James Cartlidge corrected the Commons record on Judicial Review and Courts Bill

1 February 2022 · Commons Hansard, Written Corrections · Justice

The words were spoken in the Commons on 25 January 2022. The correction was made by letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), and printed in Hansard's Written Corrections on 1 February 2022. The corrected text no longer gives the figure 400. Altogether 9 words differ between the two versions.

The question

I also support this amendment and the efforts being made by my hon. Friend’s Department and across Government to increase the ability of magistrates to hear and deliver justice. Can he confirm that, through this Bill, the raising of the magistrates’ retirement age from 70 to 75 will include those who have already been forced to retire at 70, so that, where there is local demand, they can come back and serve some of the justice that we now want to see being brought forward?

Original and corrected words

Struck through: original only. Bold: correction only.

Original	Corrected
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, because, of course, we do want to achieve precisely that. Just to be clear, it is not in this Bill. It is in the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill that is going through at the same time—I spoke on its Second Reading. The key point, as my hon. Friend has said, is that it raises the mandatory retirement age to 75, and we think that that will have a significant impact. In fact, we have estimated that it could ~~lead to 400 additional~~ magistrates ~~coming in~~ at a time when we really need that resource because of the backlog.	My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, because, of course, we do want to achieve precisely that. Just to be clear, it is not in this Bill. It is in the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill that is going through at the same time—I spoke on its Second Reading. The key point, as my hon. Friend has said, is that it raises the mandatory retirement age to 75, and we think that that will have a significant impact. In fact, we have estimated that it could retain 2,000 magistrates annually at a time when we really need that resource because of the backlog.

Original

Corrected

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, because, of course, we do want to achieve precisely that. Just to be clear, it is not in this Bill. It is in the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill that is going through at the same time—I spoke on its Second Reading. The key point, as my hon. Friend has said, is that it raises the mandatory retirement age to 75, and we think that that will have a significant impact. In fact, we have estimated that it could ~~lead to 400 additional~~ magistrates ~~coming in~~ at a time when we really need that resource because of the backlog.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, because, of course, we do want to achieve precisely that. Just to be clear, it is not in this Bill. It is in the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill that is going through at the same time—I spoke on its Second Reading. The key point, as my hon. Friend has said, is that it raises the mandatory retirement age to 75, and we think that that will have a significant impact. In fact, we have estimated that it could retain 2,000 magistrates annually at a time when we really need that resource because of the backlog.

The correction in Hansard.

Receipt

Read from	https://hansard-api.parliament.uk/debates/debate/C2418F1E-FFF1-4018-AA50-8251EB7F9DCD.json
Date read	15 October 2026
SHA-256	`270889b522d64ab981aff244350ea78fbe356731a4535ae9c576121ad06b5404`