Legal Aid Reform

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on securing this important debate, in which we have heard many excellent contributions.

It has been helpful to hear first-hand from those who have contributed today, but before responding to some of the specific issues raised, of which there were many, I would like to reiterate the rationale and context of the reform proposals. I should say at the outset that the Government strongly agree with the views expressed by many Members today that access to justice is a hallmark of a civilised society, and that the provision of legal aid, in a targeted, focused and sustainable way, is a key part of ensuring appropriate access to justice. So I say to the hon. Members for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) that our aim is to direct our scarce resources towards helping the most vulnerable.

As hon. Members will know, the Government have pledged to reduce the budget deficit to deal with the acute financial crisis and encourage economic recovery. The Department has to reduce its budget by £2 billion by 2014-15, and legal aid, being one of just three big areas of spending in the Ministry of Justice, needs to make a substantial contribution of £350 million to that reduction. However, the need to make savings gives us the impetus and urgency for change and provides us with the opportunity radically to reform a system that, in many cases, needed reform anyway. To that extent, I agree with the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) that our policy cannot simply be determined by how we deal with the deficit.

In June, we announced that we would be taking a fundamental look at the legal aid system. Our aim was then, and remains now, to create a stable and sustainable system that ensures access to public funding in those cases that really require it, the protection of the most vulnerable in our society and the efficient performance of our justice system. This also reflects the aim of creating a more efficient legal aid system as set out in the coalition Government document. Since the modern legal aid scheme was established in 1949, its scope has been widened far beyond what was originally intended. By 1999, legal aid funding was available for virtually every type of issue, including some that should not require any legal expertise to resolve.

[Mrs Grant]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Djanogly]

I would love to give way, but with so many points having been made, I cannot. I apologise.

I believe that that has too often encouraged people to bring their problems before the courts even where the courts are not best placed to provide the best solutions, and discouraged them from seeking simpler, more appropriate remedies. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) on her excellent article this afternoon.

Indeed, the scheme now costs more than £2 billion a year, making it one of the most generous schemes in the world, even taking jurisdictional differences into account. We need to understand that, even after the proposed reforms, we are still going to have one of the most expensive schemes in the world. The previous Government made many attempts to reform legal aid, conducting more than 30 consultations since 2006, but the changes were of a piecemeal nature and failed to address the underlying problems. Rather than continue with this “cut and come again” approach, we have gone back to basic principles to make choices about which issues are of sufficient priority to justify the use of public funds, subject to people’s means and the merits of the case.

The Opposition’s general position on legal aid is staggeringly inconsistent and opportunistic. Labour appears to be backing down on its commitment to support legal aid reform. In an article on Left Foot Forward, the shadow justice Minister, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), wrote:

“It is nonsensical…to cut these long established public services.”

The article seems to reveal a split between the shadow Justice team and its party leader, who said at a recent press conference that with regard to the reductions in legal aid

“Labour has shown it is ready to make difficult cuts which we believe are necessary for the long term health of our economy.”

Its leader was, of course, reiterating the promise made in the 2010 Labour manifesto:

“We will find greater savings in legal aid”.

It also contradicts the statement of the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) offering support to the Government when the reforms were announced last year. He said:

“Let me be clear: had we been in government today, we, too, would have been announcing savings to the legal aid budget. That is a reality that we all have to acknowledge.”—[Official Report, 15 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 663.]

[Mr Slaughter]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Djanogly]

I think I do have to give way on this one.

[Mr Slaughter]

I think the Minister does, now that he has read out the central office briefing. I urge him either to read the shadow Lord Chancellor’s article in the Solicitors Journal today, or even my speech in Westminster Hall before Christmas, which he would have heard had he turned up for it. If he does, he will see exactly where we would make the cuts and that we have made it clear throughout that we would not cut essential social welfare legal aid.

[Mr Djanogly]

I am pleased to hear some clarification of what the Opposition are not going to do; perhaps the hon. Gentleman will come back to the House to tell us what they are going to do, so that we can take a view on where they are coming from on this issue, because they have been thoroughly unimpressive to date.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Djanogly]

No, I will not.

The proposals in our consultation paper take into account the importance of the issue at stake, the litigant’s ability to present their own case, the availability of alternative sources of funding and alternative routes to resolving the issue, as well as our domestic and international legal obligations. I should also point out that the consultation is still open, and that I am therefore here to listen to hon. Members’ views rather than to agree or disagree with any particular view.

We propose to focus financial support, and legal advice and representation, on those who need it most. The proposed reforms involve significant change to the scope of legal aid funding. Having said that, I should make it clear that we are not proposing any changes to the scope of criminal legal aid, and that legal aid will also still routinely be available in civil and family cases in which people’s life or liberty is at stake, or in which a person is at risk of serious physical harm or immediate loss of their home. For example, I can confirm to the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) that we plan to retain legal aid for asylum cases, but not for immigration cases, except when the person is in detention.

Legal aid will also be retained for debt and housing matters when someone’s home is at immediate risk, and for mental health cases. It will still be provided when people face intervention from the state in their family affairs that could result in their children being taken into care, and for cases involving domestic violence, child abduction or forced marriage. We also propose that legal aid should remain available for cases in which people seek to hold the state to account by judicial review for the most serious claims against public authorities. We shall also keep it for cases involving discrimination that are currently in scope, and for community care cases where the recipients are often very elderly and vulnerable.

Many hon. Members raised the question of telephone advice. Although that will provide a gateway, it will not stop face-to-face advice being given when that is appropriate. It will facilitate the more effective sourcing of services and help the disabled. People will be able to ask to be called back, as is currently the case, so the cost would be low. I should like to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) that we believe the telephone advice will assist people in rural areas, and that language translation will be catered for, particularly for Welsh speakers. The service currently has a satisfaction rating of more than 90%, so we see it as a very good service.

We recognise that there will be some cases, even within the areas of law that we propose to remove from scope, that international or domestic law will require to be funded by the taxpayer, or inquest cases where there is a significant wider public interest in funding legal representation. We therefore propose a new exceptional funding scheme for excluded cases. We also consider that the long-drawn-out, acrimonious nature of court proceedings too often exacerbates disputes rather than solve them. Alternatives often exist that are not only cheaper than rushing to court but faster and less contentious. So we will continue to provide funding for family mediation, to encourage people to use this more effective method to resolve issues between themselves, rather than using up precious taxpayers’ money and the courts’ time.

Of course, mediation is only one alternative to court proceedings. Work is going on across government to change our litigation culture and encourage alternative and less acrimonious dispute resolution. For example, the Government are currently seeking views on measures to achieve more early resolution of workplace disputes through ACAS conciliation, so that all parties have a chance to resolve their own problems in a way that is fair and equitable for both sides, without having to go to an employment tribunal.

Likewise, the Department for Education is looking into involving parents in early discussions and decisions about the special educational needs support that they need, so that they do not have to battle through the tribunal process. I think it was the hon. Member for Westminster North who said that 82% of appellants in SEN matters succeeded in their appeals. I should point out to her, however, that just 18% of parents are currently legally represented in those appeals.

On eligibility, we are not changing the criminal means-testing introduced by the previous Government. In civil cases, however, we believe that those able to pay for or contribute to the costs of their case should do so. This will help to ensure continued access to public funding, in those cases that really require it, for those who have little or no funds of their own. The consultation paper therefore includes the proposal that all clients with £1,000 or more of disposable capital should make a minimum £100 contribution to their legal costs, and that the capital of any prospective legal aid clients is taken into account when considering eligibility. We believe that this will encourage a greater sense of personal responsibility by giving clients a greater financial interest in the conduct of their case, as well as helping to discourage unnecessary litigation at taxpayers’ expense.

Many Members, including the hon. Members for Makerfield, for Westminster North, for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon), the right hon. Member for Exeter and my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) and for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), made points about the highly valued not-for-profit sector. Having frequently met the CAB, Shelter and other voluntary groups, I appreciate that the not-for-profit sector has particular concerns, but the important point is that this issue goes way beyond legal aid. Indeed, funding from legal aid represents a minority of many CABs’ income—we believe only about 15% of CABs’ income comes from legal aid—and many do not receive any legal aid income at all; the three CABs in my constituency receive no legal aid money, for example. That is because the basic role of CABs is to give general advice, not necessarily legal aid advice, as they have been allowed to do only for the past 11 years. The problem, however, for those that do give legal advice is that legal aid funding will often merge with other funding streams. CABs are funded mainly by local councils and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills centrally, and removing one stream could have a knock-on effect, but that does not make it wrong for us to be unwilling to pay legal aid for general advice.

The reality is that the funding streams have been in conflict for years, and effort and services have been duplicated and resources wasted, although the previous Government never sorted this out while their money machine was pumping away. We have recognised this problem, and I am pleased to be able to say that we are working closely with the Cabinet Office-based Office for Civil Society, which will look at this important issue across Government. To answer a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), I should say that transitional funding may be available.

We certainly see an important role for not-for-profit organisations in the advice sector. The coalition Government support such organisations, including CABs, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said, we hope that local government will share our view that they play an integral part in civil society. I am also happy to look at the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley).

The hon. Members for Makerfield and for Westminster North, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye and others spoke about welfare benefits. We recognise that some people find publicly funded legal advice and advice on welfare benefit matters helpful. However, the user-friendly nature of the tribunal means that appellants can generally present their case without assistance. More particularly, the issues raised are normally ones that should be dealt with by general advice, not legal aid. When I visited a law centre recently, I was shocked to hear that local benefits officers were sending people to the law centre for advice on what benefits they could claim. This is a bizarre situation, and it is not going to be solved by throwing legal aid money at the problem.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Djanogly]

I am afraid to have to tell hon. Members that I have run out of time.

This debate will continue, as will the consultation. I can honestly say that we are looking forward to receiving the consultation responses of Members and all other respondees.

Service Personnel Inquests (Operations and Exercises Overseas)

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I wish to make the latest of our quarterly statements to the House with details of the inquests of service personnel who have died overseas. We remain deeply grateful to all of our service personnel who are serving, or who have served, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our most sincere condolences go, as ever, to the families of those service personnel who have lost their lives in the service of their country, and in particular to the nine who have died since our last statement. All of the families whose loved ones have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, or who have otherwise lost their lives in connection with the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, remain very much in our thoughts.

Today we are announcing the current status of inquests conducted by the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner, and other coroners in England and Wales. This statement gives the position at 25 January.

I have placed tables in the Libraries of both Houses, which outline the status of all cases and the date of death in each case. These tables include information about cases where a board of inquiry or a service inquiry has been held.

Our Departments remain committed to working closely together to improve our processes and to continue the Government’s support for coroners conducting inquests into operational deaths. As a result of these improvements, the dedication of coroners and the support from both Departments, 130 inquests were completed in 2010, compared with 58 inquests being completed in 2009. There are no outstanding inquests into deaths prior to 4 December 2008.

We would again like to thank all of the coroners who are involved in conducting these inquests, as well as those people who provide support and information before, during and after the inquest process.

Since October 2007 additional resources have been provided by both Departments for operational inquests. These resources have been provided to the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner, Mr David Ridley, due to the repatriation of service personnel at RAF Lyneham and the formation of the MOD Defence Inquests Unit in 2008. These measures have been provided to ensure that there is not a backlog of operational inquests.

Current status of inquests

Since the last statement 20 inquests have been held into the deaths of service personnel on operations in Iraq or Afghanistan.

There have been a total of 435 inquests into the deaths of service personnel who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, including 11 service personnel who died in the UK of their injuries. In two further cases, no formal inquest was held, but the deaths were taken into consideration during inquest proceedings for those who died in the same incident.

Open inquests

Fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan

At present there are 80 open inquests to be concluded into the deaths of service personnel who died in Iraq and Afghanistan, (25 involving deaths in the last six months). Of the remaining open inquests, the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner has retained 33, while 47 are being conducted by coroners closer to the next of kin. Hearing dates have been set in five cases. One recent fatality awaits repatriation and inquest opening

There are two remaining open inquests into deaths from operations in Iraq.

Inquests into the deaths of service personnel who returned home injured

There remain 11 inquests to be held of service personnel who returned home injured and subsequently died of their injuries. These will be listed for hearing when the continuing investigations are completed.

We shall continue to keep the House informed about progress with the remaining inquests.

Data Protection Legislative Framework

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, Lord McNally, has made the following written ministerial statement:

Tomorrow, I will publish the Government’s response to the Call for Evidence on current data protection law which was held between July and October 2010.

The Call for Evidence sought evidence about areas of the European Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC and the Data Protection Act 1998 that may be out of date or could be improved, and also those areas that are working well and should be retained. Over 160 responses were received from across the public, private and third sectors, consumer groups and members of the public. The evidence received will help to inform the UK’s position for the forthcoming negotiations on a new comprehensive EU instrument for data protection. A proposal for this instrument is expected from the European Commission in mid-2011.

At the same time as publishing this response, the Government will publish a post-implementation review impact assessment of the Data Protection Act 1998, having received comments on the provisional document published alongside the Call for Evidence. The post-implementation review primarily aimed to assess the costs and benefits the Act has generated, but findings from the review will also contribute to the UK’s evidence base for negotiations on a revised EU legal instrument.

Copies of the response to the Call for Evidence paper and the post-implementation review impact assessment will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Department’s website at: www.justice.gov.uk.

Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Bill

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Friday 21st January 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) on his success in last year’s ballot on private Members’ Bills and, indeed, on his good judgment in deciding to introduce the Bill before us. I am happy that he went for, as he put it, the worthy and uncontroversial option. Let us hope that that remains the case. It is uncontroversial but certainly not uncomplicated.

In presenting the Bill, my right hon. Friend was supported by the Chairman of the Justice Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who it is good to see here today, the hon. Members for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), and for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr Cash), for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) and for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr Meale), and my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and for Shipley (Philip Davies)—a good cross-section of the House.

Today, we have thoroughly debated an unusual but important aspect of succession law, and we had strong contributions—from my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), and the lawyer’s eye of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall)—that brought out many of the complexities of the succession law, even though the principle seems relatively straightforward.

My right hon. Friend’s Bill, as has been mentioned, will implement the main recommendations of the Law Commission in its 2005 report, “The Forfeiture Rule and the Law of Succession”, making the law of succession simpler and fairer. The purpose of the law of succession in this context is to decide who should get what from the estate of a deceased person. The Law Commission reached its conclusions after a public consultation in 2003, and its recommendations were accepted by the then Government in November 2006, subject to minor modifications. Those proposals were then included in the draft Civil Law Reform Bill, which was published for public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny in December 2009. The pre-legislative scrutiny was conducted by the Justice Committee, which published its conclusions in its sixth report of the 2009-2010 Session of the previous Parliament, under the title “Draft Civil Law Reform Bill: Pre-legislative Scrutiny”.

Before the previous Government could reply to the Justice Committee, the general election was called. We all know the events that followed, but for the purposes of our debate today what matters is that my right hon. Friend was returned as the Member for his newly formed constituency of East Yorkshire. When the ballot for private Members’ Bills was subsequently held, he was fortunate enough to draw 20th place.

[Mr Nuttall]

I think that, in fact, my right hon. Friend was a little more successful: he was drawn fifth.

[Mr Djanogly]

I am very grateful for being put right on that point, so fifth place it was. My right hon. Friend could no doubt have chosen any one of numerous topics from his own extensive experience without consulting anyone, and I am sure that it would have been a topic well worth debating and, perhaps, legislating on. Instead, however, he decided to consult the Law Commission and ask whether any of its recommendations, as he said earlier, were suitable for a private Member’s Bill and unimplemented. Those discussions led him to the commission’s draft law reform (succession) Bill, which was published in the Commission’s 2005 report, “The Forfeiture Rule and the Law of Succession”.

The provisions of that draft Bill had, by the time my right hon. Friend was considering what to do with his place in the ballot, been published with minor modifications as part 3 of the draft Civil Law Reform Bill. Those provisions, which my right hon. Friend adjusted in the light of the response to the distribution of estates provision in the draft Civil Law Reform Bill, form the basis of the Bill that we are debating today.

As the Minister responsible for the general law of succession in England and Wales, and as a Minister in the Department that sponsors the Law Commission, I am doubly pleased to be able to announce the Government’s support for this Bill on the law of succession; and I was pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) that the Opposition support the Government’s position in that context.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch asked why the commencement date is not three months after Royal Assent, and the simple answer is that that is to allow the professionals and others to prepare for commencement: there will be wills to be re-looked at and so forth. Before considering the substance of the Bill, I should like to record the Government’s thanks to the Law Commission for its work on the forfeiture rule and the law of succession.

Law Commission Bills are by their nature likely, legally speaking, to be very technical, and this Bill is no exception. There is more to a law reform Bill than technical accomplishment, however; we have to be sure that it delivers the desired policy outcome effectively and efficiently. In that respect, the Bill has the additional advantage of having already in effect been carefully scrutinised by the Justice Committee. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire has paid careful attention to the Committee’s conclusions, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, who as Chairman of the Justice Committee considered the draft Civil Law Reform Bill and, I am delighted to say, has returned to that role in the current Session. I am also grateful to the other hon. Members who served on that Committee with him when they scrutinised the draft Civil Law Reform Bill.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North asked in different ways about the Law Commission’s wider Bill and the Government’s attitude to the commission. The Government are committed to ensuring that the law is modern, simple and accessible, and we hold the commission’s work in high regard. I am confident that the measures flowing from the Law Commission Act 2009, both the protocol and the duty to report annually to Parliament, along with the new House of Lords procedure for Law Commission Bills, will help to improve the implementation rate of commission proposals. A higher rate of implementation will help to ensure more effective and accessible law, delivering better value for money as valuable Law Commission work is put to good use.

Five reports have been implemented or received Royal Assent over the past year: those on the rules against perpetuities and excessive accumulations, third parties’ rights against insurers, trustee exemption clauses, on reforming bribery and parts of its murder, manslaughter and infanticide reports.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North also asked what we are doing about the wider Civil Law Reform Bill issues. Decisions not to take forward the Law Commission’s excellent work are always difficult, and they are not taken lightly. It is a difficult time at the moment, and the Government have to be realistic about what they can achieve when there are other pressing priorities and a reduction in resources.

A great deal of the Law Commission’s work requires primary legislation to implement it, and it is very difficult at present to secure parliamentary time for legislation that is not a high priority or that does not deliver significant financial savings. Deciding not to take forward the proposal in the Law Commission’s reports on damages, personal injury, medical, nursing and other expenses, claims for wrongful death and pre-judgment interest on debts and damages, was not easy. However, in the current financial climate we need to focus our resources on delivering key priorities.

Having said that, I think that the new protocol on best practice between the Government and the Law Commission, agreed in March last year, should help. The protocol aims to ensure that the Law Commission takes forward only projects to which Departments are fully committed; that there is a close working relationship during the project; that the Law Commission produces impact assessments looking at the costs and benefits of proposals; and that Departments respond quickly once the Law Commission reports.

The Law Commission will soon be putting forward proposals for its 11th programme of work. That will be the first programme agreed in the light of the new protocol, and I am confident that it will assist in reducing delays both in responding to the Law Commission when proposals are accepted and in implementing them.

However, neither the Law Commission nor the Justice Committee could function as effectively as they do without the support of those who respond to consultations and calls for evidence. The experts who give freely of their time and experience are perhaps the unsung heroes of law reform work. It is invidious to single out organisations or individuals, but I note that the Law Society and the Bar Council replied not only to the Law Commission’s 2003 consultation and the Ministry of Justice’s 2009 consultation, but gave evidence to the Justice Committee in 2010.

I would like to thank all those who have replied to the Law Commission, the Committee and my own Department over the years. Unsurprisingly, the Bill does not reflect all their views, but I can assure them that their comments were all carefully considered and taken into account. I am confident that this Bill would command the support of the overwhelming majority of them.

I will now explain why the Government are supporting this Bill. Obviously, we are pleased that the Bill represents a return on the investment of public money in the Law Commission. The Government are committed to ensuring that the law is modern, simple and accessible. Usually, and properly, it is the Government who introduce Law Commission Bills; there is, however, no reason at all why the introduction of Law Commission Bills should be the preserve of the Government alone. Indeed, I would encourage hon. Members who in future years find themselves well placed in the ballot for private Members’ Bills to consider whether they might imitate the example of my right hon. Friend and discuss with the Law Commission whether any of its Bills might be suitable for debate. My right hon. Friend has set a very good example, and I thank him for that.

However, more fundamentally, the Government support this Bill because it will make the law fairer. To understand what is wrong with the law, it is necessary to go back to 1994 when a certain individual was convicted of the murder of both his parents; various hon. Members have referred to the incident. He was described in the press as an “evil conman” and

“a grasping son who repaid his parents’ lifelong devotion by bludgeoning them to death”.

He duly received two life sentences, but it is not the monstrosity of his crimes that underlie the Bill before us today—rather, it is what happened to his parents’ property, which was apparently worth more than £1 million and highlighted the problem with the law.

Apparently, the killer’s parents had made it clear to their son that they would not provide for him on their deaths; they would provide only for his young son, their grandchild. To go back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, if only they had made clear wills in favour of the grandchild, their apparent wish to support him would have been accomplished. However, no wills were found and their property was distributed according to the statutory intestacy rules.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are being informed by television that Mr Andy Coulson, one of the most important figures in Her Majesty’s Government and one of the Prime Minister’s closest aides, is now resigning. As the House is sitting, I believe that it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister to come to the Commons, explain why that is happening and give the public the full details here in the House of Commons, rather than burying the news on a day when, frankly, an awful lot of other news is taking place. This is the Commons, where the Prime Minister should—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Before we get carried away, I should say that that has absolutely nothing to do with the House. Neither of the points made is a point of order.

[Mr Djanogly]

I am delighted to pull the House back to the important issue of succession.

I was just saying that the property of the killer’s parents was distributed according to the statutory intestacy rules. The intestacy rules are a default regime; they apply where a person has not exercised his or her right to make a will or to the extent that his or her will is not valid. Their aim is to safeguard the deceased person’s family by providing for them from the deceased person’s estate in a manner that is thought to mirror the wishes of the average person had he or she made a will.

Generally speaking, an intestate estate will pass to the surviving spouse or civil partner and the deceased’s children first, but if the deceased is not survived by either of them, then other blood relatives of the deceased will inherit the estate in a strict order of priority set out in section 46 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925, as amended. I am not going to read out the rules, but if any hon. Members wishes to know more about them, I shall provide the information.

When there are no known eligible blood relatives to inherit, the estate is dealt with by the Treasury solicitor. On receiving the estate, the Treasury solicitor will make full inquiries into the estate and will advertise for eligible kin in the hope of distributing the estate. If there appear to be no eligible kin, or none can be traced, the estate becomes “bona vacantia” which means “ownerless goods” and it will pass to the Crown, the Duchy of Cornwall or the Duchy of Lancaster, depending on where in England or Wales the deceased lived.

When a minor inherits on intestacy, the property to which they will be entitled is held on trust. The terms of that trust are specified in the intestacy rules. Basically, the trustees will hold the property for the benefit of the child until he or she reaches the age of 18 or marries or enters a civil partnership under that age.

All that may seem relatively straightforward, and hon. Members could be forgiven for thinking that the grandchild in the DWS case would have inherited their property on reaching the age of 18, or marrying or forming a civil partnership before then, but there is a devil in the detail and, sadly, there was a family dispute that led to litigation. That culminated in the decision of the Court of Appeal in 2000 in the case Re DWS (Deceased). By that time, it was agreed that the son himself could not inherit because, as he had murdered his parents, the forfeiture rule prevented it. The forfeiture rule is a common law rule, applying the general rule of public policy that a person is not able to benefit from their wrongdoing. It is illustrated by the 1892 case of Cleaver v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association, when it was held that a person is not entitled to benefit from the estate of a person he or she has unlawfully killed.

A person who is convicted of the unlawful killing of another, or of aiding, abetting or counselling another to do so, is automatically disqualified from inheriting from his or her victim under the forfeiture rule. However, persons convicted of manslaughter or other offences less serious than murder may still be permitted relief to inherit the victim’s property by the court under the Forfeiture Act 1982.

The question for the court in Re DWS (deceased) was who would receive the grandfather’s property. Had the son died before his father, the property would have gone to the son’s only child, who was aged only two at the time of the murder and was also the grandfather’s only grandchild. However, the son—that is, the killer—was not dead, but merely disqualified from inheriting because of the operation of the forfeiture rule.

The relevant provision of the intestacy rules setting out the statutory trusts contained in the Administration of Estates Act 1925 provides that the grandchild will inherit only if his or her parent has already died. The court accordingly decided that the law did not allow the grandson to take the property. Instead, it was decided that the property would have to go to the estate of the dead grandfather’s sister, who had also died by the time of the court case. Thus, in this situation, not only is the killer disqualified from inheriting, but so also are all the killer’s direct descendants. The Court of Appeal expressed concern that this may have been an unforeseen and unintended consequence of the present intestacy rules.

In July 2003, the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, whose responsibilities in this regard have been assumed by the Ministry of Justice, asked the Law Commission to review the relationship between the forfeiture rule and the law of succession. The terms of reference were as follows: first, that in conjunction with its work on illegal transactions, the Law Commission should review the relationship between the forfeiture and intestacy rules; secondly, that the review should be carried out with reference to the difficulties highlighted in the case of Re DWS (deceased) and should explore ways the law might be reformed to prevent apparently unfair outcomes of this sort; and, thirdly, that the review should also consider any ancillary areas of succession law that might produce analogous outcomes—for example, disclaimer and attesting beneficiaries.

In October 2003, the Law Commission published a consultation paper, “The Forfeiture Rule and the Law of Succession”, which considered the problem raised in Re DWS, and discussed whether a similar problem arose in other contexts. The consultation paper provisionally proposed that in cases such as Re DWS there should be a “deemed predecease” solution—that is, where a person forfeits a benefit on intestacy through having killed the deceased, the estate should be distributed as if the killer had died immediately before the deceased. The Law Commission also proposed that the deemed predecease rule should apply where a gift under a will fails because of the forfeiture rule.

[Sir Alan Beith]

It is perhaps worth placing on the record—the Committee specifically sought to inquire into this—that the deemed predeceased rule has no other legal effect. In other words, determining that someone is deceased for the purposes of inheritance does not affect any other legal provision or right relating to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

I thank my right hon. Friend for setting out that important point. If that were not the case, it could have serious knock-on effects for other cases.

The Law Commission received responses to the consultation paper from 31 individuals and organisations. Those included leading academics in the field of succession law; the Society of Legal Scholars, Property and Trusts Section; a number of individual judges, including Lord Justice Sedley, one of the members of the Court of Appeal who had heard the Re DWS case, whose response wholeheartedly endorsed the Law Commission’s proposed solution; the Association of District Judges; specialist solicitors from leading firms; the Inland Revenue; the Bar Council; the Law Society; and the Chancery Bar Association. Most of the respondents agreed that the current law was unsatisfactory, that in Re DWS (deceased) the grandchild ought to have inherited, and that a “deemed predecease” rule would be the best way of achieving this.

The Chancery Bar Association must, however, be singled out for particular mention. It spotted that there was an analogous, albeit rare, circumstance, elsewhere in the law of intestacy, that should be addressed. This arises from the fact that where a child inherits from a parent or other relative on intestacy, that child’s interest is held “contingently” on the statutory trusts under the intestacy rules.

In July 2005, the Law Commission’s final report, “The Forfeiture Rule and the Law of Succession” was presented to Parliament. The report recommended that a “deemed predecease” solution should apply in three situations. First, where a person disclaims or forfeits the right to inherit from a person who has died intestate, the intestacy rules should then be applied as if the killer had died immediately before the intestate. Secondly, where a person disclaims or forfeits a benefit under a will, the will should be applied as if the killer had died immediately before the testator, unless the will contains a provision to the contrary. Thirdly, where a person loses a benefit under an intestacy by dying unmarried and a minor, but leaves children, the property should devolve as if that person had died immediately before the intestate. The Civil Law Reform Bill incorporated provisions to this effect, subject to minor modifications relating to the role of the public trustee, which for reasons I shall explain, need not concern us now.

I hope this explanation of the genesis of this Bill makes clear the problems that it is trying to address. The overall point is that in the three circumstances identified— forfeiture, disclaimer and the rights of the children of a minor heir on intestacy—the detail of the law does not produce the desired result. The general policy on intestacy is that once the interest of any spouse or civil partner has been satisfied, the property of the deceased should pass to closer blood relatives before more distant ones: the children of the deceased, for example, should be preferred to siblings of the deceased.

Where there is a valid will, the general policy of the law is that the wishes of the testator—the person who made the will—should determine who is to inherit what from the estate of the deceased. That gives effect to the principle of freedom of testamentary disposition, which lies at the heart of our succession law in England and Wales, and which was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and others.

The effect of the Bill will therefore be to change the law in the three areas mentioned, so that it is consistent with the general policy of the law. First, as was highlighted in the 2001 Court of Appeal decision in Re DWS (deceased), where a person forfeits an inheritance on intestacy because he or she has killed the person from whom he or she would have inherited, his or her children will also be disinherited. The forfeiture rule thereby disinherits not only the criminal but also the innocent grandchildren of the victim.

This problem is not confined to intestacy. For example, where there is a will that contains a gift specifying who is to inherit, if the first named recipient dies before the testator and that recipient forfeits his or her inheritance, the default gift cannot take effect because the recipient is still alive. Similarly, if there is a will giving a gift to a child of the testator without any further provision, the law implies a term that the gift will pass to his or her children if he or she predeceases the testator. If the testator’s child forfeits his inheritance, his or her children—the testator’s grandchildren—will not be able to inherit.

The same problem arises in both testate and intestate successions where the person who would be first entitled disclaims the inheritance. Anyone claiming through him or her will not be able to inherit. Let me explain the term “disclaimer” as that was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, and discussed further by my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for North East Somerset in the context of disclaiming gifts under a will. There was a further question as to why this needed to be done.

A beneficiary is free to accept or disclaim—that is, refuse—a gift that has been left to him or her in a will. The unwanted gift will form part of the testator’s residuary estate—the part of the estate remaining when all the specific gifts have been satisfied— unless, as is less usual, he or she has made a default gift in the event of a disclaimer. If the will does not make provision for the disposal of the estate, it will be distributed according to the intestacy rules.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch went on to ask why that should be the case. Figures are not kept on the number of people who disclaim gifts in wills. However, in its consultation paper, “The Forfeiture Rule and the Law of Succession”—CP No. 172—the Law Commission commented that the usual reasons for disclaimer in will cases will either be to secure beneficial tax consequences or to enable the beneficiary to avoid inheriting onerous property such as a lease with repairing covenants. My hon. Friend then asked whether the disclaimer provision opens the way to evade inheritance tax. The answer is no, because in the example we have before us, the son could achieve the same results as a disclaimer under the Bill by varying the will or the intestacy rules. Deeds of variation can be used to vary the distribution of the estate for inheritance tax or capital gains tax purposes. That is only possible where all the original beneficiaries agree and the tax legislation permits it. These variations will often include disclaimers by some or all of the original beneficiaries, and the Bill simply enables the intended recipient to disclaim without thereby disinheriting anyone entitled to claim through him or her.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset then asked whether a disclaimer of inheritance can instead take the money and give it away. The answer is yes; the money would then be his or hers to do with as he or she wished, but he or she could not disclaim part of an inheritance, or having disclaimed, specify where the inheritance should go. That is for the deceased to say in a will or the intestacy rules, which act as a deemed will, if I can put it in those terms. So a beneficiary of an intestate estate is free to accept or disclaim the inheritance. When the disclaimer is a child of the deceased, the disclaimed interests passes to the child’s siblings. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill address those issues.

There is the rather unusual situation, which was spotted by the Chancery Bar Association—I take my hat off to the assiduous lawyer who noticed this one—in which if a person under the age of 18 who is prospectively entitled to inherit property under the intestacy rules, perhaps from his or her parent, dies before reaching the age of majority, leaving children but without having married or entered a civil partnership, those children cannot inherit in place of their parent. Right hon. and hon. Members used several interesting possibilities to explain how that could be put into practice, but that happens because the parent did not reach the age of majority or marry or form a civil partnership under that age. In more legal language, the parent did not attain a vested interest. That anomalous outcome, rare as it might be, discriminates against those children.

Clause 3 addresses that issue. In all three cases, the Bill would solve the problems by deeming the person who loses the inheritance to have died before the person whose estate is being distributed. That means that on intestacy, the children of the person losing out will be able to inherit under the statutory intestacy rules and, if there is a will, that the actual or deemed wishes of the testator will prevail. In short, the aim of the Bill is to try to ensure that the “right” people inherit. The Government support that aim.

I shall comment on the differences between the Law Commission’s draft Bill, published in 2005, and the equivalent provisions in the draft Civil Law Reform Bill, published in 2009. These issues were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch touched on them, too. They largely derive from the comments of the Justice Committee and the people who gave evidence to it. Some of the changes are drafting changes, but others were more significant. The question arises of why they should have been left out of the Bill.

Although the Justice Committee welcomed the proposal to ensure that minors who inherit under the provision have their inheritance protected, several criticisms were made of the special trust advice chosen by the Law Commission to achieve that aim. On consideration of the responses to the consultation and the evidence to the Justice Committee, it has become clear that the special trust was unnecessary and would be problematic and expensive to operate. The existing law, which already imposes a trust and gives the court power to appoint alternative trustees and supervise those trusts, gives the property of minors adequate protection. We therefore believe that the Bill meets the concerns of the Justice Committee in that regard.

The Justice Committee welcomed the reforms and reached two conclusions. First, it stated:

“We welcome this clause as ending the current rule which penalises the children or other heirs of a killer who are themselves not only entirely innocent but are the people whom the deceased would probably have wanted to benefit from the estate in any event. We also welcome the proposal to ensure that minors who inherit under this provision have their inheritance protected.”

Secondly, it pointed out:

“We recommend the Government to re-examine the drafting of clauses 15 to 17 in the light of the comments made by the Bar Council and the Law Society. We expect all minors to receive suitable protection under the bill. Equally, we share the Law Society’s concern that nothing be done to impair the validity of existing wills.”

The main difference, however, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed pointed out, is that the earlier draft Bills contained specific provisions intended to ensure that in forfeiture cases the criminal was prevented from gaining any benefit from the inheritance that would, under the terms of the draft Bill, pass to his or her children. Those special trust provisions attracted a good deal of criticism from witnesses to the Justice Committee and people who replied to the Ministry of Justice’s consultation on the draft Civil Law Reform Bill.

Two respondents—the Law Society and the Bar—considered that the safeguard provisions were not necessary because legislation already exists that would protect an infant beneficiary’s inheritance in forfeiture cases if such protection were to be needed. Both referred to section 116 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which provides the court with discretion to pass over any prior claims to a grant and appoint someone else if by reason of any special circumstances it appears necessary or expedient to do so.

The Bar also mentioned section 114(2) of the 1981 Act, which provides that wherever a minority interest arises under a will or on intestacy, a grant should be made to a trust corporation or to two individuals, unless it appears to the court to be expedient that there should be a sole personal representative.

The same two respondents also expressed concern about the limited application of the safeguard provisions, which is restricted to the infant children or more remote issue of the offender, and only then if, as the Bar noted, the infant inherits by virtue of the reform rather than under, for example, a default gift in a will. It considered that there may be cases where court intervention is needed to prevent potential abuse of the inheritance, where those inheriting are infants but are not directly related to the offender.

The Bar also objected to the width of the power of the court to allocate any property in which the infant had an interest to the trust, and it raised a fundamental concern about the workability of the provisions, where both the infant and the disqualified person would inevitably benefit from the trust property—for example, where the former matrimonial home was held under the trust, and the infant and the disqualified person were both living there.

The Bar concluded:

“On balance, we consider the provision”

to safeguard an infant after forfeiture

“to be unhelpful, and likely to lead to increased expense in the administration of estates in circumstances which are bound to be tragic but are otherwise unpredictable.”

The Government have given particularly careful consideration to those comments, which we have discussed with the Law Commission and with Master Winegarten of the chancery division of the High Court, who was very critical of the special trust provisions. We agree with the Justice Committee that minors who inherit should have their inheritance protected and that all minors should have suitable protection under the Bill. However, it is clear from our more detailed consideration of how the special trust provisions would work that they are unnecessary, problematic and expensive to operate.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed pointed out, the Civil Law Reform Bill contained special trust provisions for children. He asked whether this Bill provides protection now that the special trust provisions have been taken out, an issue which I have dealt with. In our view, the existing law, which already imposes a trust to the benefit of minor children and gives the court power to supervise the administration of estates, gives effective and adequate protection.

[Sir Alan Beith]

My hon. Friend is giving a detailed analysis and providing fairly compelling reasons why the specific provisions involve many problems. However, it is not only the protection of the minor’s inheritance that is at stake, but the maintenance of the principle that the person who has carried out the murder should not benefit from that murder, which might happen indirectly.

[Mr Djanogly]

I take my right hon. Friend’s point. As we have discussed, I agree that there is the technical possibility of the murderer taking advantage, but it is far fetched. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has mentioned that that assumes that the murderer had a solid knowledge of the laws of succession, which would include the certain knowledge that they would spend many years in prison. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire pointed out, the Bill does not affect the forfeiture rule. In the light of the responses to the consultations by the Law Commission and the Ministry of Justice and the pre-legislative scrutiny by the Justice Committee of all those proposals, we do not believe that allowing a killer’s children to inherit from the victim will encourage people to kill.

[Sir Alan Beith]

My hon. Friend has misunderstood my point, which does not concern the absurd issue of deterrence. Someone who has committed a murder—they may even be in prison—may be able to evade financial responsibilities as a result of the provisions. It is not far fetched that those who have committed murder would seek to gain some benefit from the money that would rightly pass to their children under such provisions.

[Mr Djanogly]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making that clear.

The Law Society also made an important point about the wording of the provisions in new section 33A(2) of the Wills Act 1837, which would be inserted by clause 2(1) of the Bill. Earlier draft Bills provided that where a person disclaims, or is disqualified by the operation of the forfeiture rule from inheriting under the deceased person’s will, the will is to be construed as if that person had died immediately before the deceased, save in so far as there is any provision in the will about how the devise or bequest is to take effect. The Law Society thought that this “any provision” test was more demanding than the “unless a contrary intention appears by the will” test in other related statutory provisions, and the Bill now follows those other provisions. We hope that will provide consistency and simplicity.

We welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire’s decision to make the Bill consistent with the Wills Act and I should add, for completeness, that the Law Commission is content with the Bill in its present form. We are very grateful to the Justice Committee and its witnesses, particularly the Bar and the Law Society, for drawing attention to these matters. The approach in the Bill is the right one. This is a small but worthwhile piece of technical law reform produced by the Law Commission. I applaud my right hon. Friend for taking up this serious topic and I wish the Bill a fair passage through this House and the other place.

Trusts (Capital and Income) Bill

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I am pleased to announce that having considered the response to the Ministry of Justice’s public consultation on the Trusts (Capital and Income) Bill, the Government have decided to take forward the proposed reforms, subject to minor modifications to meet concerns raised during the consultation, when parliamentary time permits.

These reforms are based on the three legislative recommendations made by the Law Commission in its 2009 report “Capital and Income in Trusts: Classification and Apportionment” (Law Com 315).

I have placed copies of the Ministry of Justice’s response document to the consultation, which is being published today, in the Libraries of both Houses.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

8. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the likely effect on the expenditure of other Departments of his proposed changes to expenditure on legal aid.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I have had discussions with a number of ministerial colleagues. Those discussions have covered a range of matters affecting our respective Departments, including the potential impact that our proposals to reform legal aid could have on those colleagues’ Departments.

[Heidi Alexander]

I thank the Minister for his reply, but may I push him a bit further on the longer-term costs to the public purse of withdrawing legal aid for all education matters? Obviously, that includes school exclusions. Given that the link between exclusions and offending is well documented, is it not a false economy to cut legal aid for that type of case?

[Mr Djanogly]

The way in which the impact will take shape in each Department—the hon. Lady mentioned education—is complicated because it involves determining whether our proposals will lead to behavioural change. We intend that that should be the case and that alternatives to court and taxpayer-funded remedies should be used to resolve disputes when at all possible.

[Nic Dakin]

The White Paper suggests retaining legal aid only for cases in which homes are at risk, but all housing cases carry the risk of homelessness if an early intervention is not made. A representative from a legal practice that currently gives advice to 350 people a year in the Scunthorpe area told me yesterday that most clients are referred to it by the citizens advice bureaux and the wider voluntary sector.

Right now, those agencies do not have the capacity to give appropriate support, and given that funding is being withdrawn by the state and local authorities, the system itself is in imminent threat of collapse. Does the Minister agree that if the proposals go ahead without significant additional money being invested in the voluntary sector, necessary early intervention will not take place, leading to higher levels of homelessness at a significantly higher cost—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think we got the gist of it.

[Mr Djanogly]

As the hon. Gentleman intimated, the housing budget for legal aid will have savings. However, he failed to mention that it will go down from some £50 million of spending to £38 million of spending; this area of spend is not going to disappear. If an individual or family are subjected to having their home repossessed or if there is any chance of their losing their homes, legal aid will remain available.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Are Ministers not going to have to take steps to convince people that they will not be put at a disadvantage by appearing before tribunals without legal representation? Is the Minister going to take steps to ensure that voluntary organisations can provide people with the support that they would need to appear in person at tribunals?

[Mr Djanogly]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. This issue is wider than purely legal aid; it is also about how we give what is often non-legal advice. To a great extent, that is provided by the not-for-profit sector. I have had some half a dozen meetings in recent weeks with the not-for-profit sector. We also accept that there is a co-ordinating role across Government to ensure that we minimise any gaps.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

May I urge my hon. Friend, in doing this review, to look at the spending of legal aid money on private investigators? There was a case in my constituency in which the Legal Aid Board funded a quite dangerous criminal, well known to the police, in the search for his badly battered wife and small children; it then went on to fund his case without making any effort at all to see whether his claim to be penniless was true. He went on to harass that low-income family; the woman had remarried. I urge the Minister to look into that kind of case.

[Mr Djanogly]

The question of expenses, which would be included in what my hon. Friend mentions, is mentioned in the consultation document. If he gets in touch with me, I will specifically make sure that it caters to the point that he has raised.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

In answer to a recent question, the Minister stated that appeals against decisions on incapacity benefit were 65% more likely to succeed if the appellant were represented. If we apply that to all areas of social welfare law where he is proposing to cut legal aid, that would mean at least 40,000 people each year losing appeals that they would win today solely because of the lack of representation. In the light of that and of the answer that he has just given to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), will he withdraw his earlier claim that individuals will be able to prepare their appeals without formal legal assistance, and reconsider these draconian cuts, which will hit the poorest hardest?

[Mr Djanogly]

In most cases, individuals will be able to appeal to the first-tier social security and child support tribunal without formal legal assistance. Legal aid is not currently available for legal representation as the appellant is required only to provide reasons for disagreeing with the decision in plain language. For those who need assistance on welfare benefits matters, which I think was the point the hon. Gentleman went on to make, advice and assistance is available from, for example, Jobcentre Plus, the benefits inquiry line and the tribunal itself.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

5. What his most recent estimate is of the incidence of repeat offending for shoplifting offences; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

9. What plans he has for the future funding of welfare advice services currently funded from legal aid.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

While cost considerations are at the forefront of our review of legal aid, we remain committed to ensuring that legal aid is available to those who need it most in cases where legal aid, legal advice or representation is justified. Accordingly, we propose that specialist legal aid be retained in the highest priority cases of welfare advice, such as those involving debt, housing—for example, where someone’s home is at immediate risk, or homelessness or serious disrepair is involved—and community care. The funding of welfare advice services is a cross-Government issue, and it is being considered as such.

[Stephen Timms]

The Government want voluntary sector welfare advice to replace legal aid, but much of the funding for voluntary sector local advice services comes from legal aid, which is about to be withdrawn. That includes a quarter of the funding for local citizens advice bureaux across the country. I was encouraged by what the Minister said about avoiding a gap. Does he accept that there will have to be new funding from somewhere to replace the funding for advice services that is being withdrawn? In looking, rightly, for cost-effective ways to deliver advice, does he recognise the evidence from the Legal Action Group that those most in need of help are the least likely to use telephone advice services?

[Mr Djanogly]

The right hon. Gentleman asks a pertinent question. Having spent a lot of time discussing this matter over recent weeks with the not-for-profit sector, I can tell him that very little is known about it in that sector. Even the head offices of voluntary organisations may not know what the funding is for their own local organisations. The core funding for legal help, for instance, typically comes not from the Ministry of Justice, but from the local authority. We have to make up for a decade of people overlooking the need to co-ordinate funding, by seeing what the funding streams are and ensuring that they work in the way that they should. That will involve ensuring that there is no duplication. There is currently a lot of duplication in the system.

[Mr Speaker]

I appreciate the comprehensiveness of the replies, but greater economy would facilitate progress.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Does the Minister appreciate that those who practise welfare law have traditionally not been highly paid, and does he realise that swathes of firms are likely to disappear? Who will stand in that breach, because those who are most in need are the least likely to be helped in those circumstances?

[Mr Djanogly]

We believe that a cultural change is needed. We need to move away from the immediate rush to lawyers and courts, whether through mediation or, if a court alternative is required, a conditional fee arrangement, rather than legal aid. Much more should be made of those alternatives.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

10. What plans he has to ensure adequate support for victims and their families during the criminal justice process.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with his usual charm. He raised this issue on a point of order yesterday and I was going to write to him today, so I am delighted to have this opportunity to address it on the Floor of the House. I am, of course, sorry for any misunderstanding or inaccuracy regarding county court services in Worksop. That no doubt stems from the fact that the announced closure of Worksop county court and the announced retention of Worksop magistrates court leads to a slightly more complex set of arrangements at the Worksop courthouse than is typical and I am pleased to be able to clarify the matter.

On the closure of Worksop county court, the counter services will cease to be available, but county court hearings will be retained at the Worksop courthouse. However, the administrative work for Worksop county court is already dealt with at Mansfield county court and, as now, court users will continue to be able to contact Mansfield county court by a variety of methods.

[Mr Speaker]

I gently remind Ministers on the Treasury Bench that answers to topical questions are supposed to be brief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Following the Minister’s decision to close Rochdale magistrates court, will he meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) to discuss the matter further?

[Mr Djanogly]

I will be happy to meet the hon. Gentlemen.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

T5. Will Ministers take the opportunity to look at the latest report by Citizens Advice on civil recovery and consider how we can stop the use and abuse of civil recovery against shoplifters by many retailers up and down the land?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

In December I discovered that constituents who were appealing against their benefit decisions at the tribunal service, for which the Ministry is responsible, were having to wait for appointments or tribunal dates for between six and nine months. Given that those individuals will suffer a financial penalty in that time and that a significant number will win their appeals, does the Minister think that that is acceptable? What will he do to remedy it?

[Mr Djanogly]

The timetable was worsening, but more resources have been put in and we hope that the situation will improve.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

T7. Can the Minister please tell me what steps his Department is taking to tackle the levels of drugs that are available in our prisons and the levels of drug addiction among prisoners?

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Tomorrow I will be meeting representatives from my local citizens advice bureaux, Merseyside Employment Law and Merseyside Welfare Rights, who are part of the Justice for All lobby of Parliament. They will be raising their deep concerns about the severe impact that the cuts to legal aid will have on people in my constituency who are disabled, have low incomes or are unemployed. Will any of the Ministers here today be meeting anyone from the Justice for All lobby tomorrow?

[Mr Djanogly]

I have not received a request for such a meeting, although I would be very happy to attend if a request came in. However, as I said before, the point is that we have to cut legal aid; indeed, the hon. Lady’s party has recognised that we need to cut the amount of legal aid paid. It is important that we redirect the scarce resources that remain to the most vulnerable, and that is what we will be doing.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Given his remarks about legal aid and citizens advice bureaux, does the Minister look to local authorities as core funders, or to other Departments to increase such funding?

[Mr Djanogly]

We need to distinguish between legal aid and general advice. A citizens advice bureau may provide legal aid services, but half do not do so. However, all will provide core advisory services, which are normally funded by local authorities.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I received a reply from the Ministry of Justice saying that the Data Protection Act 1998

“does not cover the…retention and storage”

of the records of deceased persons. That means that hospitals have incentives to lose, mislay or hide records in cases where there is some suspicion about what happened. Can the Minister read my early-day motion 1220 and have urgent discussions with the Department of Health to see whether we can review legislation in this area?

[Mr Djanogly]

That is a matter where co-ordination with the Department of Health will be required, and I should be very happy to do that work if the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me on the matter.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree, that, according to the “polluter pays” principle, the best punishment for the people who caused the fire at Ford open prison would be to require them to take part in repairing the damage?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Before any decision is made to withdraw legal aid for families dealing with special educational needs tribunals, will my right hon. and hon. Friends work with the Department for Education, particularly in the light of its proposed Green Paper on the reform of SEN procedure, to ensure that the families of children with SEN get all the help and support that they deserve?

[Mr Djanogly]

We have been co-ordinating with the Department for Education on this matter, and the joint views will be going into the Green Paper.

Civil Law Reform Bill

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Monday 10th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The Government have decided not to proceed with the proposed Civil Law Reform Bill, which was published for pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation in December 2009. The Government are grateful to the Justice Committee for its scrutiny of the draft Bill and to everyone who replied to the consultation for their comments, but in the present financial situation we need to focus our resources on delivering our key priorities.

Several of the provisions in the Civil Law Reform Bill were derived from Law Commission reports. The damages provisions were derived from the following reports published in the late 1990s: “Claims for Wrongful Death” (Law Com No 263); “Damages for Personal Injury: Medical, Nursing and Other Expenses; Collateral Benefits” (Law Com No 262); and “Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary Damages” (Law Com No 247). The provisions relating to interest derived in part from the Commission’s 2004 report “Pre-judgment Interest on Debts and Damages” (Law Com No 295). These reforms will not now be taken forward.

I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses copies of my letter to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), Chairman of the Justice Committee, informing him of the Government’s decision, and the response document to the consultation.

Courts Service Estate

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to announce the Government’s response to their consultation on Her Majesty’s Courts Service estate. Thank you for allowing me to release details of the courts covered in the statement to Members in advance.

This statement will be of interest to many hon. Members and to many hard-working members of HMCS staff. It will also be of interest to the judiciary, both to professional judges and the very many magistrates who give freely of their time to serve their communities. My announcements pave the way for a better, more efficient and more modern justice system that has more efficient courts, better facilities, and the faster conclusion of cases for the benefit of victims, witnesses, defendants, judges and the public at large.

The announcements complement the Department’s wider plans to help and encourage people to resolve their issues out of court, using simpler, more informal remedies such as mediation where appropriate; to overhaul case management procedures and get rid of wasteful layers of bureaucracy; to move forward with technological innovations such as video links, which have the potential to revolutionise the way in which justice is delivered in our country; and to involve communities much more closely in the justice system, particularly through problem solving and restorative justice approaches.

On 23 June, my right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, made a written statement announcing consultations on proposals to close 103 magistrates courts and 54 county courts in England and Wales, and to merge some local justice areas. The consultation was clear that failures in the last decade to manage the Courts Service estate properly have led to a service that would be unsustainable at any time, let alone in the current financial circumstances.

It is unsustainable that in 2009-10, our 330 magistrates courts sat for less than two thirds of their available time and that courtrooms in our 219 county courts sat on average for only 180 days a year. It is unacceptable that dozens of buildings never intended, and not fit, for the requirements of a modern court system are still being used. It is undesirable in the current financial position that the taxpayer continues to fund buildings that offer outdated and inadequate facilities to victims and witnesses.

I am grateful for the many contributions to the consultation. I understand the strength of feeling that is has generated, and I have listened to the many points made by respondents. Much has been said by Members about travel times to court. I can reassure the House that our plans will only very slightly reduce the percentage of the population able to access their nearest court by public transport in under an hour, from just under 90% to 85%. I also remind the House that very few of us actually attend court more than once or twice in our lives, and even fewer use public transport to get there. It is simply not good use of taxpayers’ money to operate courts simply to shave minutes off a journey that many will never need to make.

Arguments were also made during the consultation about the potential erosion of local justice. I take that accusation extremely seriously, but the closures will not mean people losing access to local justice. In fact, I would suggest that they will mean quite the opposite—better local justice. They will mean the provision of a better, more efficient and more modern justice system with good facilities, efficient courts and the faster conclusion of cases for the benefit of victims, witnesses, defendants, judges and the public.

Having taken all those points into consideration, the Government have decided to close 93 magistrates courts and 49 county courts. Of those county courts, however, 10 will remain open for hearings under the control of other local county courts. We will also retain 10 magistrates courts and five county courts on which we consulted, and I will list them. Magistrates courts will be retained at Abergavenny, Harlow, Kettering, Newbury, Newton Abbot, Skipton, Spalding, Stroud, Waltham Forest and Worksop. County courts will be retained at Barnsley, Bury, Llangefni, the Mayor’s and City of London, and Skipton.

It is estimated that those measures will save £41.5 million during the spending review period, excluding closure costs, and bring in £38.5 million in receipts from the sale of assets. In addition, I expect substantial cost avoidance through avoided maintenance costs for closed courts and better targeting of resources for the Courts Service, as well as savings for the National Offender Management Service and the Crown Prosecution Service. Copies of all the relevant documents, and of the decisions on local justice area mergers and counter services, have been placed in the House Library.

This is the start of an important programme of reform for the Courts Service. I am determined to develop a proper, modern Courts Service and estate that does our communities proud. We are taking the difficult action on court closures that the last Government failed to take, so that we can raise the quality of the courts estate significantly across the board.

With that in mind, I can announce today that £22 million of capital will be reinvested to improve and modernise the courts to which work will be transferred. Within that are three particularly large projects: in London at Camberwell Green magistrates court, in Staffordshire at Newcastle-under-Lyme magistrates court and in Wales at Prestatyn magistrates court. There are also smaller schemes to make some receiving courts better. They include additional interview rooms and a secure dock at Huddersfield magistrates court and the conversion of rooms at Watford magistrates court to provide additional staff accommodation and security. In the next spending period, new courts will open in Chelmsford, Colchester and Westminster, and Woolwich Crown court will be extended. We will make further announcements on new court building schemes early in the new year.

We have, however, cancelled existing plans for a new magistrates court in Liverpool, because the scheme that was proposed is unaffordable, but I will investigate more affordable options to provide suitable accommodation for magistrates court work in Liverpool.

Our courts are failing fully to embrace technological advances that have the potential to revolutionise the way in which justice is delivered in our country. There is much that can be done. Court-to-prison video links provide a much more efficient way of doing things, but they are used in too few cases. In future, we want victims and witnesses, when appropriate, to be able to give evidence in trials by live video link from a more convenient location.

We will begin by testing the principle of police officers giving evidence in summary trials by live video link from the police station. We expect that that will save the police time and money and enable more officers to spend more time out on patrol. We intend to test the idea in London in January, and in at least one other area soon afterwards, with the first cases likely to be heard in that way before the end of March. If successful, that could pave the way for civilian and expert witnesses to give evidence from a police station or other, more convenient locations, rather than having to travel to court.

We also want to give communities a greater say in how justice is administered in their areas. Proposals for problem solving and restorative justice were included in my Department’s sentencing and rehabilitation Green Paper, published last week. We will consult on the use of neighbourhood justice panels to deal with low-level cases, empowering people to develop their own solutions to local problems and increasing community confidence.

In summary, this announcement forms an important part of my Department’s clear vision for a step change in our justice system—one that protects communities from crime and works for, rather than against, the most important people in the system: the victims and witnesses. I commend the statement to the House.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am pleased to see the Minister at the Dispatch Box for this important statement on the delivery of justice in local communities. I thank him for a copy of his statement in advance.

We missed the Minister in the debate on legal aid in Westminster Hall this morning. Members from all parties spoke passionately in defence of their law centres and citizens advice bureaux, which, like local courts, are facing wholesale closure. He will be pleased to hear that his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General did as well as the Minister would have done in carefully avoiding responding to the many points that were raised.

Launching the consultation on court closures in June this year, the Minister said:

“The Government is committed to supporting local justice, enabling justice to be done and seen to be done in our communities.”

I agree with that statement, but his statement today does not achieve that ambition. Perhaps a clue as to where the Government started to go wrong can be found in the next paragraph of the statement launching the consultation, which said that

“we increasingly use the internet and email to communicate…and we travel further…to do our weekly shop.”

Perhaps we do, but that misses two points. First, courts are not like Facebook or Tesco. They are an important part of many communities in the same way as people regard police stations and town halls.

Claimants and defendants, witnesses and victims will all be inconvenienced and, in many cases, disconcerted by the loss of the local criminal or civil court, or both, only to find them replaced with anonymous court centres many miles away. Secondly, not everyone has the mobility or resources to travel long distances to find justice, especially in rural or remote areas. My first question to the Minister is to ask him to produce the calculations that have been done to determine the time it will take and the distance that will be covered in travelling to the replacement courts. He says that only a minority of court users will be disadvantaged, but that is not the view of the Lord Chief Justice or of his own colleagues. Responding on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Goldring noted that poor public transport meant it would be difficult for many people to

“arrive at court before 10am or return home after 4pm”.

Will the Minister look again at travel arrangements and the times of journeys to the remaining courts after the Department for Transport and council cuts have taken effect?

The Minister consulted on closing 103 magistrates courts and 54 county courts, 30% of the total in England and Wales. He said today that 90% of that number will close—some 142. That would give an annual saving, based on his previous figures, of about £13 million, which is not significant in the context of the wholesale cuts going on in other parts of his Department but is a sizeable proportion of the running costs of lower courts. Will all this simply be handed to the Chancellor in the compliant if not willing way the Lord Chancellor has taken to adopting in asset stripping his Department? Or will some be reinvested in the remaining courts estate to improve the service to the public that the Minister says he wishes to see and to cope with the increased traffic from the closed courts?

The Minister said that some capital will be reinvested in specific projects, but there is no allowance for the extra pressures on remaining courts. Is that not proof that this is no more than a crude cost-cutting exercise with none of the benefits that he half-heartedly claims? He also said in July that

“Providing access to justice does not necessarily mean providing a courthouse in every town or city.”

We would not disagree with that. Needs change and buildings wear out or prove unsuitable. It is right to seek economies while maintaining access and making the administration of justice more efficient. Although every closure decision is difficult, and many older courts have a historic and nostalgic importance, in government we were prepared to close less well-used or poorly functioning courts. We were endlessly criticised by the Minister for doing so, but the difference between our programme of review and his wholesale massacre of the local justice system is clear both from the quantity of closures proposed and the haste with which they will now proceed.

What is the Minister’s timetable for shutting the doors of those historic courts? Why has he not published the results of the consultation before today? What impact assessments have been done? Is he prepared to defend the debilitating effect that longer journey times and unfamiliar surroundings will have on the frailest in our society, who often attend courts as victims and witnesses? Many domestic violence courts and family courts will have to move or close. What arrangements has he made to ensure that they go to suitable locations?

Under the previous Tory Government between 1979 and 1997, courts closed at the rate of 25 a year and, under the previous Labour Government, that fell to 13 a year, but now the Minister is proposing to close almost 150 in this Government’s first year. To be fair, his colleagues have been as critical of the closure programme as Opposition Members, none more so than the Solicitor-General, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr Garnier), who told his local paper:

“I urge residents of Harborough and the surrounding locality to respond to the consultation…we need to organise and get the campaign rolling.”

The International Development Secretary was even more incensed about the proposed closure of Sutton Coldfield court. He told his local paper that the

“very strong arguments which successfully defeated the attempt to close Sutton Magistrates’ Court eight years ago will be just as strong, if not stronger”.

The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), criticised the Treasury. He said:

“The Ministry of Justice seem to have made serious errors with their figures…it’s not just us they’re after, but 102 other courts across the country. Yet I believe the fight is worth having—and that we can win.”

No critic was stronger than the former shadow Justice Minister, who is now Attorney-General. He said:

“It makes a mockery of British justice that this government is considering closing 21 magistrates courts, despite the serious problems of violent crime and anti-social behaviour we face.”

Conservative and Lib Dem Members have all sounded off in their local press and in the House, but as reported in the Evening Standard, this is an

“I back cuts - but Not In My Backyard”

policy. Opposition to the Minister’s policy is growing all over the Government Benches, including from those on the Front Bench. Opening the gates of the prisons and handing ballot papers to the few left inside looks positively—

[Mr Slaughter]

I am most grateful, Mr Speaker—you predicted absolutely correctly that I am coming immediately to the end of my response to the Minister’s statement.

This wholesale closure sums up the Government’s approach to cutting local services in this and every other area—“Let’s get on with the cuts and worry about the effects later.” This programme of closures amounts to a wholesale destruction of this foundation stone of much of British justice, and the Minister should be ashamed to bring it before the House.

[Mr Djanogly]

In his rather concise statement—or perhaps it was not—the shadow Minister said that the savings are not particularly significant, and then immediately went on to accuse the Government of asset stripping. I do not see the consistency in that. However, the economic circumstances that Britain faces and the imperative of reducing the national debt pile amassed by the previous Government’s bout of carefree spending impacts on our proposals, which form part of the commitment of the Ministry of Justice to reducing spending by £2 billion.

Savings apart, I am convinced that the current court system is not efficient enough, that it should provide better value for money, that it should make better use of technology, and that it should provide a better service for court users. The hon. Gentleman accuses me of the wholesale closure of legal aid and CABs, and of the wholesale massacre of the Courts Service, but he must tell us where he would rationalise and save.

The Labour party manifesto said:

“To help protect frontline services, we will find greater savings in legal aid and the courts system”.

If the hon. Gentleman is to be credible, therefore, he must give us his view of how justice is to be delivered. If he would put more money into legal aid, would he take even more money out of the courts, or vice versa? Until he tells us how he would be prepared to spend the money, I am afraid that he will not get people’s trust on this matter. He seems to suggest that closing courts is bad in every case.

The hon. Gentleman asked for the financial workings, and I am pleased to say that the impact assessments have been published and are there for him to look at. The utilisation figures take into account the additional work and remaining courts that will come into existence. The timetable is that the first courts will start to close on 1 April next year, and I can confirm that travel arrangements will be organised on a local basis. It is important to make the point that during these reorganisation proposals, we have been considering not just closures but how we can best reorganise the remaining Courts Service. That includes looking at how people can best get to their local courts.

Delivering justice is about more than protecting bricks and mortar. The hon. Gentleman talks about it being like Facebook. In reality, courts are not like post offices either—they are not places that people go to every day of the week. Of equal importance is the quality of justice. It is important that people have use of a fit-for-purpose building that has good listing facilities and gets cases heard promptly. Proximity is important, but it is only one of a number of issues to be considered, and we have considered those issues carefully.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

There is clearly a case for making savings where courts are close together or little used. However, why have Ministers taken relatively little account of the representations of the Lord Chief Justice, particularly on the Courts Service in what he described as vast rural areas, such as Alnwick and Tynedale in Northumberland and places elsewhere in the country? Will benches not find it necessary—at least sometimes—to go out to parts of their areas, possibly even to hear cases in places where they are still courthouses, given that they cannot be sold and are still public property?

[Mr Djanogly]

My right hon. Friend is passionate about the Courts Service, as I know not least from my appearance before him and the Justice Committee. However, it is important to point out that the Lord Chief Justice’s response came from the foreword to a report of the senior presiding judge, and that the report did not represent a response on behalf of the entire judiciary. The senior presiding judge was collecting the remarks by various judges around the country. It needs to be seen in that context. Indeed, the report was given careful consideration, as were all the responses.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

The Minister is well aware, not least from correspondence from me, that the data on which he based the Knowsley magistrates court decision were deeply flawed. He has not yet addressed that deeply flawed data. Why has he gone ahead with a proposal that he knows will not work? To make matters worse, why has he also decided that there will be no additional capacity in Liverpool by scrapping the capital investment programme? The Deputy Prime Minister refers to this as a progressive Government, but the past two days have proven that it is a wrecking-ball Government.

[Mr Djanogly]

It is not the case that we have not reinvested. As I said in the statement, we are reinvesting in the remaining courts. The right hon. Gentleman asked about errors in the consultation data. There were 16 area consultation documents. A small number of errors were found, but none was considered to be material to the consultation. In one area—north Wales—even though we were advised that the errors did not affect the consultation, I personally decided that the consultation documents should be sent out again, and that was done. However, we do not maintain that the figures were put out in error—quite the opposite. On the whole, they were accurate.

[Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

On 16 November, one Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Justice told me in a parliamentary answer that it would be highly desirable if more work that was currently done by Crown courts were carried out by magistrates courts. He agreed that there was waste in the Crown courts. On the same day, the other Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Justice told me that following the closure of magistrates courts the same amount and the same type of work would be done by the other magistrates courts. Which is right?

[Mr Djanogly]

It is true that in terms of capacity, Crown courts are almost bursting at the seams, which is why my hon. Friend will see that not a single Crown court is proposed for closure in the list. One of the great challenges that we face is to ensure that work that should more appropriately be carried out in magistrates courts does not go to the Crown court. Both the legal aid Green Paper and the sentencing and restorative justice Green Paper have provisions to encourage that.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

I frankly do not understand the Minister’s decision on Salford magistrates court. Not only do we have the support of the Lord Chief Justice—who said that Salford city council’s alternative proposal should be supported and the court should remain open—but the city council would have met the maintenance backlog and the ongoing revenue costs for the court. There would have been no cost to the Department. I believe that this decision flies in the face of all logic. We have had a court in our city for 1,000 years, doing fantastic community justice work of the kind that the Minister has talked about. We have had a court for 1,000 years: it has taken this Government just six months to put an end to that.

[Mr Djanogly]

The right hon. Lady came to see me with members of her local authorities, and she spoke strongly in support of her court—I recognise that—as did members of her visiting delegation. However, that court has a low utilisation rate, and a building and facilities that are not adequate. The court is going to be closed because of those factors, as well as its close proximity—about half a mile—to Manchester City magistrates court, which can import the work. I am afraid that it is that close—1,000 paces to one of the finest magistrates courts in England and Wales.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I wrote to the Minister at the time regarding the potential closure in Burton. People in South Derbyshire go there, and it takes much more than an hour to get to Derby. There is no way on God’s earth that we can get to Newcastle-under-Lyme, so would he be kind enough to arrange a meeting to look at our plan B in South Derbyshire, for a new civic centre that can take over such work?

[Mr Djanogly]

My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) secured an Adjournment debate in July, and I think he accepted the need to make savings, but urged Ministers to consider the wider impacts. There is a high density of county courts in Staffordshire and west Mercia. Burton sat for 199 days in 2009-10, and there are no members of the judiciary based permanently at the court. Although facilities are adequate, closure would mean that Her Majesty’s Courts Service would not be liable for an additional investment of around £450,000. None the less, I would of course be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter further.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The maintenance figures used by the Minister to justify closures in Wales were wildly inaccurate. On the second attempt he got them wrong again, and on the third attempt they were wrong yet again. He is using fairytale figures to support his arguments. The closure of Pwllheli magistrates court—which was vehemently opposed by the Lord Chief Justice, the presiding judge and everybody who knows anything about that area of Wales—leaves my constituency with one court to serve a patch that measures 100 miles north-to-south and 100 miles across. Is that local justice?

[Mr Djanogly]

Having considered the matter, we believe that local justice will be maintained in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. The fact of the matter is that Pwllheli magistrates court has a very low utilisation rate—29% in 2009-100—offers limited facilities for victims and witnesses, and is only partially disability-compliant. The work undertaken at that court can be easily accommodated in the recently purpose-built Caernarfon criminal justice centre, which offers far superior facilities for all court users.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

There will be great dismay at the closure of Ely and Wisbech magistrates courts in North East Cambridgeshire, particularly as the magistrates court in the constituency next door—the Minister’s own—is to be retained, as are county court hearings. There were factual errors in the consultation on Wisbech court, such as taking one-off costs as running costs. There were also omissions, such as ignoring the potential of transferring work from Ely to Wisbech to increase its utilisation rate, and underestimates of revenue, involving such elements as charging the police nothing for the use of the court building. In the light of that, will the Minister place in the Library the figures that were used after those errors were pointed out, so that we can see exactly what this decision was based on?

[Mr Djanogly]

Yes, I am pleased to say that the impact assessments have been published today, and my hon. Friend will be able to have full sight of those figures.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

To say that this announcement is disappointing is an understatement. Justice will no longer be done in Rochdale, nor will it be seen to be done. If the Minister believes that victims, witnesses and the accused will travel mile upon mile for justice, he is sadly mistaken. Rochdale court has one of the highest utilisation rates in Greater Manchester, and some of the best possible facilities, including video links and secure rooms for witnesses. It has a fantastic bench and great staff, and it is completely fit for purpose. This decision will not affect people like the Minister, but it will affect people who live in Rochdale. Will he reconsider his decision?

[Mr Djanogly]

No, I am afraid to say to the hon. Gentleman that the decision has been taken. Rochdale magistrates court is a busy court with a good utilisation rate, but it will close because of low utilisation across the Greater Manchester area. It is important to point out to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who are making related points that during the consultation we did not look at the individual courts in isolation. Yes, we looked at each court on its own, but we also looked at them in the context of other courts in that local justice area. That has sometimes meant that courts with high utilisation figures have still had to close because, in an area context, they are not efficient.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I would like to tell the Minister about my concerns for the people who live in rural Somerset. That includes my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). The Government intend to close Bridgwater court and Frome court, which, as the Lord Chief Justice has recognised, will leave any number of people unable to reach a court inside one day’s travel by public transport. Will the Minister consider introducing a proper system for booking appointments, so that people can attend court at 3 or 4 o’clock in the afternoon? In that way, there might be some hope of their reaching the court in which they are intended to appear. Secondly, can he make certain—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think we will make do with one question. Just before the Minister replies, may I remind the House that I am trying to help Members, but that Members must be prepared to help each other? That means short questions and short answers.

[Mr Djanogly]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The court was used for only 23% of the available time in 2009-10, and the standard of accommodation falls far short of what is now expected by court users. However, consideration is to be given to those living in the north of the area having their cases heard at a more convenient court in the Avon and Somerset area.

[Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

The Minister has already announced that Barnsley county court will be retained, but can he confirm that he has accepted the view of most of the statutory agencies that the county court should be joined with the magistrates court? Is that merger going to take place?

[Mr Djanogly]

I do not have an answer to that question. I will look into the matter and come back to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

The Minister is to be commended for coming to the House to make an oral statement on what was inevitably going to be a difficult announcement. Will he confirm that Harwich magistrates court was already earmarked for closure by the Labour Government? Can he also give me an assurance that Harwich will stay open until the new court facilities in Colchester have been constructed and are up and running?

[Mr Djanogly]

The answer is yes, in both cases.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), asked whether the Minister would share with the rest of us his calculations on travel times. I assume that he will also put his answer in the Library, and I would like him to confirm that. There will be considerable anger in the Cynon Valley about the decision to close the Aberdare courthouse, and I do not know where the Minister’s calculations on travel times have come from. I invite him to join me on a bus through the Cynon valley, to find out that from many of those areas it is impossible to reach Merthyr Tydfil within an hour.

[Mr Djanogly]

Travel times were worked out by the Courts Service. The difficulty is that times will vary from one part of an hon. Member’s constituency to another, so it is the average times that have to be taken into account.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for listening to my constituents in Skipton and the Yorkshire dales. Will he pay tribute to the campaign run by the local newspaper, the Craven Herald, which explained the devastating impact that the closure of the court in Skipton would have had in this most rural part of England?

[Mr Djanogly]

My hon. Friend spoke forcefully in an Adjournment debate and then met my officials and me. He made a persuasive case, and his local area made a persuasive case, and when we thought it about carefully we decided he was right that the court should stay open.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I am relieved that the robust campaign for Worksop magistrates court has eventually been listened to. To avoid ambiguity in the future, will the Minister confirm that the previous functions of Worksop county court will be run from Worksop magistrates court in the future?

[Mr Djanogly]

That is my understanding, yes.

[Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

Why is the Minister still looking for magistrates court space in Liverpool while closing down the purpose-built Southport magistrates court? Where is the sense or the saving in that?

[Mr Djanogly]

Replacement of the inadequate facilities at the Liverpool magistrates courts at Dale street and Victoria street is, and remains, a top-priority scheme for Her Majesty’s Courts Service.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement. Will he confirm that millions of pounds are wasted each year by commuting prisoners to and from court, and that better use of technology could deal with PCMHs—plea and case management hearings—first appearances and mentions at the Crown court and the magistrates court?

[Mr Djanogly]

I am absolutely convinced by what my hon. Friend has to say. Millions of pounds are currently wasted by witnesses, lawyers and defendants all moving around the country. Many problems could be solved through the use of technology.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I acknowledge and welcome the retention of the county court at Llangefni—and I congratulate the Minister on pronouncing it correctly. The Minister said that part of the exercise was to save money. Will he acknowledge the important economic impact of courts and legal services on towns across the United Kingdom, and was that taken into account during the review?

[Mr Djanogly]

The purpose of the review was not to look at the impact of the closure of courts on the wider economies within towns, but the work will go to the remaining courts, which will have implications for putting money back into the system in those other courts.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a court duty solicitor. I welcome the reprieve of Waltham Forest magistrates court, which has particularly effective family and youth court provision. I urge my hon. Friend to develop opportunities with local authorities to accommodate appropriate youth court hearings, so that we can deliver effective localised justice.

[Mr Djanogly]

Effective localised justice is an important part of the Green Paper that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State published last week, so I can say yes to that. As regards Waltham Forest, again, a delegation of Conservative and Labour Members came to see me and made a very persuasive case for that court.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Ammanford court in my constituency was recently refurbished at a cost of £59,000 to make it one of the most modern courts in west Wales. Is it not a colossal waste of public money to close that court now?

[Mr Djanogly]

We have had to take some tough decisions; of that there is no doubt. As I said before, we are dealing with this on an area basis as much as on a court-by-court basis. That is an important point, because people have been able not only to assess how courts impact on an area overall, but to see how their own areas have been treated in comparison with other parts of the country. That, to me, has made this a very fair consultation.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

My constituents will strongly welcome the decision to keep Harlow magistrates court. Ours is a growth town that provides value for money. Will the county court’s functions be transferred to the magistrates court or to Chelmsford? If they are transferred to Chelmsford, will consideration be given to people who have difficulty in travelling? Will a satellite county court be provided?

[Mr Djanogly]

Yes, and it is hoped that the retention of the magistrates court will enable business to be conducted across both.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Goole magistrates court is provided by the local police authority at a peppercorn rent, and is connected with recently refurbished cells at the police station. Its closure will leave residents in the western part of the East Riding a considerable distance from local justice. Will the work at Goole be transferred to Hull, or will my constituents be expected to get on a bus, travel past the magistrates court in Hull, change buses and continue on a different bus to Beverley, as was suggested in the consultation?

[Mr Djanogly]

The court at Goole is closing not least because of low utilisation, but when we looked at the responses to the consultation, we realised that the travel arrangements of people using public transport were different from those of people using private transport, and we think that it will be possible to use not only Beverley but Hull. That was one good outcome of the consultation.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has confirmed that the work of Totnes magistrates court is to be relocated. I know he is aware that the building provides an useful facility for the coroner and those who assist him in his work, such as Victim Support, and also that the citizens advice bureau has worked extensively on a plan to share the court building. Can he assure us that this important local asset will be put to its best local use by those valuable organisations?

[Mr Djanogly]

My hon. Friend has raised an important point. I hope that the answer is yes, and if I can be of assistance she should get in touch with me to that end. Courts will be empty, and there may be local authorities or other local agencies that could make use of them. Now that we have a final list of the courts that will close, that process can begin.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

The Minister has announced the closure of Barry magistrates court. I believe that that decision was simply wrong. More than £1 million was spent on the court last year, it has extremely high utilisation rates and it is the only court in the county of Vale of Glamorgan. Will the Minister share with me the data on which he based the decision, and will he confirm his agreement to meet the chairman of the bench and me to discuss the matter?

[Mr Djanogly]

I certainly will, but, again, the court has low utilisation, and Cardiff is just 9 miles away, with a good public transport infrastructure.

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

The Minister says that his proposals will provide a better and more efficient justice system. Will he accompany me to the east end of Sheppey, and explain to residents there how justice will be improved now that they will be forced to travel to Canterbury or Medway—a journey that can take up to three hours on public transport, if public transport is available, which it is not after 6 pm?

[Mr Djanogly]

Of course I will meet my hon. Friend if that is what he wants, but I have already met him and we have discussed the issues. Again, the court was considered in the context of the area, and we believe that we made the right decision.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

May I ask the Minister to reflect not just on north Wales, as he has been asked to do, but on the huge tract of west Wales which will now be left without convenient access to a magistrates court, and, critically, without the public transport that would allow him to realise his dreams? There simply is not adequate public transport to take people from Ceredigion up to Aberystwyth. Will the Minister think again about the transport issues on which he and his officials have reflected?

[Mr Djanogly]

We have considered transport very carefully, and we concluded that one hour on public transport was the right amount of time. Originally, a lot of those courts were instigated on the basis of half a day’s horse ride, but we thought one hour on public transport should be adequate.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

There will be widespread concern about the closure of Harrow magistrates court, not least because it is fully utilised and we demonstrated in the consultation that it will cost money to close it rather than keeping it open. The alternative means transferring the work to areas that are impossible to reach by public transport, even in London. There will also be concern that the Minister refused to receive an all-party delegation from Harrow council and the bench, and I ask him to hear those people so they can put their arguments in person.

[Mr Djanogly]

I am afraid that the time for consultation has now passed and the decision has been taken. The problem with Harrow is that there is considerable capacity at neighbouring courts, and they offer much more modern facilities.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

The Minister will be aware that documents on his website cite the travel time from Liskeard to Bodmin because it is proposed to close Liskeard magistrates court, but he does not seem to have taken into account the travel time from the rural parts of my constituency such as St Cleer and Kelly Bray. Can he confirm that he has taken into account that travelling time, and the availability of public transport?

[Mr Djanogly]

Yes, we did take those into account.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

What consideration was given to the fact that just two years ago the thick end of £1 million was spent on making Selby magistrates court Disability Discrimination Act-compliant? I fully understand that the Government inherited a financial mess, but if Selby magistrates court is now to be closed and sold off, the taxpayer will be facing a huge loss. My constituents will be keen to see the impact assessment on which that decision was based.

[Mr Djanogly]

Investment has been made in various parts of the estate at various times, but the courtroom capacity at York magistrates court, coupled with the flexible listing practices, will enable Selby’s work to be absorbed effectively into York.

[Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)]

I am doubly disappointed, because the Minister did not give me prior notification of a court closure in my constituency. The closure of the court at Blandford means that residents of Dorset will have access to justice only on the coast. Residents in the expanding towns of Shaftesbury and Gillingham will not be able to get to Weymouth before 12 noon, and will have to leave by 2 o’clock in order to get back the same day. Will the Minister meet me and the lay magistracy to talk about this matter?

[Mr Djanogly]

As I have said to other hon. Members, the consultation period has now finished, but I must point out that my hon. Friend’s local court was used for only 29% of the available time. I am sorry to hear that he had not received notice, and I will look into why that was the case.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

The Minister will appreciate that I am extremely disappointed by the decision to close Woking magistrates court. As he saw in my submission and that of the bench, it has very high utilisation rates, a purpose-built court, fantastic disabled access and excellent youth witness provision. How does this decision fit with the criteria for the consultation, because many outside independent people, including judges, looked at it and did not think that Woking fitted those criteria?

[Mr Djanogly]

My hon. Friend made a very cogent case for the retention of his court, and put the local case very strongly. I have to say that the judgment was finely balanced, but ultimately this decision was taken because the utilisation rate in the Surrey courts has been below 80%, and transferring work to Staines and Guildford magistrates courts will result in the rate increasing to 89%.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I disclose my former profession as a barrister. Tynedale in Northumberland has almost 1,000 square miles without a court. The consultation used poor-quality figures and they were badly applied. If they are wrong, does the Minister accept that the claim is capable of judicial review?

[Mr Djanogly]

We do not believe that the figures we consulted on were wrong.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I am delighted that Stroud magistrates court will remain open. I regard it as an example of an efficient modern court, and I think it is consistent with the whole approach of the Ministry of Justice. Does the Minister agree?

[Mr Djanogly]

On review, yes.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

I, too, am deliriously happy today, and I thank the Minister for listening to the arguments that I and the people of Monmouthshire put forward to save Abergavenny court from closure. Will he assure us that consultations by this Government will continue to be proper exercises, and not just the shams that we have seen in the past 13 years?

[Mr Djanogly]

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. Clearly, things were not all bad in Wales. We wanted to do a full consultation, as the previous Government had been closing courts in dribs and drabs—a court here and a court there. One of them was operating as a pizza shop, and another had had the roof burned off for three years before we came in and closed it. This Government are consulting fully and putting forward a strategic plan across local areas where people can take a strategic view on a national basis.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Residents in the borough of Kettering will be pleased that the Minister has listened to the vigorous local campaign and decided to save Kettering magistrates court. What were the main factors behind his very welcome decision?

[Mr Djanogly]

The court will remain open because of concerns raised about the capacity of the receiving court at Northampton in light of the decision to close Daventry and Towcester magistrates courts.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I, too, remind the House of my former profession as a solicitor. I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly the welcome news that Bury county court will remain open. Will he confirm that that is not a temporary reprieve but a permanent decision? Also, I am slightly concerned that the decision to close Rochdale magistrates court will require a great deal of extra capacity at Bury magistrates court, especially as Rochdale already takes in the Heywood and Middleton benches. Has he taken that into account?

[Mr Djanogly]

Yes, we have: we will be doing about £170,000-worth of work to accommodate the work from Rochdale magistrates court.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

The state of the public finances notwithstanding, many people in Tamworth will be bitterly disappointed by the loss of both our county court and our magistrates court, which is the most utilised court in Staffordshire. What assurances can my hon. Friend give my constituents that the video-link technology between courts and police stations will be rolled out quickly so that our police will not spend all their time on the A38 to Burton, and that vulnerable people who will have to spend a day-long round trip going to Stafford county court will not have justice put beyond their means?

[Mr Djanogly]

The court is closing because it has a sitting day allocation of only 76 days, and the work will transfer to Burton magistrates court. I can tell my hon. Friend that we will be pushing ahead with the additional use of technology, which we see as the future. As things stand, the Courts Service does not make adequate use of modern technology.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

The Minister has already heard the genuine concerns about the closure of Burton county court. He said today that nobody should have to travel for more than an hour to get justice, but under these proposals my constituents will have to go to either Derby or Stafford. On public transport, that takes two hours and 23 minutes; on the train it takes an hour and 40 minutes. Will he meet me to ensure that my constituents will get access to the court in Derby rather than the one in Stafford?

[Mr Djanogly]

We would be happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend. We propose that work will transfer to either Derby or Stafford depending on which is closer for the parties involved, so I think we are heading in the right direction.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

I declare my interest as a barrister—in fact, I have appeared in a couple of these courts. The Minister mentioned how busy Northampton magistrates court is, and said that that had been factored into some of his decisions. Some of the hearings in magistrates courts are very short, and some magistrates courts are under-utilised, so can my hon. Friend confirm that because of the shortness and frequency of such hearings, they are particularly susceptible to the use of video link and other modern technology, and that savings could thus be made across the board?

[Mr Djanogly]

They are indeed. I have visited the pilot projects in south London, which work extremely well. We have to review their cost implications and we want to extend the pilots to help witnesses.

Sentencing (Green Paper)

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing this debate on the Government’s Green Paper “Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders”, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice laid before Parliament last week.

Given the brevity of this debate, the many and varied contributions that we have had from hon. Members have all been very helpful and show the complexity of some of the issues that we are dealing with. The Green Paper’s proposals are the initial conclusions of the wide-ranging assessment of rehabilitation and sentencing that we announced in our programme for government back in May. We are now consulting widely on the proposals set out in the Green Paper and this debate is a welcome opportunity to discuss some of those proposals.

I shall start with the point about foreign nationals that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, and about which he has long been concerned. I can confirm that as we take forward the Green Paper proposals, we will consider what more we can do to reduce the number of foreign national offenders.

Foreign national prisoners make up 13% of the prison population, and the figure has doubled over the past 10 years. That is not an effective use of expensive prison places if foreign nationals could be removed from the country. There is, however, a balance to be struck. Foreign nationals who commit serious offences should be punished by prison sentences; victims of crime would expect nothing less. But when foreign national offenders do not need to be in prison, or when they could spend some of their prison terms in prisons in their own countries, we should do everything we can to ensure that they are not a burden on our prisons.

With that objective in mind, we are looking to expand prisoner transfer agreements with other countries, so that a prisoner can serve some of their sentence in their home country whenever possible. We are also looking to divert some foreign nationals—for example, those who commit immigration document offences—away from the criminal justice system altogether, if they agree to be removed from the United Kingdom. We are considering other options, and would very much welcome further ideas in response to the Green Paper.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor made it clear last week that the current criminal justice system does not deliver what really matters. Society has a right to expect the system to protect it. We all expect offenders to be punished effectively, but we should also expect criminals to be reformed, so that when they finish their sentences they do not simply return to their life of crime and create more misery for victims.

Despite record spending, the criminal justice system falls short, in that about half of released offenders go on to reoffend within a year—and the reoffending rates for young people are even worse, with three quarters of offenders sentenced to youth custody reoffending within a year. Those high rates are unacceptable to this Government. If we do not prevent people, especially young people, from offending, they will become the prolific offenders of the next decade.

The Green Paper sets out how we propose to break that destructive cycle of crime and to ensure that offenders make amends to victims and communities for the harm that they have caused. That requires a radically different approach—a system that protects the public by punishing the guilty and reducing reoffending, makes offenders face up to their responsibilities and pay back to victims and society, and makes punishment hard work, both in prison and in the community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering referred to the mood music of the Green Paper, so let me make it clear that prison is the right place for serious and dangerous offenders, and that we will ensure that sufficient prison places are always available. I shall come to the detail in due course, but we do not propose in the Green Paper to reduce the ability of any sentencer to send a serious offender to prison, nor do we propose to introduce, as the previous Government did, any new early-release schemes.

We want offenders to be suitably punished for their crimes. Through both the tough discipline of regular working hours in prison, and more strenuous and demanding work in the community, we aim to ensure that offenders work hard and that there is greater use of tough curfew requirements.

We want prisons to be places where offenders learn about the life of work and about the routine of getting up in the morning and doing a full day’s meaningful work. Too many offenders lead chaotic lives, and too many of them have never done a day’s work. By giving offenders the experience of work, we can put order into their lives, better prepare them for life outside prison, increase their job prospects and reduce the likelihood of their reoffending.

We also want offenders to pay back to their victims. The Green Paper includes proposals for increased reparation to victims through a greater use of restorative justice, under which an offender can make good the wrong he has imposed on others. We want restorative justice to be victim-led and not offender-led. Restorative justice can benefit both parties. It can provide reparation to victims and help offenders face up to the realities of their crime and its impact on victims—and, as a result, prevent them from offending in future.

We also want to implement the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996 to ensure that more offenders directly compensate the victims of crime through deductions in prisoners’ wages. For lower-level offences, we want to increase the use of fines and compensation orders, so that offenders make greater financial reparation to both victims and the taxpayer. An increased use of compensation orders would mean that more victims would receive financial compensation directly from the offender.

We also want to take a new approach to offender rehabilitation, getting more offenders off benefits and into honest work. That is partly about the routine of work, but crucially it is about taking action to get offenders off drugs so as to break the cycle of offending to feed a drug habit. The Government are committed to rehabilitating offenders from drug dependency to drug-free lives. We want prisons to be places where offenders tackle their drug misuse, not places where their problems get worse, and we are therefore working on preventing drugs from getting into prisons. We are also working with the Department of Health to reshape drug treatment. Within prisons, we will pilot recovery wings, which will link more effectively with community services, and we will focus more on supporting offenders to be drug free.

We also want to look at the number of offenders in prison who suffer from a mental illness. For some people with mental health issues, prison is simply not an appropriate place. In some cases, better outcomes can be achieved by diverting low-level offenders into intensive treatment for mental health problems in the community. We are working with both the Department of Health and the Home Office to ensure that front-line services identify such people. We have proposals to create a more effective and robust community sentence, with greater flexibility for the provisions of mental health requirements. If we can get treatment right, we can help to reduce offending.

The Green Paper signals a transformation in rehabilitation financing and delivery. Significant amounts of public money have been spent on trying to rehabilitate offenders, without properly holding services to account for their results. We will reward independent providers for achieving a reduction in reoffending, and will pay for that with the savings that they generate within the criminal justice system. We will introduce more competition across offender management services, to drive up standards and deliver value for money for the taxpayer. We will increase the freedom for public service providers and front-line professionals to innovate in their work with offenders. The payment-by-results system will be trialled in at least six new projects over the next two years, and the principles will be fully rolled out by 2015.

I turn now to sentencing, which is an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering mentioned. We know that a sentencing framework must provide courts with a range of options for punishing and rehabilitating offenders and protecting the public. The problem is that the current framework has been developed in an ad hoc fashion over the past 10 years, leaving it overly complex and difficult to administer. We should not underestimate how complex the law has become. The Court of Appeal spends a significant amount of time on cases in which sentencing law is unclear. If the law is often difficult for judges to understand, it is not surprising that the public have considerable difficulties.

[Rehman Chishti]

Does the Minister agree that it is completely and utterly wrong that in the past 13 years we should have had more legislation than in the past 100 years? Does he also agree that we should make legislation only when it is necessary, rather than for the sake of it?

[Mr Djanogly]

I do. The figure of more than 3,000 new offences comes to mind. We had the situation in which a new offence was being created before the previous one had commenced.

We want to simplify the sentencing framework and make it more comprehensible for the public. We also want to enhance judicial discretion, to allow the judges and magistrates who hear the cases to make the most appropriate decisions on sentencing within the legal framework set by Parliament.

I accept that some people, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, want to see longer sentences, but we need to be proportionate. We could not accommodate the much longer sentences that he suggests without raising taxes to build more prisons.

Sentences have, however, got longer and longer over the past couple of decades, and for many years offenders have not spent their sentence in custody. We do not propose to make fundamental changes to determinate sentences. At present, offenders serving a determinate sentence spend half of their sentence in custody and half on licence in the community. If an offender breaches the condition of their licence, they may be returned to prison. We recognise—

[Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order.

Public Guardian Board (Annual Report)

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The Public Guardian Board has provided me with a copy of their annual report on the public guardian for the year 2010. A copy of the report is available in the Libraries of both Houses, the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.



Copies of the report are also available on the intranet: http://www.publicguardian.gov.uk/about/statutory-documents.htm.