Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Cartlidge and Wera Hobhouse

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

14. What steps he is taking to reduce armed forces emissions.

[The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)]

The MOD has already started its decarbonisation journey in support of the UK’s net zero commitment. At the Royal International Air Tattoo last year, I was pleased to sign the defence aviation net zero charter on behalf of the MOD. Working closely with our industrial partners, we are moving to cleaner and more efficient technology. The Army is building solar farms, and has invested £14 million in battlefield electrification. The Royal Navy’s cutting-edge catalytic systems are reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in its patrol vessels by up to 97%. Finally, the RAF is pioneering the use of sustainable aviation fuel.

[Wera Hobhouse]

It was a pleasure to attend the Global Charge dinner last October, and to see so many members of the armed forces, from all ranks, committed to tackling the climate crisis. However, the Defence Committee has described the MOD’s current reduction targets as “insufficiently demanding” under the greening government commitments—they are the lowest across all Departments. Will the Minister ensure that the next round of CC commitments will contain more demanding targets, not least to reflect the real ambitions and for members of the armed forces on the ground to see the devastation of climate change?

[James Cartlidge]

I know the hon. Lady is very passionate about this issue. I have just listed the ways in which the individual services are taking steps to reduce their emissions, but we always have to balance that against our overwhelming priority as a Department, which is to support the ability of our armed forces to defend these islands.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Cartlidge and Wera Hobhouse

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman is aware that we have already introduced two new levies: the energy profits levy, which relates to North sea oil and gas; and the electricity generators levy, which relates to the exceptional returns that generators will have received because of the exceptional prices following the invasion of Ukraine. I said to the right hon. Member for Dundee East that he was more than welcome to write to me with the specifics of the case he mentioned, and I look forward to receiving that letter.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

12. What fiscal steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to maximise short-term investment in wind and solar energy.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Cartlidge)]

The Government are committed to encouraging investment in the UK energy sector. The contracts for difference scheme has been hugely successful in driving the deployment of renewable energy while rapidly reducing costs. It is an established and successful mechanism that provides greater confidence to investors in renewable electricity projects, and to date CFD generators have received almost £6 billion net in price support through the scheme, enabling world-leading renewable deployment and lowering the cost of capital to investors.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Since 2016, the Government have handed out over £10 billion in oil and gas exploration and extraction subsidies. In contrast, major economies such as the US and the EU are putting together huge investment plans to accelerate the renewable energy transformation, and Britain is lagging behind. Is it not time that the UK phased down subsidies for new oil and gas exploration and invested that money in renewables to accelerate the transition? The Minister knows we are not transitioning fast enough and that we are missing many of our net zero targets.

[James Cartlidge]

I respect the hon. Lady’s consistency in asking these questions, but I beg to differ when she says we are lagging behind. We have reduced our emissions faster than any other G7 nation. Last year, 40% of our energy came from renewables and just 1.5% came from coal. We have seen huge investment in renewables. Our new Department is called the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero because it is about not just net zero but energy security. On the transition to net zero, we still need to invest in the North sea and our domestic energy sources.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Cartlidge and Wera Hobhouse

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

14. What fiscal steps he plans to take with Cabinet colleagues to support the development of floating offshore wind.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

21. What fiscal steps the Government is taking to support the development of floating offshore wind.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Cartlidge)]

We are committed to developing floating offshore wind to support our energy security and net zero ambitions. The contracts for difference scheme has already supported the first-of-its-kind TwinHub project off the coast of Cornwall, which will deliver enough energy to power 45,000 homes. The floating offshore wind demonstration programme provided £31 million in grant funding to support many other new innovative projects.

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman is a staunch campaigner for his constituency’s ability to take advantage of this exciting new technology, and I pay tribute to him for that. As he knows, the Crown Estate works independently to manage the seabed and has an important role in the deployment of floating offshore wind. Its approach for the 4 GW leasing opportunity in the Celtic sea is focused on ensuring the development of this new technology market in the UK as quickly as possible. But, to be clear—cutting to his point about content—the Crown Estate has announced that for the first time it is reforming the tender process to consider supply chain plans, sending a clear signal to the market that UK content is important.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Many renewable energy projects are limited by a lack of grid capacity. We have more wind farms ready for investment in the coming decade than the rest of the world, but the grid is not ready. For future offshore wind projects, who will be paying for the grid connections?

[James Cartlidge]

This issue has certainly captured the imagination in East Anglia, where the hon. Lady may be aware that there are certain proposals to bring forward improvements in the grid, although that is ultimately the responsibility of National Grid. We need to address the grid, but I hope she will agree that the country has already made enormous progress in increasing capacity from offshore wind. She may be aware that in 2011 renewables made up just 9% of our electricity; that figure is now over 40%.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Debate between James Cartlidge and Wera Hobhouse

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[James Cartlidge]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Debate between James Cartlidge and Wera Hobhouse

Report stage
Tuesday 25th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

My right hon. Friend makes his point, but given what happened with the Supreme Court, I am sure he would agree that, if we did legislate, we would have to get it right. We feel we want to take our time and ensure that that is the case, but I sympathise with the broader point he makes.

On new clause 9, I would like to reassure my right hon. Friend that the Government are keen to ensure that the duty of candour is not invoked by claimants to rouse political debates or to discover extraneous information that would otherwise have been kept confidential. However, we are not entirely persuaded that primary legislation is the best way of tackling any issues that there might be. As we have said, we are attracted to the independent review’s recommendation that, should it be necessary, the issue could be addressed through changes to the Treasury Solicitor’s guidance. Although that is of course a matter for the Treasury Solicitor, the advantage of using guidance to address some of the issues that have occurred with the duty of candour in the past is that it can be more flexible and dynamic than legislation. On that basis, I am afraid I cannot accept my right hon. Friend’s new clause, but, as I say, we do see merit in what he says.

Turning to amendment 23, which seeks to remove clause 1 of the Bill, the intention behind clause 1 is to address the very practical issues of the courts currently not having sufficient flexibility in deciding on remedies in judicial review. To remove it from the Bill would be to uphold the unsatisfactory status quo, ignoring the findings of the independent review of administrative law, and the Government fundamentally believe that that would be a mistake.

Amendment 1 and amendments 2 and 3, which are consequential on amendment 1, would remove one of the new tools we are proposing—namely, prospective-only quashing or quashing with limited retrospective effect. Let me remind the House of an example I have used previously of a real situation where the existence of the remedy could have been useful. It occurred when Natural England, in response to a threatened judicial review, decided to revoke general licences enabling farmers, landowners and gamekeepers to shoot pest birds. The revocation created immediate chaos for licence holders. I do not seek to re-litigate this case in the Chamber, but as I have said before, had the proposed remedies been available, Natural England may have been more willing to contest the judicial review, knowing that even if the existing licensing scheme was found to be unlawful, the court had the ability to protect past reliance on old licences. Such cases provide a tangible example of how more flexible remedies will allow courts to respond pragmatically and assist our constituents, rather than detract from their interests.

Amendment 31 would remove the ability of a court to make a suspended or prospective-only quashing order subject to conditions, and the ability for courts to give conditions can be important and is not unusual.

Amendments 4, 27, 38 and 25 all seek to remove or weaken the presumption in some way. Characterising the presumption as seeking to control the courts or remove their discretion is misleading, as I said back in Committee. My view is that including the presumption, combined with the list of factors in clause 1(8), will make the decision-making process consistent and thorough. That will assist in the speedy development of jurisprudence on the use of the new remedies, which has to be in the interests of justice for all the parties.

Amendments 28, 32, 33 and 35 all relate to the factors courts must consider in applying these new remedies. I would like to reiterate that the list of factors is there as a useful guide to the courts when considering the new remedies. It will help the jurisprudence to develop in a consistent manner. It is a non-exhaustive list, and not every factor will be relevant in every case. We trust the courts will understand that and apply the factors appropriately.

Turning to the remaining amendments to clause 1, amendment 34 proposes that there should be a specific requirement for a court to consider the effect these new remedial powers have on a claimant receiving a timely remedy. In fact, subsection (8)(c) already requires the courts to take into account the interest or expectations of those people who would benefit from a quashing, and I would submit that includes considering timeliness. Likewise, on amendment 24, the protections built into clause 1 mitigate the risk of a court being compelled to use the new quashing order powers where to do so would be against the interests of justice. Subsection (9)(b) of proposed new section 29A of the Senior Courts Act 1981 makes it clear that the court is only obliged to use the new modified quashing orders where it

“would, as a matter of substance, offer adequate redress in relation to the relevant defect”,

and is not obliged to use them where

“it sees good reason not to do so.”

I submit that the concerns raised in amendment 26 are already mitigated by the drafting of the provision. The list of factors includes

“the interests or expectations of persons who would benefit from the quashing”

and

“any other matter that appears to the court to be relevant.”

Additionally, having considered those factors, the court can add any conditions to the quashing order. It could be, for instance, that the Government do not take any further action to enforce the unlawful decision.

Amendment 29 seeks to clarify that the principle of good administration includes the need for administration to be lawful. We would have thought that that was fairly obvious, and should always be the case.

Amendment 37 seeks to ensure that the courts take into account affected people’s rights under the European convention on human rights, including the right to an effective remedy under article 13 of that convention. I would argue that the requirement in the Bill for the courts to have regard to the interests or expectations of persons who would benefit from the quashing of the impugned act would include having regard to any remedy and its appropriateness.

I now turn to clause 2, and amendment 5 which seeks to remove clause 2 from the Bill. I remind the House of the arguments that I made in support of this necessary and proportionate measure in Committee. First, the Cart JR route essentially equates to a third bite at the cherry—a phrase that we probably have overused, but which I think to the uninitiated explains it very well—after both the first-tier tribunal and the upper tribunal have refused permission to appeal. Secondly, it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that judicial resource is efficiently distributed. The success rate of Cart JRs is very low—around 3.4%, compared with 30% to 50% for other judicial review cases—indicating that it may not be the best use of judicial time.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the Minister accept that it is often a matter of life and death, and that therefore his argument does not really stick?

[James Cartlidge]

Those matters should be determined with—I hate the phrase—two bites at the cherry, which is common across most areas of law. That is perfectly adequate. The process takes up 180 days of High Court judges’ time on case with almost no chance of success. High Court judges’ time, in the context of the backlog we have, is very precious indeed.

I now turn to the amendments 43 and 42, tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin). Just to be clear, the unified tribunal system, created by the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, is a reserved matter where it relates to matters of reserved policy. The measures on Cart and, particularly in relation to Scotland, the Eba case will apply to the unified tribunal system within the UK, but it will not apply to matters heard that would fall inside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and it will also not apply to devolved tribunals.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Cartlidge and Wera Hobhouse

Tuesday 14th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place, as I did in the Committee considering the statutory instrument earlier, which went through very quickly with his co-operation, for which I am grateful.

On the reforms, it is not just about the change to statute that we will put in place by amending the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, important though that is. I emphasise that such reform has been strongly supported by the sector—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the British Retail Consortium and others—but it is not just about the law: we are also putting in place the necessary mechanisms to encourage such crimes to be reported, regaining confidence in the police and criminal justice system by bringing the perpetrators to justice, and looking at the root causes of abuse and violence such as drug and alcohol addiction.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

10. What steps he is taking to improve conviction and prosecution rates for cases of rape.

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

In June we published the interim rape review report and action plan, which sets out plans to significantly improve the way the criminal justice system responds to rape. We are expanding pre-recorded cross-examination under section 28 for victims of rape and sexual violence, rolling out a new investigatory model known as Operation Soteria and introducing a single source of 24/7 support for victims of rape and sexual violence.

[Wera Hobhouse]

According to a recent report from the Victims Commissioner, just 1% of rape cases made it to trial. The Minister is telling me that these new measures are trying to improve that record. However, many rape victims recorded that their sexual history and mental health records were “pulled apart”, so will he commit to a radical reform of Crown Prosecution Service governance as called for by the End Violence Against Women Coalition to make sure that victims of rape are not treated as suspects?

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Given the location of her constituency she will be aware that the main pilot we will be holding for Operation Soteria is with Avon and Somerset police. Let me explain to the House the importance of this pilot. Instead of the usual single officer investigating allegations of rape, we will instead have two officers, one of whom will have primary responsibility for liaising with the victim. A key part of that is to avoid the attrition whereby those who have been victims drop out and lose confidence in the system. We want to restore confidence in the system and show the whole country that we have a joined-up approach to tackle the root causes and improve investigation of all rape cases.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Cartlidge and Wera Hobhouse

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Lady knows that that is a wholly erroneous interpretation of the presumption clause, which is there simply to ensure that we expedite the accumulation of jurisprudence.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

9. What steps he is taking to support prosecutions for violence against women and girls.