Oral Answers to Questions
Christina Rees Excerpts(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Oliver Heald
As the hon. Gentleman knows, a promise was made that the Act would be reviewed within three years and five years of implementation—[Interruption.] Yes, within the period starting at three years and going up to five years. That period has just started, and an announcement will be made in due course.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
Exceptional case funding was introduced as part of LASPO with the aim of ensuring that out-of-scope cases with exceptional circumstances would have access to legal aid. Between 2013 and 2016, 4,032 applications were made but, due to the stringency of the criteria, a staggering 3,081 of those applications were not granted. Will the Minister commit to broadening the criteria for exceptional case funding to allow more people to become eligible for this safety net and to increase access to justice for those who need it most?
Sir Oliver Heald
The hon. Lady raises an important point. The number of cases being applied for and granted is rising, but there is also the question of ensuring that people who might need this funding are aware of it. That is an important part of the picture. Exceptional needs funding is a vital part of the picture and we will certainly keep it under review. If she wants to raise a detailed point with me about how it is operating, I would be more than happy either to discuss it with her or to enter into correspondence about it.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
The continued cuts to legal aid funding mean that there is a rising number of litigants in person. Many women have to face their abusive partner in court, with no assistance on how to navigate the complexities of the law. More needs to be done to protect women during the legal process. What steps is the Minister taking to increase legal assistance for women and ensure that justice can truly be done?
Dr Lee
Women do need additional support, not just in going through the legal process, but in housing and on many different issues, before, during and after their time in prison. I have already visited the Pause project in Hackney, where I was struck by how effective its approach has been in helping these vulnerable women. On the specific questions, we are working on this, but I would be happy to write to the hon. Lady with a more detailed response.
Sexual Offences (Pardons Etc) Bill
Christina Rees Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
I would like to pay my respects to the people of Aberfan. We will not forget you.
I thank the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (John Nicolson) for introducing the Bill, and I thank the many Members, across parties, who support it. We have heard fantastic speeches today, especially from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is very honourable.
The Government’s announcement that they intend to amend the Policing and Crime Bill is, of course, welcome but it does not go far enough. The Bill we are debating concerns posthumous pardons and pardons for men who are still alive. It would pardon anyone who had been convicted of, or cautioned for, a specified offence and who had died before the legislation came into force, provided that the following two conditions are met: that the other person involved in the conduct constituting the offence consented to it and was aged 16 or over; and that such conduct would not be an offence under section 71 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which concerns sexual activity in a public lavatory.
The Bill also relates to pardons for men who are still living. It would pardon anyone who had been convicted of, or cautioned for, an offence listed in section 92(1) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and who was living at the time the clause came into force. Pardons for living men would not be automatic but would be tied to the disregard process set out in the 2012 Act. Anyone whose conviction or caution had already become disregarded under the 2012 Act at the time the clause came into force would be pardoned for that offence. Anyone whose conviction or caution becomes disregarded under the 2012 Act after the clause came into force would be pardoned for that offence at the time the disregard took effect. Living men would not receive a pardon unless they had also successfully applied to have their conviction or caution disregarded under the 2012 Act.
The press has been quick to term the proposal “Turing’s law”. For Alan Turing, a war hero without whom we might not have cracked the Enigma code and defeated fascism, his pardon came posthumously and too late. Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown rightly issued an official apology in 2009 after a public petition. In issuing the apology, Gordon Brown said of Mr Turing:
“In 1952, he was convicted of gross indecency—in effect, tried for being gay. His sentence—and he was faced with the miserable choice of this or prison—was chemical castration by a series of injections of female hormones. He took his own life just two years later.
Thousands of people have come together to demand justice for Alan Turing and recognition of the appalling way he was treated. While Turing was dealt with under the law of the time, and we can’t put the clock back, his treatment was of course utterly unfair, and I am pleased to have the chance to say how deeply sorry I am and we all are for what happened to him. Alan and so many thousands of other gay men who were convicted, as he was convicted, under homophobic laws, were treated terribly. Over the years, millions more lived in fear of conviction. I am proud that those days are gone and that in the past 12 years this Government has done so much to make life fairer and more equal for our LGBT community. This recognition of Alan’s status as one of Britain’s most famous victims of homophobia is another step towards equality, and long overdue.”
Opposition Members, and Labour supporters the length and breadth of the UK, are proud that it was a Labour Government and a Labour Prime Minister that started the process that has led us to this debate. The coalition Government initially refused to exercise a pardon in 2012, and it was right that, under the weight of public opinion, they changed their mind in 2013, so that the Queen could grant a pardon in 2014. As many have said today, there are so many more men who have not received a pardon, and they should receive one. It is right that we recognise the need to extend the pardon afforded to Alan Turing to others who were convicted of what was, much to history’s shame, a criminal offence, although most people today quite rightly find that hard to believe.
That is why Labour committed to Turing’s law in the 2015 general election. The law as it stands does not go far enough, as Rachel Barnes, a great niece of Alan Turing, recognised in 2015 when she handed in a petition to Downing Street. She said:
“I consider it to be fair and just that everybody who was convicted under the Gross Indecency Law is given a pardon. It is illogical that my great uncle has been the only one to be pardoned when so many were convicted of the same crime. I feel sure that Alan Turing would have also wanted justice for everybody.”
It is right that the Government have listened to those who have campaigned on the issue for many years. The private Member’s Bill before the House today would, of course, go further. Pardons would be given to all convicted of specified offences, save for those convicted of behaviour that would still amount to an offence today. It is difficult to see the Government’s objection to that in principle. The problems of perception that the Minister highlights could easily be avoided through appropriate publicity. It is often suggested that the disregard scheme should have more promotion. The Government should give serious thought to that, whatever the outcome of proceedings in the House today.
The proposed amendment to section 92 of the 2012 Act also looks like a logical progression. Section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956—soliciting by men for immoral purposes—was not included in the list of convictions that should be disregarded in the 2012 Act. There are many examples that show that the offence in section 32 was used as recently as the 1990s to arrest and prosecute gay and bisexual men for suggesting sex between what they understood to be consenting adults, often in incidents involving plain-clothes police officers. At present men convicted under section 32 cannot have their conviction disregarded, even though it was repealed by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The Bill will add those convictions to the list of those that can be disregarded, closing that loophole.
Labour recognises that the conviction and persecution of more than 50,000 men affected by these vicious and discriminatory laws has left a legacy of pain and hurt, not just to the men themselves but to their families and friends. This Bill is about our country sending those men a clear and unequivocal message that they did nothing wrong, and they should not have been criminalised. It is time to right a grievous historical wrong. That is why I and Labour Members will support the Bill. We encourage all other hon. Members to do the same.
Civil Legal aid (Merits Criteria) (Amendment) Regulations 2016
Christina Rees Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the Minister for his kind words and for his explanation of the statutory instrument. I confirm that we do not oppose it, but I should like to make some observations.
The Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013 for full representation were implemented in April of that year to give effect to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. In April 2013, the Government consulted on further cuts to legal aid, in their consultation “Transforming Legal Aid”. When that consultation first proposed removing civil legal aid for borderline cases, there was widespread opposition. At the time, legal aid was granted for certain case types that were assessed as having borderline prospects of success. The consultation acknowledged that those were
“high priority cases, for example cases which concern holding the State to account, public interest cases, or cases concerning housing.”
The regulations themselves were later amended to make the merits test less restrictive, following the July 2015 High Court judgment in the case of IS v. Director of Legal Aid Casework, which, among other things, found:
“The rigidity of the merits test…is…not reasonable.”
That case was a challenge to the exceptional funding arrangements, and the judge’s findings on the merits test were made in that context. The decision was subsequently overruled in the Court of Appeal, and the July 2016 amendments essentially see the merits test revert to the original 2013 position. The High Court’s decision meant that more people would potentially qualify for legal assistance under the revised regulations, and many lawyers working in the affected areas of practice would have been content for that position to remain unaltered. At the time of the “Transforming Legal Aid” consultation, given the significance of the cases described, many questioned why the “borderline” category was to be abolished.
Determining the prospects of success of a case is not a scientific process; it is a subjective exercise. Lawyers can attest to many cases to which the “borderline” description was attached, but that when funded went on to lead to changes in the law. The Law Society’s consultation response at the time warned that
“it can be particularly difficult in public law cases and test cases where often the prospects of success can only be assessed as borderline due to the uncertainty in the law the case is intended to clarify.”
We respect the Court of Appeal’s decision, however, and to that extent the reinclusion of some borderline cases is welcome. Labour remains concerned that the reforms that became LASPO went too far in restricting the availability of civil legal aid. The Government have long said that they would conduct a review into the impact of the reforms and cuts to legal aid introduced by LASPO after three years. I should be grateful if the Minister did one very simple thing and told us when that review will be carried out. I thank him again for presenting the statutory instrument to the Committee, and I hope he will answer my question.
Safety of Prison Staff
Christina Rees Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes a fair point. I am delighted that we have been able to give Durham prison in her constituency an additional £220,000 in order to help deal with current problems. More broadly, she is right. Even though staff were reduced in the previous Parliament in order to meet benchmarking requirements, there has been a net increase in the number of prison staff since January 2015, and we will be making more announcements in due course about how we intend to recruit even more high-quality people into that important job.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
How many times has the National Tactical Response Group been called out this year? Last year there was one call-out for every day of the year. Has this figure gone up?
Michael Gove
I hope the hon. Lady will excuse me as I turn to my notes in order to give her the exact figure. The last year for which we have figures was 2014-15 and the National Tactical Response Group was called out 400 times during that year, so that was just over once every day.[Official Report, 14 July 2016, Vol. 613, c. 4MC.]
Oral Answers to Questions
Christina Rees Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend is right to draw the link between accommodation and employment. If more prisoners were able to pay a deposit of perhaps the first month’s rent on leaving prison, that would help. By the same token, if we can get more offers of employment to prisoners as they come out, they will find it easier to secure accommodation.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
Between now and 2020 the European Union is investing over £9 billion in the UK on skills training and support for those at risk of social exclusion. One example is here in London at Brixton prison: the Bad Boys bakery project, which trains inmates to become bakers and find work when they are released. As the Justice Secretary believes in giving inmates a second chance and has talked about the importance of such schemes, will he use his loaf and encourage people to vote remain on 23 June?
Andrew Selous
Like the hon. Lady, I am a huge fan of schemes such as the Bad Boys bakery, which I have visited in Brixton. I can still remember the smell of the delicious lemon cake wafting out of the bakery when I visited it. More seriously, when we see the purpose and engagement of prisoners when they are given a real opportunity to do work in prison that offers the prospect of a job on release, they do engage, and we need to see a lot more of that.
Draft Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) Order 2016
Draft ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 1999 (DESTINATION OF APPEALS) (FAMILY PROCEEDINGS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2016
Christina Rees Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I thank the Minister for her presentation and explanation. Opposition Members will support these statutory instruments.
That support is strengthened by the fact that the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the president of the Queen’s bench division, the president of the family division and the Chancellor of the High Court have said they are content with the provisions of the statutory instruments, and their views were key in determining the content. Their views were especially important with regard to the exemptions to the draft Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) (Family Proceedings) (Amendment) Order 2016, under which appeals against certain other types of order, such as special guardianship orders, will remain with the Court of Appeal. Further to that, appeals against any order made by a circuit judge or recorder in the family court in proceedings listed in paragraph 7.5 of the explanatory memorandum will continue to lie to the Court of Appeal.
I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify a few things. It is stated that implementation of both statutory instruments will reduce confusion in the process and decrease the workload on the Court of Appeal. Why did the appeal route originally go to the Court of Appeal in the parent Act as opposed to the High Court, as is now proposed?
There is huge pressure on the Court of Appeal and a need for action. In May this year, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, stated that the volume of cases in the Court of Appeal has risen by 59% in the past five years, without any increase in judicial resources, causing a growing backlog and substantial delays. Because of the increase in cases brought to the Court of Appeal, the number of adjourned trials there increased by 75% last year. A freedom of information request made by the Law Society Gazette to Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service revealed that of the 640 adjourned cases in the civil division of the Court of Appeal last year, 46% were adjourned due to a lack of judicial resources.
Paragraph 7.5 of the explanatory memorandum to the Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) Order 2016 states:
“Re-routing certain appeals to the High Court instead of the Court of Appeal may also lead to a reduction in the time taken for these appeals to be heard. By reducing the number of appeals to the Court of Appeal, this change may also benefit the flow of cases in that court, allowing for more effective and expeditious determinations of other appeals.”
Given the existing build-up in the Court of Appeal and the lack of judicial resources there, will the Minister clarify that moving these cases from the Court of Appeal to the High Court will not result in a build-up of cases in the High Court in future? Paragraph 7.8 states:
“The High Court has the capacity to absorb the extra appeals thus lowering waiting times.”
What evidence was that statement based on?
How will these changes fit into the wider review of the civil courts currently being undertaken by Lord Justice Briggs? As the Minister will be aware, Lord Justice Briggs touches on that in chapter 9 of his “Civil Courts Structure Review: Interim Report”, in which he says that one way to ease the substantial burden on the Court of Appeal would be to reroute appeals from the Court of Appeal to the High Court. That is what the statutory instruments propose.
Lord Justice Briggs, however, goes further, and states that that cannot be the only solution:
“Viewed at the highest level of generality, there are only four ways in which the overload of a civil court can be addressed, if an ever-increasing lengthening of its waiting times is to be avoided. They may be summarised as (1) increasing the court’s resources; (2) reducing the court’s workload; (3) improving the court’s efficiency; and (4) deliberately reducing the quantity or quality of the service.”
Will the Minister tell me where the changes proposed by today’s SIs fit into the wider issues highlighted by Lord Justice Briggs?
Paragraph 7.7 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“The proposed changes under the new Order will provide for better use of judicial resources and court staff time, as well as better justice for litigants, making it much easier for litigants to understand the correct route of appeal in each case, unless the judge orders otherwise.”
The changes will be put online, and leaflets will be made to inform the public and court staff, but will the Minister tell me whether any more will be done to ensure that the changes are effectively publicised, so that people are aware of the new route of appeal before they use it? Will court staff and the judiciary receive effective training about the changes, so that the transition to the new appeals procedure runs as smoothly as possible?
Finally, with the closure of court counters and reception desks throughout courts in England and Wales, what arrangements has the Ministry of Justice made to ensure that people are directed to the correct place when they arrive for appeal hearings? Organisations based in courts, such as Citizens Advice and the Personal Support Unit, do valuable work in helping litigants entering an often daunting environment, but that is no substitute for courts carrying out the function of directing people to the correct route of appeal and the correct court room. Will the Minister inform me whether there are any proposals to reintroduce court counters or reception desks? I am grateful to her for presenting the SIs so clearly, and I thank her and her team for all their good work.
Draft Crown Court (Recording) Order 2016
Christina Rees Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I thank the Minister for his explanation of the statutory instrument. I understand that there are now seven Crown courts where the test recording will take place, one of which is in Cardiff. As a Welsh MP, that is of particular interest to me.
We on the Opposition side are wary of bringing cameras into the court system, but we welcome more openness and transparency in the courts. With that in mind, we are willing to offer support for the test, but it would be good to put some of our concerns and questions to the Minister. These concerns centre on protecting the integrity of the courts, provisions put in place to protect vulnerable witnesses in court proceedings, and how the test will be assessed, along with who is running and evaluating it.
Article 7 sets out that:
“Recording is by a person who—
(a) is permitted in writing by the Lord Chancellor to make recordings in the Crown Court; and
(b) assigns any copyright in the recording of the sentencing remarks to the Lord Chancellor, for and on behalf of the Crown.”
This provision is key in ensuring that the test recording achieves the goal laid out by the Government: striking the right balance between protecting the dignity of the court and the integrity of the trial process and allowing the public to see what happens in court and hear statements in the judge’s own words. We would like assurances that the provision will remain in place if the test is to become a permanent addition to Crown court procedure.
Additionally, paragraph 7.4 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“The recording may only take place with the permission of the relevant judge.”
Will the Minister tell us how those judges are chosen, and offer clarification on what will happen if the judge refuses permission?
My next query is on protecting other participants in court proceedings. The overarching concern is that there is nothing in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 to prevent an order from being made in future that authorises the filming and broadcasting of witnesses, parties, victims, jurors or defendants. I understand that this statutory instrument makes it clear that only the judge sitting in the case will be filmed and that normal reporting restrictions will continue to apply to protect the interests of victims or witnesses involved in the case. We wish to make sure that this is the extent of what the Government wish to do, and that those restrictions will continue to be protected following the test.
Linked to that, the Lord Chief Justice has warned that filming some court proceedings could end up with sentencing remarks only being used in high-profile cases that involve salacious details or celebrities. He also expressed concern that media attention could soon create pressure for the faces of the defendant or the victim’s family to be shown at the point of sentence. Will the Minister assure us that that will not be the case?
Furthermore, the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the 2013 Act expresses concerns that introducing cameras in court could discourage certain vulnerable witnesses and victims from testifying in criminal cases, and strip certain vulnerable defendants of necessary protection. Will the Minister explain the checks that he has put in place to ensure that will not be the case?
Paragraph 7.4 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“We anticipate the test running for no more than four months.”
When is the test due to start? Paragraph 9.2 states:
“HMCTS will provide signage and a small number of leaflets to advise court users and members of the public that filming will be taking place”,
but that it will not be broadcast. Owing to the potential threat of vulnerable people in court seeing cameras and fearing that they are being filmed, which could upset them, surely a larger information drive would be more suitable.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I would like to know what procedure is in place to determine whether this test will be considered successful. As I am sure we can all agree, a test is important, but it is only relevant if it is measured against pre-determined criteria. What are those criteria? Will the Minister give a timescale for how long the review will take?
I would be grateful if the Minister could deal with the concerns I have raised. We support the statutory instrument and the test but have real concerns about the rolling out of anything that is less restrictive. I thank the Minister and his team for presenting the order so clearly to the Committee.
Oral Answers to Questions
Christina Rees Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Vara
Much consideration is given when assessing the criteria to be taken into account. The Ministry of Justice, the Department for Work and Pensions and others are involved, and it would be inappropriate for me to make a decision right now from the Dispatch Box in the way the hon. Lady asks me to do.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
I listened very carefully to the Minister’s previous answer, but I still find it very difficult to understand that while this Conservative Government voted not to take in 3,000 refugee children, the Ministry of Justice is proposing to raise written first-tier immigration and asylum tribunal fees by a massive 512%. How on earth are vulnerable people going to be able to challenge what are quite often errors by the Home Office? Will the Minister please tell me where the justice is in this?
Mr Vara
I simply say to the hon. Lady that there are a series of exemptions for vulnerable people. We need to recognise that the court system has to be paid for, and it is perfectly reasonable for the British taxpayer to expect those who use our court system to make a contribution towards its running.
Draft Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Regulations 2016
Christina Rees Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
The Chair
Christina Rees
I thank the Minister for his explanation of the statutory instrument and I confirm that it is not controversial. In fact, I have a letter from the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers stating that this is a rare situation where both the Association of British Insurers and APIL are in agreement.
We are happy to support the provisions, as we supported, of course, the 2010 Bill as it went through Parliament. As the Minister will know, at the current time we have many criticisms of much of what the Ministry of Justice does. However, in this instance we praise the work being done. I have some questions and comments for the Minister’s consideration, but they are brief.
My first point is in relation to those that this Act will help, and highlights the need for it to be enacted swiftly. Although it will improve the situation for a whole range of people with insurance claims, it will particularly benefit mesothelioma victims because their life expectancy is typically quite short after diagnosis, so a quick resolution is of great importance. As it stands, the law dictates that the claimant must sue his employer, despite it usually being the employer’s insurer that pays the compensation.
In many mesothelioma claims, however, the culpable employer has gone out of business due to the amount of time that has passed. That means that the employer has to be resurrected and restored to the register of companies, which costs time and money, and even then, in some cases, the company will disappear again. That is a stressful procedure for those who may not have long to live due to their illness. The Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 would make this costly and time-consuming procedure unnecessary. It will ensure that more people are able to claim, as well as speed up the process, and reduce the costs of bringing a claim, something I am sure Members on both sides can agree with. To ensure that that happens soon the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010, as amended by the Insurance Act 2015 and the regulations, should be brought in swiftly.
I wish to refer to the point made in the other place in March about paragraph 10 of the explanatory memorandum, which is about the impact of the measure. Paragraph 10.3 states:
“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for the Regulations because the amounts involved fall below the threshold at which an assessment has to be prepared.”
Will the Minister please tell the Committee what that threshold is? Paragraph 8.3 states that charities have been consulted and are content with the proposal. I am pleased that that is the case, as charities can often be at a disadvantage, due to not having the same resources as Government when changes to law come into place.
I would be grateful if the Minister could deal with the points I have raised. I end by welcoming this statutory instrument, by pressing for it to be enacted as soon as possible, and by thanking the Minister and his team for presenting it so clearly to the Committee this afternoon.
Court Closures
Christina Rees Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
May I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) for bringing this important matter before the House? I also thank every other Member who has spoken today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) spoke passionately about the closure of the magistrates and civil courts in Bridgend after thousands of pounds had been spent recently on the building. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) spoke of the Government’s many U-turns on justice policies, including the scrapping of two-tier contracts, costing the Ministry of Justice more than £400,000.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) told the House that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) is a black belt in martial arts. I am a fourth dan black belt in judo, but that is a story for another day.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) spoke of the very good facilities in magistrates courts and that their closure will not save money. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) spoke of the massive impact on her constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) noted that the consultation mentioned travel by train but that there is no train station in Peterlee. My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) raised an issue that has not been raised before, namely the impact of court closures on law students.
The hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) spoke about the closures in his area. The Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), brought his vast experience to the debate, and his mobile phone made an intervention at a crucial time. The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) was disappointed about the closure of his local magistrates court and said that we needed a long-term plan. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) spoke of his campaign to keep the Stockport court open. There have also been many excellent interventions.
Everyone who has spoken has set out comprehensively and eloquently the issues at stake and the importance of access to local justice. Labour absolutely recognises that savings have to be made in these difficult economic times. Only this week, we heard the Chancellor say how he has failed to meet his own economic targets, which he set, and that further savings therefore needed to be found. We disagree profoundly, however, as to how those savings should and could be made, and we vehemently argue that across-the-board cuts to vital local services are unfair and, indeed, unjust.
The latest court closures, which affect a fifth of the court estate, come on top of ongoing cuts in the sector. If they are not implemented fairly, they will lead increasingly to the creation of a two-tier justice system and seriously hamper access to justice, particularly for the most vulnerable in our society.
The current proposals are based on a flawed consultation process, and a flawed process begets flawed results. Indeed, the Minister apologised for those many errors. However, that does call into question the basis for the 86 listed courts that are currently being considered for closure.
The announcement on those potential closures was made on the last day before the February recess, making today’s debate all the more important in order to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny. One of the criteria for the court closures consultation was court utilisation, which on the face of it seems a reasonable criterion. However, we must also bear in mind that fewer hearings are taking place because of broader cuts in this sector; cuts to legal aid and increased court fees mean that fewer people have recourse to justice, which is not the right result. There is also a shortage of staff and judges. Since 2010, the Courts and Tribunals Service has been cut by 5,000 staff, and it is set to lose a further 5,000 to 6,000 by 2020.
The Public and Commercial Services Union, whose members include those working in Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, the Crown Prosecution Service and the private sector delivered guard service, has stated:
“High utilisation rates can only be achieved by listing several lengthy contested matters in the same court on the basis that they will not all be effective. If all the hearings are effective and one or more cases have to be delayed it adds distress and inconvenience for the parties and witnesses involved.
Lack of available court time for listing cases, often due to a shortage of staff, causes cases to be adjourned for long periods. Many courts already struggle to list family multi-day cases due to both lack of court rooms and lack of staff. This often means cancelling trial courts. A reduction in the available court rooms will lead to further delay.”
The PCS report on the court closures consultation finds that the figures used overestimate the maximum amount of time for which the court can be used. For example, it notes that, according to Government assessments, North Avon magistrates court has a maximum utilisation of 1,240 days, whereas staff working there put the figure at 992 days.
In many instances, as hon. Members have said today, the travel times resulting from many of the court closures will cause unacceptable inconvenience for their constituents. The Government contend that most people will still be able to reach court within a one-hour car journey. It has been said on a number of occasions, most recently by the Law Society, that the methodology used to calculate travel times was not transparent or independently verified. The travel times given in the consultation paper represent the “best case scenario”.
I know from my own experience that, since Neath magistrates court closed in May 2014, my constituents have had to travel to Swansea, denying them access to local justice in their own community. Constituents, magistrates and local solicitors working in the area suggest that the closure of the local court has had a negative impact locally. Several areas of my constituency are far removed from the courts that they are now expected to use in Swansea. Public transport options are severely limited and operate infrequently. Their travel times far exceed the so-called one-hour travel time limit, and it is possible that opposing sides, victims, witnesses and perpetrators, will sit on the same bus or train.
The Neath civil and family court is on the list of proposed closures. That will mean that my constituents will have to travel to Port Talbot, joining people who will have been moved from the Bridgend civil and family court, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend mentioned. I have visited the court in Port Talbot and question whether that centre can bear the increased workflow and whether the facilities will be sufficient for their purposes. Moreover, the journey from Glynneath to Port Talbot takes one hour and 35 minutes, with one bus change, and that from Banwen to Port Talbot takes one hour and 44 minutes, with a change of bus and added walking time on either side, without allowing for heavy traffic problems.
Those on low incomes often have to choose between buying necessities or the cost of travel to court, causing hardship at what is already a stressful time. The closures have caused great inconvenience to many people in Neath who may find themselves victims of spurious allegations or charged unnecessarily. Victims of domestic abuse, for example, will have to travel further to seek emergency protection at a critical time, when any delays could lead directly to further and serious harm.
In addition to affecting those of our constituents who are forced to travel further afield, the closures will mean redundancies and lost jobs, and I know that, in many constituencies such as mine across the UK, every job is much needed. Even if jobs are retained, the additional travelling times will mean higher costs for staff to travel to work. It will have a particular impact on staff with caring responsibilities and staff with disabilities. The consultation did not adequately address that aspect of the closures.
The court closures will have broader implications. In Neath, now that the magistrates court is closed, the police are forced to travel all the way to Swansea to get warrants, which uses up valuable time that could be spent on the beat. I am sure that that is the case in many other areas, and those issues should be addressed in the light of future closures. I have spoken to many who work in and alongside our justice system, and I hear time and again of a perfect storm of pressure on our courts and tribunal system.
An increase in litigants in person means more time and follow-up work for the courts. At the same time, cuts have been made to the number of administrators and clerks in the Court Service. Now we are looking at a raft of court closures. The consequences are frustrating for users and for those who work in the courts. Increased waiting time outside courts and uncertainty about when cases will be heard are particularly problematic for those who are reliant on public transport, for parties who are distressed—that includes vulnerable people—and for those who have young children waiting with them.
Lack of availability of court time leads to delays in proceedings. For example, at Edmonton county court, a transfer of tenancy application in a domestic abuse and financial remedies case, which should normally last half a day, waited seven and a half months for listing for the final hearing. With larger volumes of cases at fewer court centres, the buildings come under pressure. It is not unusual for advocates to have to discuss highly confidential and sometimes highly distressing matters sitting on the floor of a corridor or in a stairwell because conference rooms are full. Let us not forget the impact on jurors, who were not included in the list of affected groups in the impact assessment.
On many occasions in this House, we have heard how the wonders of technology will transform the judicial service and make the need for proximity to court buildings a thing of the past. I am not one to stand in the way of progress, but we simply have not had, to date, a sufficient—or indeed any—explanation of how a judicial system fit for the 21st century and beyond will function. We have simply been told by the Minister about the use of video conferencing. It is quite possible that the most vulnerable in society, who are most in need of support—those who do not own a car and are reliant on public transport to travel to court—do not have reliable, secure and private internet access. Many of my constituents in Neath, like those of so many of the hon. Members we have heard from today, simply do not own a computer or smartphone. They have no internet access at home, and our local libraries seem to be closing because of local authority cuts. We need a real explanation of how that practice will work. How will vulnerable victims and witnesses be kept safe and secure during online or remote proceedings? Giving evidence can be a traumatic experience, and proper support needs to considered. We are also due a proper explanation of the costs involved.
I recently met staff from the personal support unit, who provide advice and guidance for court users and help to translate the specific language and procedures in the court service into lay terms. Staff at the unit said that it is far more about in-person support, compassion and sympathy. At a difficult time when they feel vulnerable, victims and accused need reassurance and guidance most of all, and those cannot be provided via teleconference.
The Government’s case for the closures is underpinned by untested digital processes. According to the PCS union, the national roll-out of several digital products has been delayed because they were not fit for purpose.
Valerie Vaz
Does my hon. Friend agree that the IT system is a failure? How could the Minister possibly assert that it is a good replacement for the reductions in the court estate?
Christina Rees
My hon. Friend makes an important point.
I want to refer to the e-form that was used to calculate individuals’ financial assets in divorce cases. A fault in that online form caused a lot of trouble. It was corrected by the Minister, but e-forms were involved in almost 36,000 cases during the affected period. The Minister regretted the error and said that application to vary or set aside would not attract fees, but those involved would not be able to access legal advice on those complex issues through legal aid.
The client and cost management system is due to come into compulsory use from 1 April 2016. Over the past two weeks Resolution, the family law group, said that many legal aid firms cannot access the system, or that they get thrown out when they submit the form. The system is not fit for purpose, and its introduction should be delayed.
An online court has been proposed for claims of up to £25,000. Individuals would have no access to legal advice for such claims, even though they might be up against big organisations with their own legal teams. That would be a major disadvantage. The proposal needs to be rigorously tested, piloted and evaluated.
What happens in the event of technological failures or unreliable technology? Those would, undoubtedly, further delay proceedings rather than expediting them, which would add to the stress of victims and witnesses. The Law Society acknowledges the aim of increasing the use of technology, but it recommended during the consultation process that it would be prudent to modernise courts with new technology, assess how that is working and then consider savings, rather than the other way around. I wholeheartedly agree.
I welcome the Government’s desire to harness technology positively and efficiently, but we need to hear much more about the plans. Surely, the systems should be tested and piloted before many of the slated closures go ahead. Perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to explain in more detail what his thinking is and how the system will work for those who wish or need to access justice. Once again, I must stress that it should not, and cannot, lead to the creation of haves and have-nots.
Finally, I wish to highlight the last round of closures and talk about the use of buildings after the closures. Many of the courts that are slated to close, or were recently closed, have better facilities than the alternatives that people will be forced to travel to. I have raised questions about the proceeds of sale of those buildings, and about the ongoing costs of their maintenance and upkeep in the event that they are not sold or used for other community purposes. Such buildings tend to be prominently and conveniently located in town centres. If they are left to fall into rack and ruin, they can have a negative effect on a town centre.
The Ministry of Justice is still paying to secure and maintain 15 of the courts that were closed in 2010, and they are costing the taxpayer more than £40,000 a month to secure and maintain. The most expensive upkeep is for the former magistrates court in Alton, which costs almost £10,000 a month. The facilities that existed in Alton have not been replicated at the court that received the work. In some instances, the buildings are not suitable for any use other than as a court.
In conclusion, it is an unavoidable fact that savings in the court system need to be identified, as colleagues have said. One of the central tenets of our common law system is the local delivery of local justice, with access to justice for all. Any court closures must absolutely minimise the negative impact on access to justice for all our citizens.