Court Closures and Reform

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing this debate and on his excellent introduction to the overall subject.

It will perhaps come as no surprise to you, Mr Gray, that I will mainly concentrate my comments on the potential closure of the magistrates court in my constituency of Cambridge. I should say that I am grateful to the Minister for the discussions that we have had. I understand that she will not make the decision about Cambridge in particular, although I am sure that she is in a position to pass the comments made in this debate to whoever will make that decision and to respond to some of the points that are made today.

The reaction in Cambridge to the news that our very expensive court, which was newly created just a few years ago, was up for closure was one of universal astonishment and dismay across the board. We have heard from court users and magistrates. There has also been an open letter from 39 very senior academics, as one would probably expect given that there are a lot of experts in penal injustice issues in Cambridge. They made many of the points that have been made very eloquently today by my hon. Friend and they also reflect the fact that the justice system is changing. No one is denying that the world is changing; the question is whether this is the right pace of change and the right way to change it.

Some of the opposition has come from quarters that would not normally be expected to provide opposition. The police and crime commissioner for Cambridgeshire, Jason Ablewhite, is a Conservative, of course, and I do not always agree with him on everything, but he has produced a very detailed response to the proposed closure, with many sensible points. He describes himself as being “deeply concerned”, and he finds it “surprising” and “disappointing” that the Ministry of Justice is making these suggestions about Cambridge, and he needs to be convinced that the proposals have been fully thought through.

The latter is the point that I wish to develop, because I hardly need to point out to the Minister, who knows this very well, that Cambridge—and Cambridgeshire—is one of the fastest growing parts of our country, and it has huge problems in terms of its local transport infrastructure. With one of the fastest-growing economies in 2018, the combined authority assumes that the population will grow by more than 100,000 by 2031, and we have seen the Government’s enthusiasm for promoting such growth, with their ideas about east-west rail and so on. Obviously, we would all hope that such growth would produce a record number of well-behaved citizens and that there would be no further problems and no need for a justice system but, sadly, I do not think that likely. At a time when our city is growing so fast, it seems absurd to suck out of it modern facilities that were provided at huge cost only a few years ago. A particular irony is that the consultation talks about the capital value that may be unleashed but there will be no capital savings because the building is leased—the value might not even exceed the £1 achieved when Ely magistrates court was sold a few years ago.

A final point on the Cambridge position is that I am grateful to local blogger Antony Carpen for digging out the history of the city’s justice system. He tells me that Professor Helen Cam found out that Cambridge’s first courthouse was established in 1572. So here we are, 450 years on, and I hope that the Minister will not be the one responsible for undoing that long tradition of local justice in Cambridge.

In the details that underlie the proposal to claim Cambridge magistrates court, the basic case is that it is underutilised. When I visited the court a few months ago, and when I talked to people involved, that was the crux of the issue. Sadly, it has taken freedom of information requests to drag out some of the detailed figures that one would hope would shed more light on the claim of underutilisation: why is this modern court underutilised? When we look at those numbers, an even more puzzling story begins to emerge. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service management system tells us that in 2014-15 just over 7,000 cases had their first hearing at Cambridge magistrates court. The following year, the number jumped dramatically to more than 14,500 but the year after that it lurched back to 8,000. That is not about virtual courts, nor is it about changes in the number of people brought to and from court; I am afraid it is about a system that is woefully understaffed and effectively in chaos on a daily basis. I am told that listings are currently running seven or eight months away. It is not underutilisation; it is a building that does not have enough staff in it.

The comparison would be running a village shop with nothing in it—Government Members love the village shop analogy when talking about economics. If there is nothing in the shop there is nothing for people to buy, so it gets into trouble and the answer is to either close the shop or stock it properly. I would say that we have a very modern facility that should be used properly. I understand that there is an issue with the configuration; we have three court buildings in Cambridge and others around the county. The question is how best to do this.

There is also a cost issue. Possibly due to commercial confidentiality, the Ministry of Justice sadly seems unwilling to share this information, but figures are bandied around locally and I am told by some that this is the cheapest court to run in Cambridgeshire and that the private finance initiative court in Huntingdon is extremely expensive by comparison. There may well be contractual issues as to why one might be chosen over the other, but perhaps we ought to know and, particularly at a time of changing lease values in city centres, we ought to look ahead rather than responding in a short-termist way.

We have heard the argument about travel times—travel times will always be discussed in debates on these issues—and the Minister needs no reminding of how difficult it is to travel in and out of Cambridge. Many of the people who have come to me and have written to the local newspaper have explained just how difficult it would be to go to Peterborough or Huntingdon, with the journey sometimes taking much longer than an hour. One person said it took her 40 minutes to get in from Grantchester, which is roughly the time it would take to walk. To get to Peterborough and back in a day is impossible for some people. Those are the same issues as the ones my hon. Friend the Member for Slough raised.

Going back to the fine detail, we also have concerns about the suggestion that non-custodial work might remain in other court buildings in Cambridge. That is to be welcomed, but it might have been useful if the Ministry of Justice had been able to explain at the outset just what the split between custodial and non-custodial work was. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) asked about that in a letter, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough, and a freedom of information request revealed dramatic numbers: 326 of the 14,000 cases in 2015-16 and 481 of the 7,500 in 2016-17 were custodial ones. That rather raises the question of whether it is possible to configure the three courts in Cambridge creatively, to most effectively help everyone.

The consultation has been run oddly, starting with a headline about closing a magistrates court when it should have been about how to make best use of the buildings we have. One of the most useful things I have done, apart from visiting the court and seeing it in action, is to have a conversation with a group of defence lawyers in Cambridge. Their account of what the system is like on a daily basic verged on harrowing. They said that it was extremely pressured, with real issues of access to legal aid in the area and pressure on local defence lawyers, and that there was the possibility, with this kind of change, that people would no longer have access to defence lawyers, because many of the smaller practices would not be able to bear the costs of travelling to and from Peterborough and Huntingdon. I have made an offer to the Minister, which I hope she will pass on to one of her colleagues, to come to Cambridge and sit down with the dozen women lawyers, as I did. They are all friendly, pleasant people and would explain what their daily lives are like and what life is like for defendants. They have very legitimate concerns about what they potentially face.

I conclude by reflecting on a couple of accounts by people who are in and out of the courts. When I visited, it was a long time since I had been in a court and it was pretty much as I remembered from elsewhere—a busy, fraught experience. It was also difficult to organise, and I sympathise with those trying to list cases, ensure that people turn up and deal with what happens when cases overrun or not everything is ready. It is of course hard to run a system to maximum efficiency, but a local journalist, Tara Cox from Cambridge News, who regularly goes to the court, writes:

“Every day there are delays, adjournments, and rescheduling of court hearings at the last minute. If you want to find out exactly how the magistrates’ court operates”

come and see. I extend that invitation to whichever Minister is making the decision: come and see exactly what people are up against.

Another journalist who spent a day at the court talking to its users was told:

“it would have taken me a silly amount of time to get to Peterborough”.

The mother of a teenage defendant said it had taken her an hour and 15 minutes from a village just outside Cambridge and one can imagine how much longer it would take her to get to Peterborough or Huntingdon —it could well be the best part of two and a half hours each way, which is impossible to do. The journalist also spoke to court staff, who told her that in their view the court closure would lead to an increase in the number of defendants and witnesses not turning up, which, they said, was already a significant problem. Surely the extra cost of failures to appear must be balanced against any potential savings—a point the police and crime commissioner makes forcefully in his submission.

I ask the Minister to consider the matter closely and think hard about the best way of configuring services in a city such as Cambridge. I have nothing against considering how to make best use of our existing estate but the overall message should be clear: keep the magistrates court in Cambridge open.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I will ignore that sedentary chunter from the hon. Gentleman, which is unworthy of someone of his normal generosity of spirit.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Last week the Justice Committee produced an excellent report highlighting some of the issues around virtual courts. We might have a virtual Foreign Secretary today, but the Committee raised some important issues, so why is the Secretary of State rushing to close courts such as that in Cambridge when we are yet to have a wider discussion about virtual courts?

[Mr Gauke]

As I said in reply to the very first question of this session, it is important that we make progress in using the court estate as sensibly as possible. It is underused, and when resources are scarce, it is important that we use them more efficiently. It is also right that we make advances in using digital technology so that access to justice becomes easier.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. First, this is a consultation, and I am very happy to engage with any colleagues who would like to discuss it, because we are listening. Secondly, the future of our courts is exciting, and transformation will take place through technology. Interestingly, in a document entitled “Transforming Our Justice System”, the then Lord Chief Justice, the then Lord Chancellor and the Senior President of Tribunals highlighted the fact that as our courts and tribunals are modernised, we will need fewer buildings.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. and learned Lady, my neighbour, on her appointment. She will have noticed the very strong and universally hostile reaction in Cambridge and Cambridgeshire to her plans to close the magistrates court. Can she reassure us that local people will be properly listened to, and better still, will she withdraw those plans today?

[Lucy Frazer]

As I have highlighted, these plans take place within the context of a £1 billion modernisation of the court system, and in circumstances where, nationally, courts and tribunal services are not used at capacity. As I have said, I will listen properly in the court closures consultation, although the Lord Chancellor will make the ultimate decision. I would like to point out that five sites identified in the last consultation on court closures remain open following the review. When strong cases are made, we will listen.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. My understanding is that the shortest period in which a data adequacy agreement has ever been achieved is 12 months, in the case of Japan. Very often, these things take a good deal longer.

By exactly the same token, and precisely because it may be a source of satisfaction to Home Office Ministers, excluding article 8 will constitute an invitation to the European Commission and the European Parliament to find fault with UK data privacy regulation. The cases brought by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden and others would not have succeeded if they had not been able to rely on article 8. Those who look at these matters on behalf of the European Union will have no doubt in their minds, as far as I can see, that that is the case.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent case on a very complicated set of issues. Does he agree that the conclusion we should draw from the points he has made and from the observation I am about to make, which is that this has so far been a very lawyerly discussion, is that this will end up being a highly political decision? Whatever the rights and wrongs as expressed by the lawyers today, we are politicians who face a political set of choices, and we are absolutely offering those who do not have our best interests at heart the opportunity to frustrate us in future. It is a very risky endeavour, and it would be much easier to keep the charter.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is such an invitation, and it is a terrible risk to take. Frankly, I think it is playing fast and loose with a very important part of the UK economy.

Let me finish by quoting the industry body representing this part of the UK economy, techUK, which is very deeply concerned about this issue and supports amendment 151. It makes the point that

“the Government must do all it can to ensure that we are in the best possible position to secure adequacy, and this includes making clear, at every opportunity, that the UK’s data protection framework is equivalent to the one we have operated as an EU Member State.”

Leaving article 8 off the statute book seriously imperils the future achievement of such an adequacy determination. We will of course argue that our arrangements are adequate, but for data exchanges with EU countries, it will not be our call; it will be their call. They will make the decision: the call will be made by officials and politicians in the European Union and by the European Court of Justice. It is running too great a risk for our digital economy—at 10% of GDP, it is proportionately the biggest digital economy anywhere in the G20—and I urge the Committee not to run that risk or to play fast and loose with the UK economy, but to accept amendment 151.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The Ministry of Justice is trying to set an example by banning the box and treating ex-offenders on a par with any other applicant for a job. That example is being widely followed throughout the public service, and we look to the private sector to match it, because we believe that ex-offenders can contribute a great deal to the successful work of private sector companies.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lidington)]

Since the last Justice questions, it has been my pleasure to welcome the appointment of Lord Burnett of Maldon as Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, and the historic appointment of Baroness Hale as President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Where she leads we hope that many others will follow. I look forward to working with them both to ensure that the judiciary’s essential role at the heart our nation continues to be championed and respected.

Further to the comments made a few moments ago by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), about the new guidance issued by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, I can tell Members that I have asked my Department to give full consideration to wider concerns that have been expressed in the House about the rules of the compensation scheme as part of my Department’s work to develop a strategy for victims, and in the light of recommendations we expect next year from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse.

[Daniel Zeichner]

After last week’s “Panorama” investigation into the dangerous failings of the privatisation of probation, will the Minister halt any plans to outsource night-time supervision in probation hostels?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

Of course we seek to get the best value for money for the taxpayer in all our services. I understand that we are hiring people to cover some night-time shifts in probation hostels. We will ensure that we bear in mind value for the taxpayer while also protecting the public.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I will vote against the Bill tonight, for the slightly quaint reason that that is what I told my constituents I would do back in June —that is partly why I have been sent here—and for other reasons, some of which we have heard from Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) mentioned the House of Lords Constitution Committee. Coming from Cambridge, I had the privilege on Friday of spending an hour talking to the highly respected Professor Mark Elliott, who advises that Committee. He said:

“The fact that the central aim of the Bill—that is preserving EU law post exit—is a necessary one does not place the Bill beyond criticism.”

He went on:

“The Bill in its present form is profoundly problematic in legal and constitutional terms. It is an affront to parliamentary sovereignty. It eviscerates the separation of powers principle and it risks destabilising the UK’s increasingly fragile territorial constitution.”

He says an “affront to parliamentary sovereignty”, but what does he know? He is just the leading expert on the issue.

I will also vote against the Bill for another reason, which has not been stated loudly enough in this debate, except by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). It is increasingly said in parts of the country that we should not withdraw from the European Union at all, because it is not in our national interest to do so. I fully understand that opprobrium will probably be heaped on me for saying that, but, actually, I am only stating the obvious. As the farcical non-negotiations continue to fail to proceed, it is clearer and clearer that the most likely outcome is a last-minute fudge that will satisfy no one. It is also clear that, at the end, the choices open to us must include the possibility that all the alternatives on offer are worse than staying in, and that is putting it at its most negative. We should negotiate on the key issue that we all know is at the heart of this, which is migration, and securing the changes that would satisfy the concerns of many who voted leave, without doing the undoubted economic damage that we risk by continuing on this path.

To those who say that the decision was made more than a year ago, I say that the world has changed. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) so powerfully said, we have all been through a general election. The Prime Minister went to the country, demanding a mandate, and we know what happened—she did not get it.

The wider world has changed as well. A year ago, it could have been plausibly argued that we could negotiate reliable, mutually beneficial trade deals with the United States in a way that now seems wholly unlikely when that country is governed by such an unpredictable and difficult President. In the rest of the world, we see China becoming more authoritarian, Russia hardly more helpful and North Korea a real threat. In a world that seems so increasingly volatile, whom should we look to in times of need? Our wisest option would be our European neighbours, who increasingly look like the most sensible major players. What a foolish path to be embarking on in such dangerous times.

I will not support the Bill, but I would like to make one comment about one of the more detailed provisions that profoundly concerns me. On Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) explained very eloquently the danger of leaving the charter of fundamental rights. In particular, he mentioned the consequences of not including the clause relating to the protection of personal data. As he rightly said, there is a danger that we will struggle to achieve a data adequacy agreement, which in turn would have severe consequences for UK businesses and data users. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), speaking from the Government Benches, made a similar point this afternoon. But it goes further than that, because securing an adequacy agreement depends not just on the ability to use article 8, but on the perception on the part of our neighbours that the UK is not prepared to diminish data privacy, because in the end this will be a political decision, and it will give others the opportunity to say that we are weakening our position, making it easier for them to deny us that vital adequacy agreement.

That is one of the many detailed points that could be made. I fear that we are in danger of sleepwalking into a calamity. Our task as Members of this Parliament is to look into our consciences and reflect on the best way forward for our country. I suspect that there are many in this Chamber who will vote for the Bill tonight who know in their heart of hearts that we are on the wrong path. Let us try and find a way back.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the upgrades in the prison estate, where we are investing £1.3 billion to modernise the estate. As part of that, we will be building 10,000 modern prison places. That should help with offender rehabilitation. In terms of where we are now, we have started with the proposed developments at Glen Parva and HMP Wellingborough, and we have also announced plans to build four new prisons: in Yorkshire, adjacent to Full Sutton; at Port Talbot in Wales; and the redevelopment of the young offender institutions at Rochester and Hindley.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

T4. Given the problems the Department has had when it has privatised many of its services, it seems extraordinary that there are now plans to privatise the collection of court fines and outsource the work of civil enforcement officers. When will the Government appreciate that the public expect these sensitive public services to be delivered by the public, not a bunch of cowboys?

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm that that means there is no longer a requirement for a gender recognition certificate? Will he also tell us how confident he is that these guidelines are being applied across the whole estate and when he expects to do an assessment of their impact?

[Dr Lee]

The underlying principle is that people are cared for and managed in the gender with which they identify, rather than that being based solely on their legally recognised gender. As I said earlier, the guidelines came about through interaction with various independent organisations, and staff are being trained in this area. I think some perspective is required here: we have a prison system that is traditionally male-female, and we are dealing with relatively small numbers, but, yes, I am keeping an eye on this issue. In particular, with regard to recent tragic events, I am also looking individually at each case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

I repeat what I said just now—we will make sure that the community rehabilitation companies comply with employment law as they are supposed to do. We closely monitor their performance in line with the contracts that they have signed. Last year, 195 extra probation officers became qualified, and we had 750 new probation officers in training. That is the largest intake of newly qualified probation officers for some considerable period.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

9. What plans he has to improve youth custody provision.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Michael Gove)]

Our system of youth justice does need reform. Although youth offending is down, recidivism rates are high, and the care of young offenders in custody is not good enough. I know that concerns across this House can only have been heightened following the “Panorama” investigation into events at the Medway secure training centre. That is why today, in a written statement, I have appointed an independent improvement board to investigate what has happened at Medway and to ensure that the capability of G4S, the Youth Justice Board and other organisations to meet appropriate standards is sufficient.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The roll-out of the new minimising and managing physical restraint system has been delayed for a year. In 2013-14, there were almost 3,000 assault incidents in the children’s secure estate—a 7% increase on 2012-13, even though the number of children in custody had fallen by 20%. What is the Secretary of State doing to address this rising number of incidents and to ensure that a new, safer system is implemented?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the fact that there has been a reduction in the number of young people in the youth estate. However, as the number has reduced, so those who remain tend to be those who have been arrested for the most violent crimes and who pose the greatest difficulties for those who have to care for them and keep them in custody. It is vital to ensure that when restraint is applied, it is done so in a way that minimises risks to young people, but also ensures that safety can be restored. One of the purposes of Charlie Taylor’s review of youth justice is to make sure that the workforce is appropriately trained to restrain young people in their own interests and those of others.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Daniel Zeichner.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do apologise. I think we nearly missed the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David). We must hear from the hon. Gentleman first; let’s hear the feller.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

16. What assessment he has made of the effect on court users of recent changes in civil court fees.

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

The Government are monitoring data on case loads and fee income from the civil courts, but it is too early to draw any firm conclusions. We will continue to keep the impact of fee changes under review. We recognise that fee increases are not popular, but at every stage we have sought to protect the most vulnerable by ensuring that they will not have to pay new and higher fees. In the current financial climate, it is only right that we are considering every option to raise fees to meet the budgetary challenges that we face.

[Daniel Zeichner]

In March 2015, the court issue fee for a £200,000 claim was raised by more than 600%, from £1,500 to £10,000. Does the Minister appreciate the impact of that on small start-up companies, of which there are many in my constituency, and will he assure those companies that there will be no further rise after the current consultation?

[Mr Vara]

It is important for the hon. Gentleman to recognise that the court system needs to be properly funded. However, we have a very effective remission system, and those who cannot afford the fees do not have to pay them. He should also bear in mind that court fees amount to a tiny fraction of the total amount of legal fees that are incurred.