Draft Judicial Pensions (Remediable Service etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Mike Freer Excerpts(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Judicial Pensions (Remediable Service etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I apologise that this is a somewhat dry and technical subject, but I hope Members will bear with me. The regulations amend the Judicial Pensions (Remediable Service etc.) Regulations 2023, referred to as the 2023 regulations, which were made in July this year, and the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015, referred to as JPR 2015.
The regulations before us are particularly technical. The 2023 regulations were intended to ensure that all judges received a full remedy in relation to the McCloud age discrimination litigation, including in relation to certain payments that they had purported to make to the 2015 judicial pension scheme while they were treated as a member of that scheme. However, the 2023 regulations proceeded on the basis that judges eligible for a remedy in relation to McCloud were at some point in the 2015 judicial pension scheme and could have made certain payments to that scheme, and that they would, as a result of their remedy, be moved to their previous, legacy schemes. The 2023 regulations also made amendments to JPR 2015, which proceeded on the same basis.
However, the McCloud remedy operates differently for different groups of judges, and there are some groups whose remedy operates in such a way that they are now considered never to have been in the 2015 scheme. That applies to immediate-detriment judges, including litigants, and gap judges; I will explain those specific groups of judges shortly. As a result, those judges could not have made payments to the 2015 scheme, so the 2023 regulations and the amended JPR 2015 did not work to fully effect their remedy. There is no change to the policy intent of the 2023 regulations.
The regulations before us amend the 2023 regulations and JPR 2015 to ensure that we are able fully to deliver the remedy for all affected judges. I will go into a few of the specifics of those amendments, but let me first outline the background to the McCloud remedy itself. Prior to the 2015 pension reforms, salaried judges were eligible for pensions under the Judicial Pensions Act 1981, known as JPA 1981, or the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993, known as JUPRA. Fee-paid judges secured equivalent pensions through other litigation and became eligible for the fee-paid judicial pension scheme, known as the FPJPS. Collectively, those are called the legacy pension schemes and they were all tax-unregistered final salary schemes.
In 2015, the Government introduced extensive reforms to public service pension schemes, as well as new pension schemes from 1 April 2015, based on recommendations in the Public Service Pensions Commission’s final report. JPR 2015 created the reformed pension scheme for the judiciary—the judicial pension scheme 2015, also known as JPS 2015—which is a tax-registered career-average pension scheme. For those aged between 51.5 and 55 on 31 March 2012, tapered protection was available, and those judges were given the choice to join the 2015 scheme on 1 April 2015 or to taper across on a later date determined by their date of birth. Other judges—those aged under 51.5 on 31 March 2012—received no protection and were treated as members of JPS 2015 on 1 April 2015, unless they opted out of pension scheme membership altogether.
The transitional provisions were challenged by younger judges in the employment tribunal case of McCloud against Ministry of Justice in 2016. In 2018, the Court of Appeal held that the 2015 reforms were unlawfully discriminatory on the ground of age. On 15 July 2019, the Government issued a written ministerial statement accepting the Court of Appeal judgment, and confirmed that we would take steps to address the difference in treatment across all public sector pension schemes and for all affected members, regardless of whether they had brought a claim. This, as hon. Members will know, is called the McCloud remedy.
Since then, the Government have taken steps to resolve the discrimination for affected members. In July 2020, the Ministry of Justice consulted on proposals to remedy the discrimination for judicial pension members. It confirmed in February 2021 which members this would apply to, and confirmed that the remedy would consist of all non-claimant members participating in a formal options exercise in which they would be offered a retrospective choice of pension scheme membership. Hon. Members will note that Members of Parliament are currently going through a similar process.
The options exercise is provided for in chapter 2 of part 1 of the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022. It offers eligible judicial pension members a retrospective choice between membership of the legacy pension scheme and of the 2015 pension scheme for their period of service during the remedy period from 1 April 2015, when the discrimination began, until 31 March 2022, at which point all members were moved to the 2022 judicial pension scheme.
There are also provisions to enable the Ministry of Justice to provide an earlier remedy for those who are at immediate detriment, and a remedy for gap judges. Immediate-detriment judges include litigant judges who have received a remedy in the employment tribunal, to the extent that a remedy has not already been delivered to that group, and non-litigant judicial members who have separately agreed a remedy with the scheme manager. Gap judges are different from those in the options exercise, in that they were older than 55 on 1 April 2012. Given other litigation since 2015, they are now recognised as never having been eligible to join the 2015 scheme; they are therefore now being recognised as legacy scheme members and are treated as never having been in the 2015 scheme.
The draft regulations are intended to deliver the original policy intent of the 2023 regulations. They make amendments to the wording of the 2023 regulations to ensure that the specific groups of judges I have outlined are recognised as never having had membership of the 2015 scheme.
In addition to providing a primary remedy for immediate detriment judges and gap judges, the 2023 regulations made provision intended to ensure that all judicial members who are in scope of the McCloud remedy, whether they are in the options exercise or are immediate detriment or gap judges, could receive more technical elements of the remedy relating to matters such as transfers in, added pension payments and effective pension age payments. Such payments were purported to have been made to judges through the 2015 scheme. The Ministry of Justice has laid this statutory instrument to address concerns that the 2023 regulations did not fully achieve their policy intention to resolve the issue with these payments, and to put beyond doubt the Ministry of Justice’s ability to deliver the full remedy to these individuals.
I assure the Committee that the draft regulations are necessary to ensure that all affected members of the judiciary will receive a pension remedy that is complete and equitable. I appreciate that this is a rather dry and technical issue, but it is an important one. I hope that we have the support of the Committee.
Mike Freer
I never say never, but I am sure that these are the final regulations. As the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford will know, these are technical matters, but as far as we can see, we have now identified any wrinkles, so I hope that these are the final regulations brought forward.
Regarding the timetable, the options exercise is already being undertaken, so the work has already started. Regarding independent advice, I cannot say this with my hand on my heart, but I am pretty sure that everybody gets a personalised statement—as Members of Parliament do—and will access things such as webinars and teach-ins. As in my days in financial services, people are always advised to take independent advice, but I will double check that we recommend that people take independent advice. I can confirm that those affected will get personalised statements and access to things such as webinars to give them as much information as possible.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South West asked about the impact across each part of the public sector. In the same way that each Government Department will have to look at its own exposure, each element of the public sector will have to look at its own pension scheme, because they are not homogeneous, to ensure that it implements the McCloud judgment as it applies to its schemes. I am pretty sure that everyone is doing it, but I cannot confirm if it is a consistent approach. The last question was about the equality impact. That has been taken, and I am sure that we are compliant.
Question put and agreed to.
Correction to Question 203779 in 2022-23 Session
Mike Freer Excerpts(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
In the 2022-2023 parliamentary session, the Ministry of Justice responded to a PQ (203779) in relation to the amount of non-cash vouchers awarded to staff as performance related bonuses in the financial years 2022-23 and 2021-22, identified in the Department’s workforce management information as members of the Core Ministers Department. For reference, as previously noted in the original answer, the Core Ministerial Department had a total of 7,613 employees as of June 2023.
The figure provided for the financial year 2022-23, was inaccurate and an error. This figure was incorrectly calculated, when collating numerous data sources and interrogating them utilising complex Excel formula functions.
We previously stated:
For the Financial Year 2022-23, a total of £425,551 was made to the Core Ministerial Department staff.
However, upon recalculation, the accurate figure can be found below:
For the Financial Year 2022-23, a total of £684,976 was made to the Core Ministerial Department staff.
This does not change the total figure provided for the entire Department which remains correct.
I am apologising for this error and clarifying the position in relation to performance related bonuses, provided as non-cash vouchers. For reference, the Department takes its responsibility for parliamentary accountability very seriously and has reviewed and amended the process for checking responses to parliamentary questions to ensure future accuracy.
[HCWS54]
Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Freer Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
Legal aid is available for asylum cases, for victims of domestic abuse and modern slavery, for separated migrant children, and for immigration cases where someone is challenging a detention decision. Through the Illegal Migration Act 2023, individuals who receive a removal notice under the Act will have access to free legal advice in relation to that notice.
David Linden
The Law Society has warned that a proposed 15% increase in legal aid rates will not be enough to ensure that sufficient immigration lawyers are available to deal with deportations to Rwanda. Charities supporting refugees make 16 attempts on average before securing a lawyer, while in London, charities are only successfully finding legal representation for 4.1% of referrals. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the legal aid sector does not collapse in England and Wales due to the poor decisions made by his colleagues?
Mike Freer
The 15% was agreed after a six-week consultation looking at other increases for other specialist work. The Legal Aid Agency will always keep provision under review to ensure that cover is provided for those who need it.
Richard Thomson
There are approximately 175,000 people trapped in the current asylum backlog, many of them living in hotels with no right to support themselves or their families through work. Instead of unlawful and pointless dog-whistling gestures such as the Government’s Rwanda policy, would it not be better to allow people the opportunity to work and support themselves, and to allow the Home Office and the legal aid system to be resourced adequately so that we can deal with our international obligations exactly as we ought to?
Mike Freer
The question about the Home Office is one the hon. Member may want to raise with Home Office Ministers themselves. On access to legal aid, I would not say that £2 billion of legal aid means this is under-resourced. This year alone, we have continued to increase levels of legal aid across the board, and specifically in specialist areas such as immigration, so I reject the notion that it is underfunded.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Lord Chancellor is currently facing a judicial review over the failure to ensure that immigration legal aid is available to those who need it. For example, the south-west has capacity for fewer than 300 people per year, yet the Bibby Stockholm has capacity for almost 500. Is this not an abject failure of the legal aid system? It is operating exactly how the Government have designed it to: abandoning the most vulnerable to navigate a complex and hostile environment without any recourse to legal representation. Is this moral bankruptcy or incompetence, or is it a combination of both?
Mike Freer
I do not accept that characterisation at all. In fact, this Government are putting legal aid in place to support those affected by the Illegal Migration Act and especially the uplift in fees to ensure that qualified legal advice is available to people, whether physically or through telephone advice. Access to justice, and access to legal aid, is there.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Contrary to the claims of Ministers at every Question Time that they are getting the courts backlog sorted out, they are not, and the pain just drags on for victims. The Crown court backlog reached a record 65,000 cases at the end of June. Nearly 5,000 of them have been waiting for two years and 36,000 cases have defendants on bail. Why are things still getting worse?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
I have to say, Mr Speaker, that God loves a trier. Yes, the backlog has gone up. The hon. Gentleman will know that post covid and post the Criminal Bar Association strike, the backlog did increase. On top of that, this Government have cracked down on crime with more police officers, and that has meant more people being charged and appearing in court. We are addressing this with unlimited sitting days. We recruited 1,000 judges across all jurisdictions last year and we are doing the same this year. We have invested in the court estate to improve resilience, and we have extended 24 Nightingale courts to ensure that we have capacity.
Alex Cunningham
Come on now—we know that the statistics tell a very different story. The Crown courts remain in crisis, and what about the civil courts? The quarterly civil justice statistics from April to June 2023 show that the average time taken for small claims and multi-fast-tracked claims to go to trial was 52 weeks and 78 weeks respectively. Is it the same excuse for the crisis in the civil courts?
Mike Freer
Since the Government have increased the amount of money spent on the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, we have recruited judges across the jurisdiction to help in the civil courts, increased the number of days that fee-paid judges can do from 30 days to 80 days a year, introduced regional virtual pilots to support London and the south-east, and invested in mediation. All of this is ensuring that people have access to justice in a court system that is dealing with higher numbers of cases than ever before.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Mike Freer
As my right hon. Friend will appreciate, I cannot comment on individual cases, but I can reassure her that the payment of wasted or unreasonable costs can already be ordered by the tribunal if it considers it appropriate. Given the issue that she has raised, however, I would be more than happy to meet her to ensure that her concerns are conveyed firmly to those responsible for the reviews.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I thank the Courts Minister for his recent letter on recruitment and retention of legal advisers in Essex and the impact that that is having on court listings. Although I know that he and I agree about the independence of the judiciary regarding individual cases, will he meet me to discuss what more might be done to fill the vacancies for legal advisers in Essex?
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Secretary of State has alluded to the continuing reduction in reoffending rates among those leaving prison. Does he agree that central to maintaining confidence in the wider community is that the reoffending rate goes down further still?
Court Transcript Costs
Mike Freer Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing this important debate.
The principle that justice must be open and transparent goes to the very heart of our justice system. Upholding this principle is paramount to securing the trust and confidence of victims, whose experiences are central to the way our society thinks about and responds to crime—we are as like minds on that. I am sorry to hear about the experience of the hon. Lady’s constituent, Ms Juliana Terlizzi, as she sought to obtain a trial transcript as the victim of a horrific crime.
I recognise that there may be many reasons why victims may find a court transcript helpful in the aftermath of lengthy and sometimes complex criminal court proceedings. In cases where victims do not attend the trial, they may seek to understand the verdict and how it was reached. Even in cases where a victim attends the trial, myriad factors may exacerbate the difficulties they experience in following court proceedings, including having to face the defendant and the defendant’s family, which can be particularly difficult for victims whose first language is not English.
The ability to access transcripts from court proceedings is an essential part of maintaining transparency and accountability within the system. That is why we have provided the required technology to the Crown courts to enable transcription of different parts of the hearing from the recordings made in all proceedings. Understandably, a cost is attached to transcribing what could be weeks’ worth of audio, which will vary depending on the length of the trial. Transcription companies calculate the costs on a case-by-case basis depending on a variety of factors, such as the size of the transcript, whether it is a copy or a new version being requested, and how quickly the transcript is required.
Preparing a court transcript is currently a manual process whereby transcription companies listen to audio files to transcribe the hearings. Although AI technology is available, the most recent pilots to test voice-to-text technology do not demonstrate sufficient accuracy—an element that is crucial where criminal trial records are concerned. Taken together, producing a full trial transcript, depending on its size, can cost in the region of thousands of pounds, as the hon. Lady pointed out.
I appreciate the concerns around the charges quoted for trial transcripts. However, the call to provide transcripts free of charge to victims in all cases involves significant financial implications to the taxpayer, which requires careful analysis. It is also important to recognise that subsidising the cost of full trial transcripts using public funds risks diverting those resources away from other avenues to improve victims’ services and outcomes.
The Ministry of Justice has been working to make court records, such as transcripts, judgments and judicial sentencing remarks, increasingly accessible, including through more of them being published online. I reassure the hon. Lady that we are carefully considering the issues that she raises as part of that work. We are committed to ensuring that victims are supported at every juncture of the criminal justice system. That is why we introduced the Victims and Prisoners Bill, which continues its passage through Parliament. The Bill will enshrine in primary legislation the overarching principles that must be reflected in the victims code, including entitlements for victims to be provided with information about the criminal justice process, as well as access to support services. That package builds on concrete measures that are already making a real difference, including our commitment to the end-to-end rape review, which has already seen us return adult rape cases reaching court to 2016 levels, well ahead of schedule.
I gently point out that it is not true that the Government have abandoned victims. The Government have introduced measures that allow complainants to pre-record their evidence, saving them from having to face their attacker. We stood up a 24/7 rape support line. Victims have the right to court familiarisation visits, to seek a redetermination in the event that the Crown Prosecution Service decides to reduce the charge, and to make a victim personal statement. We will quadruple victim funding by 2024-25, up from £41 million in 2009-10, and we have rolled out more than 800 independent sexual violence advisers.
We have rolled out enhanced support at three Crown courts, in Newcastle, Leeds and Snaresbrook, through the specialist sexual violence support project. We have upgraded technology and facilities, and will continue with trauma-informed training for staff, a case co-ordinator to improve case progress, and giving victims more opportunities to observe sentencing hearings remotely. There is obviously more to be done, but I gently put it on the record that the idea that victims of sexual crime are being abandoned is simply not true.
Sarah Olney
I do not think that I ever accused the Government of having abandoned victims, so it is slightly odd that the Minister is rebutting that. However, will he expand slightly on whether victims could be provided directly with oral recordings, instead of having to pay for expensive transcripts that have been created from them?
Mike Freer
My understanding is that at present it is possible for victims to visit the court by arrangement to listen to a full audio transcript of the trial, and that the sentencing remarks can be particularly helpful to victims in understanding how the judgment was arrived at. Access to those is a piece of work that we are working on at pace. I accept the point about audio, and I am more than happy to take away whether they can be provided, as a step further than the victim’s having to attend court. That is a fair challenge, which I will happily take away.
The hon. Lady commented on the various reports by the Justice Committee. She will also know that the Department recently conducted a call for evidence on the matter of open justice and asked the public which court records should be published online and made available on request. That exercise is fundamental to ensuring that we continue to uphold the principles of openness and transparency, while looking at ways to modernise the courts to meet people’s expectations. The call for evidence closed in September, and we are currently evaluating the information provided. We will report back on our response early next year.
Alongside the Victims and Prisoners Bill and the call for evidence, I assure the hon. Lady that the Ministry of Justice is working with His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to identify further opportunities to improve victims’ experiences of the criminal justice system. That includes examining, among other matters, the costs that they incur when obtaining court transcripts. I recognise that she has tabled an amendment to the Bill. She will be able to expand on her arguments, and take the matter up directly with the relevant Bill Minister, when we come to that specific part of the Bill.
I reiterate that victims can apply to the court for permission to listen to the audio recording to hear it at a suitable location, free of charge. It is at judicial discretion, but that is an opportunity for victims to hear the trial. To help with court transcription costs, we have made sure that bereaved family members of victims of homicide and of death by dangerous driving can get a copy of the judicial sentencing remarks—a specific part of the sentencing hearings—paid for by the public purse. In certain serious criminal cases, a copy of the sentencing remarks can be made available, but I do accept that the hon. Lady would like us to go further. As I have said, the call for evidence on openness is being evaluated and I will ensure that her views are taken into account as part of that work.
To conclude, in line with the key principles of open and transparent justice, I recognise how important it is for victims to be able to access the transcript of criminal proceedings. There are existing policies that operate to achieve transparency for victims within the criminal justice system, but I recognise that there remain concerns about the transcription charges. I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Lady that the Government are committed to improving the experience and support that victims receive.
The Ministry of Justice will continue to progress the Victims and Prisoners Bill to put victims’ interests firmly at the heart of the justice system. We will also analyse and use the responses that we have received in the recent call for evidence on the matter of open justice and court records to better inform future policy. Finally, we will continue to identify opportunities to improve victims’ experiences of the criminal justice system, which includes examining the charges that they incur when obtaining court transcripts.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Courts (Prescribed Recordings) Order 2023
Mike Freer Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Courts (Prescribed Recordings) Order 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela—which, I have to say, does have a certain ring to it.
This draft instrument forms part of the Government’s ongoing work to increase transparency in the justice system. Generally and for good reason, there is a prohibition on photography and audio recordings in court buildings—specifically of participants taking part in court proceedings. However, there are limited circumstances where such recordings would be beneficial, and in the interests of justice and the safety of court users. This statutory instrument will provide exceptions to the prohibition in specific circumstances, in line with the wider aims and commitments of the Ministry of Justice.
The instrument proposes four changes. First, it contains provisions to help secure the safety of our staff, court users and the public by ensuring that operational staff and court buildings are appropriately equipped through the use of body-worn video and CCTV cameras. I know that some hon. Members have shown support for such a move, so I am pleased to bring forward this legislation.
The order also contains a provision to expand the number of judges sitting in the Crown court whose sentencing remarks may be broadcast. It is vital that justice is not just done, but further seen to be done. The broadcasting of sentencing remarks has proven invaluable in that respect, most notably recently with the broadcasting of the sentencing of Lucy Letby. Expanding the number of judges will only serve to strengthen that and to further increase transparency. Indeed, just last week at the Commonwealth Judges and Magistrates Conference, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, commented that the broadcasting of sentencing has been successful beyond the judiciary’s expectations, improving people’s understanding of the justice system and their belief in it.
This SI will also ensure that celebration day proceedings, when a family and judge or magistrate come together to mark the occasion of an adoption order with photographs taken in the court, can continue as part of adoption ceremonies. This is an emotionally significant and valuable part of the adoption process and marks an incredibly important day in a family’s life.
At present, two laws dictate that the photography of participants and audio recordings of proceedings is prohibited: section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. However, a more recent measure—section 32 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013—enables these prohibitions to be disapplied for specific recordings. Before I explain in greater detail the four sorts of recordings covered and the provisions being made, I reassure hon. Members that in developing the provisions, the Ministry of Justice has worked closely with partners and stakeholders with relevant interests, including the judiciary, the police and operational partners.
The first provision of the order relates to the use of CCTV in court buildings, which plays an integral part in ensuring the safety and security of all those who work and visit our courts. The instrument will ensure that the continued use of CCTV cameras in court buildings is in line with health and safety regulations to keep court users and staff safe. It is important to me and the Ministry that those entering court and tribunal buildings can continue to work in, and use the services of, our estate with an assured level of safety and security.
The second provision relates to the use of body-worn video for operational staff. This is already common practice outside court buildings, as it increases the safety and accountability of those who regularly have to deal with potentially dangerous and difficult situations, such as police officers and prison escort staff. The issues concerning body-worn video were brought to the attention of the Ministry of Justice by Serco, the company that provides staff and prisoner escort and custody services to transport prisoners to and from court and within court buildings.
A pilot scheme that ran from December 2017 to March 2018 in Thames magistrates court showed that body-worn video increased the safety of security staff, with a 75% reduction in the number of recorded injuries among the escort staff who wore body-worn video compared to those who did not. However, when reviewing the pilot, we considered that the use of body-worn video in this way was at risk of breaching the statutory prohibition on photography of parties. The pilot and all further use of body-worn video in this way was halted to enable consideration of the provisions required.
As well as escort staff, the consideration revealed a need for police officers and courts and tribunals security staff to be included in this legislation. Moreover, police officers have recently been mandated to wear body-worn video if they carry a Taser, which they may have as part of their equipment when attending court on routine business. This instrument will therefore enable them to lawfully carry a Taser in court buildings, as required in their uniform codes. Allowing all three groups to use body-worn video in specified circumstances in areas including courtrooms will improve the safety not only of operational security staff but of everyone in the court building, while increasing the transparency and accountability of security staff.
The third provision of the order relates specifically to the family court, where there is an established practice of organising a celebration day following the making of an adoption order. During this day, the adopters, their family and the adopted child or children attend the court, and, with the judge’s or magistrate’s permission, meet them to celebrate the adoption. The judge or the magistrate will robe up and take photographs in the court with the family. It is a significant and valuable part of the process for all those involved, and marks an incredibly important day in the life of the child in their new family. The instrument specifies the circumstances where the prohibition on photography will not apply to an adoption photo, so that the practice of taking adoption photos will be explicitly allowed in statute.
The final provision relates to the broadcasting of sentencing remarks. The Crown Court (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2020 was passed to allow certain judges in the Crown court to have their sentencing remarks filmed and broadcast in order to give the public a better understanding of how sentencing decisions are reached. We have recently passed the first anniversary of the first such broadcast, which took place on the 28 July 2022. Since then, the public have been able to watch sentencing remarks in a number of high-profile cases, such as the sentencing of Lucy Letby, former police officer David Carrick, and Thomas Cashman, who murdered nine-year-old Olivia Pratt-Korbel.
Currently, the filming of sentencing remarks can only take place if the judge in question is a High Court judge, a senior circuit judge who is also a resident judge, or a senior circuit judge whose base court is the Central Criminal Court, known as the Old Bailey. However, the most serious criminal trials and sentencing hearings may be presided over by Court of Appeal judges sitting in the Crown court, who are not included in the 2020 order’s provisions, which means that sentencing remarks in such cases may not presently be recorded and broadcast regardless of the public interest. The instrument accordingly amends the 2020 order to include Court of Appeal judges sitting in the Crown court among the judges whose sentencing remarks may be recorded and broadcast from the Crown court. This provision to allow for Court of Appeal judges arrives a little after a year since the original legislation came into force, and I am sure colleagues will agree that the broadcasting of sentencing remarks has been a very positive development.
In conclusion, this instrument will support the safe and secure running of our courts and tribunals, which is fundamental to delivering justice. It will increase the security of our operational staff, court users and members of the public, and increase transparency and accountability in the courts. Finally, it will regularise the taking of adoption photos in family courts so that new families can capture the celebration together in the place that changed their lives.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Freer Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and we remain committed to working with our partners across the criminal justice system to try to ensure that court processes are as efficient as possible. We have introduced a raft of measures to achieve that aim, including allowing courts for a third year in a row to sit for an unlimited number of days, with extended use of 24 Nightingale courtrooms. In addition, we have opened two permanent super-courtrooms in Manchester and Loughborough and are recruiting an additional 1,000 judges across all jurisdictions.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. In Suffolk, the backlog of criminal court cases remains stubbornly high, which is not only denying victims justice, but placing a huge burden on the police and costing the local taxpayer a fortune. Working with Suffolk’s police and crime commissioner Tim Passmore, can my hon. Friend produce a comprehensive and bespoke plan that first clears the backlog, and then sets out a long-term strategy for the efficient functioning of the courts in the county?
Mike Freer
I can reassure my hon. Friend that in Suffolk the disposals to March 2023 were up by 23% on the previous quarter, while the outstanding case loads slightly reduced in the same period. That reflects the hard work that is done with our partners to ensure that we get through the case load as fast as possible. We continue to work with the judiciary to identify how we can get the high workload moving more smoothly. Across the Department, and working with our partners, the Crown court improvement group continues to look at best practice and the local criminal justice board will always look at best practice across the country to see what we can do to ensure that his area continues to perform.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Minister aware that the criminal courts are full of cases relating to joint enterprise, a terrible miscarriage of justice? Will he and the Justice team promise to meet me and the campaigning group JENGbA—Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association—to see whether we can clear the justice system of the many people who should never have been in the courts?
Mike Freer
The hon. Gentleman has campaigned on that issue for some time, and I have met his colleague, the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), to discuss it. The data collection does not support the identification of cases relating to joint enterprise, but I understand that the Crown Prosecution is now doing an exercise on better data collection to see whether the issue that he continues to raise, quite rightly, is borne out by the data, and we can see what action we might take to address any injustices.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
As the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) pointed out, chaos in our courts continues. Now, 500 security guards have voted for strike action after a pay offer worth just 38p an hour above the minimum wage. Peter Slator, chairman of OCS, which employs the guards, says in his annual review:
“This was an exceptional year where our colleagues went above and beyond to deliver reliable, high-quality services for our customers around the world in the most challenging circumstances. The reliability and resilience of our frontline colleagues during the pandemic has been exceptional.”
I am sure the Minister will agree that the Government should pay Mr Slator’s company enough for him to deliver fair pay. Will he intervene to stop further chaos in our courts?
Mike Freer
Our courts are not in chaos. [Interruption.] I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman took the time to talk to all partners across the criminal justice system, they would bear that out. All elements of the criminal justice system, in whatever role they play, continue to ensure that it works smoothly. The pay award is a matter for the private sector employer; I will not intervene.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
I am pleased to say that the inaugural meeting of the inter-ministerial group on justice is taking place this afternoon, chaired by Lord Bellamy and attended by the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Angela Constance MSP, as well the Counsel General for Wales, Mick Antoniw MS. That new forum has been established by an agreement between the four nations of the UK. It has discussed justice issues of mutual interest.
Jamie Stone
I rise as a convinced devolutionist. In fact, I think I am the only Member of this place whose signature is on the Claim of Right for Scotland. As and when a new law is agreed in Edinburgh or Cardiff, say, what mechanism is in place to ensure that any such new law will not disrupt either England or other parts of the United Kingdom?
Mike Freer
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. We have more recently seen the Scottish Government attempt to railroad the rest of the UK on gender recognition. It is better when our legislatures work in tandem for the benefit of all parties, not when Scotland tries to disrupt other parts of the United Kingdom with ill-thought out legislation.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Government will amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 this afternoon. That 50-year-old piece of legislation controls the shape of Scotland’s criminal justice system to punish drug addiction with the full force of the law rather than treat users, in health settings, as addicts with health conditions. What conversations has the Minister had with Cabinet colleagues in the Scottish Government on introducing a safe drug consumption room pilot in Glasgow?
Mike Freer
I am not sure, based on recent reports, that that particular pilot is working well. I will happily ask colleagues to see whether that pilot is working as the hon. Gentleman says it is, but that is not what the newspapers are reporting. The UK Government’s response to it is something for the inter-ministerial group, which is meeting this afternoon.
Chris Stephens
I am a bit confused by the Minister’s response. There currently is no pilot in Glasgow, but perhaps there have been some positive discussions between the Scottish Government and the Government here. Given that there are 100 drug consumption rooms in more than 60 cities across the world, supported by mountains of evidence from NGOs, civil society groups and drug activists, alongside the Lord Advocate’s new policy not to prosecute drug users for possession offences committed within a pilot safer drugs consumption facility, can the Minister give an iron-clad commitment that the Government will not block this life-saving health measure?
Mike Freer
How that legislation is dealt with is a matter for other colleagues, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that, if treating drug taking as a health issue is working as he suggests it is, we will learn from that and discuss it with our colleagues in the NHS. The broad principle of it being a health issue is being dealt with by the NHS and the Health Secretary. In terms of legislation, that is a matter for Cabinet colleagues.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
I recognise that there continues to be work to be done to improve conditions in some magistrates courts for the users, and that is why we have boosted the capital investment programme to £220 million over the next two years to March 2025 to improve the quality and enhance the resilience of the court and tribunal estate, allowing us to plan major projects much more in advance and with certainty. The improvements will ensure that those on the frontline of the justice system will benefit from buildings that are more accessible and sustainable.
Mr Carmichael
We speak of access to justice meaning the availability of legal advice and representation but, for too many older and disabled people, physical access to justice through the magistrates courts in particular is well-nigh impossible because the buildings themselves are not fit for purpose. Actually, “not fit for purpose” was the term used to describe the magistrates courts in the Secretary of State’s constituency by the former police and crime commissioner. Do we not need more swift action to remedy the problem than the Minister has outlined?
Mike Freer
I took quite a bit of time to read the report from the Magistrates Association on inaccessible courts to ensure that, where we can make reasonable adjustments, we make them, and that where we need to make more substantial investment to make the courts more accessible, particularly to make them compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, we do so and those works are prioritised. We continue to work on new courts, as in Blackpool and the City of London, to ensure that the estate is modernised and we have courts that are accessible and fit for purpose. The point is well made and it is in hand.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
To preserve the independence of the judiciary, the Lord Chief Justice has a statutory responsibility for the training of the judiciary under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, and that includes magistrates and their legal advisers. Magistrates, and the legal advisers who support them in court, must complete induction training before hearing cases and, once magistrates are sitting, continuation training is provided on regular cycles. Impartial decision making is woven throughout all the material.
Michael Fabricant
I thank the Minister for his answer. Chris Pincher and I have been working very closely to ensure that the police act strongly and swiftly in Shenstone near Lichfield over constant demonstrations at an Israeli company that supplies arms to the British armed forces. Two people went to trial at a magistrates court in Walsall and they were acquitted. It is reported—we do not know for sure because it is not a court of record—that the judge said
“on the principle of proportionality…their action was proportionate in comparison to the crimes against humanity which they were acting to stop”
by the Israelis. I think that, if it were true, is outrageous. What can be done within the judicial system to ensure that that sort of thing does not happen, if indeed it did?
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend raises an important point about the independence of the judiciary. We have to be careful that we do not rely on reports by a third party, perhaps with a vested interest, because these cases are not reported officially. However, if he wishes to discuss any points of law that may lead to an appeal from the prosecuting authority, he can do so and I am happy to work with him and guide him on how that may be taken up with the Attorney General. In terms of any complaints about the behaviour of the judiciary, there is a clearly defined process that I am happy to discuss with my hon. Friend after today’s session.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
Across the whole tribunal process, the team will constantly monitor who is performing and who is not, and will share best practice. If the hon. Lady would like to write to me with the details of a particular case, I can investigate the particular cause of delay.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I have a number of constituents whose asylum appeals were allowed by courts and tribunals service, but have now been thrust into limbo while the case goes back to the Home Office for approval. What conversations have Ministers had with their Home Office colleagues on clearing the backlog that is preventing my constituents from getting on with their lives?
Mike Freer
I am always happy to look at individual cases to see if there are specific issues causing a delay. Broadly speaking, I work with colleagues at the Home Office and the Solicitor General’s office to see what we can do to ensure that any delays in the process are smoothed out, so that people do not have to wait for their day in court.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend raises an important point for her constituents. I must stress that the independence of the judiciary is fundamental to the rule of law and the running of the justice system. Therefore, the Department has not and will not conduct a review into how the judiciary undertakes its functions in individual cases. However, I can reassure her that the judiciary ensures that the relevant agencies that it works with undertake their functions smoothly and effectively.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Is it not the case that last-minute cancellations in magistrates courts are largely caused by the inability to recruit and retain legal advisers, who are paid a lot less than other Government legal advisers? What steps will the Minister take to ensure an increase in wages and better terms and conditions for those legal advisers? Will he sit down with the PCS Union to try to resolve this intolerable situation?
Mike Freer
We look carefully at why all cases are vacated; in fact, the biggest cause of vacation is often the non-availability of prosecution or defence counsel, not of legal executives.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
May I put it to Ministers that the nine-month wait for granting simple probate is unfair on people trying to sell their parents’ home? I failed to get the probate service to work, and I have a constituent who has written to the Prime Minister. Will Ministers please sort it out?
Mike Freer
The time taken once all required documents are received is between six and nine weeks. We always advise that no one should take a decision on the sale of a property until probate is granted, but I can reassure my hon. Friend that despite a significant increase in applications, the service is recruiting and training up more than 100 new caseworkers to ensure that it delivers the service that my hon. Friend wants, as do I.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
Last month the United Nations called for an urgent Government review of sentences of imprisonment for public protection. Will the Secretary of State listen to the UN? Can he explain why the number of people with an IPP sentence recalled to prison without committing any further offence has soared in recent years?
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Mr Speaker, you will not believe this, but it is almost six months since I finally secured a meeting with the Justice Minister and the Health Minister, after six cancellations, about what happened to section 4 of my Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Act 2019, which empowers coroners to investigate stillbirths. I was assured that the law, passed by this House in February 2019 and with a consultation that closed in June 2019, would be published imminently and progress would be made, but nothing has happened. Is it ever going to happen?
Mike Freer
Yes, it will. Both the Health Minister and I are pushing this as fast as we possibly can.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The scale of the illegal drugs problem in prisons was such that five years ago the Government introduced a programme that cost £100 million. Has the problem got worse or improved in the time since?
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I would like to pay tribute to the campaigners who challenged joint enterprise. As a result, the Crown Prosecution Service has now committed to monitor who is prosecuted. I welcome the report at the end of this month, but will the Minister commit to an audit of all joint enterprise convictions, particularly as more black people are disproportionately impacted?
Mike Freer
I can commit to wait until we have seen what the work being done by the CPS uncovers. Once we have data, we can then have a rational discussion on the next steps.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware of the prevalence of the unfounded and unscientific concept of parental alienation within our family courts? It is causing suffering and, in some cases, violence against women and girls. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that the courts recognise the harm of this discredited concept?
Mike Freer
The Department is well aware of the concerns, which is why the matter is currently under review. The results of that review, including publication of all the data and research behind the outcomes, will be published later this year.
Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014: Review
Mike Freer Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my noble Friend Lord Bellamy KC, has made the following written statement:
The Government has today published the outcome of its review of the fees that can be recovered from judgment debtors by enforcement agents and High Court enforcement officers—commonly known as bailiffs—when using the procedures in the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 in England and Wales.
The ability of creditors to enforce the payment of debts and fines is a fundamental part of the justice system which supports economic growth and underpins the rule of law. The enforcement industry collects debts owed to private individuals, businesses and local authorities, the last of which are in turn used to fund public services. If effective enforcement methods were not available, creditors would be more cautious in their lending and the authority of the courts, and public trust in their effectiveness, would be questioned. To ensure the enforcement system remains effective it is essential that the enforcement industry is sustainable.
The fees that enforcement agents and High Court enforcement officers can recover are set out in the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. They were designed to ensure a fair and transparent costs structure that provides appropriate remuneration for enforcement work undertaken, without allowing the sector to make excessive profits to be paid for by debtors. The regulations were also designed to incentivise early recovery without an enforcement visit being necessary, thereby reducing costs to all parties.
The review looked at whether the fees should be uplifted from the level set in 2014; whether more could be done to encourage payment without an enforcement visit becoming necessary; whether reform was needed of the High Court fee scale; and whether the costs of enforcement should continue to be borne by judgment debtors.
We intend to make the following changes:
Uplifting the fixed fees that enforcement agents and High Court enforcement officers can recover from judgment debtors by 5%. This will be the first uplift to the fees since 2014. We consider it is necessary to do so to ensure that enforcement firms are appropriately remunerated for the work they do in order to ensure the sustainability of the sector.
Uplifting by 24% the thresholds above which enforcement agents and High Court enforcement officers can recover a percentage fee and rounding the result to the nearest £100. This will ensure that inflationary increases are accounted for so that only consumers and businesses with higher value debts requiring greater amounts of work to enforce have to pay this additional fee.
We also intend to consult on a package of measures aimed at incentivising earlier and cheaper settlement of debt. Proposals include extending the minimum period of notice that must be given before making an enforcement visit from 7 to 28 days; defining in regulations the tasks that are to be undertaken before a visit is made; and amending the statutory notice of enforcement to signpost debtors to advice and encourage early engagement with enforcement agents. We will also consult on amending the regulations that apply to High Court enforcement to prevent a higher fee being applied to low value debts, and to clarify when cases can progress to the next enforcement stage. We also intend to consult on proposals to amend the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards to prohibit creditors from seeking to recover a percentage of the enforcement agent or High Court enforcement officer fees when tendering for enforcement contracts. This will ensure enforcement agents do not recover less than they should for each stage of enforcement and prevent debtors being unnecessarily moved to more expensive stages of enforcement and higher costs.
This package of reforms aims to ensure the sustainability of the enforcement sector, whilst tightening up the rules that enforcement agents and High Court enforcement officers must follow to ensure that people in debt are given more opportunities to settle the debt at the earliest and cheapest stage possible. These reforms will complement the work that the government is already doing to make sure that people facing enforcement action are treated fairly, such as supporting the establishment of the Enforcement Conduct Board to provide independent oversight of the sector.
Following consultation, we propose introducing legislation to implement all of these measures at the same time.
Our review benefited from a wealth of data and feedback from the enforcement sector and other interested parties including debt advice providers local authorities, court users and other interested parties and the Government would like to thank them for their important contributions.
A copy of the Government Response to the Review will be online at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/enforcement-agent-fee-review-2023.
[HCWS952]
Summerland Fire: 50th Anniversary
Mike Freer Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on securing this important debate. Much of what I will put on record he has clearly laid out, with commendable passion for the constituents he represents.
The fire broke out on the evening of Thursday 2 August 1973. It was, as the hon. Gentleman said, a horrific and tragic incident. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that our thoughts are with the friends and families of those who lost their lives, and with the survivors who still retain vivid memories of the tragedy and their loss, as both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) have clearly said.
I reiterate and put on record that the leisure centre, which opened in 1971, was deemed to be the most innovative indoor entertainment centre in the world. It was described as a “climate-controlled megastructure” and was the first of its kind in the world. However, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, the building was clad in Oroglas, a highly combustible and transparent acrylic sheeting, and Galbestos, a corrosion-resistant steel sheeting. Those materials were not compliant with the Isle of Man’s fire regulations at the time, which stated that
“external walls of any building shall be non-combustible throughout and have fire resistance of two hours”.
It was later established that the fire was caused by an accidentally discarded lit match or cigarette at a kiosk on the outdoor terrace at 7.40 pm. The initial blaze was detected by staff, who tried to extinguish it. Unfortunately, they had not realised that the fire had already broken through the wall of the Summerland leisure centre, spreading across the wall’s interior, which ignited the flammable acrylic sheeting covering the building. As the hon. Gentleman said, the attempt to evacuate the building began only when visible flames appeared through a vent. By that time, the fire was already out of control, and many people were trapped inside, unable to escape. Forty-eight people lost their lives that night, with two more later dying of their injuries, and at least 80 others were injured. The Summerland fire is the worst disaster in Manx history, and remains the third-worst loss of life from fire on land in the British Isles since the second world war.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Isle of Man is a self-governing jurisdiction that is not part of the UK. It was therefore the Isle of Man’s then lieutenant governor, His Excellency Sir Peter Stallard, and not a Minister of the UK Government, who established a public inquiry known as the Summerland fire commission on 3 September 1973. He appointed a three-man commission to inquire into the circumstances of, and leading up to, the fire at the Summerland leisure centre, and to make recommendations.
The commission included Mr Justice Cantley, a presiding English judge and a former judge of appeal on the Isle of Man; Mr Philip Wilson-Dickson, second in command of the UK Home Office fire inspectorate; and Professor Denis Harper, the head of the department of building at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. Sir Peter appointed Mr Justice Cantley to be chairman of the commission and Mr Carter, of the Government Office, Isle of Man, to be its secretary. The commission’s work was finished in February 1974 and its 40,000-word report, published in May of that year, found that, as I have already noted, neither Oroglas nor Galbestos complied with the Isle of Man’s fire regulations. The report deemed the tragedy to be the result of a series of human errors.
I know that constituents of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston lost loved ones that night, and constituents of other hon. Members will also be remembering friends and family affected by that wholly avoidable disaster. It is right that we remember the Summerland fire in the House today as we approach the 50th anniversary. It is also important that those in positions of authority in relation to such matters do all they can to ensure that fires on the scale of Summerland do not happen again. The Summerland fire commission urged the immediate revision of theatre regulations and drastically changed the whole approach to fire safety on the Isle of Man.
As we approach the 50th anniversary of the Summerland fire, it is important that we remember those affected by the tragedy. The Deputy Chief Minister of the Isle of Man, Jane Poole-Wilson, has announced plans for a series of commemorations to mark the anniversary. These will include a national service of remembrance, a service at the Kaye memorial garden, and a formal presentation to the emergency and health services. The Isle of Man’s Chief Minister, Alfred Cannan, will also be making a statement on the subject of the 50th anniversary to the Tynwald, the Isle of Man’s Parliament, next Tuesday, 18 July.
The commemorations will be an opportunity for the island community to come together to pay its respects to those who were affected by the disaster and to remember the victims. I am sure there will be people living in the UK, perhaps constituents of the hon. Gentleman or indeed of other hon. Members present in the Chamber, who will wish to join the commemorations. I should add that, in addition to those events, Culture Vannin and Manx National Heritage will be hosting online exhibitions and oral history projects as part of the commemorations, which will provide a valuable record of the disaster and help to ensure greater awareness of the Summerland tragedy, not least among younger generations.
The Summerland fire was a horrific tragedy that claimed the lives of 50 people and injured many more. As we approach the 50th anniversary of that awful night, it is important that we remember the victims and the lessons that can be learned from this tragedy. We must never forget the victims of the fire, and we must ensure, as far as we can, that something like that never happens again.
I happen to be going to the Isle of Man tomorrow as part of my regular engagement with the Crown dependencies. I will ensure that this debate and the comments of hon. Members are conveyed to the Chief Minister, who I am sure will take very seriously the comments made in the Chamber tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Employment Tribunals: Average Waiting Times
Mike Freer Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
Following a merger of IT systems, there is no current data on average waiting times, but the outstanding caseload has reduced from 48,000 in February to 41,000 in March this year because of an increase in the number of sitting days. As well as the increased sitting day allocation, we continue to support and reform the employment tribunals process and to make progress in reducing the backlog.
[Official Report, 27 June 2023, Vol. 735, c. 137.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer):
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore).
The correct response should have been:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
Following a merger of IT systems, there is no current data on average waiting times, but the outstanding caseload has reduced from 48,000 in February to 41,000 in March this year, in part because of an increase in the number of sitting days. As well as the increased sitting day allocation, we continue to support and reform the employment tribunals process and to make progress in reducing the backlog.
Lawfare
Mike Freer Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for securing this important debate. It gives me an opportunity to restate the Government’s commitment to freedom of speech and the protection of journalists. First, let me emphasise that investigative journalism is a central plank of a functioning democracy. The UK launched a national action plan in 2021 to ensure that we continue to foster an environment in which journalists feel safe from physical harm and intimidation, and where those who threaten them are properly held to account. Our aim is to ensure that journalists operating in the UK are as safe as possible, to reduce the number of attacks on and threats issued to journalists, and to ensure that those responsible for such action are brought to justice.
The UK may not face the same challenges as other states, but it is clear that journalists operating here still face threats to their personal safety, largely through online abuse. As we rely on journalists to hold powerful actors to account for our collective good, lawfare that targets our public watchdogs through aggressive, intimidatory tactics must be stamped out.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine brought home the urgent need for Government action on strategic lawsuits against public participation, as my right hon. Friend has laid out clearly. SLAPPs are an increasingly common lawfare tactic, and there are reports that hostile states could finance litigation in the UK to obstruct worthwhile investigations into corruption and other wrongdoing, as my right hon. Friend has set out many times. We know that the Government’s decisive action on sanctions has already urged firms to review their Russian client list, and mitigated threats to national security. Insurers are increasingly cautious about granting professional indemnity insurance, and that reflects the fact that there is greater scrutiny of Russian-linked litigation.
As this House will recall, the Government published a call for evidence on SLAPPs in 2022. I thank the 120 respondents, who submitted evidence of the highest quality. Through that invaluable evidence and a series of stakeholder engagement roundtables, we heard the shocking impact that these cases can have on the wellbeing and livelihood of investigative journalists who report under immense financial and psychological pressure so that we, as a collective, are well informed. They must be protected so that they are able to continue their valuable work. SLAPPs present a novel challenge to free speech and we are immensely grateful to the call for evidence respondents for helping to ensure that we get this right and deliver the outcome we want to see.
Free speech is a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy, so I am pleased to confirm that the Government have acted decisively to legislate, tabling amendments to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which introduce measures to tackle SLAPPs related to economic crime. The Government still intend to introduce comprehensive anti-SLAPPs legislation when parliamentary time allows. If I may, I might gently suggest that my right hon. Friend applies for a private Member’s Bill. A Government legislative vehicle may take some time to appear, so a private Member’s Bill in the next Session might be suitable lighter codicil for this particular piece of legislation. We intend to go further, but we believe that the measures we have introduced will catch the majority of SLAPPs. At least 70% of the cases referenced in a 2022 report about SLAPPs and article 19 by the Foreign Policy Centre were connected to financial crime and corruption. The provisions should therefore target a significant proportion of cases.
Recent court cases have shown that SLAPPs are difficult to identify and there is a notable difference in legal and judicial opinion on what constitutes a SLAPP, both domestically and overseas. To rectify that, we have introduced a statutory definition to enable clearer identification of SLAPPs related to economic crime, according to common characteristics. Those characteristics may include aggressive pre-action communications and targeting of individuals where their publishers would be more appropriate. Today, we know that defendants are intimidated by the prospect of years of litigation that require expensive legal defence. We have therefore introduced an early dismissal process which will effectively stop claimants from financially and psychologically exhausting their opponents via abusive means, cutting short cases which have no merit.
With respect to economic crime, no longer will claimants be able to suppress legitimate investigation into and reporting on matters of public interest by bringing baseless claims. The crippling costs currently borne by SLAPPs defendants will be addressed through a new costs protection regime, which will ensure that journalists and free speech advocates are able to litigate without fear of bankruptcy. The regime will be introduced in secondary legislation, once the principles are set out in statute. The regime will frustrate a central plank of SLAPP claims: the weaponisation of costs.
In addition, stakeholder engagement continues to be a vital part of our monitoring effort to ensure that the Government’s response to the issue of SLAPPs is appropriate and effective. We are working closely with the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which should be applauded for its action on SLAPPs. In February, it published a thematic review of the behaviour in disputes of 25 law firms suspected of SLAPP activity, a deep dive into conduct that may breach ethical or regulatory duties. It also issued, in March, additional guidance on conduct in disputes. This shows that our system of regulation is adapting at pace to novel challenges.
I must underline that the vast majority of legal professionals operating in this jurisdiction do so with utmost integrity and regard for the rule of law. Therefore, it is vital to protect the integrity of our legal system and our judiciary from the reputational risk that SLAPPs pose.
Our common law system is world-renowned, precisely because of the quality of the practitioners and procedures that we use. It must remain that way. The importance we place on access to justice and an independent judiciary naturally leads to foreign litigants choosing to do business in our courts, but we must not, and will not, allow the process and procedures to be abused for most improper purposes. That must be stopped, as my right hon. Friend laid out, including attempts to conceal economic crime.
I thank my right hon. Friend for continuing to champion this critical issue, and our stakeholders who have tirelessly campaigned against abuse of the legal system. I would like to end by repeating his own words. He said:
“Our legal system is a source of pride. Britain is home to some of the fairest and best courts in the world. We cannot allow individuals with deep pockets and questionable motives to exploit our justice system and destroy our reputation as a trusted jurisdiction.”
The Government could not have put it better.
Question put and agreed to.