argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Government Operations
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order and for his characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of his intention to do so. My reply is a nuanced one that I hope is fair in the circumstances, and those circumstances include the fact that I have been in the Chair and not able to view the circumstances directly, so I am reluctant to rush to judgment What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is as follows. If constituents have meetings with their Members, they should of course be given ready access to those Members and should also be permitted to get to a Committee Room with maximum expedition. Security and logistical concerns may mean that larger groups are filtered through Central Lobby in batches so that they can obtain the relevant green card. However, I will investigate the circumstances of what happened this morning more fully and write to him when I have full information I hope that the hon. Gentleman, whose point of order is very reasonable, will understand if I say two things. First, I share his insistence on ready access and his passion for the idea of public engagement—in particular, the idea that young people who want to get into this place and communicate with Members, and register their views, should have the opportunity to do so. It is not for nothing that I have chaired the UK Youth Parliament for the past 10 years here, and not for nothing that I have gone to the UK Youth Parliament’s annual conference every year for the past 10 years. That is not just because I enjoy talking to them, though I readily admit that I do, but also because I enjoy hearing from them. That, I think, is important The second point I would make, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept in the spirit in which it is intended, is that I know that our staff are utterly dedicated and conscientious, and I would not want to criticise those staff unless there were a very compelling reason to do so I take on board what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will look into it and get back to him.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I should inform the House that I have selected the amendments on the amendment paper—although they are starred as tabled after the usual deadline—because of the late notice of today’s business. I should also inform the House that I have today issued a provisional certificate that clause 2 of the Bill, as amended in Public Bill Committee, relates exclusively to England and Wales and is within devolved legislative competence. At the end of the Report stage on a Bill, I am required to consider the Bill as amended on Report for certification. At that point, I will issue my final certificate Clause 3 Authorised court and tribunal staff: legal advice and judicial functions
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 2, in the schedule, page 6, line 36, at end insert— "(aa) is a qualified solicitor, barrister or chartered legal executive with more than three years’ experience post-qualification, and" This amendment would stipulate that the minimum legal qualifications for authorised persons should be three years’ experience post-qualification. Amendment 3, in the schedule, page 8, line 31, at end insert— "( ) is a qualified solicitor, barrister or chartered legal executive with more than three years’ experience post-qualification, and" See explanatory statement to amendment 2. Amendment 4, in the schedule, page 11, line 12, at end insert "and if they are a qualified solicitor, barrister or chartered legal executive with more than three years’ experience post-qualification" See explanatory statement to amendment 2. Amendment 5, in the schedule, page 11, line 32, leave out subsection 67C and insert— "67C Right to judicial reconsideration of decision made by an authorised person A party to any decision made by an authorised person in the execution of the person’s duty as an authorised person exercising a relevant judicial function, by virtue of section 67B(1), may apply in writing, within 14 days of the service of the order, to have the decision reconsidered by a judge of the relevant court within 14 days from the date of application." This amendment would grant people subject to a decision made under delegated powers a statutory right to judicial reconsideration.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert James MacGillivray Neill (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady referred to the independence of the judges. Is not the whole virtue of this proposal that the rules governing who should be delegated what functions will be made by judges, and should not be made by politicians in any circumstance? Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the former Lord Chief Justice, observed: "Experience has shown that detailed restrictions on procedure are a very real fetter on the administration of justice."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 2039.] He counselled against too much restriction of the kind that is being proposed.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Alexander John Gervase Chalk (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady is getting perilously close to suggesting that judges will do justice when they are inside a court, but will be incapable of ensuring that justice is done when they are outside a court, on the procedure rule committees. Will she make it crystal clear that judges will always, in all circumstances, want to do justice, and can be trusted to do so?
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Government Operations
James Roger Cartlidge (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise. What he is saying goes back to the point raised earlier about the possibility of the functions that are delegated having legal significance. Presumably if that was the case, they would not be delegated to start with.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert James MacGillivray Neill (Conservative, Centre-right): That is precisely right. It is inconceivable that any Lord Chief Justice would give his or her consent to a delegation that was inappropriate or would put the interests of justice at risk. I never sat as a deputy district judge—they used to be called deputy registrars in my day, so long ago was it—in civil matters, but I have many friends who do, and a great deal of what is called boxwork, with which at least some on the Treasury Bench will be familiar, was of a very administrative kind. We expect the district judges in a busy county court to deal with that, whereas it seems perfectly reasonable for many of these matters, which are often of a very interlocutory nature, to be dealt with by an experienced member of court staff who has been in the service for many years. We are not talking about the ultimate determination of the case in any of these matters. That is why Lord Neuberger referred to that safeguard or protection, and the protection that that would be laid before Parliament. Lord Neuberger made another important observation on the attempt, as it seems to me, to fetter the discretion of the committee. He posed a rhetorical question, as perhaps senior judges and other lawyers tend to do: "Whether it is right to provide in such clear terms, and such uncompromising general terms, for the circumstances and requirements for" appeals—which is what he was talking about—seems to him to be questionable. He was making this point: "Having chaired the Civil Procedure Rule Committee for three years, I can say, as has been quoted in relation to its criminal equivalent by my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas, that considerable care is given to ensure that all the requirements of justice are met. It is very rare, if ever, that I can remember a decision being arrived at which was not arrived at by consensus." These questions are considered, not only by the judiciary but by practitioners, including members of the solicitors’ profession and members of the Bar. Plaintiffs’ and defendants’ interests are represented on these committees, as are both ends of the profession—solicitors and barristers—and all levels of the judiciary, from the High Court bench through the circuit bench to the district bench. This is a broad-based body and, as Lord Neuberger said, these "details should be worked out…by the rule committee".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 July 2018; Vol. 792, c. 890 to 891.] I think that that is a forceful argument for leaving the proposals as the Government intended.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Lucy Claire Leigh (Frazer) (Conservative, Centre-right): It is an honour to take this Bill through its final stages. I should like to start by addressing some of the key points raised today by the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). She suggested that we were sneaking the Bill through the House. However, it was introduced seven months ago. Not only that, but it forms part of the Prisons and Courts Bill, which was introduced in this House in 2017 and which fell at the general election. The provisions in this Bill have been well known for some time. They have been debated in this House, and they are not being sneaked anywhere at all. The thrust of the hon. Lady’s speech was that this is a Bill about cuts, but it is certainly not. The Bill is part of our £1 billion court reform programme.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Macroeconomics
Neil John O'Brien (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. and learned Friend is making an important point. In 2010, this country faced its largest budget deficit since the second world war, and all that my constituents want is value for money from the Government. The measures that we are taking forward today may not be the most exciting or sexy things that we will do this House, but they are a key part of value-for-money government.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Lucy Claire Leigh (Frazer) (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend makes an important point that has a number of aspects. First, my Department had to make cuts in 2010 because of the poor financial situation that we inherited from the Labour party. Secondly, it is important that we deliver justice fairly to those who are part of the justice system, but as he says, we also have a duty to the taxpayer. Overlaying those two points is a third point. Notwithstanding the position we inherited and notwithstanding our duty to taxpayers, my Department is undertaking a significant reform programme that is investing in our justice system. A couple of weeks ago, the Ministry of Justice held a conference at which more than 20 countries from around the world were represented. They talked about their own reform and modernisation programmes, but ours is one of the most ambitious. We are at the forefront of innovation, and we are investing in our justice system to bring it up to date in the 21st century.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert James MacGillivray Neill (Conservative, Centre-right): Is this not also important in the context of the speech by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd in the other place? He said that "the operation of the criminal, civil, tribunals and family procedures rule committees has enabled us far more than any other state to keep our rules up to date." We need to continue to do that. That is why he stated: "I urge the greatest caution in trying to put into primary legislation anything that restricts in this way the powers of the rule committees."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 2018; Vol. 793, c. 425.]
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Lucy Claire Leigh (Frazer) (Conservative, Centre-right): That is an important point. Our justice system is renowned throughout the world, thanks to its flexibility, which is enabled by the rules committees along with the other measures that allow us to develop our jurisdiction The hon. Member for Bolton South East finished by suggesting that we should listen and take the amendments on board, but we have listened and made amendments. We made amendments in the other place to include safeguards and improve the Bill.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Lucy Claire Leigh (Frazer) (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend and, indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker have campaigned hard about the closure of their local courts, and the dispensing of local justice is important in Northallerton, as it is in Chorley. My hon. Friend makes an important point, because, following campaigning by my hon. Friend and his constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), we committed not to close the court on the basis that we would do so only when the technology was in place to ensure that we could continue to deliver justice. We need to move with the times, but we must also ensure that people get fair procedures and justice in the tribunals.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert James MacGillivray Neill (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. and learned Friend is being most generous in giving way. Does she also recognise that modernising and simplifying procedures saves money not only for the taxpayer, but for litigants? Part of access to justice is about reducing needless costs for litigants.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Lucy Claire Leigh (Frazer) (Conservative, Centre-right): That is an important point, because when we talk about what we have saved, we often mean what has been saved at the Ministry of Justice, but the reality is that ensuring that justice is served for the people who use it is at the heart of our reforms. Many of our changes have received positive feedback. In a recent trial at the tax tribunal, people were able to access justice from remote locations and not have to go to a physical court. That was well received, because people did not have to disrupt their day by physically entering court. Of course, that will not be appropriate for everyone, but we must ensure that we use the advantages of technology in the future.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Simon James Hoare (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice for giving way—[Laughter.] That bought us 32 seconds. I am interested in what she has said. Is she able to dilate—preferably at some considerable length—on the benefits that might accrue from people not having to go to court in rural areas, such as North Dorset, where public transport is scarce and where not everybody has access to a motor car? The changes could be of huge benefit to large, sparsely populated rural areas such as mine.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Technology
Lucy Claire Leigh (Frazer) (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I also represent a rural area. Interestingly, some of the greatest and most interesting innovations at our conference were from Australia, where the geography is an issue, and we can learn a lot from its procedures. Over recent years, 300,000 people have started engaging with our online services, which have been well received.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Technology
Simon James Hoare (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful. Can we read across from what my hon. and learned Friend says that she is making strong representations to ministerial colleagues at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, to BT and to other providers to ensure that hotspots, blackspots, notspots—call them what you will—in rural areas that are poorly served by a reliable, speedy, robust internet will be filled to allow all our citizens to access justice and make representations using technology? With the best will in the world, if the technology is not there—I know that my hon. and learned Friend knows this—people will not be able to use it.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Lucy Claire Leigh (Frazer) (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend makes a second important point, which is that we cannot roll out and continue to use technology unless the technology actually works. I regularly talk to Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and others about the importance of ensuring that the systems that we already have in place work well, so that the technology does not fail us when we are trying to hold court hearings.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Neil John O'Brien (Conservative, Centre-right): Further to the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) about virtual and online courts and creating hassle-free access to courts for all constituents, can the Minister give us figures for the extent to which the change has helped to unclog our courts? One of the benefits of the Bill for my constituents is not just hassle-free access for them, but the fact that our courts will not be clogged up by the traffic cases and small beer that lead my constituents to wonder why serious criminals take years to be processed. Will the Minister give us some stats about the growth of virtual and online courts and what this Bill will do to those stats?
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Neil John O'Brien (Conservative, Centre-right): Members on both sides of the House would agree that we have a world-renowned judiciary. In fact, Members are profoundly nervous when we see headlines in our papers calling judges, "Enemies of the People," which we would all disavow. These are people who, day in and day out, do things in court that could cause them to be threatened. They are taking risks on behalf of the rest of us, and it is a high-quality system. With that in mind, and given the respect in which the judiciary are held by this House, does my hon. and learned Friend agree it is important that we do not accidentally do them down in this debate? Does she agree it is not right for the shadow Attorney General to suggest, I think unintentionally, that temporary judges may be less impartial than permanent judges? All our judiciary are high quality.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Lucy Claire Leigh (Frazer) (Conservative, Centre-right): That is absolutely right. As a former barrister, I appeared regularly before experienced judges, all of whom were full of integrity, undertaking important roles The hon. Member for Bolton South East suggested that all judges need qualifications of some kind. Of course, we have magistrates across the country who are doing outstanding jobs in our justice system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) mentions, temporary judges, just like full-time judges and judges who operate on a permanent basis, are recruited because of their expertise and skill. They are trained, and they carry out their roles as they should.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Kevin Paul Hollinrake (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. and learned Friend mentioned the fine work done by magistrates. Is there any way we could relax the requirements in order to increase the number of cases that may be considered by magistrates? I understand that magistrates are the most cost-effective part of the justice system.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Lucy Claire Leigh (Frazer) (Conservative, Centre-right): Magistrates undertake a significant number of roles, and they have vital responsibilities. In fact, they deal with over 95% of all criminal cases, the majority of which are less serious criminal cases, but they are very important. I am pleased recently to have attended the Magistrates Association conference, where I met a number of magistrates who are doing vital work across the country.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
James Spencer Cleverly (Conservative, Centre-right): I declare an interest, as my wife is currently going through the process to become a magistrate. I am struck by how the role of magistrates is so little understood. There are a number of people in my professional and personal circles who might make good magistrates, but they are unaware of the process or of the importance of the role. What more could be done to highlight the significant role that magistrates play in the criminal justice system?
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Labor
Lucy Claire Leigh (Frazer) (Conservative, Centre-right): I am pleased to hear that Mrs Cleverly is undertaking this important role. My hon. Friend is right that it is important, and employers do understand. The Lloyds banking group recently won an award for encouraging staff to take time off to undertake this important role, and we need to do more to encourage employers to encourage their staff to take part in this important function.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Simon James Hoare (Conservative, Centre-right): Everything I do is short, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are all, thank God, living longer. At some point, might there be merit in reviewing the retirement age both for our judges and our magistrates? With people taking early retirement and so on, the receptacle of wisdom should not be lost to the courts, particularly taking the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) on the difficulty of finding people to fill these posts.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Lucy Claire Leigh (Frazer) (Conservative, Centre-right): I am happy to come on to the three reasons why amendments 2 to 4 cannot be accepted. First, the amendments are not necessary. The functions are already being carried out, and carried out well, by those with lesser qualifications than those sought by the hon. Member for Bolton South East. The qualification requirements for legal advisers in the magistrates court and family court are currently set out in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor, as they have been since 1979, and amendments 2 and 3 would raise the qualifications bar significantly higher than the current regulations and would rule out a large proportion of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service staff from giving legal advice in future.