Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Freer Excerpts(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
We remain committed to reducing the Crown court outstanding case load and have introduced a range of measures to achieve the same. We funded over 100,000 sitting days last year and plan to deliver the same again this year. We have recruited over 1,000 judges over all jurisdictions and plan to do the same again this year. Thanks to the intervention of the Lord Chancellor, we have secured £220 million for essential modernisation repair work over the next two years. As well as retaining Nightingale courts, the investments will also see 58 new courtrooms.
Nick Smith
The fact is that the Crown courts how have a backlog of over 65,000 cases. If that is not bad enough, experts say the courts’ capacity to deal with processing cases will not keep pace with demand. Does the Minister agree that that leads to too many victims unfortunately giving up on our justice system?
Mike Freer
No, I do not accept that that means we are giving up on the system. The Government continue to invest in every single lever that we can pull to increase capacity in our criminal justice system. Given the additional work that the judiciary is doing, the disposal rate in our Crown courts is up and we are seeing record levels of disposals, so we will start to see the criminal justice system heal, because we are still recovering from covid and the Criminal Bar Association strike.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Rape and serious sexual assault cases have increased to 10.3% of all Crown court cases and, with nearly 10,000 of them, they make up one in seven of the backlog. The average wait time for a trial after charge has risen to 18 months. We also know from the Criminal Bar Association that there has been a tenfold increase in adjourned cases due to the fall in the number of rape and serious sexual offence prosecution or defence barristers, with the Crown Prosecution Service now employing King’s counsel to fill the gap. Add to that the many legal aid deserts due to the shortage of solicitors and we have a major staffing crisis across the criminal justice system. How is that going to be fixed?
Mike Freer
First, the figure that the hon. Gentleman quoted for the average time for a RASSO case is simply not true. The Government have continued to invest in ensuring that RASSO cases are brought forward. Listing is a matter for the judiciary, and they take great care to ensure that vulnerable victims are dealt with expeditiously. In addition, we continue to invest in the legal aid system. The Lord Chancellor recently increased the fees to ensure that there are people able to perform RASSO cases and section 28 video recording. On top of that, we continue to engage with the criminal legal aid review to see how we can continue to invest in and incentivise criminal defence barristers in the right parts of the system.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
The Government are clear that it is in the best interests of the people of Wales for justice to remain a reserved matter. The current arrangement works well and allows Wales to benefit from being part of a larger, world-renowned justice system. Devolving justice to Wales would mean losing those benefits and would be extremely expensive and complex, requiring the duplication of functions.
Beth Winter
Following the publication last month of the final report by the independent commission on the constitutional future of Wales, the First Minister of Wales confirmed unambiguously that it is the policy of the Welsh Government, and indeed of the Welsh Labour party, to support the devolution of the justice system. In pursuing the devolution of the Probation Service, he said:
“We will have to explore…governance…financial arrangements”
and the interface between Welsh and English services. When will the Minister meet the Counsel General for Wales to discuss the devolution of justice?
Mike Freer
If the representatives for the Welsh Government wish to meet me, I am more than happy to explain why Wales being part of the English and Welsh legal system remains the preferred option for this Government. Why would Wales want to leave the most successful legal services system in the world?
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
Non-disclosure agreements cannot prevent any disclosure that is required or protected by law; nor can they preclude an individual from asserting statutory rights. The courts and judiciary apply the law in relation to NDAs as appropriate in individual cases and, where necessary, determine whether or not they should be enforceable.
Sarah Green
Last year, the Legal Services Board stated that incidents of misconduct by lawyers dealing with non-disclosure agreements were a “cause for concern”, and that there was a strong case for a strengthened and harmonised regulatory approach. Does the Minister agree that there is a need for stronger regulation in this area, and will he support the Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), which would end the misuse of non-disclosure agreements in the workplace?
Mike Freer
I am more than happy to have a discussion with the hon. Lady, but my understanding is that the Solicitors Regulation Authority has already published a warning notice reminding solicitors and law firms that potential professional misconduct by a person or a firm should be reported to the regulator. If she believes that there are still gaps in that warning notice, or that more needs to be done, I am more than happy to have a meeting.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Unison, of which I am a proud member, has criticised Government plans to reintroduce employment tribunal fees, on the grounds that the
“only people who would benefit from their reintroduction are unscrupulous bosses”.
The Resolution Foundation has found that the lowest-paid workers were least likely to bring a claim, so how can the Justice Secretary defend plans to reintroduce employment tribunal fees, which will disproportionately affect those on low wages and present an obstacle to justice for those who need it most?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
The £55 claim issue fee is modest, and this is completely different from the previous fee scheme, so I simply do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. I am quite happy to defend that small, reasonable fee as necessary to help defray the costs of our system.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
Mike Freer
I can reassure my hon. Friend that we would not dream of forgetting about him. We have seen an increase, particularly on special educational needs and disabilities, of over 300% in receipts, and with the increased number of judges and panel members, we are seeing a 37% increase in disposals this year. We are trying to address the issue of SEND with the Department for Education, and if my hon. Friend thinks there is a problem in this area, I am more than happy to meet him to discuss it.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Mike Freer
The hon. Gentleman is comparing apples with oranges. The two fees are completely different, in terms of quantum. A £55 claim issue fee is a small contribution towards the tribunals, which cost us £80 million a year to run. I do not think that that is unreasonable.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
This week, we celebrate the fifth anniversary of my Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Act 2019 completing its parliamentary stages, but it is also the fifth anniversary of the Government taking no action to enforce clause 4, which gives coroners the power to investigate stillbirths. There has been some progress: on 8 December, after 56 weeks, they have produced the results of that consultation, but there has been no Government response. When will we have a Government response, and what is the Government’s problem with getting on with something that is overwhelmingly supported?
Mike Freer
I appreciate that my hon. Friend is increasingly agitated about the implementation of aspects of the Bill; however, the consultation was not conclusive, and the stillbirths landscape has changed. Those issues have to be addressed if the Bill is to be introduced correctly.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Mike Freer
We are investing an initial £10 million to make sure that legal aid is available for exactly those problems.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, there is a solemn duty on prison governors to prepare ex-offenders for life outside prison. Seven years on from the introduction of that duty, they are still not doing what they are required to do. We want reoffending ended, and if people are prepared properly for when they leave prison, we increase the chances of preventing reoffending. What action is my right hon. and learned Friend taking on this?
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Wedding experts at Hitched say that independent celebrants are the biggest trend for couples getting married this year, and with the Church, registrars and humanists all providing additional options, it is about time that we updated the marriage laws, which are from 1836. Will the Government publish a substantive response to the Law Commission’s 2022 report on wedding reform?
Mike Freer
As someone who benefited from the last wedding reform on equal marriage, I can say that this Government are entirely committed to ensuring that we report as fast as possible on the Law Commission’s review. If my hon. Friend would like to meet my noble Friend Lord Bellamy to discuss it further, we can make that happen.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The backlog of asylum and immigration tribunal cases has soared from 35,400 to 41,500 in a month—a result, no doubt, of the Home Office pushing through decisions at the end of last year to clear its previous backlog. What is the Minister doing to tackle this new backlog that they have created?
Mike Freer
We are increasing fees for legal aid practitioners. We have seen a massive increase in cases going through the system, and that is why we are investing to make sure that legal representation is available.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Given that the existing prisons in Buckinghamshire cannot recruit to fill staffing vacancies, where does the Ministry of Justice think it will magic up staff and prison officers for the mega-prison that it now has planning permission for in my constituency?
Video-witnessing Wills
Mike Freer Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
My hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, Lord Bellamy, has made the following statement:
The Government are announcing today that they are not extending the legislation they introduced as a special measure during the covid-19 pandemic to permit remote (video) witnessing of wills.
The legislation was originally introduced in September 2020, amending the Wills Act 1837 so the normal requirement that two people must witness the testator signing to make their will in person could be extended to include remote witnessing by video-link. The Government and professional bodies published guidance on the steps that should be taken where wills were video-witnessed.
This temporary legislation was a response to the practical difficulties of having wills witnessed while restrictions on movement to limit the spread of the virus were in force, and at a time when more people wanted to make wills. The Government have always provided guidance that video-witnessing wills should be regarded as a last resort due to increased risks of formalities not being properly followed or risk of undue influence.
The Government decided to extend the temporary legislation for a further two years in February 2022. At the time the United Kingdom had only recently ended a further set of restrictions and there were concerns about further strains of the virus.
However, the special circumstances which applied when this measure was put in place no longer apply. In-person witnessing of wills is no longer subject to restrictions. As such we have decided not to extend the temporary legislation beyond 31 January 2024.
[HCWS234]
Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 4) Rules 2023
Mike Freer Excerpts(3 months, 3 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 Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 4) Rules 2023 (S.I., 2023, No. 1397).
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Cummins. I welcome the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney—it is good to see Whips taking their rightful place.
This statutory instrument amends the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, known as the CPRs, to provide a closed material procedure for court proceedings relating to prevention and investigation measures. I will refer to these as STPIMs—state threats prevention and investigation measures—to distinguish them from terrorism prevention and investigation measures, which are known as TPIMs.
STPIMs are new measures established under provisions in part 2 of the National Security Act 2023 that closely replicate the provisions for TPIMs in the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. STPIMs provide a suite of restrictive measures that can be used, where necessary and proportionate, to prevent, restrict and disrupt an individual’s further involvement in state threats activity, where prosecution and other disruptive actions are not possible. STPIMs will be used sparingly and as a measure of last resort to mitigate the immediate threat an individual poses while they continue to be investigated by the authorities.
STPIMs require specific procedural provision in order to be workable. This statutory instrument, while not establishing STPIMs, makes that procedural provision to enable their operation. The imposition of STPIMs requires the permission and review of the court and contains a procedure for appeal by the STPIM subject. This statutory instrument amends the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 to provide the court with a bespoke closed material procedure for proceedings relating to STPIMs.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend says that there would need to be court approval. What level of court would it be, and will there be any ministerial approval required, or is it just the court?
Mike Freer
My understanding is that this would require High Court approval. There is a review mechanism by the subject, subject to the purview of the Home Office, but it does not involve the Secretary of State for Justice.
The procedure includes, in particular, for applications by the Secretary of State for permission to impose measures, directions for a review hearing after the imposition of the STPIM and appeal against the imposition of the measure itself, or any other determination in connection with the STPIM. Both the review hearing and any appeal hearing will be determined on judicial review principles.
These cases will inevitably involve sensitive material. This instrument therefore sets out a procedure to enable the sensitive material to be relied on by the Government, and the evidence against the STPIM subject, to be tested by the court, but through a closed procedure that will ensure that it can be adequately protected in the public interest. This rule change is effected by amending part 80 of the CPRs, which contain rules relating to TPIM proceedings, so that the rules cover the equivalent STPIM proceedings.
In conclusion, the Government have publicly committed to provide operational partners with the tools needed to combat state threats. STPIMs are important measures within this toolkit, and this instrument is vital in ensuring that STPIMs are a usable tool that can be fully defended and justified in our courts through both open and closed proceedings. Given the sensitivity of the evidence, which will be a key component in why an individual cannot be prosecuted and why the use of an STPIM is necessary, it would fundamentally undermine the scheme if closed proceedings—where sensitive intelligence and national security arguments can be made—were not available. I hope colleagues will agree.
Mike Freer
Let me touch on a couple of points. First, yes, we are content that the Secretary of State has the relevant powers to ensure that these measures are used correctly, and those involved also have an appeal mechanism to ensure that they are being applied correctly.
One reason why the closed material procedure is required is that, while we all appreciate the need for transparency and for justice to be seen to be done, putting sensitive information into the public domain would disclose the sources of that information, which could put people at risk and might also create a flight risk. Another reason is that, sometimes, the Security Service may wish the person operating on behalf of a state actor to continue their activity while they can be monitored, and disclosing information might cause that activity to cease while the security services are undertaking that work. That is why, on balance, we think these measures are a necessary step to ensure that our national security needs are met and that justice is met.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Approved Regulator) Order 2023
Mike Freer Excerpts(3 months, 3 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 Legal Services Act 2007 (Approved Regulator) Order 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. Before I set out the effect of this instrument, I will explain the legislation that underpins it. The Legal Services Act 2007, which I will refer to as the LSA, established the Legal Services Board among other things. The LSA made provision for the Legal Services Board to oversee legal services regulators in England and Wales, which regulate persons carrying out reserved legal activities.
Schedule 4 to the Act designated a list of bodies as approved regulators for specific reserved legal activities including probate activities. The Legal Services Act 2007 (Approved Regulators) Order 2009 added the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, which I will refer to as the ACCA, to this list for the regulation of probate activities. Although it was designated in 2009, the ACCA only started to authorise individuals and firms for probate activities in 2018. In 2019, the ACCA conducted a review of its regulatory activity and found that only 99 probate practitioners held the ACCA authorisation, and the ACCA considered it unlikely that its regulated population would grow.
The review also found that the arrangements that the ACCA would need to make to comply with the Legal Services Board’s internal governance rules of 2019 would be disproportionate to the size of the ACCA’s regulated population, and that there were several monetary costs to being an approved regulator. Specifically, those included: levies paid to the Legal Services Board and the legal ombudsman; staff resources to conduct regulation; costs associated with the regulatory framework; and the cost of complying with the Legal Services Board’s internal governance rules.
In 2019, the ACCA council approved a plan for the ACCA to withdraw from the legal services regulation market and provide a pathway for eligible members to continue practising probate by transferring to CILEx Regulation as CILEx-ACCA probate practitioners. In October 2021, the ACCA applied to the Legal Services Board under section 45 of the LSA to cancel its designation as an approved regulator. The LSB carefully assessed the application and required the ACCA to make a revision to confirm that all of the 99 ACCA-regulated probate practitioners had already ceased practising probate or had transferred to CILEx or another approved regulator. The LSB then approved the application in May 2022, and made the recommendation to the Lord Chancellor in July 2022 to make an order to cancel the ACCA’s designation as an approved regulator for probate activities. That is what this statutory instrument sets out to complete.
The ACCA has not accepted a new application for probate authorisation since 2021, and sent cessation letters to all 99 affected probate practitioners in January 2022. All those 99 practitioners have either ceased practising probate or already transferred to CILEx Regulation or another approved regulator. In conclusion, cancelling the ACCA’s designation as an approved regulator for probate activities is a necessary measure to formalise the ACCA’s voluntary and orderly withdrawal from the legal services regulation market. It ensures that the ACCA will no longer face regulatory or financial burdens associated with its designation and provides legal certainty about which entities are approved regulators for reserved legal activities.
Mike Freer
I am grateful for the support of colleagues and Opposition Members. I suggest that the comments of the hon. Member for Stockton North on a wider review of the LSB is a tad out of scope of the statutory instruments, but I am more than happy to have a conversation with him. Given the consensus on this draft statutory instrument, I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Hague Convention of 2019: Foreign Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters
Mike Freer Excerpts(4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lord Bellamy KC) has made the following statement:
On Friday 12 January, the UK signed the Hague Convention of 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (hereafter: “Hague 2019”; “the convention”). The signing of Hague 2019 follows from the UK Government’s decision, which was announced on 23 November 2023, to join the convention as soon as possible, following a public consultation.
Once in force, the convention will provide greater certainty and predictability for citizens and businesses dealing in cross-border civil and commercial disputes, about when judgments from courts in the UK will be recognised and enforced in the courts of other parties to the convention, and when judgments from those states can be recognised and enforced in the UK. By facilitating cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments, the convention will provide a welcome uniform set of rules for a wide range of judgments between the UK and other contracting parties; increase confidence in the UK legal system; support international trade, investment and cross-border mobility; enhance access to justice and reduce the costs for litigants of determining whether a judgment obtained from one court is enforceable in another contracting state. And, by joining the convention the UK is indicating its position as a global leader in private international law—an area in which the UK undoubtedly has significant expertise.
For these reasons, the UK Government believe that joining the convention will be highly beneficial for the UK. Therefore, the UK Government have signed the convention as a signal of the UK’s commitment to co-operation with our international partners and will now work to ratify the convention. Ratification will occur once all the necessary implementing legislation and rules have been put in place to facilitate the convention’s smooth operation. As per the rules set out in the convention, Hague 2019 will come into force 12 months after the UK has deposited its instrument of ratification. As part of the procedural stages that precede any ratification, the treaty will be laid before Parliament for scrutiny in the coming months under the terms of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (“CRaG”).
Concluded under the auspices of the Hague conference on private international law, the convention has a potentially global reach. There are currently 29 contracting parties (the 27 EU member states, the EU and Ukraine) to Hague 2019, for whom the convention entered into force on 1 September 2023. Uruguay has also ratified the convention, with it set to enter into force on 1 October 2024. There are also six signatories (Israel, Costa Rica, Montenegro, North Macedonia, the Russian Federation, the USA) who have not yet ratified.
The Hague 2019 convention was signed on behalf of the jurisdictions of Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England and Wales. While the decision to join an international convention is a reserved matter, the implementation of the convention is devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland as it relates to private international law, a devolved matter. My officials have worked closely with colleagues in the devolved Governments and will continue to do so throughout the implementation process.
The UK is able to make declarations under the convention under articles 14, 16, 18, 19 and 25 at the point of signature, ratification, or any time thereafter to clarify or limit the application of the convention in the UK. Such declarations may be subsequently modified or withdrawn at any time.
The UK Government will keep questions of declarations under review as we proceed to signature and implementation and in the future as the convention comes into force between the UK and the current and future contracting parties.
A copy of the UK Government response to the Hague 2019 consultation was placed in the Libraries of both Houses at the time of publication and is also available online.1
1 https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/hague-convention-of-2-july-2019-on-the-recognition-and-enforcement-of-foreign-judgments-in-civil-or-commercial-matters-hague-2019.
[HCWS184]
Personal Injury Discount Rate: Call for Evidence
Mike Freer Excerpts(4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lord Bellamy KC) has made the following statement:
I announce today the publication of “Setting the Personal Injury Discount Rate: A Call for Evidence”. This call for evidence is intended to obtain evidence to inform the second review of the personal injury discount rate (PIDR) under the Civil Liability Act 2018. The call will remain open for 12 weeks.
The PIDR is important in ensuring that claimants who suffer serious, life-changing personal injuries receive full damages, including for their future financial needs. It is the percentage figure used to help calculate how much a compensator—usually an insurer or body such as the NHS—pays to a claimant, in the form of a lump sum. It is assumed that claimants will invest this lump sum and accrue a return on that investment and the PIDR represents what the real rate of return on this investment is expected to be.
The Civil Liability Act 2018 introduced changes to the way the PIDR is reviewed and set, and this is the second review under that methodology. It is also the first where the Lord Chancellor will consult with the expert panel he has appointed as well as His Majesty’s Treasury.
The responses to this call for evidence will inform the work of the expert panel and the Lord Chancellor’s considerations in reviewing the PIDR later this year. The Lord Chancellor will formally consult the expert panel in due course and inform both Houses, in line with the timetables set out in part 2 of the Civil Liability Act 2018.
Copies of the call for evidence can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/setting-the-personal-injury-discount-rate.
[HCWS183]
Draft Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal (Composition of Tribunal) Regulations 2023
Mike Freer Excerpts(4 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 Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal (Composition of Tribunal) Regulations 2023.
This draft instrument delegates the power to determine the composition of employment tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal to the Senior President of Tribunals. The proposed regulations form part of the Government’s ongoing work to reform and improve the employment tribunal system.
Until now, panel composition in the employment tribunals has been determined by the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. It contained a list of case types that must be heard by a judge alone; cases that do not fall into those categories must be heard by a panel of three, or, with the consent of the parties, two. I know some people are concerned about why we are making changes, but the current arrangements are quite restrictive and prescriptive. Changing them requires a statutory instrument.
The panel composition rules suffered from a high degree of inflexibility, requiring a substantial amount of time and resources to make even reasonably minor amendments. This approach also meant that panel composition was determined by Ministers with the approval of Parliament through Acts of Parliament and statutory instruments, rather than by the judiciary, which is out of step with the wider unified tribunal system, where all decisions on panel composition are made by the Senior President of Tribunals. It also raises constitutional questions regarding the separation of powers.
The Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 sets out a new framework that addresses these concerns. It gives the Lord Chancellor new powers to determine panel composition, while also making this delegable to a member of the senior judiciary. As the Committee will know, the intention when that Act was passed was to delegate this power to the Senior President. This instrument puts that commitment into effect.
If the draft regulations are approved, and following consultation with the Lord Chancellor, the Senior President will be able to issue practice directions specifying the types of cases that can be heard by a judge alone across the employment tribunals—a far more flexible process than before. Where the matters for discussion or decision concern narrow points of law, the Senior President may use the power to have a single judge, rather than a wider tribunal. That will enable the tribunal to be better tailored to the needs of users and the complexities of the cases it handles, while also aiming for far more efficient use of tribunal resources.
More widely, the draft regulations will align the employment tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal with the arrangements that apply in the unified tribunal system by ensuring that panel composition is a judicial function, allowing the development of a more closely aligned tribunal system while retaining the separate nature and unique characteristics of the employment tribunals. The Senior President will be able to ensure that the tribunals have the appropriate composition to make fair and informed decisions, while also being used in the most efficient and proportional manner possible.
The challenges faced by the tribunals system in recent years, particularly the pressures posed by the covid-19 pandemic, have emphasised the importance of flexible and efficient resource use to meet the needs of the tribunals and their users. The employment tribunals have recovered well from the pandemic, with the current outstanding case load sitting far below its pandemic peak. The reduction is thanks in part to the steps the Ministry of Justice, working closely with His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the Department for Business and Trade, has taken to increase capacity, such as through the recruitment of additional judges, the deployment of legal caseworkers, and a new electronic case management system. In particular, the judiciary has played an instrumental role in this easing of pressures, such as through the establishment of a virtual region of judges able to hear employment tribunal cases remotely from any region. Since its inception, this virtual region has allowed thousands of additional cases to be heard that otherwise would have been postponed. Nevertheless, challenges remain and the outstanding case load remains high, which means that parties may have to wait a considerable time for their claim to be determined.
The senior judiciary has continually shown its ability to make decisions to the benefit of the tribunals. I have every confidence that the Senior President’s role in deciding panel composition across the employment tribunal system will help to ensure we make the best use of the resources at our disposal.
As the Committee may be aware, in anticipation of this delegation of powers, the Senior President conducted a public consultation in February last year seeking views on his proposals for employment tribunal panel composition. I understand that he intends to publish a response to the outcome of the consultation once these powers have been delegated to him. None the less, I anticipate that some Members of this House may have concerns regarding the proposals set out in the consultation, particularly on the role of lay members and the potential for their reduced presence in the tribunals.
As some members may be aware, my noble Friend Lord Bellamy made clear the Government’s position on this during the debate in the other place. The Government value the vital contributions that lay members, through their wisdom and experience, bring to bear in proceedings in the employment tribunals. It is not our intention through the measures in this statutory instrument to dilute or weaken their role.
First, and most important, no decisions on the role of lay members or on panel composition arrangements in the employment tribunals more widely, have been made. While the Senior President shared a number of proposals in his consultation, no final decisions have been made. The Senior President has stated that any final decisions will take into account the views expressed by consultees. He will, no doubt, also be following the proceedings in both Houses closely; in addition, he has a statutory duty to consult the Lord Chancellor before making the practice direction.
I stress that this delegation of powers does not mean that we will lose the unique characteristics of employment tribunals, or that we intend to move away from the current structure. I reiterate: no decisions have been taken. However, even under the Senior President’s proposals, the system would allow hearings to be determined by a judge sitting alone, but would not require it. It would be left for the judge to decide the most appropriate arrangements for the particular circumstances of individual cases.
Concerns have been expressed that this statutory instrument threatens the special status of employment tribunals, imposing on them the panel composition arrangements that apply in the wider tribunal system. That is not the case. As some Members may know, different composition arrangements currently apply, under separate practice directions, in each of the chambers of the unified tribunal system, including to different types of proceeding within a chamber. This recognises the different specialisms and circumstances of the proceedings they deal with. The same approach will apply to the employment tribunals under the measures in this instrument.
Finally, judicial diversity is a key priority for the Government and the judiciary, and the lay members are a key part of that diversity. The Ministry of Justice is a member of the judicial diversity forum, through which we work closely with the judiciary, the Judicial Appointments Commission, the Legal Services Board and the legal professions to promote diversity in the judiciary across each jurisdiction.
This statutory instrument will put into effect a commitment to delegate powers over panel composition arrangements in the employment tribunals system to the Senior President of Tribunals. I believe it will allow flexibility without the loss of the valuable input that our lay members offer. Where narrow points of law are being considered, it may be more appropriate for the Senior President to appoint a judge only; where that is not appropriate, a wider panel will be appointed.
Mike Freer
Without prejudging what the Senior President will announce, I expect that where lay members have expertise to give, particularly on trade union membership or non-membership, they will continue to be used because they add value. If the case is about a narrow point of law, where legal training is needed, that is what I expect the judge to focus on.
If the proposals brought forward are unsatisfactory, the Lord Chancellor has the right to “undelegate” the powers. We think this is the right thing to do, because it allows flexibility. Also trying to put multi-member panels together can be resource intensive and time consuming, and sometimes the lay members do not have a particular skill to add. The instrument offers more flexibility and more speed.
Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Member for Glasgow South West by saying that at some point this will be a devolved matter. The Ministry of Justice and the Scottish Government have almost concluded discussions on how to devolve the powers, so any concerns can be addressed locally.
Chris Stephens
I thank the Minister for that reply. He mentioned that after the Senior President has reached a decision, the Lord Chancellor has the right to unpick it, but what mechanisms are there to report back to Parliament? Would there be a statement in the House, so that if we had concerns about the Senior President’s decision making, we could raise them in the House?
Mike Freer
The delegation of any powers by the Lord Chancellor can be reversed. That is the nuclear option. If Members have concerns about what the Senior President is proposing, let me give some thought to the best mechanism for giving voice to those concerns—whether we come back to debate the matter, or use some other mechanism. That is a perfectly legitimate ask, but let me give some thought to the matter. I am more than happy to have a private conversation with the hon. Gentleman. I will, if Members are happy for me to do so, write to the members of the Committee setting out what I think is the best way to ensure that concerns about the detailed proposals are discussed and addressed.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Freer Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
Last year we spent £1 billion on civil legal aid to support the most vulnerable, and we recognise the potential benefits of early legal advice in supporting people to resolve their problems earlier. For example, last year we launched a £10 million housing loss prevention advice service. We invested in advice for welfare benefits issues, and early legal advice is also available for victims of domestic abuse in private family law proceedings, subject to the relevant means and evidence requirements. We will continue to invest in legal aid where we can see a benefit.
Jack Brereton
I thank the Minister for that response. Like many Members across this House, I regularly have constituents coming to me with many legal issues needing legal advice and support. Obviously, many Members are not appropriately qualified to offer that legal advice and support. Citizens Advice in Stoke-on-Trent are doing an excellent job trying to support many of my constituents with legal issues, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that members of the public get timely and affordable legal advice when they need it?
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend is right to praise the work of voluntary organisations such as Citizens Advice, and as I said in my original answer, we agree that investing has benefits. That is why, since 2015, we have invested more than £25 million to support litigants in person, including our current grant funding of around £10.4 million for improving outcomes to legal support grants. That is supporting 59 organisations across England and Wales, enabling them to provide urgent legal support and advice to help people resolve their legal problems. That is in addition to the investment in providing support on domestic violence, special guardianship orders, housing loss prevention and immigration.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
In its Green Paper published in October 2023, the Law Society set out reforms to legal aid to help more people get early advice. Can the Justice Secretary confirm what discussions he has had with the Treasury, in advance of the Budget in March, regarding potential increases to the legal aid budget, and that Scotland will receive its share through Barnett consequentials?
Mike Freer
I can confirm that, following the Bellamy report and the implementation of what is known as CLAIR—the criminal legal aid independent review—we have invested over £141 million extra in the legal aid system, addressing many of the concerns that legal practitioners, including the Law Society, have raised. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am in constant dialogue with the Law Society on how we can improve legal advice for citizens.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
The past 12 months have seen the largest volume of probate applications received by the service since 2006, and that follows two years of above-average receipts. In response, we have increased staffing levels by more than 100 people and streamlined processes. We have seen some improvement, in that the level of grants issued has been running at about 8,000 more over the past two months than receipts. The average mean length of time for a grant of probate following receipt of all the documents required is now 12 weeks.
John Stevenson
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Back in November 2020, I led a Westminster Hall debate highlighting the failings of the probate service. The service was once excellent, but that is no longer the case—I could give many examples demonstrating its continuing failures. I appreciate the Minister’s efforts to improve the service, but enough is enough. If the service has not materially improved in the next three months, will the Minister take the appropriate action and remove those who are clearly underperforming, so that the service can return to the level it once was at?
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend and I have had some interesting discussions on this topic over the past few months. Following a recovery plan to address the concerns that he and others have raised, I can reassure him that a new management team is in place and we are now seeing a distinct improvement in recruitment, competency, productivity and call handling, and for the past few months disposals have outstripped receipts. I appreciate that the service is not yet where we would want it to be, but I can reassure him that we are starting to see some impact as a result of the measures we have introduced. I am more than happy to have conversations with him so that we can work together to improve the service further.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
We remain committed to reducing the outstanding caseload in the Crown court and have introduced a range of measures to achieve that aim. We funded over 100,000 sitting days in the last financial year and plan to deliver the same this year. Thanks to our investment in judicial recruitment, we expect to recruit more than 1,000 judges across all jurisdictions. We are investing over £220 million over the next two years, not just to improve maintenance but to ensure that the number of courts taken out of action for unplanned maintenance is reduced.
Eddie Hughes
I am reassured by that answer, but can I press the Minister on other delays in the justice system? I have spoken to police officers who are incredibly frustrated by the delay in prosecuting those who they have arrested for multiple offences of shoplifting. What reassurance can the Minister offer to police officers in those circumstances?
Mike Freer
It is a concern to hear that police officers remain concerned. Some of the latest performance statistics suggest that the gap between charge and first listing is falling—the latest data shows it is down two days, to 31 days. I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss any local issues he may have identified that are causing delays. Magistrates, who tend to deal with shoplifting cases, are among the most efficient parts of our justice system and list clear cases incredibly rapidly, but I am more than happy to discuss this further.
Giles Watling
In the light of the Post Office scandal, does my hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that we not only clear the backlog as quickly as possible, because there have been deaths involved, but enable the Justice Secretary to strip the Post Office of its powers to independently prosecute?
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend raises a good point. It is vital that the delivery of justice is swift. We appreciate that the wait for trial can be extremely difficult for victims, so we are doing all we can to ensure that cases are heard more swiftly. We are urgently working on the detail of how to clear the names of the postmasters as quickly as possible, and further detail will be announced in due course. There should be no disparity between the standard of justice in private and public prosecutions, and we will carefully consider the findings of Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The latest criminal court statistics show a Crown court backlog of 66,547 cases, once again breaking records. The next quarter has just ended, so does the Minister expect the figures to break records again?
Mike Freer
In addition to the measures that we have already taken—unlimited sitting days, recruitment of judges, investment in courts to ensure they are resilient, and extending Nightingale courts—I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are building 58 new court rooms to ensure we have capacity. I have not seen the figures on the backlog, but the latest figures for the number of disposals—[Interruption.] Our courts and our judges are working flat out, as are all members of the criminal justice system. I reassure him that the level of disposals being undertaken by our judiciary is up and the work of our judiciary is exemplary.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
My right hon. Friend is right. Despite special educational needs and disabilities appeals and disposals being up by 24% and 29% respectively, I do share his concerns, and systematic reform is required. That is why through the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan, the Department for Education and ourselves will be working hard to ensure that it is improved. I am more than happy to meet my right hon. Friend to go through the details.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend makes a great point. My officials have already met Dr Richards to discuss her work on the tracker and, together with the Chief Coroner’s office, we are exploring with her team how best to share the tracker on the various websites. However, I am more than happy to meet with my hon. Friend and Dr Richards to discuss how we can work together.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Mike Freer
The Crown Prosecution Service can take over any criminal prosecution. It may then carry out the prosecution or it may end or discontinue the prosecution if it does not believe it should have been brought in the first place.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
January is often considered family breakdown month. Anybody taking the terrifically difficult decision to separate this year will face not only a divorce costing over £14,000 on average, but months, or potentially more than a year, of resolving child and financial disputes. We need reform of focus in a range of areas. Will the Lord Chancellor kindly agree to meet me and the formidable Baroness Deech and Baroness Shackleton to look at our campaigns?
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I know that she campaigns tirelessly on this issue. I am more than happy to arrange a meeting with my noble Friend Lord Bellamy, who leads on this issue, to update her and the noble Baroness Deech—
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Under the Illegal Migration Act 2023, victims of human trafficking who arrived in the UK via irregular routes would not have legal recourse to receive support under modern slavery provisions. Are Ministers comfortable with that? They do not look like monsters, so I assume not. If they are not, what will they do about it?
Mike Freer
I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman and check exactly what the provisions are for legal aid under the Illegal Migration Act. I am more than happy to provide him with the details and meet him if necessary.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Precisely because legislating to overturn convictions would be so unprecedented, will my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor make sure that before such a step is taken, he is satisfied from conversations with the senior judiciary that the means of triaging and consolidating appeals that currently exist may not be capable of delivering justice within an acceptable timeframe?
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Spending on housing legal aid has fallen by more than half in the past decade, from £44 million to £20 million. Is this a proper response to growing insecurity, overcrowding and poor conditions in the housing market, or might it be a contributing factor?
Mike Freer
I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that just last year we invested an extra £10 million in housing legal aid, so I think we are addressing the issue.
Chief Coroner’s Eighth and Ninth Annual Reports to the Lord Chancellor
Mike Freer Excerpts(5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
I am pleased to lay and publish the Chief Coroner’s combined eighth and ninth annual reports to the Lord Chancellor on the operation of coroner services under section 36 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (“the 2009 Act”). The joint report covers both 2021 and 2022.
The joint report has been produced to cover the crucial work done across the coroner service, and by the Chief Coroner himself, during the latter part of the pandemic period and thereafter to support recovery plans. It also provides an opportunity to align the reporting cycle with the preceding calendar year and, therefore, with related reporting processes such as the annual coroner statistics publication.
In particular, the Chief Coroner’s report sets out:
The work that he, as well as coroners, their officers and their staff have undertaken to manage the effects of the covid-19 pandemic;
The continuing work to promote consistency in the resourcing of, and practices in, coroner’s offices across England and Wales;
The training and guidance that coroners and their officers have received, and engagement with a wide range of stakeholders; and
Recommendations to improve coroner services further.
The annex to the report sets out, for 2021 and 2022, the number of cases by coroner area that have lasted over 12 months.
I am very grateful to His Honour Judge Thomas Teague KC for the work he has done over the reporting period in guiding and supporting coroners through the challenges of the covid-19 pandemic, building on the work of his predecessor, His Honour Judge Mark Lucraft KC. I am particularly grateful for his work with local coroner areas on the post-pandemic recovery of the coroner system.
I am grateful, too, to all coroners, and their officers and other staff, for supporting the Chief Coroner and HM Government to improve services for the bereaved, and for their valued frontline work.
The report will be available online, at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/chief-coroners-combined-annual-reports-2021-to-2022.
[HCWS158]
Draft Judicial Pensions (Remediable Service etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Mike Freer Excerpts(5 months, 1 week 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.