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2022 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)]

The pandemic has been exceptionally challenging for our justice system. We owe our whole legal profession—solicitors, barristers, chartered institute executives, and judiciary and court staff—a debt of gratitude for keeping the wheels of justice turning over the last two years.

Thanks to their immense efforts, we are making progress in tackling the court backlog, and getting back to a more normal way of working—in the interests of victims, witnesses and the wider public.

As Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, I am committed to making sure our world-class justice system is put on a stable footing for the future, for the benefit of victims, defendants and the whole of society, which is why I am today announcing the launch of the Government’s response to the Criminal Legal Aid Independent Review (CLAIR) and the means test review consultation for both criminal and civil legal aid.

I would like to thank Sir Christopher Bellamy for his thorough, invaluable report—along with his panel of experts, and everyone who contributed their views as well as all of those who contributed to the means test review.

These two consultations address the recommendations made by Sir Christopher Bellamy and his advisory panel and the review of the legal aid means test launched in 2019. The Government’s response to CLAIR reflects the whole system approach taken in that review.

My proposals include an uplift of almost all criminal legal aid fees for criminal defence practitioners by 15% as soon as possible. This would inject an additional £115 million p.a. at steady state. A further £20 million p.a. is being held for other proposals including:

a reformed litigators graduated fee scheme which pays solicitors in the Crown court,

investment in work in the youth court, and

grants for training contracts and for solicitor advocates to gain rights of audience in the Crown court to support the sustainability and development of solicitors’ practice.

These proposals bring the total investment to £135 million p.a. at steady state, in line with Sir Christopher’s recommendations.

With the Government’s additional funding to support court recovery, this will take taxpayer funding of criminal legal aid to £1.2 billion p.a., the highest level in a decade.

And, in the short term, our proposed cash injection will give a 15% boost to fees for police station work, magistrates court work, the work of advocates in the Crown court, most of the work of litigators in the Crown court, solicitors in very high cost cases, and some smaller schemes.

CLAIR made a number of recommendations non-fee recommendations about the future of criminal legal aid, and in line with these we are also making proposals including:

to reform fee schemes, so they reflect the way our legal professions work including increased work outside of trials and new practice like pre-recorded evidence;

to explore new ways of delivering remote legal advice in police stations;

to work with the professions and regulators on how, together, we can promote greater diversity across the system—opening up a career in law to anyone with the talent to succeed, regardless of their background;

to establish an advisory board bring together information and real experience from the front line to inform Ministers’ decision making on legal aid policy;

to remove barriers to the work of members of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives who do not enter the profession through traditional routes; and,

to support training contracts for criminal solicitors and grants for solicitors to train to represent clients in the Crown courts and above as solicitor advocates.

Investment and reform will make the fee structures better reflect work done and will improve the efficiency of the criminal legal aid system by incentivising early engagement and resolution where appropriate.

They will reinforce a more sustainable market, with publicly funded criminal defence practice seen as a viable, long-term, career choice, attracting the brightest and best from all backgrounds—a pipeline for the judges of tomorrow.

The proposals will put criminal legal aid on a sustainable and stable footing for many years to come—underpinning an effective and robust justice system that will benefit victims of crime, and everyone in our society who relies on it.

On the means test review, I am proposing a wide suite of changes to ensure continued access to justice. These include:

increasing income and capital thresholds for legal aid eligibility, meaning that 3.5 million more people will be eligible for criminal legal aid in the magistrates’ court and 2 million more people will be eligible for civil legal aid;

removing the upper income threshold for legal aid at the Crown court, meaning that all Crown court defendants will be eligible for legal aid;

excluding assets from the means test where they are the subject matter of the case, making it easier for domestic abuse victims to access legal aid;

removing the means test for three areas of civil legal aid: civil representation for under-18s, civil representation for parents or those with parental responsibility facing the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment from their child, and legal help for inquests involving a potential breach of rights under the ECHR (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998) or where there is likely to be a significant wider public interest in the individual being represented at the inquest.

These measures aim to improve the operation of the whole criminal defence market and the justice system. They are designed to make the criminal justice system more efficient—particularly around new technology—and to make the criminal defence market more sustainable. The consultations will run for 12 weeks, after which the Government will consider responses in detail and formulate our response.

[HCWS684]

Protecting the Public and Justice for Victims

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to be prompted by my hon. Friend, who anticipates what I was just about to say about the next limb of our investment, which is in technology. At the beginning of the pandemic, about 500 cases or so were being dealt with by way of telephone or remote technology across the whole of England and Wales. Last week, the number reached 20,000—just under half all the cases heard every week in our various jurisdictions.

That has not happened by accident; it has happened as a result of significant Government investment in the hardware and software so that the technology works as well as possible for all court users. We continue, through the £1 billion court reform programme launched in 2017, to evolve, refine and improve the technology. All the measures that we have invested in are supported by the biggest single increase in court maintenance in nearly 20 years—the £142 million that I announced last summer. That is further evidence of the concerted action that I and the Government have taken since the outset of the crisis.

Plans were outlined for recovery in the criminal courts in September last year—most notably, our commitment to create 290 courts that could be used for jury trials. But we did better than that: we now have over 300 courts that can be safely used for jury trials—and they are happening day after day. We published our plans for other court recovery, relating to other jurisdictions, in November. I can remember a time at the beginning of this crisis when there was a serious question as to whether the wheels of justice could carry on rolling at all, but at no time did we stop. Again, that is as a result of the application and dedication of everybody involved. The most difficult and troubling moment for all of us concerned in the system was the decision to stop jury trials at the end of March 2020. There was a two-month hiatus, but it did mean that in late May of that year we were among the first jurisdictions in the world to start jury trials again. That was a remarkable achievement and a testament to everybody who got involved in that endeavour. Clearly, that has had a consequence and an impact, and I do not seek to shy away from the reality of that. However, I can sincerely say to the House that our robust action—the investment we made, the multi-layered approach we are taking—is yielding the sort of results that all right hon. and hon. Members would welcome: the sort of outcomes for witnesses and victims that we all want to see. Can we do more? Yes, we can, and we are going to do more, not just in the ongoing work to recover from covid, but on the legislative framework, which I think we all agree needs to be enhanced.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

One area of crime that has seen a significant increase during the pandemic is pet theft, with the number of dogs being stolen in Suffolk alone having doubled. I very much welcome the Lord Chancellor’s taskforce on pet theft. Does he expect that it will lead to legislation in the current Session?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an important issue. Clearly, the abduction and theft of much-loved pets has caused real distress to too many people. During the lockdown, we have seen the rise in pet ownership, because of the comfort and company that much-loved pets bring, yet there is no doubt that there is an insidious market in the underhand sale of animals. Clearly, there is a wider issue here that needs to be looked at, which is why I was delighted to help bring together my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Environment Secretary to form the taskforce. We are looking at legislative measures, whether they relate to enhancing cruelty laws, on which we have already taken important action, increasing the maximum to five years, or to looking at stamping out the trade itself, in a way that we did several years ago with regard to scrap metal, where there were a spate of thefts and real misery for many people. We are looking at this in great depth and we aim to come back in a short while with a report. If that means we need to legislate, of course we will do so.

I wanted to talk about victims. The hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) is not in his place, but I wanted to pay a bit of a tribute to him for the work he did when he was in the shadow team with the right hon. Member for Tottenham. The hon. Gentleman has been consistent on these issues and I respect that, and I listened carefully to what he said. My proposed way forward of having, first, a proper and full consultation to make sure that this legislation is future-proofed and fit for purpose, together with the draft Bill approach, will give everybody the chance to really bring a cross-party flavour to what our deliberations should be, to make sure that any product is going to be the result of mature and careful deliberation, so that we are not just paying lip service to these issues and not just enshrining the victims’ code into law, important though that is, but we are looking carefully at how people, organisations and agencies are held accountable. That is the big question we all need to ask ourselves. Here is the challenge for the right hon. Gentleman and others in this House: we have to balance the important principles of independence of prosecutorial authorities and other agencies within the criminal justice system, with the clear and present need for victims of crime to feel that if something has gone wrong, not only can they go and complain to somebody, but there is an outcome they can be satisfied with—there is accountability for any failure or dislocation in the system. That is what we all need to put our shoulders to the wheel on. I am sure that, in the spirit of the exhortation from the right hon. Gentleman, he will take that away and consider the offer that I make for how we can create a truly transformative victims law.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I was pleased earlier, when I intervened on the Lord Chancellor on the matter of pet theft, that he gave such a positive response about the intentions of the taskforce that is looking at that terrible crime and what measures can be put forward to deter it. I declare an interest: as someone who had never previously owned a dog, I was fortunate that my family took ownership of a beautiful chocolate-brown sprocker spaniel from Norfolk in February, just before lockdown. Obviously, we did not know that lockdown was coming, but I have huge sympathy with the many families who, in lockdown, desperately tried to get a pet and often had to pay over the odds. Of course, prices surged, which in turn inevitably attracted those with nefarious motives.

To give an idea of the scale, not only did the number of dog thefts in Suffolk double in the last 12 months, but a single raid by the police in Ipswich, on a Traveller site, resulted in the discovery of 83 stolen dogs. I believe that most of them have been returned to their owners, so there is a good news story there. However, my main point is that, to most people, their pet is a family member, and I hope that whatever measures we bring forward, we recognise that this is a traumatic crime, not just for the animal itself but for the family concerned. From social media and speaking to people in my constituency, I can say that the threat of dog theft has caused massive anxiety, and I hope that we strengthen the law so that we deter this heinous crime.

Another crime that is particularly relevant in rural constituencies such as South Suffolk is hare coursing. I received an update earlier from the wildlife team at Suffolk police, and I was struck by a fact that I hope the Justice Minister takes into account, because this is very much an MOJ issue. There were six convictions for hare coursing in the last year in Suffolk and the average penalty was a fine of £142. The key point is that, with hare coursing nowadays, we are talking about organised crime gambling many thousands of pounds. One hundred and forty-two quid is not going to stop organised criminals gambling thousands of pounds.

As I am sure the Minister knows, the problem is that hare coursing is not a minor matter anymore. It can often lead to violence, and certainly the threat of violence. Our farming and rural communities feel very, very intimidated by this crime and they are spending huge amounts of money protecting their land, protecting their sheds and so on. At the same time, it is inevitable that those caught up in this crime may well be the same sort of people who are robbing their farms of vehicles, robbing their GPS systems from their tractors, and so on.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Is my hon. Friend aware that farmers in his constituency are so concerned about the risk of hare coursing that they are taking the step of shooting their hares to prevent it becoming an attractive destination?

[James Cartlidge]

I welcome that point. It just shows how much of an impact this has had. In terms of the law, farmers in my constituency are on a WhatsApp group where they share intelligence about potential hare coursing. The police are using a drone to find the perpetrators, who are themselves increasingly sophisticated, but the law that generally covers hare coursing is the Game Act 1831. In other words, despite all this technology, the piece of legislation covering it received Royal Assent a year after the first passenger steam railway came into being, and I suspect that it may be in some need of modernisation.

We have heard about some very serious crimes and I understand why there is such concern about the issues around rape and the victims of that crime. It is incredibly difficult and it is important that the Government focus on that. There are also crimes such as dogs being stolen and the theft of farm property, which perhaps do not sound as serious but where the wider impact in rural communities is still very significant. We want to see a signal from the Government—not just in police numbers, but particularly in sentencing and punishment—that those crimes are taken seriously and that at least the guidelines, if not the law, will be toughened accordingly to protect rural communities.