Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

As I said earlier, I frequently make it clear that the independence of the judiciary is a vital part of our constitution and our freedoms. I also think that it is absolutely right that the President of the Supreme Court, who has absolute integrity and impartiality, should make that case as well.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

13. What steps the Government are taking to protect vulnerable witnesses when they testify in court.

[The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)]

We are committed to helping vulnerable witnesses to give their very best evidence. A range of measures exist to help to reduce the anxiety of giving evidence, including video-link evidence away from the courtroom, and, within the court, giving evidence behind a screen.

[Andrew Bingham]

Following the closure of my local court in Buxton, witnesses will have to travel from my High Peak constituency to the nearest court. Can my right hon. and learned Friend provide further assurance that there will be protection for witnesses not only in the court, but when they are travelling to it?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Yes, I can do that. When a witness needs protection, the police assess what is required to keep them safe. Witness care officers also help to ensure that the witness has any help that they need to attend court.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I will be very interested in looking more at the details of that proposal.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

T9. Following the closure of Buxton courthouse in my constituency, the previous Minister decided, following my representations, that the work should go to Stockport, not Chesterfield, as had originally been intended. However, a sign has now appeared on the disused courthouse saying that the work has gone to Chesterfield. Will my hon. and learned Friend please investigate this and ensure that the decision made by the Minister is implemented, rather than the one envisaged by the officials in the original, flawed consultation?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. He will be pleased to hear that I have had that notice taken down. The response to the consultation stated that the work would go to Stockport and Chesterfield, and that is what is happening.

Court Closures

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

The impact on my constituency of the proposals to close courts across the country has been to identify the court in Buxton for closure. This is probably the third or fourth time I have spoken on this matter, in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall, since that decision. I heard what the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) said about timings, but I pay tribute to the Minister. He has been exemplary in his availability, transparency and consideration for individual Members. He met the hon. Lady and he met me on several occasions. There was a Westminster Hall debate, principally on the courthouse in Buxton. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) secured a similar debate, so we have all had a fair run at this.

I was strongly opposed to the closure of Buxton court. The alternative was to send everybody to Chesterfield, just because it happened to be in Derbyshire. For those Members who are not aware of the geography of Derbyshire and the High Peak, the clue is very much in the name of my constituency. Getting from Buxton to Chesterfield is not easy. Only a couple of weeks ago, the constituency had about six or seven inches of snow in a single day. It would have been practically impossible for people to get to Chesterfield—I got stuck in Bamford, which is not even as far as Chesterfield. I was very concerned about the proposals. I thought they were wrong and I said so at the time.

I will recount some of the details of the decision on Buxton, because it is important to consider this issue in context. The consultation document relating specifically to Buxton is, as I have said before, the worst consultation document I have seen in many a year, both as a Member of Parliament and as a member of my local council. It was riddled with errors, falsehoods and mistakes. There was much discussion about the document and, because I thought it was so woeful, I probably used some phraseology that Members probably ought not to use. After much discussion, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service admitted it had made some mistakes in the document, but it still pursued the same end-game and the decision has been made to close Buxton courthouse. I regret that decision, but it has been made and I do not think we can revisit it here today.

At the time, in discussions with the Minister and others on the Chesterfield issue, I looked for a compromise, politics being very much the art of compromise. I cannot welcome the decision to close Buxton court because I think it is wrong, but I will, reluctantly, accept it. The Minister listened to the points I made about the difficulties of commuting to Chesterfield. The decision was taken to keep the Stockport court open. The hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) is not here, but, come 2020, she may well say that she saved Stockport court. She might even flag up my contribution to saving it. Although Stockport is in a different county, it is a lot easier to get to Stockport from High Peak, as it is to get there from Macclesfield, which faces a similar challenge.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is very interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman’s tale. I accept what he says about the Minister, but my logical proposals for Durham, which would make travel a lot easier for my constituents, were completely dismissed and ignored. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has more power over the Minister than Opposition Members have.

[Andrew Bingham]

I am not sure how to respond to that without sounding big-headed. I do not know the ins and outs of the courts in Durham, but I felt I put forward a coherent argument.

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

My hon. Friend is making a very passionate speech. I just want to put on the record that decisions on changes, closures and keeping courts open have been made about courts represented by Members on all sides of the House. There has been no preferential treatment for Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) sits on the Labour Benches. I listened to her eagerly, as she said, and the proposals were changed. My hon. Friend will also be aware that the Stockport constituency is held by a Labour Member.

[Andrew Bingham]

I argued against the closure of the Buxton court. It will be closed, so I was only partially successful.

The response to the consultation states:

“move the workload to Chesterfield justice centre and Stockport magistrates and county courts”.

My concern, which I want to flag up today, is how much work will be going to where. I do not want only the odd case going to Stockport just to placate one awkward Member of Parliament.

I want to raise the response to the proposals and the consultation. My judgment is coloured by my views about the way the consultation was carried out and by its content. Yet again, I think there is a hidden agenda and that the officials are letting the Minister down. The response document, which I have here, contains serious flaws. For example, nowhere in the response are the comments made by High Peak Borough Council. The council has 43 elected members from across the political spectrum and they discussed this issue. They made representations, but they have not been referred to anywhere in the official response to the consultation. It seems as though the officials did not like what the council said, so they did not put it in. They have either ignored it or treated it with disdain. This happens at a time when, across the political parties, we are seeking people to stand for public office in councils. Councillors go to meetings, make their opinions well known and then they are ignored. If we are not careful, this will increase the feeling of “What’s the point?” I am very, very disappointed by that. I may be a little cynical, but were councillors’ representations not mentioned because they did not fit in with what Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service wanted?

The decision has been made and it will be implemented. In the official documents, Buxton court is earmarked to close in the first tranche. It is therefore scheduled to take place as we speak today, between February and June this year. The argument was made that the court could not be moved to Stockport because it is in Cheshire and Buxton is in Derbyshire. After discussions, the Minister said the system could work across counties, which I can accept. However, I am told that for the work of a Derbyshire court to be sent out of county, further administrative action needs to take place. I urge the Minister to ensure that that action is taken. I do not stand here as member of the Minister’s fan club, but he is a decent chap and he has been very fair with me.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

This is about public money.

[Andrew Bingham]

I am talking about public money. This whole debate is about public money. That is why I said we should keep Buxton open.

I am concerned that the Minister has been let down by his officials, because the consultation was flawed, or wrong, and the officials showed an arrogance and unwillingness to accept the mistakes they had made in the consultation. Now that we see that the response document is highly selective, I fear they are letting him down again. I doubt their motivation. The Courts Service has been given a decision it does not want, and now, from where I am sitting—I might be cynical, bordering on paranoid—it seems to be very tardy in implementing his decision. So long as the delay continues, given that the courts are due to close imminently, the work will have to go to Chesterfield, which is what the service wanted. That was their original intention, and the longer the delay continues, the harder it will be to implement his decision to send the work to Stockport. That is what I am concerned about.

Thanks to the Minister’s determination, contrary to what has been said by the Opposition, and thanks to his willingness to listen to hon. Members, including to me on this occasion, the decision to move work to Stockport was taken, and I applaud him for that. As I have said, we want it sent to Stockport; we do not want everything sent to Chesterfield. That is what we want, and that is what we should have, but from the outside looking in, it appears that the officials want it their own way.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for being willing to assess alternative options—he has talked to my council in Southwark about such an alternative—but in criticising the officials, is the hon. Gentleman not questioning the Minister’s ability to oversee the Department?

[Andrew Bingham]

No, not at all, because the Minister has done that by making this decision. The officials wanted Buxton closed and everything shipped to Chesterfield. I wanted Buxton open. Having listened to all sides of the argument—in the Chamber, in Westminster Hall and in private meetings—he came up with a compromise, so I think he has been very robust. I will not criticise him. I might be wrong—I hope to be proved wrong—but I think the officials wanted it a certain way, but they did not get it, and by tardiness they seem to be trying another way of getting it.

I commend the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood for bringing this debate the Chamber. The decision has been made and we have had these debates before, so this debate might be after the fact, but it is still a good debate to have. This is the Thursday before the Easter recess, yet attendance is good, so it is obviously an issue.

I ask the Minister for some assurances. Will he look at this issue, as a matter of urgency, to ensure that any further administrative work necessary to implement his decision to move the work—the vast majority of work, not just the odd case to make me, the people or the council happy—is done quickly, for the peace of mind of my constituents, as well as the magistrates, who, we must remember, perform a valuable public service for little recompense? I know for a fact that, if the work moved to Chesterfield, we might lose magistrates from the bench. Will he also make it clear to the officials that by “sending work to Stockport”, I mean the majority of work, not just a little bit? Finally, will he pay attention to the work of the officials? I hate to be critical but they seem to have a different agenda from the one that he and people elected to other bodies wanted. If he could give me those assurances, I would be very grateful.

State Pension Age (Women)

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

I am pleased to take part in this debate, and I congratulate those who have secured it and those who are working so hard outside this place to contact their Members of Parliament to talk about this very, very important issue of public policy and the impact of it.

My starting point is a passionate belief that a civilised country provides for families, protects the most vulnerable, helps those who look for work, and supports those in retirement. I am looking for the principles that we might apply to this debate based on the petition that has been presented. As I understand it, the petition raises three particular concerns: the lack of notice; the changes being made faster than expected; and the lack of time to plan. I recognise some of those concerns in what I have heard from my constituents. One told me that they had worked since they were a teenager, and that they were concerned about their own health challenges, their caring burdens and the prospect of re-planning. Other constituents are worried about the way the retirement dates work out. Indeed, one told me in 2011 that

“a woman who is just two months older than me can retire a whole year earlier.”

Again in 2011, a constituent told me that she was concerned about the “double attack” on her. She described how she felt when she received the first notification of change. She said she

“didn’t like it, but eventually accepted it and made the necessary changes to her plans, both mentally and financially”.

She then received another notification of change and was then forced to readjust a second time.

Another constituent put forward a very powerful and emotional argument. She said:

“When I first heard that my retirement age had gone up from 60 to 64 I was shocked and tried to ignore it.”

Those words seem to explain the communication problem that exists. The fact that a person was so shocked that they tried to ignore the problem shows just how powerful the problem is.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I, like my hon. Friend and many other Members in this Chamber, have had many emails on this matter from constituents. Does she share my concern that the people who are affected by this have worked all their lives and have made plans and are now having to change them? We must try doubly hard when it comes to notifying people on pension issues, because, whether we like it or not, pensions are not very exciting until one reaches a certain age, at which I am now.

[Chloe Smith]

My hon. Friend puts it very well. Let me repeat what a constituent has more recently told me. She came to my surgery and explained that it had come as a shock to her that she would have to wait until she was 66 before she could retire, she was not informed, and found out only when she requested a pension statement. That goes to the heart of this matter of being informed and of having time to plan.

Court Closure (Buxton)

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of court closure in Buxton.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I think this is the first time that I have spoken while you have been in the Chair.

I have called this debate on the closure of the court in Buxton, which is in my constituency of High Peak. The proposal is part of a recently concluded consultation on the future of many courthouses across the country. Let me be clear from the outset that I understand the need to look at the situation of courts and to investigate the possibility of rationalising the service. However, there are serious flaws in the rationale that has been applied to Buxton, as is the case for other parts of the country, which was highlighted recently in this Chamber by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) in relation to courts in his constituency. My concern today, however, is about my constituency and its court.

First, I will provide some context to the debate. High Peak is a large area covering more than 200 square miles, and the two main towns, Buxton and Glossop, are 15 miles apart. There are many smaller towns and villages in between and around those two towns. The constituency sits in the east midlands, yet much of it faces the north-west, particularly Greater Manchester, for many of its services. Leisure, employment and news are all predominantly accessed from the north-west. Part of the constituency, Hope Valley, faces Sheffield for all of its services. There is very little traction with the east midlands. Similarly, public transport links feed into Greater Manchester and Sheffield, and I will come to that issue later.

Despite High Peak’s proximity to those two great cities of the northern powerhouse, Manchester and Sheffield, we should be in no doubt that it is very much a rural constituency. It therefore faces lots of problems that are common to many such areas across the country, particularly access to and ease of travel. Not that long ago, High Peak was served by two courts—one in Buxton and one in Glossop. The Glossop court was then closed, so there is now only one court serving the whole of this large constituency.

The Minister is aware of my views on the consultation—I have aired them before in this room and the main Chamber—but I wish briefly to reiterate one or two points. I have been involved in public service for more than 15 years, first as a councillor and then as a Member of this House. During that time, I have read many consultations on a variety of subjects. They have varied in their quality and scope, but I can honestly say that I do not think I have seen one so riddled with errors and mistakes as the one relating to this court. I shall run through some of the glaring errors.

The consultation’s biggest error was that it said that there was no public lift in the courthouse, but it is patently obvious that there is. I am absolutely baffled about how such a fundamental mistake could be made. I assume that the author of the consultation did not visit the court because a lift is not an easy thing to miss —it is pretty obvious. I concede that an acknowledgement was sent out about that error, but only after several people protested in response to the consultation. The circulation of the acknowledgement—I was going to say “apology”, but I do not think that that is the right word—of the mistake is still open to question, however, as some people did not receive clarification about the lift.

The consultation claimed that the building was not compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, ironically citing the lack of a lift—we have dealt with that issue—but the building is fully compliant with disability legislation under the Equality Act 2010. It also claimed that the consulting rooms were poor. Those were rebuilt five years ago and have had panic strips installed. There are three consulting rooms, of which two have been redecorated recently, and those three rooms are for two courts. I have visited those rooms and they seem perfectly fine to me, so I struggle to understand what allows them to be termed “poor”. Interestingly, if I look at some of the offices in the Palace of Westminster, including mine and perhaps that of my researcher, William Crook, those consulting rooms stand up very well in comparison.

The consultation claims that segregation is not possible. However, in 2010, the waiting areas were reconfigured to create a separate entrance and waiting room, thereby segregating witnesses and defendants. The consultation writers choose, creatively, to state that vulnerable witnesses have to use a waiting room across the road. The ability for vulnerable witnesses to give evidence via a video link without even having to enter the courtroom is an invaluable asset to Buxton court, not a liability. When vulnerable witnesses attend court, probably for the first time, and have to give evidence, the experience can be traumatic. It is a great reassurance for those witnesses to know that they do not have to go into the same court as the defendant by whom they feel threatened. It seems somewhat bizarre for the consultation to make such comments about a lack of segregation and then to cite segregation, where that exists, as evidence against the court.

The consultation claims that the court is utilised to 27% of its capacity, but I cannot reconcile that figure with what I see. I have never seen it justified anywhere. I am told that the justices’ clerk for Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire has publicly admitted that the figure is wrong. Despite requests from the magistrates—I know they have put requests in—for a justification for and breakdown of that figure, such information is yet to be seen. It appears that the figure of 27% was almost plucked out of the ether. I have spoken to lots of people about this. I am told that the delivery director for the Courts Service has said that, in the case of Buxton, the utilisation and travel figures, which are two key facts in the consultation, act “as a guide only”.

Even if we assume that the figure of 27% can be justified—at this stage it has not been, and I wait for it to be—it is worth noting that a shortage of legal advisers available to the court in Buxton is often the reason for its restricted use. There are no legal advisers on Monday at all in Buxton court—none can be found—so we immediately lose 20% of the working week. However, the Minister should not take that as an indication of a lack of demand, because there is a demand for Buxton court.

There is currently a lead-in time of about 14 weeks before a court listing comes to trial. Effectively, there is therefore a 14-week waiting list for a case to come to trial in Buxton. Again, that situation is created by a shortage of legal advisers to support the magistrates. For any consultation to cite lack of use for any service when there is a 14-week waiting list is completely nonsensical. Those are just a few issues in the consultation, although I could go on about it for longer.

I recently had a meeting at the court with representatives of the Courts Service and two local magistrates, Michael Hilton and Pam Ashton. Officials were still unwilling to hold their hands up and admit that there were mistakes in the consultation document, or even to make a concession that the contents were in any way wrong, other than regarding the mistake about the lift. I would not even call the comments about the lift a full and frank apology—they were almost a begrudging admission. The officials refused to acknowledge all the rest of the facts. They even stood in the consulting rooms, which seemed fine to me, but they just did not seem to like them.

I do not want to dwell on the consultation document, as I have had my say on that here and in the main Chamber some weeks ago, so I shall move on to the actual issue. The court in Buxton provides a valuable service to the whole of High Peak, not just Buxton. The subject of this debate is “court closure in Buxton”, but this is not a Buxton issue; it is a High Peak issue. The suggestion that the court should close is wrong and the case for that has not been made. Furthermore, should the case be made—that is a very big “should”—the proposal that the usage should be moved to Chesterfield borders on ludicrous.

As I have outlined, the court serves the large area of High Peak. There are reasonable public transport links between some of the towns and villages, but such transport is by no means universal. The loss of the Glossop court some years ago made life very difficult for my constituents in Glossop and the north of the constituency, but they manage. Anecdotally, I think that about two thirds of the work that goes through the court in Buxton is from the Glossop area, so closing the court in Buxton will add further burdens to the people of Glossop, as well as having an impact on those nearer to Buxton.

The idea that the work should be moved to Chesterfield will be ridiculous to anyone who has studied carefully the geography of High Peak, which would have been apparent to the author of this lamentable piece of work if they had paid proper care and attention. Chesterfield might look nice and convenient on a map or in a road atlas, but I assure the Minister that it certainly is not. For most people in High Peak, public transport routes to Chesterfield are limited to say the least. I know the area intimately—I was born in the area and have always lived there—so I know every road in and out of both Chesterfield and High Peak, but I decided that I should not rely on my anecdotal knowledge from a mere 53 years of residency. Yesterday, therefore, I went on the Traveline website and found out that to be in Chesterfield for a 9 am appointment using public transport, someone travelling from Glossop would have to get a bus at 6.30 am, with two train journeys on top of that. I am using Glossop as an example because it is the biggest and most populous town in High Peak, and because, anecdotally, about two thirds of the court’s work comes from that area. However, there are many other towns and villages in High Peak, including New Mills, Whaley Bridge, Chapel-en-le-Frith and, indeed, Buxton itself, and getting to Chesterfield from any of those places borders on the impractical.

I stress again to the Minister and his officials that just because the court is in Buxton, they should not think of it as serving only Buxton; it serves the whole of High Peak—all 208 square miles of it. I believe that the court should stay in Buxton, but whatever court is used has to be accessible from all corners of the constituency, not just a small area. It is a fact that more than 70% of the population of High Peak—I think the figure is 73%, so this is almost three quarters of the population—will be more than two hours away from the suggested replacement in Chesterfield by public transport.

I have read many submissions and spoken to a lot of people about this. Buxton Civic Association made many good points in its submission, but the key line in it states that the proposal is not exactly

“access to justice for all”.

That is absolutely right.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

As always, my hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the implications for rural communities. There are not only concerns in Derbyshire about having to travel from Glossop or Buxton to Chesterfield, because we have similar concerns in east Cheshire about having to travel from Macclesfield over to Crewe. Does he agree that it is vital for the Minister to consider the implications of added travel costs? When such things are considered, the cost savings, if any, of the proposed closure of the courts in Buxton and Macclesfield will be much lower.

[Andrew Bingham]

My hon. Friend and neighbour makes a good point. I will address the costs in a while, but he is right that moving the courts to different areas will increase expenditure.

I have talked about travelling to Chesterfield from High Peak using public transport, but that is not the easiest of journeys for car owners. The clue is in my constituency’s name. High Peak is high, which means that we probably have some of the worst winters in England, although I would not challenge our friends from north of the border because they have it worse than we do. The road from High Peak to Chesterfield, the A623, is probably one of the country’s highest roads. I have travelled it many, many times, and in the winter it is often closed or passable only with care—it does get the weather. The road will add another barrier to getting to court not only for defendants, but for magistrates and witnesses.

Due to the problems of getting to Chesterfield, there may be the further problem of an increased number of defendants failing to present themselves at the appointed time, which will lead to the issuing of arrest warrants and increased costs. We must also consider the effect on officials who are required to attend court, be they police officers, officers from the council, who often have to attend court for various matters, or any other official. At present, they can attend the court in Buxton as part of their working day, as Buxton town hall is opposite the courthouse and the police station is within walking distance. Officials can attend a court hearing and be back behind their desk or, in the case of police officers, back on the beat, very quickly. We all want to see policemen out on the beat, but there will be implications for that if they have to drive to and from court all day. A journey to Chesterfield for an official from High Peak would effectively remove them from their post for at least half a day and frankly, in many cases, for a full day. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) said, the increased expenses incurred will erode the financial benefits of the proposal, if there are any.

On the subject of costs, let us talk about savings. The consultation claims that the annual operating costs of the courthouse in Buxton are £89,000, which I assume is the savings figure. I ask the Minister to consider such figures carefully because, of that £89,000, £43,000 are the magistrates’ expenses. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber will join me in thanking all those who serve as magistrates. They do it for no remuneration and for little thanks, and we should all be grateful for their valuable work. Magistrates are rightly entitled to claim for their expenses, and they will retain that right wherever they sit. Moving the court to Chesterfield will serve only to increase the expenses of those sitting on the High Peak bench, which chips away at the savings.

If the running costs of the courthouse in Buxton are £89,000, of which £43,000 are magistrates’ expenses, we are looking at a £46,000 saving. If magistrates’ expenses were to increase by 20%, which is reasonable given the increased distance to Chesterfield in terms of both time and mileage, that would reduce the saving by a further £8,000, so we would be down to £38,000. That does not even begin to account for the extra costs incurred by witnesses. In short, I do not see how there will be any significant financial benefit, if any, from closing the courthouse in Buxton.

Another concern we should consider is that the extra travel will prove prohibitive, meaning that we will start to lose our local magistrates, whose local knowledge and background helps them to discharge their important duty. At a time when we all seek to get people involved in public service, we are putting a barrier in the way of people from High Peak who might think, “I would like to do something for the community by being a magistrate.” Faced with having to travel to Chesterfield several times each week or month, they might think, “Actually, I’m not sure I want to do that.” However, they might wish to take up such a role if the courthouse was in Buxton.

If the consultation had suggested moving the court to Stockport, I could have seen the logic, as transport links to the north-west and Greater Manchester are better from almost all parts of High Peak. It is easier to get to and from Greater Manchester for all those who are likely to use the court. I am sorry to say that the real work has not been done. A thorough and proper investigation as part of the consultation would have shown that to be the case, and the reality of the situation would have become apparent. I think that the regional and county boundaries have been allowed to get in the way of common sense. The proposal has been made after looking at the boundaries on a map; no one has considered the unique situation and geography of High Peak. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield will probably concur that it is a lot easier to get to Stockport from not only my constituency, but his.

I have known the Minister for many years, and he is an honourable and reasonable man.

[David Rutley]

Hear, hear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bingham]

That was only one “Hear, hear,” but I would say “Hear, hear” myself if I could.

The Minister has been very fair and open with me about the proposals. I thank him for the time that he has taken to speak to me, but I am afraid that he has been badly let down by his officials. He has been presented with a consultation document that is so flawed, erroneous and inaccurate that it is driving him towards a decision that appears to be straightforward, but is anything but. I hesitate to use the phrase “stich up”, because those are the words of tabloid newspapers, but this consultation appears to have been written to fit an outcome and the Minister is being driven down that road.

I could have gone into the consultation in greater detail, and I could have detailed all the combinations of journeys to Chesterfield from all the towns and villages in my constituency. I could have taken apart the financial aspects of the proposal even further, but I have already demonstrated that the savings are increasingly coming down and will dwindle to zero. Given the errors everywhere else in the consultation, if the Minister’s officials had bothered to get a breakdown of the usage figures, I am sure that they would be similarly incorrect and that I could very easily dispute them, too.

I want to give the Minister ample time to respond. I will meet him later this month, but I hope that he will take on board some of the points that I have raised today. I conclude by saying that I would like the court at Buxton to be retained. There is a case for it, and very good reasons support that view. I repeat that those are not just my assertions, or those of High Peak magistrates; they are those of the local council, which has considered the proposal and come out against it, of local people and of court users. I speak on their behalf, and I trust that the Minister will take my comments on board. They are factual and accurate, and they are the voice of the people of High Peak.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I believe it is the first time that I have done so. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) on securing this debate. As he said, we have known each other for many years, and I have always known him to be a diligent and conscientious Member of Parliament. His response to the consultation does him enormous credit, and his constituents should be proud of him. He spoke in the main Chamber when we had a debate there, and he and I have spoken about this issue on several occasions, as well as corresponding. He secured this debate, and there is a meeting to follow. His constituents cannot fault him for his sterling work in representing them.

My hon. Friend referred to a number of inaccuracies, and was unhappy with the apology given. I unreservedly and sincerely apologise for the inaccuracies in the consultation, and I add that whenever such inaccuracies have been brought to our attention, we have sought to clarify them as quickly as possible. I have before me a letter, which is dated 30 July and was sent to a number of people, from Lucy Garrod, the midlands delivery director. She refers to the absence of a lift and the travel times used as a guide, and specifies how the utilisation figures were calculated, simply saying that there were 248 sitting days every year and the calculations were made on the basis of five-hour days.

My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), who generously said, “Hear, hear” during the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak, made a very good contribution, referring to travel times and costs. We envisage a modern 21st-century court structure in which people do not travel as much as they do now. I will come to that a little later.

Notwithstanding the inaccuracies, which we have sought to clarify as quickly as possible, I believe that there is merit in including these two courts for consideration in the consultation. The world outside the courts is changing rapidly. When we speak of access to the courts, we must acknowledge how the 21st century is progressing. People expect to be able to transact their business online, quickly and efficiently, at a time that suits them, and modern technology allows them to do so. Cheques and paper forms have been replaced by contactless payment cards and smart apps, while shopping for almost anything can be done from the comfort of one’s home. It is such technology that gives us an opportunity to invest in our courts and modernise them to meet the present and future requirements of court users and improve the delivery of justice.

Such improvement cannot be secured without difficult decisions. We must recognise that one third of our courts are used at less than half their capacity. As we have been told, the utilisation of Buxton magistrates and county court in the last financial year was approximately 27%, and operating costs were approximately £88,000, excluding staff and judicial costs. When such utilisation figures incur such costs, we must ask in the interests of the taxpayer whether we are using that money effectively.

We must also appreciate that the way in which the public access our courts is changing rapidly. Access to justice need not happen only by attendance at a conventional court building. For example, we are exploring whether there are opportunities to hold hearings in local buildings, which would help just as effectively to maintain a local presence for justice. There is already proven technology in my hon. Friend’s constituency: a video conference facility is available at Buxton citizens advice bureau, and the police already give evidence via live links to courts in the west midlands. The citizens advice bureau with the video conferencing facility is just across the road from the court, but it could just as well be five, 10 or indeed 25 miles away. Through that facility, the courts can be accessed.

Our reform programme must also be considered in the wider context of our plans to transform how courts and tribunals operate and deliver services to the public. As my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary has said, the reform of the Courts and Tribunals Service offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a modern, user-focused and efficient service.

Many people encounter our justice system when they are at their most vulnerable, when they are a victim or a witness in a criminal case, or as an individual, business or family trying to resolve a dispute. We must ensure that we make better use of technology to provide easier access to a more responsive system, with swifter processes and more proportionate services. Front-line staff work incredibly hard to provide a high-quality service to the public. However, they and our customers are often poorly served by the infrastructure supporting the administration of a system in desperate need of improvement.

Of course we must respect our traditions, and we must ensure that there is a place for the most serious cases in the courts in the traditional way. However, progress towards a more proportionate approach to court attendance would eliminate wasted time and enhance confidence in the administration of justice. We have a duty to offer more convenient and less intimidating ways for citizens to interact with the justice system while maintaining the court’s authority for serious cases.

[Andrew Bingham]

I am sure that the Minister will come to this in his closing remarks, but he mentioned convenience. Will he address the issue that I raised about the potential of going to Stockport instead of Chesterfield? As I said, Chesterfield is completely and totally inconvenient. If the Government are to pursue that path, which I believe is wrong, will he at least give me some indication that despite the regional and county boundary, Stockport will be given serious consideration as an alternative?

[Mr Vara]

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I can tell him that we are crossing borders and boundaries wherever necessary. He has made a powerful case for Stockport as an alternative. My officials are at hand, and I will personally see to it after this debate that they seriously consider that option.

I am mindful of the time restriction. I will round up by saying that we propose a reform programme fit for the 21st century. It is our intention that modern technology should make it unnecessary for many people who currently go to court to do that. That includes lawyers, who at present can find themselves hanging around at court for hours to have a 10-minute hearing before a judge. We envisage two sets of lawyers booking a 10-minute slot with a judge, who can then have a video conference or a telephone conference.

The world has moved on, and we must move on with it. The Lord Chancellor and I face difficult decisions. Many people have responded to the consultation. Generally speaking, the consultation has had more than 2,000 replies from members of the public and the legal fraternity. It will not be easy to take decisions, but I assure my hon. Friend that all his contributions, including the comments that he has made in this debate, will be considered seriously when we come to those decisions. I congratulate him again on securing this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Burton Magistrates Court

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the proposed closure of Burton Magistrates’ Court.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope—it is the first time I have done so and is a great honour. I am grateful to the Minister for giving up her time to take part in the debate. My dealings on the subject to date have been with her ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who I must admit has been extremely positive in giving up his time to discuss the issue with me and other Members; I think he realises the importance of getting this right. However, my premise today is that we have got this very badly wrong.

I do not wish to be a deficit denier or to pretend that we do not need to reform our courts; in fact, I absolutely support reforming our court system to make it modern and applicable to the way we live our lives today, taking advantage of modern technology. I also recognise that in times of austerity, when we have to make the best use of taxpayers’ money, we have to look at innovative ways of providing services to our citizens. However, I have to say that in this case the Ministry has got it very badly wrong.

On 16 July, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service published its proposal for reforming the court system. The proposal contained a list of courts that the service believes are not providing

“appropriate value for…public money”

due to either poor facilities or low use. I will argue strongly that neither of those is the case for Burton magistrates court. It was, however, one of the courts on the list, and its inclusion has shocked local residents. The court has a reputation as a thriving, efficient community asset providing access to local justice. In fact, my residents are so upset and concerned about the proposal that there is now a 2,000 signature petition against it. When there is such concern among our constituents that they sign a petition in such large numbers we must address it and consider why it has arisen.

As the Member of Parliament for Burton I was immediately concerned that Burton’s inclusion was a huge mistake. During the past two months I have undertaken a detailed examination of the Tribunals Service’s reasoning and the evidence it has provided, and have found a number of errors that seriously undermine the validity of the Department’s arguments.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I would have spoken in the debate, but it is only a 30-minute one, so I will settle for making an intervention. My hon. Friend is making a powerful point on behalf of Burton. I am here on behalf of Buxton court—there is only an r and an x between Burton and Buxton and when I saw the debate title I thought, “They have picked my court debate.” Does he agree that the consultation document on Buxton court in my constituency of High Peak is riddled with inaccuracies, errors, mistakes and inconsistencies that render it—I am sorry to have to say this—completely and utterly useless?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and her strong support for this campaign. She, like me, understands the impact of this court closure on our constituents. It is true that closing Burton magistrates court would leave nowhere in the south-east of Staffordshire that is suitable for, for instance, family work, which I know she is particularly interested in.

Let us get down to the nitty-gritty of the facts that the Ministry of Justice is using to defend this proposed closure. The proposal contains travel times for each court. The Tribunals Service has included a chart detailing what percentage of people will have to travel 30 minutes, 60 minutes and so on. In order to work that information out, it is necessary to know where each individual is travelling to and from. In other words, it is necessary to know what the new local justice areas will be and where the replacement court will be. Of course, the new local justice areas are not established in the proposals. That information is not there, so the Department is sticking its finger in the air and guessing.

It transpires that many of the estimated times are completely inaccurate. The Tribunals Service has included estimated times from Burton magistrates court to each of the replacement courts. As the proposal itself admits, not everybody lives in Burton town centre. For instance, my constituents would have to travel into Burton town centre and then get another bus to the replacement court, which would add a considerable amount of time. For the purposes of today, I have worked out travel times simply from the centre of Burton, where the magistrates court is.

Let us look at the travel times we would be considering for my constituents to reach Cannock magistrates court. By car, it would be 45 to 55 minutes, but of course, only 52% of my constituents own a car. That means that almost half would be forced to use public transport. The Minister will be shocked to learn that we are talking about a travel time by bus of one hour and 56 minutes to get to Cannock, including two changes, and one hour and 53 minutes to return. That is a total travel time of three hours and 49 minutes. It is hard to see how that is access to local justice. By train, it is little better; it is one hour and 51 minutes to get there, including one change, and one hour and 49 minutes to return—a round trip of three hours and 40 minutes. That includes, importantly, a 60-minute walk time, because there is no other way of accessing the court. Derby, of course, is much quicker, with a total travel time of one hour and 32 minutes. The other proposal is to send court work to north Staffordshire justice centre, which is in Newcastle-under-Lyme. By car, that would be a 45-minute trip each way, but by bus, it would be three hours and eight minutes to get there and two hours and 57 minutes to get back.

[Andrew Bingham]

This has an eerie ring of familiarity about it, because the document for my court in High Peak shows that 73% of public transport journeys for my constituents will take more than two hours. That is to Chesterfield, which is not practical. This is another example of inaccuracies and a lack of thinking in the consultation.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I absolutely agree. When we are talking about a travel time to access a court that is as long as it would take me to fly to America, we certainly have a problem. I do not think the Minister has properly understood how she has been let down by the information contained in this document.

The document suggests that the Tribunals Service will use more video conferencing and that there will be new ways of working that will not require people to travel. However, I have spoken to the magistrates at Burton, the solicitors and everyone involved, and it is clear that in Burton only a small proportion of the work dealt with is amenable to video conferencing. It simply will not be possible to do that in the vast majority of the court cases that Burton deals with.

There is another point: court cases start at 10 am. It is absolutely impossible to get to Newcastle-under-Lyme for a 10 am court case. We understand that there is a requirement for the accused to attend court, but if there is physically no way for them to get there, what will be the consequence? Even more so, what will be the consequence for the witnesses? We already have a problem with court cases having to be delayed and adjourned because witnesses have not turned up. What will be the situation when we are expecting witnesses to give up six hours of their time just to get to and from court? It is simply unacceptable and unworkable, and the Minister must understand that.

Perhaps the most alarming statistic in the table is the 60 minutes of walking required of train users going to and from Cannock magistrates court. Even if one replaces part of that journey with a bus ride—costing an extra £4.20, I add—one would have to walk for 46 minutes, which is simply unrealistic for people with mobility issues. The significance of that cannot be overestimated. The Government’s proposal would make it impossible for a large section of the community—disabled people—to access justice, simply because they are physically incapable of reaching the location of their hearing. Under both domestic and European Union legislation, public authorities, including the Courts and Tribunals Service, are required to accommodate the reasonable needs of the disabled. How are we accommodating those needs if we are preventing these people from accessing the court system?

It is also important to remember that difficulties in reaching courts affect not only those involved in the proceedings but their families and the support that people might expect during the court case. Jane Garner, senior victim service manager at Victim Support Staffordshire, has pointed out that these people, who provide important support to all witnesses, will not have their travel expenses reimbursed and so will not be there.

Lastly, the fact that there are so few travel options between Burton and the replacement courts raises a serious concern in terms of victim and witness safety. It will not be uncommon for a defendant on bail and a victim to have to travel on the same public transport at the same time. As we have heard, no bus can get a person there for 10 o’clock. People will be forced to use the same bus—imagine the distress that would be caused if a victim has to spend an hour and a half on a bus with somebody who has assaulted or intimidated them. What are the implications for witness safety and the safety of the process? Intimidation of witnesses and victims must not be underestimated, and there is no way, under the proposal, that we can guarantee the safety of those victims and witnesses.

The Tribunals Service would require court users to travel for unreasonable lengths of time to arrive at their hearings. Moreover, the closure of Burton magistrates court would actively discriminate against those with mobility issues and raise massive safety questions as a result. That is serious enough, but the Department’s proposal is based on a completely false premise, which is the number of courtrooms that are available at Burton magistrates court. According to the Tribunals Service’s proposal, Burton magistrates court has four courtrooms, but that, I am sorry to say, is incorrect. Burton has three courtrooms and one advocates’ room, which, since the closure of Burton county court in 2013, has very occasionally been used as a spillover room for private proceedings. In fact, there is no sign for court four in the reception, because it is never used.

At 6 metres by 3.5 metres, the advocates’ room is little more than a glorified broom cupboard. It is not fit for purpose. Because of its size, parties are forced to sit uncomfortably close to each other, almost banging knees. That is particularly problematic in the kind of acrimonious family cases for which it is used. To make matters worse, the room has no security staff.

Unsurprisingly, the advocates’ room is only ever used as a last resort. From January to August this year, it was used for a total of 19 days: 15 days for family work, three days for matters relating to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and TV licensing, and one for tribunal services. That means that for 110 days—around 22 weeks—the advocates’ room was not being used for legal proceedings. In fact, the space is used so infrequently that it is not even registered or signposted.

As a result of that error, the Tribunals Service has made a serious miscalculation about court usage. It says that it is used to 51% of its capacity. I believe that after correcting this mistake, that court usage goes up to 68%, which would make it hugely efficient.

Things get worse, however. Burton court has suffered severe prejudice through the dates used to calculate usage figures. The statistics that the Ministry of Justice has used for its proposal were gathered between 1 April 2014—note the date: I believe that this must be some sort of April fool’s joke—and 31 March 2015. As the Minister knows, between October and December 2014, Burton’s police cells were undergoing refurbishment, meaning that much of the court’s normal custodial work was transferred to Cannock. Obviously, that has resulted in Burton’s usage figures being artificially depressed. When we put those things together, we see that the court is not operating at 51% capacity but at 68%—at least, I suggest.

Let us look at how Burton operates compared with other courts. We have heard that that is important. I raised the issue of the missing courtroom four with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire, who helpfully wrote back to say:

“You raise a concern regarding the size of Courtroom 4 and its inclusion…when calculating the utilisation of Burton Magistrates’ Court. Courtroom 4 has been used for hearings previously and continues to be available for suitable cases should it be required. Workload at Burton Magistrates’ Court is low overall, meaning that Courtroom 4 as the smaller of the four rooms is rarely used.”

As we have demonstrated, that is simply not the case, and I urge the Minister to take her staff who compiled this report into a darkened room and give them a talking to, because the facts do not fit what is being suggested.

Of course, utilisation figures are just one measure of how well a court is performing. To get a complete picture, it is necessary to compare such things as the time it takes to complete a case after it has been listed or the percentage of trials that prove ineffective. Fortunately, the Tribunals Service is already in possession of such data, which are published regularly as judicial oversight of magistrates court performance reports.

Those reports provide data on 10 different performance measures at the national, cluster and local justice area level, thereby offering a comprehensive insight into how well one region is doing. When we examine those data, we find that Burton magistrates court—being the only magistrates court in south-east Staffordshire, and that is, of course, important—ranks above the national average in seven out of 10 of the Tribunals Service’s measures. It is also above average in six out of 10 measures when compared with the Staffordshire and West Mercia cluster, which is, in itself, one of the best clusters in the country.

The primary purpose of any court is to provide justice swiftly and effectively. According to the statistics that I have outlined, Burton magistrates court does that more successfully than the vast majority of courts in England and Wales. Closing Burton magistrates court would therefore deprive the local area and the tribunals service itself of an incredibly valuable community asset.

Let us consider Burton magistrates court’s facilities. In his response to me on 15 September, the Minister said:

“I must highlight that the consultation proposal for Burton Magistrates’ Court is not based solely on the usage of the court. The court has no separate facilities for defence witnesses and there are a number of access issues for people with disabilities.”

Okay, so let us judge it on the basis of the information that the Minister has been given. First, take the issue of access. I have been to Burton magistrates court and I have spoken to the staff there. I have spoken to the magistrates and the solicitors who work there, and I have even spoken to disability groups in Burton. None of them believes that Burton magistrates court has any access issues whatever. All three courtrooms are entirely disability-friendly, including in the public areas. The proposal is simply wrong. There is even a lift in the court. The only exception is the witness box in court one, but that has never presented any issue in the past. Witnesses are permitted to give evidence under oath from anywhere in the courtroom, meaning that the problem does not exist. This is a straw man put up by the Department, desperately trying to defend its proposal to close the court, but it does not stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

Let us look at the lack of separate waiting facilities for defence witnesses. It is absolutely true that Burton does not, at the moment, have separate waiting facilities for defence witnesses. However, that could easily be resolved by converting the advocates’ room, or courtroom four—or the broom cupboard, as I like to call it—to make it available for that purpose. In fact, the advocates’ room is ideally situated for that purpose, as its location is away from the main body of the court and would ensure that defence witnesses felt very safe.

The other point that has been made in defence of the closure proposal is the lack of cell accommodation. Although it is true that Burton court does not have its own cell accommodation, it does have access to the state-of-the-art cells in the police station next door. Those cells are directly linked to Burton magistrates court through an underground tunnel, which emerges straight into the high-security dock in court one. Cell accommodation has been unavailable only twice in the past 15 years. The proposal is right to say that during the last closure for refurbishment the custodial work was moved to Cannock, but it is wrong in saying that that was a success. In fact, the move caused serious problems for court users, especially victims, witnesses and advocates, in terms of both unacceptable travel times, as we have heard, and expense.

The court and the police station have worked together for a very long time. Indeed, the tunnel between the courtroom and the police station allows anyone giving evidence—witnesses and the accused—to appear right in the dock. It is safe, it is secure and it works incredibly well. In fact, the police have such a good relationship with the court’s security service, GEOAmey, that they have granted GEOAmey a permanent work station within their facility. There is no reason why that should not continue.

If we look the facilities that Burton offers compared with those that the Ministry is claiming to keep open, they not only stand up to scrutiny, but they are better, safer and more fit for purpose. It is not possible to argue that Burton court should close due to inadequate facilities, when the court that is proposed to replace it has much worse facilities. The truth is that Burton court’s facilities are of a very high standard and do not in any way impede access to justice. That is what we are here for: to ensure that our constituents have access to justice.

A final implication relates to the family court. We recognise that it deals with people who are incredibly vulnerable. No other facilities in south-east Staffordshire could deal with family court work. It would be forced to go to Stoke and the facilities there are also not fit for purpose.

I have spoken for a long time and I am grateful, Sir David, for your leniency. I think you can understand that my constituents want me to defend Burton court and their right to justice. We have established the facts of the case, which are that Burton court should stay open. Its facilities are right, it has served the people and it is good value for money. All I ask is that the Minister looks at the facts, and bases her judgement on them. I am sure that that will lead her to the same conclusion as me: that Burton court must stay open.

Courts and Tribunal Services (England and Wales)

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I shall endeavour to grant your wish, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) on securing the debate on this important subject, which is a matter of great concern to my constituents and, I am sure, to those of all hon. Members. I am particularly pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), for reasons that will become apparent as I go through my speech.

I want to start by talking about the consultation document, and I am going to be very critical of it. I have witnessed many consultations in my 12 years as a borough councillor in the High Peak, and in my five years as a Member of Parliament, and I am sorry to say that I cannot remember seeing one as poorly written and riddled with errors and inaccuracies as this one. It contains basic mistakes regarding the High Peak magistrates court in Buxton. For example, it claims that it has no public lift, when in fact it has one. That is a basic error, and I shall talk about other such errors in the document later.

Many people take a dim view of consultations, which are often seen as window dressing, while the result of the process is inevitable. I am sorry to say that the mistakes that have been made in this consultation will only feed that view among the general public. I very much welcome the assurance from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), in his letter to me last month that this is a genuine exercise and that no final decisions will be made until the consultation is complete. I was pleased to see that, and I believe it.

I want to return to the content of the consultation. It is a slapdash piece of work, and I have to ask whether its author has actually been to Buxton and visited the court, or whether it is merely a regurgitation of a consultation undertaken about 10 years ago. Has someone simply dusted off that document, changed a few of the names and dates and decided that that would do? Whichever it is, it is not acceptable. At best it is inaccurate; at worst it is misleading. It has been pointed out to me by somebody with a far more qualified legal brain than mine that so great are the inaccuracies in this consultation that any decision based on it could be open to legal challenge, and I would hate to see that. I want to run through one or two of the inaccuracies.

The document says there is no public lift, but there is. In fairness, a letter was sent out subsequently saying, “This was an error and we are very sorry.” I got a copy of that letter, but many people I know did not; that is another mistake. The document states the Buxton court is not compliant with the Equality Act 2010. That is wrong; it is fully compliant with the disability legislation under that Act. The document states that there are two consultation rooms and that they are in poor condition. That is again wrong; there are three, and they are of a high standard because they were refurbished in 2010.

The document also claims that there is one waiting room available, thereby preventing the “desired segregation” of parties. Yet again, that is wrong. In 2010 the waiting areas were reorganised so now there is a separate entrance and room in the courthouse for witnesses, and the “desired segregation”, as it is termed, is therefore now in place; witnesses are segregated from defendants at all times and can be taken into the court without any communication with others waiting in the court waiting room.

I am sorry to labour this point, but the errors are multiple. The document claims that vulnerable witnesses have to use a waiting room across the road. There is a room across the road from the court; it is used for vulnerable witnesses giving evidence via video link. That has proved to be a valuable asset and is one not offered by all courts. It reassures vulnerable witnesses to know that they do not even have to enter the court building where, despite the segregation offered, they would fear bumping into the defendants. That gives huge reassurance to those who need it most.

The document goes on to talk about using Chesterfield as an alternative, claiming it is fully compliant with health and safety regulations. By omitting the fact that Buxton is also compliant, there is implication by omission, and yet again in my view that could be seen as misleading.

I will now turn to the proposals to use Chesterfield court as an alternative. Yet again, if someone had bothered to visit Buxton and do their homework they would realise that Chesterfield is just not practical. It may look a good solution on a map but in reality it does not work. The consultation talks about travel times from Buxton to Chesterfield. It completely ignores the fact that the court serves not just Buxton but the whole of the High Peak, including Glossop, which has a larger population than Buxton. Getting to Chesterfield from Glossop is just not practical by public transport. If someone had to get to Chesterfield court by public transport for 9.30 am, they would have to leave Glossop at 6.45am. We have heard talk about the journey time from Brinnington at one hour and four minutes; a move to Chesterfield would see 73% of my constituents facing a journey by public transport of over two hours. From that perspective, Brinnington is practically next door.

The hon. Member for Stockport talked about Macclesfield. As we both know, the transport links between the High Peak and Stockport are a lot better than those between High Peak and Chesterfield. If there are going to be closures in the High Peak, has any thought been given to sending people to Stockport? We have talked of Tameside, Macclesfield and Stockport closing. My geographical knowledge of the area is pretty good, and although I want High Peak retained, if there had to be just one site other than that, I would choose Stockport. It could feed Macclesfield, Tameside and High Peak because the transport links are a lot better. Has that not been looked at because Stockport happens to be in a different county or region from the High Peak—or could no one really be bothered?

Members will probably have got the impression by now that I am very unimpressed with the consultation and its contents. To compound the felony I wrote to Amanda Lowndes at Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service on 28 July and I have yet to receive a direct response to my points other than the generic apology regarding the public lift. I do not know why; I do not know whether it is an unwillingness to engage or embarrassment at such an appalling document.

I want to say at this point that this contrasts greatly with the response of the Minister, to whom I have spoken personally and who has responded to my letters. I applaud and thank him for that.

I understand the need to look at issues such as the cost to the public purse and whether we can do things differently, as has been eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath. The savings for the courts on the High Peak, however, are projected at about £46,000, but the moving to Chesterfield will incur extra costs elsewhere, such as the travelling costs of defendants and, indeed, the magistrates. Does a magistrate who is living and serving in High Peak really want to be going over to Chesterfield? Those who know the area will be aware that it gets a touch cold in the winter and we have quite a bit of snow, and people who try to drive from High Peak to Chesterfield in February sometimes do not have the best of chances. This move will discourage people from High Peak from becoming magistrates, and I would not like to see that. The magistrates do a great job and I support them in everything they do.

People will face additional travelling costs, leaving aside the inconvenience, but we also have to consider the costs for other organisations, such as the police. Officers of High Peak Borough Council have to go to court for various things and at the moment they have only to go across the road from the town hall. They can go across, do what they have to do and be back behind their desks fairly quickly. Moving the court to Chesterfield will mean that council officers will be taken out for at least half a day, if not more, and then we have to add on the travel costs and so on. Given the lack of feasible public transport between High Peak and Chesterfield, I can see money being spent on taxis to get people to and from the court. That would be an expensive and unacceptable outcome; I seem to remember someone from the other side of the House going on about people in taxis scuttling around cities—that came to my mind a long time ago.

I have had discussions with constituents who work in and around the courts about this matter, and there are other ways that savings can be made. Previous speakers have highlighted the people who work in and around this area. We should speak to them, because I am sure they can find ways. A lot of cases of Crown Prosecution Service inefficiency have come across my desk. I have known of cases adjourned a dozen times because they are not ready and of the double listing of cases. If we speak to the experts, they could find such savings without the court in Buxton necessarily having to close.

I could talk for much longer, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am mindful of your eight-minute ruling and so I will keep my remarks as succinct as I can. I wish to conclude by saying that High Peak is sandwiched between large towns and cities, and we get pulled one way and then the other, and we often used to be forgotten. As with everybody in this House, part of my responsibility is to represent my constituency, make sure that it is not forgotten and make sure that we get our fair share. The Minister should think long and hard about this decision. He should not base it on this woeful and sloppy piece of work masquerading as a consultation. He should look carefully at the submissions from people in High Peak, mine included. They will give him an accurate picture of High Peak, not the one put out in the consultation. If he is determined to reconfigure the court services in High Peak, I ask him to find a way of doing so that does not force my constituents into long unsustainable journeys. He should examine innovative ways of doing things, such as the pop-up courts. If we have to travel, he should make this realistic and do-able, but I urge him to find a way to preserve a court in High Peak, as that makes sense. If this consultation document had been properly researched and presented, it would have led one to that conclusion. Instead, it is a biased, inaccurate and lazy piece of work.

Human Rights Act 1998 (Repeal and Substitution) Bill

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Friday 1st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his Bill. The Abu Qatada case got a lot of publicity. Does he agree that the public’s sense of outrage about this case has created disaffection not only with the Human Rights Act, but with democracy generally and even with this place altogether? People have seen how powerless and helpless we appear to be to bring this man to the justice that he should surely meet.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s timely and telling intervention. This case has undermined confidence in human rights, but it has also undermined people’s confidence in Parliament and its ability to legislate, to be sovereign and to stand up for Britain.

In another case, an Albanian man returned to the UK illegally after being told to leave. Following his conviction for robbery in this country, he could not be deported— despite being convicted of yet another crime since his return—on the grounds of the family life he had established in the UK. A Sudanese man was convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl in the UK. He could not be deported because of the risk that he would be subjected to maltreatment in the Sudan. Most people would have very little sympathy with a paedophile rapist and would think that this man should not be in the UK. Despite being found by a deportation tribunal to pose a threat to UK national security, an Algerian man could not be deported to Algeria because of the risk that he might commit suicide while in custody there. All those cases have caused widespread public concern, which is why a key plank of the Bill is that the Human Rights Act should be repealed.

Let us look at the opinion polls. A few moments ago, my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) pointed out the level of public concern. For nearly a decade, opinion polls have consistently shown that the British people reject the UK’s current human rights settlement.

In 2008, a research project was undertaken by the Ministry of Justice—and let us be honest, that Ministry is not exactly sceptical of human rights as an institution and under the previous Government it was not exactly sceptical of European human rights provisions either. Notwithstanding that, having analysed results collected between 2004 and 2006, it found that 57% of respondents agreed that

“too many people take advantage of the Human Rights Act”,

while just 14% disagreed. Forty per cent. believed that the Act

“has caused more problems than it has solved”,

while 24% disagreed with that. Despite the existence of the Act, 56% agreed that

“this country lacks a shared sense of rights and responsibilities”.

So a central plank of my Bill is that we should talk not only about rights, but about responsibilities. Given that that was a Government-sponsored report on the policy of the then Government, it strikes me as a less than ringing endorsement of the human rights settlement that the country has today.

In May 2010, a YouGov opinion poll found that 53% supported the introduction of a British Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act, while 24% wanted to keep the Act. I believe that, in presenting the Bill, I am acting in line with the wishes of the majority of the country.

In February 2011, another YouGov poll found that 63% thought that the British Parliament and the Supreme Court, rather than a foreign court, should have the final say on human rights matters, while 25% thought that it right that we should be subject to the Strasbourg court when it comes to appeals. Fifty-seven per cent. believed that

“Britain’s membership of the ECHR has been abused by lawyers making spurious cases on behalf of criminals and on balance a bad thing”,

while only 19% believed that

“Britain’s membership has been a valuable protection against the government ignoring the human rights of British people and on balance a good thing”.

Mesothelioma (Legal Aid Reform)

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Blunt]

The sister of my right hon. Friend Lord McNally, the Justice Minister in the House of Lords, died of that disease, and my father died of respiratory disease. I assure the hon. Gentleman and all his hon. Friends—

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Blunt]

I will not, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, because I need time to put on record all the things that I think are important for mesothelioma sufferers, for whom concern is, very properly, universal.

Mesothelioma is a terrible disease. We recognise its devastating impact on sufferers and their families, and we take extremely seriously the plight of sufferers and their right to claim compensation for negligently caused personal injury. As was clear from the way in which the hon. Member for Sefton Central spoke, this is an emotive subject. This debate highlights the importance of the issue, and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) also made that clear.

I will deal briefly with three main issues: first, why our reforms to conditional fee arrangements are the right way forward; secondly, why we are taking an exceptional course in respect of mesothelioma claims, and the circumstances in which that exceptional course will be managed once we have improved the position for sufferers who cannot trace their employer’s insurer; and, thirdly, how some reforms have lowered the barriers for claimants in recent years.

On the rationale for conditional fee arrangement reform, it is important to make it clear that our current legal aid reforms do not affect mesothelioma cases, as legal aid is not generally available. The Access to Justice Act 1999 removed legal aid for the majority of personal injury cases, including mesothelioma cases, where alternative forms of funding such as conditional fee arrangements were available. As the hon. Member for Sefton Central will be aware, the Government are implementing the recommendations in Lord Justice Jackson’s review of civil litigation costs, and particularly a fundamental reform of no win, no fee CFAs. Part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 implements those reforms.

Lord Justice Jackson concluded that the current arrangements, under which success fees and after-the-event insurance premiums are payable by the losing side, in addition to standard legal costs, are a major contributor to the high costs of civil litigation, and that it was right in principle to change the arrangements across the board. The truth is that the current system is indefensible. It has turned out to be a racket for lawyers, which is why it is changing. The new system will assist the execution of meritorious claims rather than supporting a claims-management industry.

The Government are committed to addressing disproportionate costs throughout the whole of civil litigation, and the provisions in part 2 of the Act will deal with the unfairness that currently exists in the system between claimants and defendants. These important reforms will ensure that meritorious claims can still be pursued, but at a more proportionate cost. As part of the reforms, earlier settlement will be encouraged and damages for non-pecuniary loss, such as pain suffered and loss of amenity, will be increased by 10%. In time, the reforms will apply to all areas of civil litigation—that was what Lord Justice Jackson recommended, and the Government agree.

The Government are certainly not suggesting that mesothelioma claims are brought inappropriately. Indeed, such claims are often among the easiest in which to establish base merit. I want to be absolutely clear, in response to the tone of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Sefton Central, that these claims are, of course, not part of the compensation culture—no one has suggested that they are. They are, however, part of a process of civil litigation that has to be reformed.

On the temporary exception from conditional fee arrangement reforms for mesothelioma claims, we announced that the relevant provisions in part 2 will come into force in April 2013. In particular, sections 44 and 46 abolish the recoverability of success fees and after-the-event insurance costs from the losing side in all categories of case in which they are currently used. We are, however, deferring implementation in relation to mesothelioma claims until we are satisfied on the way forward for those who are unable to trace their employer’s insurer. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands the crucial importance of that.

A number of reforms in recent years have improved the position of mesothelioma sufferers by lowering the barriers to bringing claims. In particular, the Employers’ Liability Tracing Office, which was introduced in April 2011, is designed to be a comprehensive online resource of current and historical employers’ liability policies, thus making it easier for claimants to find the relevant insurer. The database is updated with the results of any new traces, so its size and utility continue to increase. We recognise, however, that there remains a gap where sufferers cannot trace their employer’s insurer. The Department for Work and Pensions is therefore in discussions about the way forward for stakeholders. Primary legislation might be required, but I anticipate that my noble friend Lord Freud, who is working on the matter, will make a statement before the summer recess. If primary legislation is required, however, the hon. Member for Sefton Central and other hon. Members will understand that that will take a considerable period of time.

I can give a commitment that we will consider all the factors raised today when we come to set out the review’s terms of reference. I cannot, however, set out those terms of reference or a timetable, because any review may not happen until we have identified any primary legislation that might be required. Additionally—the hon. Gentleman made this point, and it has also been made by the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan)—that means that the review will occur against the backdrop of a substantially changed conditional fee arrangement market, so we will of course consider the effect of those changes as part of the review.

I have rather more to say, but I regret that I will not be able to do so, given that, understandably, the hon. Gentleman took interventions during his speech. Nevertheless, I have put on the record the substantive responses that he was seeking from the Government.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

I wish to say a few words about the Government amendment. I hope that it means that the Government will come up with a satisfactory system by which mesothelioma sufferers can be fully compensated, without them or their families being robbed of the compensation they receive and so richly deserve.

Hon. Members may well be aware that, in years gone by, Rochdale was home to the world’s largest asbestos factory, so this is a massive issue for my constituents. It is fair to say that they suffer from the connections that they have had with asbestos over many years. Just last Saturday, I was knocking on doors in my constituency, as I do every weekend, and I called upon a lady in Littleborough, Mrs Beryl Greenwood, who told me about her experience with this disease. She had been married to her husband, Kenneth, for many years, and he had contracted the disease from having worked as a welder on the railways. He had worn asbestos gloves at that time and, no surprise, he passed away a couple of years ago. I suppose the good news is that she was served well by solicitors; she and her family received a fair amount of compensation and were treated reasonably. She told me that the issue was that none of that compensation will ever bring back her husband, whom she loved dearly. The point I am getting to is that the Government now need to amend this Bill—we are asking them to be genuine in this—so that the people and the families who suffer from this terrible disease are treated fairly, responsibly and respectfully.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I do not intend to detain the House for long, because I am aware that plenty of other hon. Members wish to speak. I just wish to add my voice to those thanking the Government and the Ministers for their concession on this matter. My constituency is very rural but, like the constituency of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), it contains a large asbestos-related industry. That industry was born and based in High Peak, so my constituency has a higher level of mesothelioma than the national average. The Government’s movement on this issue is to be commended. Last week, I, along with one or two of my hon. Friends, voted in the Opposition Lobby on this matter. I subsequently received an e-mail from a constituent telling me that he was actually proud of his MP—he said that this does not happen very often.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), because she has driven this through, along with the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and those in the other place. I welcome the amendment in lieu and am particularly pleased to see that a report will be published on the conclusions of the review. That gives me great confidence that the review will be meaningful and searching, and will come forward with something that all of us across the House can support when the day comes. I look forward to that report.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

When the Lord Chancellor introduced the statement to the House which preceded this Bill, I asked him about the provisions in relation to domestic violence. He thought that I would be pleased with the answer, because the Government had recognised that domestic violence was, to some degree, a special case. I was not pleased with the answer, because at that point the definition of “domestic violence” was unique to this Bill, it did not cover all cases and it was, in my view, fundamentally flawed. So the first thing I wish to say is how glad I am that the Government have now decided to use the Association of Chief Police Officers definition of “domestic violence”.

I need to push one point further, however. The failure of the Government to understand the reality of the lives of victims of domestic violence is reflected in how they have constructed this Bill. I will never forget the moment when I talked to two local police officers in my constituency who dealt regularly with victims of domestic violence and who told me about a case that they had just dealt with of a woman who had been beaten up by her husband 12 years earlier but did not report it until he started biting pieces out of her body. That case, although it made me tremble with horror, is shockingly not that exceptional. We should not forget that, in this country, two women are murdered every week following a history of domestic violence. We should not forget how few women ever report it. Why do they not report it? Overwhelmingly, the victims of domestic violence think, “It was my fault.” That is how they feel, so they do not go to the police or to social workers. They conceal it, as they think it is caused by something that they did.

Such women often report because of someone else. When women are pregnant, they will report their victimisation by their partner because they want to protect the child in their womb. The problem with the distance travelled by the Government is that they have not yet gone far enough. I hope to be able to persuade the Minister to take that last step and to accept wider forms of evidence. We know that women do not necessarily go to a refuge; they go to a place of refuge. They might go to their sister, to their school friend or to their mum, and they are the people who women will tell first about their experience of victimisation.

Some very perturbing evidence from Welsh Women’s Aid suggests that the average time—the average, not the extreme—that a victim might take before reporting a domestic violence incident and getting to the stage of resolving the private family law issues is five and a half years. That average time would be excluded by the route that the Minister is pursuing. I beg him to recognise that the House of Lords got this one right and to say that he will take the last step and ensure that the other victims are properly protected. That is important because by allowing these women to use private family law to protect themselves and their families, we will prevent future domestic violence homicides. The Minister could do that by changing his position on the amendments.