Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill
Wednesday 2nd July 2025
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesCourts (Remote Hearings) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during Committee sittings except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. With the heat in this room, it would be in order if anyone wants to remove their jacket. The selection and grouping for today’s meeting is available online and in the room. No amendments have been tabled, and we will have a single debate on both clauses.
Clause 1
Amendments to legislation about court hearings
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I propose to deal with clauses 1 and 2 together, as you set out. This modest but important Bill amends current legislation to enable defendants and debtors in specific types of cases heard in the magistrates court or county or family courts to be able to appear before the court remotely via live audio or video link. The use of remote video and audio links is common and already used in civil, family and criminal jurisdictions, delivering significant benefits through swifter access to justice and by utilising the court estate efficiently, particularly at a time of backlogs.
As a result of the Bill, two categories of case will be able to be heard remotely. That means that those in breach of some injunctions and orders in the county and family courts, as well as persistent defaulters on orders to pay council tax, will now be able to appear remotely. That ability to appear remotely is especially important, because in many cases, defendants must be physically brought before the courts within 24 hours of their arrest for breach of these civil injunctions. Sometimes, that is not possible. Defendants may be arrested out of hours and court facilities may be some distance away, all while the clock, as set out in the current legislation, is running down. The Bill addresses those points. People who are arrested for those breaches will now be able to appear remotely, as will those who are defaulters of orders to pay their council tax.
But remote does not mean less access to justice. The courts recognise that a remote hearing is no less capable, in principle, of being fair than a hearing at which all parties are physically present. That has been affirmed by His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service’s evaluation of remote hearings during the covid-19 pandemic.
Importantly, the Bill does not mandate remote hearings. It enables a defendant or debtor to attend a court in person or by live video or audio link at judicial discretion. Once a person is before the court, the ultimate determination of whether to have a remote hearing will be by the judge, who will make their own ruling, having heard from all the parties and taking into consideration the circumstances of the case.
With that background in mind, I turn to the clauses. Clause 1(1) sets out the required legislative changes for an amendment to section 47 of the Family Law Act 1996 in relation to arrest for breach of order. It inserts proposed new subsection (13), which provides that the defendant may appear before the court either by way of live audio or video link. Clause 1(2) amends section 9 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 in relation to arrest without warrant. It inserts proposed new subsection (7), which provides that the defendant may appear before the court either by way of live audio or live video link.
Clause 1(3) amends section 43 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 in relation to arrest without warrant. It inserts proposed new subsection (8), which provides that the defendant may appear before the court either by way of live audio or video link. Clause 1(4) amends paragraph 8(1A) of schedule 4 to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 in relation to enforcement in England and Wales. It inserts new sub-paragraph (b), which provides that the debtor, subject to an application under paragraph 8(1A), may appear before the court either by way of live audio or video link.
Clause 1 sets out the necessary changes to legislation so that a defendant or a debtor in certain circumstances can appear before a court via live link. These changes ensure that individuals who are arrested for breach of certain family or county court injunctions and orders, as well as persistent failures to pay council tax, can appear before the court in a timely and efficient manner using remote links.
At its core, the Bill enhances public safety, ensuring that dangerous individuals, in the case of breaches of injunctions, such as gang injunctions, are not released for want of finding a court or judiciary out of court hours. The use of remote links in court proceedings is relatively common and has delivered significant benefits already. This provision will provide greater flexibility, at judicial discretion, where it is appropriate. As I said, it does not mandate that remote links must be used. Access to justice is not curtailed by this Bill. The defendant or debtor will be able to make representations to the judge, and the existing safeguards of access to legal representatives remain.
Subsections (1), (2) and (3) of clause 2 provide that the Bill extends to England and Wales; that it will come into force at the end of the period of two months following Royal Assent; and that it may be cited as the Courts (Remote Hearings) Act 2025 once in force. There is nothing controversial about these arrangements. I commend both clauses to the Committee.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I will not detain the Committee long because it is stiflingly hot in here, but I want to add that I wholeheartedly support the hon. Member for Burnley in introducing this Bill.
The Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill extends the ability to be brought before the court remotely in two instances where individuals have been arrested and detained in police custody. The first is for defendants who are in breach of the terms of certain orders or injunctions of the court. The second is for failure to pay council tax. While those hearings could be conducted remotely from a custody suite at a police station on arrest, at present, the relevant legislation requires that they must be heard in person. Once a person is before the court, it will be at the judge’s discretion to decide whether to hold a remote hearing upon considering the representation of all the parties. To be clear, in-person hearings will still take place if that is necessary.
Hon. Members will be reassured that despite these new powers, the number of hearings in either type of case is not expected to rise. These changes will give magistrates and judges in county and family courts greater flexibility and efficiency. The changes will also mean that potentially violent individuals, such as those arrested for breaches of injunctions to protect victims of domestic abuse, can be dealt with quickly and efficiently. Current arrangements mean that those defendants must be produced physically in court within 24 hours of arrest. A lack of court premises or judicial capacity, for example, over the weekend, will result in their release back into the general population.
In closing, I reiterate my thanks to the hon. Member for bringing forward this important Bill and I confirm the Government’s continuing support for it. It is a modest but perhaps mighty Bill, and it provides for remote attendance before the court only when necessary. It adds to the flexibility of the ways that courts operate without compromising any of the safeguards of our justice system, and it has our wholehearted backing.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill
Friday 11th July 2025
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberCourts (Remote Hearings) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 11 July 2025 - (11 Jul 2025)
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 22, leave out subsection (4).
This amendment would exclude an amendment to paragraph 8(1A) of schedule 4 to the Local Government Finance Act 1992. It would reduce the Bill from covering four areas, to covering only section 47 of the Family Law Act 1996, section 9 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, and section 43 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009.
Why am I concerned about removing provisions relating to local government? Well, I have been instrumental in discussing, in the House and elsewhere, the costs and burdens of council tax ever since it was introduced, consequent upon the failure of the legislation for community charges. I was privileged to help take through this House that legislation on the community charge in the late 1980s. I still meet people who think it was a big mistake to abandon the community charge, which would have ensured that everybody in receipt of local government services, if they were over 18, would have made a contribution. That is all history. It was changed. We introduced council tax, and with it council tax administration and enforcement regulations.
It is those regulations that would now be altered by clause 4 of the Bill. Instead of what is already set out on the ability of the courts to deal with council tax administrative and enforcement problems, it is suggested that those court hearings should be able to be held remotely. In other words, there would not be any proper ability for people to see what was going on. In my view, the deterrent value of such hearings would be lost, because they would be remote hearings, rather than in-person hearings in the local magistrates court.
Let me also mention the extent of the problem we already have with the enforcement of council tax arrears. They are now in the order of £6 billion, as the Minister will know—some £6 billion in council tax arrears. I think almost 10% of that total is attributable to just four local authorities. It will not surprise hon. Members to know that those local authorities are Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester and Brent. Between them, those four local authorities are responsible for more than 10% of the £6 billion in council tax arrears at the moment.
What are we doing? Why are we trying to reduce the pressure on council tax payment miscreants by enabling them to hide behind remote hearings instead of having to face the music in a proper court of law, where justice can not only be done but be seen to be done? Why should a council tax debtor not be required to attend a court hearing in person? The court can then make inquiries about the person and discuss means of payment. It can all be done with witnesses. The magistrates can see aspects of the demeanour of the defendant in person and take those into account. Most importantly of all, they can ensure that the court process acts as a deterrent against people thinking that paying their council tax is essentially a voluntary activity.
A real debt crisis is building in this country, and not just on council tax. I serve on the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee; we have heard evidence that the arrears on energy payments are now £4 billion or more. Why are we seeking in this Bill to reduce the pressure on people who almost make paying council tax seem voluntary? Why do we not put more pressure on the local authorities responsible for a lot of the council tax arrears?
I am lucky enough to live in the New Forest district council area; it is 286th in the council tax arrears league table; that amounts to about £69 per council tax payer. By contrast, in Liverpool the arrears are £194,721,000, which means that for every council tax dwelling £869 is owing. What is being done to put pressure on Liverpool city council to do something about the situation? The same applies to other councils, including in the area that I am privileged to represent. BCP council is 109th in the league table with more than £45 million of council arrears, amounting to £249 per council tax dwelling. Dorset council, in the other half of my constituency, has £53 million in council tax arrears, amounting to £290 per council tax dwelling. I have tabled the amendment to ask the Minister this: why we are proposing to facilitate remote hearings for issues relating to council tax?
The council tax administration and enforcement regulations enable a council to issue a reminder notice and a final notice. If the debt remains unpaid for more than 14 days after a reminder notice is sent, the council can apply to the magistrates court for a liability order. There will then be a hearing, and if the magistrate finds that the taxpayer has failed to pay council tax, they will order the taxpayer to pay the outstanding sum as well as the council’s costs—that is set out in regulation 34. Once a liability order is granted, the council can use several different enforcement methods to collect the debt. It can instruct an employer to deduct money under an attachment of earnings order, it can make deductions from benefits, it can take control of goods, or it can issue a charging order. In extremis, the council can even initiate bankruptcy proceedings, and ultimately, it can apply to commit the taxpayer to prison if bailiffs have been unable to find goods belonging to the taxpayer that cover the debt.
Given that local authorities possess all those powers under the council tax administration and enforcement regulations, why are they not being used effectively? Why do we think that creating remote hearings is going to improve matters? That seems absolutely ludicrous to me. If ever there were a good use of a magistrates court’s time, it is to ensure that conscientious payers of council tax in the area covered by that court do not have to subsidise people who do not pay their council tax, resulting in the enormous arrears to which I have referred. That is why I am concerned about this proposal.
Remote hearings were introduced during the pandemic and have been used in other circumstances, but the consequence of a remote hearing is that the press and the public are in the dark. One of the best deterrents to council tax non-payment would be for people who are in receipt of liability orders in the local magistrates court to have their names and addresses published in the local paper. That is going to be made much more difficult if the Bill contains references to council tax when it becomes law, so on behalf of all those people who are suffering as a result of the more than £6 billion owed in council tax, I urge the Government not to proceed with this particular part of the Bill. That is why I have tabled my amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) raises important concerns, but this Bill is not about reducing the pressure on miscreants—it is about dealing with them as effectively and efficiently as possible. The Bill does not mandate the use of video; it allows the courts flexibility. Instead of the police being used as taxi drivers, moving people around when they should be dealing with other miscreants, cases will be able to be dealt with in a much more effective way when a magistrate or a judge needs to be found at short notice. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this measure will benefit justice, and will assist in dealing with the miscreants that he and I are both concerned about. The current situation makes it more difficult to do that.
Sir Christopher Chope
I thank the Minister for his response. Perhaps the logic of what he says is that, instead of my amendment to remove the provisions relating to council tax, we should add to the Bill a provision about shoplifters and fraudsters, so that they are subject to remote hearings, on the basis that this will assist in the administration of justice. I was too slow to table amendments to such an effect in order to draw out the Minister further, but it is implicit in what I have said that I do not accept the explanation he has given. Were that explanation to be correct, I urge him to add categories to the Bill when it reaches the Lords, so that justice can be done, as he would see it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Third Reading
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We covered the Bill extensively in Committee, and there been a fairly wholesome debate about amendment 1 on Report. This is a sensible and proportionate Bill. It is slim and sophisticated, and I ask the House to approve its Third Reading.
Sir Christopher Chope
Madam Deputy Speaker, it will not surprise you that, in the light of the Minister’s response to my amendment, I am very unhappy about the Bill. Unamended, it incorporates the provisions on local government non-payers that I described on Report. I cannot get my head round the argument put forward by the Minister, and it is replicated in the explanatory notes on the Bill, which say:
“This Bill creates a more efficient process for handling these matters, removing the need to move people from police cells to courts and for judges/magistrates to travel to attend courts in person to hear the cases at the weekend or public holidays.”
That certainly does not refer to cases involving local government debts. It may well apply to some cases relating to other aspects of the Bill.
The explanatory notes also say:
“The use of remote link in Criminal proceedings is relatively common and has delivered significant benefits. It is also common in Civil and Family proceedings. In those proceedings, the appearance of a defendant by remote link is permitted at the direction of the court, including cases of far greater sensitivity or gravity.”
Of course, family proceedings are in camera anyway, so Joe Public of the local Daily Echo will not get access to that. I am not suggesting that they should, but if they cannot access information about who is in council tax arrears and is being brought before the court, that will become much more difficult.
The explanatory notes go on to say:
“The lack of legal power to order that these cases are heard by remote link means that all arrested defendants must be transported from the police station to court”.
Earlier, I went through all the stages that people have to go through before they find themselves threatened with imprisonment for debt. If they go through all those stages, surely it is important that they should be brought to court, and we should not be concerned about the fact that they will have to be transported from the police station to court or that the judge may have to travel to court. Of course, all that has been made more difficult because we have closed so many magistrates courts that the travelling distances are longer.
Sir Christopher Chope
I see that the Minister agrees. We have so few courts now compared with before that people have to travel further, with all the inconvenience that that leads to.
The explanatory notes continue:
“This leads to delay in dealing with the case and is not an effective way of using resources.”
I just do not think that that applies in the case of the council tax provisions. If there were a sunset clause, and we could see whether putting more pressure on councils to take action against those who do not pay council tax reduced overall arrears, then we might be getting somewhere.
Oliver Ryan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his considered contribution to the debate. I will be brief. He is making some reasonable points, but he is answering his own question. We currently have a bottleneck in the court system, and by being against the measures in the Bill, he is, probably inadvertently, making it easier for these people not to be seen by the court system. The Bill is reasonable and small, as I have said. If we can release some pressure in that bottleneck—the points he made about council tax debtors and others are quite right—more debt will be recovered and more miscreants will be seen in the criminal justice system, and that is always a good thing. He is making reasonable points, but he is answering his own question through the explanatory notes.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but I am not sure that I agree. In essence, the criminal justice system is there to ensure that there is a level playing field, that everybody is equal under the law and that the rule of law applies. The figures that I have given show that the rule of law is not being consistently applied across the country when it comes to the duty to pay council tax, and quite a lot of enforcement authorities seem to be rather cavalier about enforcement.
I just do not think that allowing remote hearings will suddenly rectify a situation in which council tax arrears in Birmingham and three other authorities amount to well over £1 billion. Indeed, some of the areas where council tax arrears are highest are the areas where we have seen complete failures of administration, Birmingham city council being one such example. As a direct result of Birmingham city council’s failure to operate effectively, the Government had to intervene, put the council into special measures and essentially allow the council to increase council taxes far in excess of the 5% threshold that normally applies. The same is true in Croydon and Thurrock.
If the hon. Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) looks at my list of local authorities and council tax arrears, he will see that failures to deal with council tax arrears are a very good indicator of a local authority’s failure, although I have yet to do the work on linking that proposition with the salaries that the chief executives of those local authorities pay themselves. I do not believe that those large, inflexible authorities will be motivated by the Bill to have remote hearings when they are not even prepared to use the existing structures.
It may well be—this point supports the hon. Gentleman—that small councils like New Forest district council are quick on those who do not pay their council tax or do not pay it promptly. The possibility of having remote hearings instead of those councils having to issue court summonses might save administrative costs and save the burden. However, in my submission, that potential small benefit is more than outweighed by the problems I have been describing. It would have been so easy for the Government to put forward this Bill on the basis that it would not apply to council tax.
Having said that, section 47(7)(a) of the Family Law Act 1996 requires that a person in breach of an occupation order, where that order contains a power of arrest, must be brought before a court within 24 hours of the arrest. That is why the argument is made that courts have to be available over the weekend and so on. As is so often the case when we are faced with legislation like this, it would perhaps be sensible to change that provision, so that the person does not need to be brought before a court within 24 hours of arrest if that period includes a Saturday or Sunday. That would be a much more direct way of dealing with this issue, in my submission.
Again, it is an easy cop-out for the Government to say that because the person has to be brought before a court within 24 hours, we have to go for remote hearings. If we did away with the need to bring the person in within 24 hours if it was the weekend, we would not need this Bill. Section 47(10) of the Family Law Act states that the court can remand a person in breach of a non-molestation order who has been brought before a court pursuant to a warrant for arrest, and the matter is not disposed of forthwith. That is another example of where this situation applies.
Section 9 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 requires that a person arrested following a breach of an antisocial behaviour injunction, where that injunction contains a power of arrest, must be brought before a court within 24 hours of arrest. Why are we not amending section 9 of that Act to ensure that in the circumstances that the arrest takes place over a weekend, the 24 hour timeframe does not apply? Similarly, section 43 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 requires that a person arrested following a breach of a gang-related violence or drug-dealing injunction must be brought before a court within 24 hours of arrest. Again, that could easily be amended to avoid the need for these remote hearings, which is what we are concentrating on in this Bill.
I am a lawyer by background, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I was at university doing my law degree—or my jurisprudence degree, to be precise—I can remember our law class going to the local assizes when a rape trial was taking place. As one might imagine, there was a lot of interest from these embryo lawyers in what was happening. In that rape trial—I remember it to this day—the defending counsel got up and asked, essentially, that the House do sit in private. The High Court judge put his feet up on the bench in front of him and said—really, he was speaking to the law students, who he knew were in the gallery—that, “Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.” That was a message that I learned very early on as a law student, and I still think it applies.
Remote hearings could be justified during the covid crisis—fine—but now they are being used as an excuse. We already have some examples of where they are permitted, but the Bill goes too far in extending that. The hon. Member for Burnley, who introduced the Bill, may feel it is rather sad that it is being picked at by Members of the House—
Sir Christopher Chope
Well, I do not know; I am sure that I speak for many.
Oliver Ryan
The hon. Gentleman has made some reasonable points throughout the debate. When I did my graduate diploma in law, we did a similar exercise and went to court to see big trials, but that is not what the Bill would cover. It is for small, mass cases that, as has been mentioned, deal with things like council tax arrears.
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we are short on time, so I will quietly throw myself on his mercy and ask him whether we can get to the end of this before half-past 2. The Bill would be of great benefit to the legal system. He will know from his days as a lawyer in the system that some modernisation is required. It is not always a good thing, but I believe that this is a measured approach. If we can please get through to the end of the debate by half-past 2, we can make some progress.
Sir Christopher Chope
The hon. Gentleman has a disarming smile and approach—dare I say, it is almost seductive? May I put to him an alternative proposition? He is in a position to influence the Government Whips to ensure that extra sitting Fridays are provided. Because his Bill is on its Third Reading, assuming that its Third Reading is not completed today, it would take priority over other Bills when additional sitting Fridays are put on.
The fact is that we have not yet even had an announcement about the sitting days for next year. A year ago, after the general election, the Leader of the House gave us the sitting days for the whole period through to the end of this July, and I congratulated her on that at the time. She has not done that in relation to next year, but I understand it is likely that this first Session will go on, perhaps even beyond Christmas. In the meantime, we could have another sitting Friday where the hon. Gentleman’s Bill could be dealt with on Third Reading.
The question now arises as to whether I should reflect on the points that the hon. Gentleman made in his intervention or just rely on the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) on the Opposition Front Bench to put in their three-pennyworth. I recognise that unfortunately we are always time-limited and regret that so many of the Report stage Fridays were taken up with one Bill. We are dealing with the consequences of that today. We are now debating the fourth Bill of the day on Report, which, if one looks at the records, is a pretty good strike rate for a Report stage Friday.
We are now in the middle of debating this important Bill, which would affect lots of people. I do not see any reason at all why this important debate should not be able to continue on the next sitting Friday. One has very little power in this place as a Back Bencher, but one thing one does have is power over the time.
We want to come on to another important Bill about controlled drugs. I am sure the powers that be will know that if we are to get on and discuss the hon. Member for Burnley’s Bill and the Controlled Drugs (Procedure for Specification) Bill, we will need an additional sitting Friday. At the same time, we would then be able to deal with the Bill on homelessness by the chairman of the 1922 committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), which went through unopposed at Second Reading, but has been blocked by the Government ever since. That is intolerable—