Police Widows Pensions

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Richard Graham]

As so often, the hon. Lady makes a good point. Children are often the people we do not mention when we discuss these issues, but they can suffer the most. I am grateful to her.

What changed in 2006 was society’s perception of fairness, and the new scheme in 2006 recognised that. All new recruits since 2006 and anyone who transferred to the new scheme—there were some who did not—now knows that should the worst happen, their loved ones will receive their pension for life, irrespective of whether the survivor remarries or forms a new partnership. That applies to unmarried but cohabiting partners, too. The new regulations did not apply retrospectively to those who had left the service before 2006 or had died before that date. For those who are penalised in that way, such as Cathryn Hall, the many who are here today and the other 800 to 900 widows and widowers—most of them are widows—it must be frustrating to have remarried and seen financial disadvantage relative to those who were widowed later. It is an issue of fairness.

Things have changed. The regulations on police pensions in Northern Ireland changed last year and, more significantly, a very similar rule was amended for the armed forces so that from April this year, all widows and widowers of our armed forces can remarry or live with a new partner without losing their pension. That change is retrospective, and it sets a precedent for further change. What is true for soldiers, sailors and airmen and women is also true for our police. Having to deal with the consequences of a husband or wife having died in the course of duty is no less ghastly if that happened on the streets of one of our cities, rather than a dusty path in Helmand province. I hope that the Minister, who has seen active service in uniform, will be sympathetic to the case being made. In an e-mail that he sent to Cathryn Hall fairly recently, he rightly highlighted that it is appropriate for Ministers to be able to make changes when a compelling case is made. I know that the Minister is a man who understands the duties of those who serve in uniform, and the responsibilities of Government to those who are left behind when they are either killed or die in accidents while on duty. I also know that his Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), is supportive of the case being made by the group of widows and widowers who care so passionately about the opportunity for happiness and to retain their pension.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I am sure we all appreciate very much the case my hon. Friend is making. I am grateful for the opportunity to make an intervention on behalf of an unnamed constituent of mine who is approaching his 70s and wants to change his position. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have a good record in seeking to put right the errors of the past? That is a further reason for looking at what now appears to be an anomaly in the regulations. The change he is seeking would be welcomed as being in the spirit of what the Government have sought to achieve in one or two other areas in order to correct past wrongs.

[Richard Graham]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Government do have a good record of trying to right problems and issues inherited from the past—one could call them historical leftovers. It is to the benefit of many people when a Government are able to tackle such issues with the fairness and justice they deserve. That is why today’s debate is timely. It comes some three months after the Government rightly addressed what could be described as an injustice for the widows and widowers of members of the armed forces. Today’s debate gives the Minister for Policing an opportunity to spell out the challenges, in his view, in getting a similar injustice addressed for the widows and widowers of the constabularies of this country.

There are many such cases. This morning I have met widows from Scotland, Lancashire, Yorkshire and all parts of southern England, as well as two from my own county. I am wearing a badge on their behalf, and all the widows and widowers present are wearing it as well, as a symbol of their unity in trying to resolve the problems with the 1987 police pension scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We are taking the financial decisions we are taking for a simple imperative: we have to make an extremely difficult budget add up. We are applying the changes we are applying to those at the higher end of the income scale. I am confident that through the public defender service and other routes we will be able to meet the needs of cases, as and when they arise, and of course PDS advocates were available for these cases.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend also look at the impact on the criminal legal aid budget and access to local justice of decisions such as that made by the judicial business group in Bedfordshire to move criminal cases from Bedford magistrates courts to Luton, thus, in effect, closing the magistrates courts? The move was opposed by local lawyers, local law firms and magistrates; it was an administrative decision designed to skirt democratic accountability. Does he agree that it could have an impact on costs, which should be part of the decision-making process?

[Chris Grayling]

I am aware that a number of decisions of this kind are being taken by local committees. Of course such decisions can also mean civil cases moving into those same court buildings, which brings justice closer to communities in matters such as tribunal cases. I am aware of the issues in Bedfordshire to which my right hon. Friend refers. Where changes of this kind occur I have asked my Department to examine possible uses of technology, for example giving access to courts for witnesses. I know he is discussing this matter with the Minister who has responsibility for courts and will continue to do so.

Bedford Magistrates Court

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I should like to join my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) in drawing to the attention of the House the proposed changes to the magistrates courts in Bedford and Luton. As he has said, this is an unhappy process. The dynamics at work are a series of measures in recent years to consolidate legal proceedings to be heard in Luton, and the gradual erosion of Bedford—the county town, with a long history of dispensing justice—as an appropriate centre of justice that serves a growing population who deserve as much as Luton to have justice dispensed, and seen to be dispensed, locally. This is also, as my hon. Friend said, an administrative decision with an underlying purpose that ought more properly to be within the remit of the Minister than of court administrators.

My constituency is the rural area to the north and east of the county town of Bedford—largely a collection of villages which, certainly to the north of the town, look to Bedford for main services, for police, for council activities, and similar. They have no connection whatsoever with Luton, which is hardly seen as a point of reference. My principal concern on behalf of my constituents is for victims of crime, families of victims, witnesses, and all the support services connected with the process of administering justice who will find their local centre of justice removed and their life made that bit more difficult in doing the job they are employed to do.

My hon. Friend has detailed the key facts, which, in so short a time, I have no wish to repeat. Like him, I have been in touch with representatives of local lawyers and those who service the courts, and attended meetings with those who were in the process of making the decision to make the points that we have outlined.

Let me draw some conclusions from what my hon. Friend has said. First, as the House has heard, the percentage of criminal cases heard at Bedford magistrates court is far higher than the percentage of family cases. In the meeting that we had with those deciding the fate of the courts in Bedford, they responded very vigorously when we said, “It’s a closure,” by insisting, “No, no, the family work is remaining.” They did not actually use words that would be familiar to Members of this House—“I cannot foresee the circumstances in which the courts would be closed”—but perhaps we can use such words. They correctly indicated that the proposed changes were not the result of costs. That may be the case for now, but is it not realistic to suggest that within a short time a further application will be made to close what will inevitably be seen as an outpost of justice—a single magistrates court in Bedford, in premises woefully underused, handling only family cases, when an economic argument would then appear overwhelming?

This is therefore a closure by other means, and an administrative dodge used to ensure that the decision avoids the Minister, who would be under political pressure to keep the court open, until it becomes so overwhelmingly obvious that no Minister would be allowed to take a reasonable decision to keep a redundant court open. Accordingly, I have reservations about those charged to make the decision and about how it was done.

On Thursday 6 February, my hon. Friend and I saw the justices issues group with representatives of local users, who had, as a local law society, complained that they had not originally been included in the consultation. It was, in diplomatic terms I have learned to understand very well, a frank exchange between us and the justices issues group, but I was left with the impression that the local lawyers had raised some new issues on costs and aspects of the decision to be made that required some consideration. That consideration took one working day, for on the following Monday the decision to go ahead with the changes was announced. That rather suggests that some minds were already made up.

On examining the consultation responses, it transpires that some 36 clear comments either for or against the proposals for Bedford Shire hall were made. Of those, 27 were against. That is not a big sample, but we are dealing with small expert groups who might have known what they were talking about, so a strong weight against might have prompted the justices issues group to decide against the proposals for Bedford. Those 27 equate to 75% of those who commented being against the proposals. They included Victim Support, two legal practitioners, 15 magistrates or their representatives—which, I would reckon, is not a bad proportion of the magistrates representing Bedford—and six local authority representatives. All were against the proposals and all were ignored. The issues raised were those that have been aired tonight: implications for victims and relatives; risks of non-attendance by those involved in cases, thus causing delay or abandonment of cases; travel difficulties for all; the future of Shire hall; and loss of local justice. In fairness, the issues raised were responded to in the official response dated 14 February, which gave explanations of why those objecting were being ignored.

However, the response included a classic in which many of my rural constituents might be interested. In response to the concerns about travel, the justices issues group said:

“We recognise that for the few users being in exceptionally rural areas it will prove a more difficult journey. However many people living in rural areas will be accustomed to travelling further afield for work, school or supermarkets which they visit more often and in many cases will have their own arrangements in place to do so.”

That about sums it up for those such as Kathryn Cain and many others who value something important about the county town of Bedford—its sense of localness with regard to justice as well as other things. They have been told, “It’s just too bad. You’ll have to get used to going somewhere else, which, of course, you are already used to.”

We ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether he is concerned about how this has been done. Is he worried about a lack of specific Bedford input into the decision-making body, beyond the consultation responses from Bedford, which were overwhelmingly against but rejected? Secondly, it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck. It is a duck. It is a closure. Is the Minister able, within his remit, to recognise it as such and take it back to his desk for proper consideration? We do not doubt that these are difficult decisions, but Bedford’s long history of a local magistracy deserves rather better.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) for securing this debate and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for so ably supporting him.

One thing is abundantly clear: both of my hon. Friends feel passionately about this issue. There is no doubt that they represent their constituents to the best of their abilities and they have done so admirably today. Their main concern is that there may be a closure of Bedford magistrates court. Let me address that up front: there are currently no plans to close the magistrates court in Bedford. The proposal is about listing arrangements —that is, the allocation of work between the various locations in Bedfordshire. There has been a consultation and were there to be any plans for a closure, it would have said so. The consultation that has taken place is for a different purpose.

Secondly,

“the maintenance of appropriate arrangements for the deployment of the judiciary of England and Wales and the allocation of work within courts”

is the statutory responsibility of the Lord Chief Justice, not the Lord Chancellor. I think that is recognised, but there still seems to be some anger coming in the direction of the Ministry of Justice. Listing is a judicial function and not one over which the Government have control.

Together with and supported by their justices’ clerk, local magistrates ensure that there is sufficient court time available to meet demand and that the right facilities are provided for the particular types of cases that come before them. That includes reviewing the sitting programmes of magistrates courts within their area. The decision may take into account the best use of resources, but it is not one that is based on saving money. The interests of justice are the overriding factor.

Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is committed to supporting local magistrates in doing that in order to provide an effective and efficient service to court and tribunal users and to focus resources on front-line services and provide access to justice.

In line with other areas, Bedfordshire magistrates regularly review the sitting programme for the courts in the area, to ensure it is properly aligned with the work load. The proposals for Bedfordshire will mean that criminal cases will be concentrated at Luton magistrates courts and that more family work will be heard at Bedford magistrates court. All family work will be retained and there will be increased capacity for it. I take note of the figures mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, but as far as I can see they refer to criminal work only.

More family work will be heard at Bedford magistrates court because the facilities at Luton are better equipped for criminal cases and Bedfordshire has the capacity to accommodate all tiers of the single family court. It is the view of the magistrates in Bedfordshire that the proposals will make more efficient use of the courtrooms and thereby reduce waiting times for victims, witnesses and other court users.

The proposals have been subject to wide consultation, including with solicitors, the Crown Prosecution Service and other court users. The local magistrates have carefully considered all the responses. The consultation took into account how justice could best be delivered in a suitable environment, while maximising the effectiveness and timeliness of hearings. In addition, the Bedfordshire bench chairman and senior officials met my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire and other local people, some of whom I believe were solicitors, to discuss the matter in more detail before a final decision was made.

Bedford magistrates court is a listed building with limited facilities. It has five courtrooms. It is not readily accessible for either court users or magistrates with limited mobility, other than one courtroom, which is used primarily for family work. Audibility is a problem and the fixed layout of the courtrooms does not lend itself to the use of modern technology. Two courtrooms have video link facilities, including the family courtroom. There is an upstairs secure witness suite that is accessed through the public entrance. There is cell provision, with limited access for custody vans. There is no court administration on site.

To provide the best service to victims and witnesses in Bedfordshire, it is intended that the current witness facilities at Bedford magistrates court will remain and be upgraded to provide a secure video link for vulnerable witnesses who give evidence in criminal cases at Luton or elsewhere.

Luton magistrates court, on the other hand, is a more modern courthouse with six courtrooms. It is accessible for those with limited mobility, both magistrates and court users. The courtrooms are well provided with hearing loops and there is video link capacity in place. It is proposed that that will be extended to provide the capacity in a courtroom with a secure dock. There are ample waiting and interview facilities. There is a secure witness suite with video link facilities. There is ample cell provision. There is also full court administration on site.

The facilities at Luton magistrates court clearly identify it as better suited to criminal work. It will improve the ability of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and other agencies to meet commitments under the code of practice for victims of crime.

[Alistair Burt]

I am listening carefully to the argument that is being put forward by my hon. Friend, but I would raise two issues. First, if the courts in Bedford are so manifestly inadequate, why did that not come out in the consultation process in 2010, when the courts were not considered for closure and these issues were not mentioned? Secondly, he referred to magistrates supporting the proposals. Of course, as I indicated, a substantial number of Bedford magistrates did not support them. Does that not weigh on the Minister’s mind? Will he take that further into account and ask those who are responsible for the decisions to do so as well?

[Mr Vara]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising those two issues. First, he speaks of inadequate facilities, which implies that there is an underlying question of closure. There has been no reference to inadequate facilities because, as I speak, there are no plans for closure. I was not the Minister in 2010, but I presume that the closure of Bedford magistrates court was not considered at that time, when a large number of closures were considered.

Secondly, my right hon. Friend speaks of a difference of view about what has been said by the magistrates. There is one version and there is his version. I am happy to visit the magistrates court to meet him and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford. They can bring the people whom they wish to invite and I will bring my officials. I will ensure that there is a proper dialogue, so that if there have been any miscommunications along the line, we can ensure that they are put right. I will facilitate that meeting, and what is more, I will be at it and will visit the court.

I described the facilities at Luton magistrates court, and there will be greater certainty for witnesses about where trials will be heard. As for family work, which will be heard at Bedford magistrates court, it is equally important for that work to be undertaken in suitable court accommodation, separate from criminal work, with co-location of all tiers of the family court judiciary. On the whole, the centralisation of criminal and family work will enable greater capacity to distribute the workload more effectively and ease waiting times in hearing and completing cases. It will provide greater resilience to cope with unexpected changes to workload, or to judicial or agency resources.

I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire that the decision to change the listing pattern at Bedford magistrates court was not taken in isolation. There were many other considerations, such as the local reduction in workload, particularly for trials, the need for improved performance and better utilisation of criminal justice system agency resources, and the commitment to maximise the use of digital technology.

As a result of the change in the listing pattern in the Bedfordshire area, some magistrates may incur additional travelling costs. However, they should not be financially disadvantaged, as justices’ allowances allow for the reimbursement of travelling costs incurred in the performance of a justice’s duties.

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Llwyd]

I thank the Justice Secretary for his response, and I am sure that he is right about mentoring. I think he will find in due course, when the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border reports to him, that it is key to any improvement in dealing with the rehabilitation of ex-service people, and I am sure that that experience will translate into other forms of rehabilitation.

I do not want to elaborate on the position that I have taken, or, indeed, on the position that anyone else has taken. We have had a good-natured tussle over the past few weeks; I only hope that some of our worst fears are misplaced, for the sake of the British people.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the leave of the House. [Laughter.]

I am given to understand that I recently made a speech. Even more unusually, I cannot remember what I said. I know that that happens to all of us sometimes, but what concerns me is that, as far as I am aware, it is a very rare occurrence.

I wanted to give my full support to the speech that was given in my name by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), but also to suggest that, if anything unfortunate was said, you might refer it to my hologram, who may have been speaking instead of me at the time. I am grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight, and to make clear it that I was somewhere else at the time. That excuse is given commonly enough in politics, but on this occasion it is actually true.

[Mr Speaker]

All is now clear. I think that the House is grateful to the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for his sense of humour, and not least to the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) for hers.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.