Maria Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Liverpool, Garston, Labour)

I am well aware of the strong feelings that the clause has excited, not just in the parties and in members of the Committee but in those outside who made representations, not least the legal profession, but also others. We heard evidence from the Magistrates Association. I understand the concern that has been expressed.

It may be helpful if I set out what clause 58 does and does not do, then deal with some of the points that have been raised. It amends the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 to remove certain statutory exceptions that limit the types of cases and hearings in which Crown Prosecution Service designated caseworkers may be the advocate. The purpose of extending the designated caseworker remit is to enable them to conduct a wider range of proceedings before the magistrates courts—including, as hon. Members said, in summary trials.

There is no doubt that a balance has to be struck between efficiency and effectiveness in dealing with straightforward advocacy in the magistrates courts and fully protecting the rights of victims who are often represented by CPS lawyers and designated caseworkers—a point raised by hon. Members—and ensuring that the CPS does as effective a job as it can and obtains proper value for taxpayers’ money. There is always a balance to be struck in such matters, and there may be a slight disagreement about where that balance ought to be struck.

See this speech in context