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.

Domestic Abuse Bill

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin). I echo all hon. Members who rightly said that, following what we might describe as the rumbustiousness of previous days, today we have seen the Chamber at its best, with some amazing, moving and powerful speeches, not least that of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield).

I strongly the support the Bill, but I want to raise an aspect that is not covered by it, which is that of coercive control in a professional relationship, specifically the relationship between therapist and client. This relates to the traumatic case of a constituent of mine. Her daughter was one of a group of young women—all from very affluent backgrounds, not coincidentally, because they were targeted as such—who in 2008 attended an art school in Italy, where they came into contact with a self-appointed therapist or, as she called herself, life coach.

The therapist practised dream therapy and professed to specialise in personal development. Over the course of the next year, the therapist saw up to a dozen of those women for regular therapy sessions. By early 2014, only three women were still seeing the therapist, one of whom was my constituent’s daughter. By that time, two of the women had broken off all contact with their friends and families, and had rejected their inheritances. The reason was that the therapist had used a tactic known as false memory placement. She placed into the minds of those girls, those impressionable young women, false memories of being abused by their own mothers. That has been proven and substantiated since, but when the case came to the Crown Prosecution Service, it had to conclude that legislation did not cover that specific outrage.

The current legislation refers to abuse in a domestic setting, and this is the Domestic Abuse Bill—I entirely understand that; nevertheless, in the case of my constituent, there was a crime—call it what one might, but it was theft, the theft of love. The love between mother and daughter was indoctrinated out, being replaced by false hate based on false memories. This is a terrible story, which previously received quite some media coverage, but I will not name anyone because parts of it are still ongoing.

The key thing is that, for me, it would be preferable if the definition of A and B in the Bill was confined not just to family members, partners or ex-partners, but to other types of relationship where coercion and control can happen. I can tell the House that I am aware from other parliamentarians that this problem is not restricted to the case I have mentioned. There have been other cases. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) has tried to bring forward a Bill connected with the qualifications of therapists. Previously, Lord Garnier tried to amend the Bill so that it could be a crime to use coercion and control in a professional setting. That is certainly what I would like to see.

I do appreciate the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins)—she is doing brilliant things—has previously seen me about that case. I understand that the desire in the Home Office is to focus on the domestic context, but the fact is that the incident has had profound domestic ramifications, as hon. Members can quite imagine. The good news is that my constituent’s daughter did eventually get in contact and has returned, but there are many ongoing implications of the case.

As I say, I know from other parliamentarians, including Lord Deben, that there are many other cases like that one. I hope that, in the course of the Bill’s passage, we can look at the specific, relatively niche cases in which the crime of coercion and the use of certain psychiatric tools can emerge but that would not be covered by the Bill as it is currently drafted. I hope to be able to explore that at a later stage, if at all possible.

Justice

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2019 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from Topical Questions to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice on Tuesday 12 March 2019.

[James Cartlidge]

Will my hon. Friend the Minister outline what plans he has to increase support for rape crisis centres?

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

If the hon. Gentleman cares about criminal justice co-operation, as I am sure he does—I certainly do—then there is a course of action available to him later today to ensure that we can have further criminal justice co-operation, and that is voting for the Government’s deal.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

11. What steps the Government are taking to tackle violence in prisons.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)]

In order to tackle violence in prisons, we first have to make sure that drugs and weapons are not getting into prisons. We need more prison officers, which is why we are pleased that we now have 4,700 more prison officers in place. We also need to invest much more in staff training and support. In the end, the key to reducing violence is good relationships between prison officers and prisoners.

[James Cartlidge]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Clearly, preventing violence in prisons is a priority, so, to that end, will he update us on what plans he has to increase searches of cells and wings?

[Rory Stewart]

This is absolutely central. Getting on top of cell searching—making sure that we understand what is in a cell, what should not be in a cell, getting the mobile phones and getting the drugs—is vital to having the baseline for a safe prison, so we are investing in more dog teams, in more mobile phone detection equipment and in dedicated search teams across the estate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My Department will continue to argue the case for spending our money sensibly and getting the best deal for justice.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend the Minister outline what plans he has to increase support for rape crisis centres?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)]

I pay tribute to Fern Champion, who has been incredibly courageous in speaking out recently about this hugely important issue. We provide funding for 89 rape support centres. From April, we will increase funding by 10% for them all, with a 30% increase in London, and move to a three-year funding settlement.[Official Report, 21 March 2019, Vol. 656, c. 12MC.]

Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords]

James Cartlidge Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 12th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi]

These people will be performing judicial tasks and functions and so will need to be appropriately qualified, which is why we have tabled the amendments.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is my understanding that these are mainly interlocutory functions, not actual judgments or significant judicial functions.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

No, as we understand it, although it is envisaged that some of these tasks will be procedural, others will be very important to people whose rights are affected. We might think, for example, that requests for adjournments are straightforward, but they are not. As practitioners and former practitioners will know, they can be complicated, because when a judge decides whether to grant one, they take into consideration a host of things, so it is important that the person be appropriately qualified.

We accept that the procedure rule committee will be able to iron out some of the questions about what are judicial and what are administrative functions, but the main thing is that these people will be carrying out judicial functions and deciding some difficult issues, and it is only appropriate that they be qualified and appropriately experienced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

I hope I shall make a better stab at my speech than I did of being a Teller earlier.

I rise to oppose these amendments, tempted though I am by the way in which they were proposed by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), whom I respect as a fellow lawyer. However, I do have to say that she seeks to go further than is appropriate and seeks to put a needless restriction on the ability of the procedure committee in particular to come to the appropriate balance. I have very great respect for the views of both the Law Society and the Bar Council—I say that with reference to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a non-practising barrister and a consultant to a law firm—but ultimately the scheme envisaged by the Government is a right and balanced one, and reflects in particular the views of the senior judiciary, which I think is important because ultimately it is the judges who are best placed to decide the appropriate level of delegation. They are the people who work day to day with these staff; they see day to day the nature of the boxwork—as it is sometimes called—and the other things that come in.

For these reasons, when the matter was debated in the other place, both Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the recently retired Lord Chief Justice, to whom I have already referred, and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, recently retired president of the Supreme Court, counselled against an undue restriction on the operation of the civil procedure rule committee, already a well established body of the kind the Opposition seek to bring in. I think they also broadly supported the overall thrust of the Bill.

The hon. Lady referred to austerity. That is not the objective of this Bill; there has been a long-standing proposal to modernise the civil justice system. She referred to the work done by Lord Justice Briggs, for whom I have the greatest respect. The Bill is a logical follow-on from the Briggs report, and it is necessary if we are to achieve modernisation and make the courts more accessible for litigants. This is an entirely sensible Bill; that is why the judiciary has pushed for these sorts of proposals, and why Lord Thomas said that he “warmly” welcomed it. It will save some £6 million; he regards that as a realistic figure. That is important in the context of the available resources for the courts system. We all accept that the courts are under pressure, and this is a sensible way forward that does not impede the basic requirements of access to justice or fairness.

Lord Thomas said two further things that we should bear in mind. He spoke about the developments in civil procedures; the rule committee has been an important part of that over the last 15 to 20 years, so it is not as though the committee were unused to dealing with these matters. The committees bring together representatives of the legal profession. As a former practitioner, I agree with his description of that committee as

“a highly representative body with many representatives of the legal profession. Certainly, the committee will always try to reach a view by consensus—when I was a member of it for more than six years there never was a division; we always managed to agree.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 2039.]

Most experienced practitioners will be aware of that. I think we can say the same of the criminal procedure rule committee; these are very well established bodies, and judges do not forget that they are judges when they are there.

It is a little unworthy, I say with respect, to suggest that the judiciary—we have talked about the senior judiciary chairing these bodies—would acquiesce in an inappropriate level of delegation for a purely financial consideration. They would be going against their judicial oaths. I do not think for one second that the hon. Lady really means to say that they would do that. The amendments would, however, put needless constraint on the committee’s work. That is why I quoted before and quote again Lord Thomas’s observation:

“Experience has shown that detailed restrictions on procedure are a very real fetter on the administration of justice”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 2039.]

In the other place, he gave a number of examples that I need not give here showing why that could be counterproductive.

It is also worth considering the speech of Lord Neuberger. He pointed out the following:

“There are two protected factors: one is that nothing can be done without it being in the rules, and the second is that the Lord Chief Justice needs to give his or her authorisation to the person who makes the decision.” .”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 July 2018; Vol. 792, c. 887.]

Those are important safeguards.

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise. What he is saying goes back to the point raised earlier about the possibility of the functions that are delegated having legal significance. Presumably if that was the case, they would not be delegated to start with.

[Robert Neill]

That is precisely right. It is inconceivable that any Lord Chief Justice would give his or her consent to a delegation that was inappropriate or would put the interests of justice at risk. I never sat as a deputy district judge—they used to be called deputy registrars in my day, so long ago was it—in civil matters, but I have many friends who do, and a great deal of what is called boxwork, with which at least some on the Treasury Bench will be familiar, was of a very administrative kind. We expect the district judges in a busy county court to deal with that, whereas it seems perfectly reasonable for many of these matters, which are often of a very interlocutory nature, to be dealt with by an experienced member of court staff who has been in the service for many years. We are not talking about the ultimate determination of the case in any of these matters. That is why Lord Neuberger referred to that safeguard or protection, and the protection that that would be laid before Parliament.

Lord Neuberger made another important observation on the attempt, as it seems to me, to fetter the discretion of the committee. He posed a rhetorical question, as perhaps senior judges and other lawyers tend to do:

“Whether it is right to provide in such clear terms, and such uncompromising general terms, for the circumstances and requirements for”

appeals—which is what he was talking about—seems to him to be questionable. He was making this point:

“Having chaired the Civil Procedure Rule Committee for three years, I can say, as has been quoted in relation to its criminal equivalent by my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas, that considerable care is given to ensure that all the requirements of justice are met. It is very rare, if ever, that I can remember a decision being arrived at which was not arrived at by consensus.”

These questions are considered, not only by the judiciary but by practitioners, including members of the solicitors’ profession and members of the Bar. Plaintiffs’ and defendants’ interests are represented on these committees, as are both ends of the profession—solicitors and barristers—and all levels of the judiciary, from the High Court bench through the circuit bench to the district bench. This is a broad-based body and, as Lord Neuberger said, these

“details should be worked out…by the rule committee”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 July 2018; Vol. 792, c. 890 to 891.]

I think that that is a forceful argument for leaving the proposals as the Government intended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

I am happy to come on to the three reasons why amendments 2 to 4 cannot be accepted. First, the amendments are not necessary. The functions are already being carried out, and carried out well, by those with lesser qualifications than those sought by the hon. Member for Bolton South East. The qualification requirements for legal advisers in the magistrates court and family court are currently set out in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor, as they have been since 1979, and amendments 2 and 3 would raise the qualifications bar significantly higher than the current regulations and would rule out a large proportion of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service staff from giving legal advice in future.

[James Cartlidge]

There are many people in the Chamber with huge legal expertise. All I can claim is spending my year off as a junior outdoor clerk, for which the only qualifications needed were a ponytail and a cockney accent, as far as I could see. From my short experience I discovered the huge number of staff who make up our courts and keep them ticking along. They might be administrative functions, but we should not be afraid of reforming our courts to give those people greater roles that help them to make more of their career.

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Not only is it important to ensure that the qualifications match the role, but these reforms will ensure good career progression for competent and organised staff. Similarly, in relation to amendment 4, it is already the case that some staff can exercise judicial functions in almost every jurisdiction except the Crown court. The range of functions they can carry out varies enormously, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) pointed out earlier, from legally qualified legal advisers in the county court setting aside default judgments to non-legally qualified caseworkers in the lower tribunal dealing with postponement requests and issuing strikeout warnings.

Accepting amendment 4 would rule out a large proportion of those staff, who are already exercising judicial functions and who may have been doing either or both for a number of years. Such a loss of expertise would be particularly damaging and would impact on the service that Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service can provide. The hon. Member for Bolton South East suggested that introducing authorised staff was damaging to justice, but I did not hear any examples of inappropriate action by any of our current staff who do not currently have those qualifications and who are already carrying out these roles.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

Thanks to a private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), which we have been proud to support, new technology is available that should not force governors to have to come up with a bespoke solution prison by prison, but will allow us nationally to have much better technology to identify these phones, listen to them and ultimately seize them.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

9. What assessment he has made of the role of employment and education in reducing rates of reoffending.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)]

Prison education is key to achieving better outcomes for offenders and has been proven to reduce reoffending by approximately 9% and increase P45 employment by 1.8%. We are empowering governors, who will be given the budget and controls to tailor education provision in their prisons, to both better engage their prisoners and meet their specific learning and employment needs. On 17 September, we launched a new innovative commissioning portal, which will give governors direct access to a huge range of learning and skills providers, including local educators and employers.

[James Cartlidge]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does he agree that in some cases, self-employment—for example, as a sole trader—may be appropriate? Can he set out whether those new support measures will include mentoring for offenders who want to start a business when they leave prison?

HMP Birmingham

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

Altcourse Prison is a G4S prison; it is run by the same company that is being criticised in Birmingham. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, that prison—as I saw directly—has incredibly good education facilities and workshops, and it had a good inspection report. It is showing how to run a safe, clean and orderly regime that is genuinely changing lives, and how to do so through the private sector.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

May I pay tribute to the way in which my hon. Friend is handling this very difficult and sensitive matter? The tendering process is critical wherever the private sector is involved in the provision of public services. Will he ensure that anyone bidding in any future tenders for prisons, including this one, will have to show that they have the capacity to avoid losing control of the prisons in their charge?

[Rory Stewart]

This is a fundamental challenge, and of course it is central to anything that happens when the Government work with the private sector. We must make sure that the tender process ensures that the people bidding for any of these contracts have the credibility, legitimacy and capacity to run the contracts effectively.

Criminal Legal Aid

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon]

My hon. Friend makes an important point eloquently. For many of the barristers I have spoken to, this really is the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Before I touch on the precise concerns that have been raised about the new scheme, I will briefly look at the wider context that has caused this issue to be so controversial. As I have said, in many ways this issue is the straw that broke the camel’s back in the justice sector. Our justice system is at tipping point. The deep crisis unleashed by drastic cuts could soon become an emergency. In some areas, it already has.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about cuts. Does he accept that, had Labour won the 2010 general election, it too would have made substantial cuts to the Ministry of Justice budget based on its own manifesto promises?

[Richard Burgon]

Things have moved on since the 2010 general election.

Since 2010, the budget of the Ministry of Justice has fallen by 40% in the deepest cuts of any Department. A further £600 million—around 10% of the MOJ’s budget—is to be cut in the next two years. It is a system that has already been cut to the bone. The crisis in our prisons is driven by staff and budget cuts, as has been well documented. It has been less well documented that 100 or so courts have been sold off for little more than the price of the average UK house, having negative impacts on victims and witnesses. What has also not been discussed as much as it should have been is the fact that youth offending team budgets have been decimated, with central Government funding halved over the past few years, or the fact that probation privatisation is failing despite hundreds of millions of pounds more recently going into bailing out these failing private companies. But it does not stop there, because on top of this, there are big reductions in police numbers and big reductions in the Crown Prosecution Service budgets. In 2016, the Public Accounts Committee told Members of Parliament that the criminal justice system was at breaking point. After years of cuts, the system is clearly now broken. Let us be clear: an underfunded system risks yet more victims being denied justice and risks yet more miscarriages of justice.

Today we are discussing cuts related to legal aid. Our democracy and the rule of law, despite the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) advocating people being banned from not going to work, depends on people being able to defend their rights. Our welfare state, created in the aftermath of the second world war, was about defending people’s basic human rights. It was about guaranteeing every citizen access to the human rights of education and healthcare but also of access to justice. In civil cases, when people cannot access justice, the consequences are grave.