Middle East and North Africa

Debate between Andrew Percy and Jonathan Djanogly

Thursday 17th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Percy]

Indeed, and I am sorry to hear about that. There are many good people who support the Palestinian cause for just reasons, but we must be honest and say that some use the cause for more sinister ends. We have heard examples of those, and they are truly shocking. I have no doubt that everybody here, whatever their view on the conflict, would condemn such actions entirely.

I want to say a little about the Israeli response. It has saddened me that some have bandied about phrases regarding collective punishment and the proportionality of the response. It is incredibly sad that people have died on any side of the conflict, but we cannot conclude, because of the way Hamas acts and the fact that it puts more of its civilians in harm’s way, that Israel’s response must be disproportionate simply because more people have sadly died. Let us be honest about what is going on. Israel does not fire rockets from its civilian population. While we have been debating, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency has confirmed that one of its schools in Gaza has been used as a hiding place for rockets, and the agency is due to make a statement on that shortly. That tells us all we need to know about why there are such large numbers of civilian casualties.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised that point. The charge has been raised against Israel that it is committing a crime by firing on families. My hon. Friend’s point is an important one; there is a difference between firing on families because they are families, and because they are being used as a shield to hide army and control centre operations. As far as I have seen, where families have been fired on, Israel has agreed to investigate it, admitting that it is not the right thing to do and quite a different thing from firing on control centres.

[Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions are getting a bit long. Can we cut them down, please?

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Andrew Percy and Jonathan Djanogly

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

No; if the hon. Lady listens, I will answer the question.

Our reforms are intended to redress the unfairness that exists in our civil litigation system between claimants and defendants. They will move conditional fee agreements back to the position that they were in before the Opposition’s disastrous reforms in the Access to Justice Act 1999. Our proposals are premised on the similar treatment of classes of cases, based on the costs or difficulty of bringing a claim. The Lords amendments would introduce a new unfairness between claimants, based only on the type of disease or illness, and essentially dependent on whether it was caused in the workplace.

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

A number of my constituents who worked on the docks in Goole and in power stations have been affected by this illness. There seems to be a lot of confusion in this debate. For simplicity’s sake, will the Minister say whether my constituents who worked at the docks and who are suffering from this awful disease will receive more or less money in compensation under the Government’s proposals than they receive at the moment?

[Mr Djanogly]

That will depend on the arrangements that they make with their lawyers. Under the new system, for the first time since the Opposition’s reforms which did so much to create a compensation culture in our country, the client will have an interest in what their lawyer is being paid. Until we get back to that situation, there will be an ongoing ratcheting of costs, which is not in the interests of such claims.

The Opposition’s Lords amendments rate one sort of claim above another. Somehow, a mesothelioma claim is automatically more worthy than a personal injury claim. The Government simply do not accept that. I acknowledge the concern in the other place, which underpinned Lords amendments 31 and 32, that the new arrangements will prevent lawyers from being willing to take mesothelioma cases and leave claimants out of pocket, but I believe it to be mistaken.

Not-for-profit Advice Sector

Debate between Andrew Percy and Jonathan Djanogly

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Percy]

I appreciate what the Minister is saying. As he must know from his surgeries, many constituents come to us and say that the last thing that they want to do is have a telephone conversation with us—they want to see us face to face. Can he assure us that residents who need assistance and do not want to access it down the telephone line—a lot of older people in particular have problems with that—will continue to be able to get face-to-face advice?

[Mr Djanogly]

The telephone service will be used only in a limited number of areas, so that we can see how it works, and yes, if someone is unsuitable for receiving telephone advice, perhaps because of their age, the alternative of face-to-face advice will be available.

I am pleased to see good examples of not-for-profit organisations acting innovatively, forging partnerships with other organisations and adapting to the changing face of advice provision. I accept that the proposed reforms are likely to be particularly challenging to the not-for-profit sector. Legal aid, however, is only one of many funding streams that citizens advice bureaux and law centres receive. For example, legal aid represents only 15% of the income of citizens advice bureaux. I also point out that our scope changes have not yet happened and will not do so for another year, giving us time to look at the changing needs of the market. Indeed, one of the major issues for the sector is changes to other sources of funding, such as local authority cuts, which are determined by local priorities, not central Government.

Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Debate between Andrew Percy and Jonathan Djanogly

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

I can confirm that the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice will immediately discuss how and when the post will be filled.

[Andrew Percy]

I thank the Minister for that.

The question of the appeals process is not quite as simple or clear-cut as has been presented. Despite referring to the appeals process when I moved my amendment a few weeks ago, it was not one of the main drivers behind my joining the campaign. The fact that under the previous legislation it was accepted that the process would not start for some time demonstrates the difficulties that arise. There is the perception or concern that some people might use the appeals process almost to continue the grieving process. Members have talked about getting closure, but actually the appeals process can postpone that closure, which can be difficult for families.

I understand, therefore, that this is a difficult issue. The Opposition spokesperson made a sensible proposal—about having a trial—but that is not necessarily the answer, because, as the Minister said, those decisions can be judicially reviewed. The key point about the chief coroner was his role in driving the necessary reforms, which can continue with or without the appeals process.

Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Debate between Andrew Percy and Jonathan Djanogly

Tuesday 25th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

If the right hon. Gentleman does not mind, I do not have much time and I must proceed.

I want to reassure hon. Members that the Government have listened to concerns expressed here and in the other place and by a large number of organisations. We have responded to these concerns and we have compromised, so we no longer intend to abolish the office of the chief coroner. Moving the office from schedule 1 to schedule 5 means that we will retain the chief coroner in statute. We have listened to the views of stakeholders on the constitution and remit of the new ministerial board and bereaved organisations committee and we have amended our proposals accordingly. We are considering a requirement for the new board to produce an annual report to Parliament, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole wished, strengthening further the accountability for and transparency of our reform proposals.

The Government’s decision not to proceed with full implementation was not taken lightly. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole, I thought, made somewhat light of the costs of the chief coroner. The simple fact is that we cannot afford the establishment costs of £10.9 million and running costs of £6.6 million per year, especially when functions can be carried out from within existing resources.

[Andrew Percy]

Can the Minister tell me how much his Department spent on consultants in the past year?

[Mr Djanogly]

I can get back to my hon. Friend on that. I will write to him. I do not have the figures to hand.

I note the concerns that hon. Members have raised about the establishment and running costs, which are of course drawn from the original impact assessment prepared by the previous Administration which accompanied the Coroners and Justice Act. However, even if Opposition Members now dispute their own figures, we cannot escape the fact that new funding is required at a time when the Ministry of Justice is facing budget cuts of some 23%. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) knows very well, we placed a breakdown of our figures in the House of Commons Library months ago. The alternative package of reforms can, I firmly believe, deliver the policy intentions of part 1 of the 2009 Act, but without the expense of establishing and maintaining the office of the chief coroner.

I can confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole that I have considered the new Royal British Legion and INQUEST proposals for an elongated implementation timetable in order to spread the cost of the office of chief coroner, but their proposals would mean a delay to the urgently needed reforms of several years, and there is no guarantee that even then funding will be available to establish the office. At best there would be a delay to reform, and at worst there would be no reform at all.

I began by speaking of the urgent need for reform, and I would urge my hon. Friend to consider the ramifications of his amendment. If the office of chief coroner were to be removed from schedule 5, the office would be left in statute, but with no prospect of its powers being implemented. In turn, without the ability to transfer chief coroner functions elsewhere, we would be prevented from implementing all but a small handful of provisions in part 1 of the 2009 Act. That would leave us with the worst possible outcome: little or no meaningful reform. That would be unacceptable; not least to the families of the bereaved who deserve and expect urgent reform of the system.

I therefore urge my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment so that we can proceed with the urgent and much needed reform of the coroner system.

Courts Service Estate

Debate between Andrew Percy and Jonathan Djanogly

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

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

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

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

[Mr Djanogly]

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

Court Closures (Yorkshire)

Debate between Andrew Percy and Jonathan Djanogly

Wednesday 7th July 2010 Westminster Hall

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

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) for contributing to the debate. I compliment them on the quality and sincerity of their defence of their local courts.

I shall set out the Government’s position on the court reform proposals, and provide some details about the courts that currently sit in Goole and Selby. I shall also explain the reasoning behind the inclusion of those courts on the list of possible closures.

In my new role, I have taken the opportunity to visit courts and meet the staff, professional judiciary and magistrates who work hard to deliver justice in communities throughout England and Wales. I have been very impressed by all that I have seen so far. It is evident that courts are run by a dedicated partnership of Her Majesty’s Courts Service staff and judiciary, and I am personally committed to continuing to support their contribution to justice.

What has also been clear in my first few weeks in office is the country’s economic position, and the immediate need to take action to address the structural deficit. Following the emergency Budget, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor outlined our plans to consult on the closure of a number of courts, as well as to seek wider views on how court services could be modernised. That is one strand of the Ministry of Justice’s plans to look critically and holistically at how we deliver justice, and to think about how we continue to deliver those critical services in the future. We have also announced plans to consider sentencing and legal aid.

The decision to consult on the closure of courts was not taken lightly or in isolation. We know we cannot deliver the quality of facilities the public rightly expect and deserve, because we are working out of too many courts. Our low utilisation rate—only 65% across England and Wales—shows that we do not need the number of courts we currently have. Recent improvements in transport and communication links mean that people can travel further in less time if they need to. More can be done to access justice online and via the telephone, which reduces the circumstances in which a visit to court would be necessary.

We need some fresh thinking about the wider issue of access to local justice. We need to consider whether past ideas about needing a court in every town are relevant today or whether—as with almost every other aspect of modern life—things can be done differently, and innovation and technology can be embraced to meet the needs of modern society and ensure better access to justice.

We are already doing a lot to improve the service experienced by witnesses, defendants and other court users. We have increased access to online and telephone services. Currently 70% of money claims, and the vast majority of possession actions are issued centrally via electronic channels. People can pay fines online for driving infringements, or for not paying their TV licence on time. They can also pay off debts or court fees online using a wide variety of methods. We are improving the availability of information provided on the web and over the telephone from dedicated information centres. That will allow front-line staff to focus on people who need to see a judge. We are increasing the use of video link technology between prisons and courts, and piloting video links between police stations and courts.

Whenever possible, we need to support people to explore a variety of dispute resolution routes for family and civil cases. Such routes are better for those involved in cases that can be mediated, as they can avoid unpleasant prolonged and expensive litigation. Such a situation is also better for the courts because it should reduce court time and overall costs.

We are exploring how local communities can support those charged with a minor offence before their criminality escalates. We are working closely with local support agencies and networks to ensure that appropriate help is available for people with multiple underlying problems that drive their offending behaviour.

The court reform consultation seeks views on the proposed closure of 103 magistrates courts and 54 county courts that are underused and have inadequate facilities. It began on 23 June and will run until 15 September. All responses will be fully considered before decisions are made. The consultation will set out a sustainable arrangement of court services across England and Wales to meet the needs of local communities and will allow us to deliver services in the most efficient way. The proposals would achieve savings of £15.3 million a year in running costs and enable us to avoid a maintenance backlog costing £21.5 million. A further assessment will be necessary of the savings that could be achieved and the value that could be released from disposal of the properties. However, I appreciate that those are generalities.

My hon. Friends asked about the two magistrates courts in their constituencies. I have listened to what they have said and will continue to listen to what they and others say during the consultation. The Lord Chancellor’s decision on whether to close Goole and Selby magistrates courts will not be easy; nor will his decisions on the other courts listed in the consultation. Each decision is balanced against several factors, including utilisation, maintenance costs and proximity to other courts. My hon. Friends’ points are valid, but we have to look at each court’s work load in the context of local justice across each area.

Goole magistrates court has a low utilisation rate, as it sits for less than a third of the available time. It sits in a local criminal justice board area whose overall utilisation rate is low, which we consider does not deliver value for money to taxpayers. Given that we know that there is so little demand for a magistrates court in Goole, I find the argument for investing considerable public spending there on backlog maintenance work of around £80,000 difficult to make, especially as Beverley, where the work would move, is only 28 miles away and has ample capacity to take on the additional work.

With regard to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole made about distance, we consider a one-hour journey by public transport acceptable for travel to court. Not many people are frequent users of magistrates courts. I assure him that we do not propose closing the court in Goole only because of the performance of the court in Beverley, but we must look at utilisation over the whole area.

My hon. Friend asked why we do not close Bridlington magistrates court. The decision was taken by local management and took into account a range of aspects to ensure sufficient capacity in the area, based on the total number of courtrooms in each court.

[Andrew Percy]

On the point about people being within an hour’s journey of the court, the figures I mentioned indicate that it would take at least an hour and 25 minutes to travel by bus from Goole to Beverley, including a change in Hull because there is no direct bus. Incidentally, there is a direct bus service between Bridlington and Beverley, although I do not suggest the closure of Bridlington. The figure of one hour and 25 minutes is a minimum, and the journey time is more likely to be one hour and 39 minutes.

[Mr Djanogly]

My hon. Friend makes a fair and relevant point, which he should submit for consideration in the consultation. The original reason for the location of many courts is that they were intended to be half an hour’s horse ride away from population centres. We thought that a one-hour journey by public transport was probably more in tune with modern thinking. I assure him that we will do our best to provide him with information on running costs and the other statistics he requested. Again, he should advise us in his response to the consultation of any statistics he has.

As Goole is the only magistrates court in the local justice area of Goole and Howdenshire, we propose that the three LJAs should merge to create a single entity for east Yorkshire, covering the whole of the East Riding. Relatively few magistrates sit at the three benches we propose to combine—only 95 in total. Combining the three will provide a pool large enough to facilitate a more efficient listing of work and reduce the amount of administrative work involved. There will also be advantages for magistrates, allowing them more flexibility in sittings and a wider variety of work.

Although Selby magistrates court has good facilities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty said, it too is underused, sitting only around 60% of the time available. Like Goole, it sits in a local criminal justice board area that has a low overall utilisation rate. Selby benefits from being located only 15 miles from York, which is capable of absorbing the work from Selby and has good transport links to all parts of west and north Yorkshire, although I believe my hon. Friend questioned that in his earlier remarks. His point was that people in the south of his constituency did not have such good access. I encourage him to make that point in the consultation. I was aware of the refurbishment of the Selby magistrates court, but I believe that there is currently a backlog of maintenance work to the value of about £100,000.

Selby and York local justice areas already have joint panels, so merging the two would simply formalise that arrangement and reap the administrative benefits. I understand that the closure of courts in several communities will concern hon. Members and some of their constituents. I welcome views on the proposal, and they will be taken into account before decisions are made. However, I want to make it clear that I believe that operating out of around 530 court houses is unsustainable and does not offer the taxpayer value for money. I reiterate the point that we need to think more widely than bricks and mortar when considering access to justice; we need to embrace in the justice sector many of the technological advances that we take for granted in our work and social lives.

Another point I will address in the time remaining is the impact the proposals will have on local justice. That important point was picked up in different ways by both my hon. Friends. My answer is that there absolutely will not be an impact on local justice. The Government remain committed to a system in which justice is done and seen to be done in the communities affected by crime. The quality of justice matters equally. It is not assured simply by having a court building in each small town, as populations are more mobile and use more sophisticated communications than ever before. The speed with which cases are decided, the facilities we provide to meet the needs of all court users and the respect for the quality of our justice system must be as important, if not more important, than locality. The involvement of communities in the justice system is absolutely key to that, both as magistrates and assistants. With more than 95% of criminal cases heard by magistrates, there is no doubt about the scale of community involvement in justice. I will continue to support magistrates as the bedrock of our justice system. I have held meetings with magistrates’ associations and individual magistrates, and will continue to do so to prove the Government’s support for the magistracy.

HMCS provided £21,000 of funding in 2009-10 for magistrates in the community scheme run by the Magistrates Association. On community engagement, HMCS works with magistrates and other justice agencies to host regular open days that provide local communities with insight on how justice agencies work together to serve the community, staging mock trials to encourage understanding of the justice system.

We want people to resolve civil disputes more quickly and effectively. County courts, of course, are involved in the proposals as well. Justice does not take place only in court; uncontested money and property disputes can be resolved through our online services, Money Claims Online and Property Claims Online. We are exploring ways of increasing the use of alternative dispute resolution when it can provide more effective and satisfactory solutions than a day in court.

The time is right to take a fresh look at the provision of court services to meet the challenging and changing needs of the justice agencies and society. Work loads are falling in the magistrates courts and court time has been saved by magistrates and court staff working together with increased efficiency. An example is the success of “Criminal justice: simple, speedy, summary”, which speeds up the time from charge to disposal and drastically reduces the need for adjournment. We are developing better ways of delivering justice and will continue to improve them.