Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lee]

Of course, sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the courts. However, the Government are concerned that women—and, indeed, men—should not be sent to custody if they do not need to be there. Revised guidance on sentencing for non-payment of the TV licence fee was issued today by the Sentencing Council. The guidelines set out possible factors that could reduce the seriousness of TV licence evasion, including circumstances in which the culprit is experiencing significant financial hardship.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

T6. The proposed closure of Camberwell magistrates court would require my constituents—whether victims, witnesses or defendants—to make unacceptably long bus journeys to Croydon and Wimbledon to attend court. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the implications of the proposed closure for access to justice for my constituents?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I thank the hon. Lady for her response to the consultation, which has now closed. We will, of course, announce our decision in due course. As was made clear in the consultation, there is excess capacity in London magistrates courts. Camberwell Green has significant outstanding maintenance, totalling more than £1 million. The consultation is about ensuring modern and efficient courts and improved court arrangements for everyone.

Court Closures

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House acknowledges the need for some underused courts and tribunals to close; notes the detrimental effect that too many court closures will have on access to justice for vulnerable families and individuals particularly in rural areas where public transport is less reliable; further notes with concern the effect these closures will have on the experienced and dedicated staff working in the 86 courts and tribunals; and calls on the Government to acknowledge the concerns of staff, magistrates and third sector organisations who highlighted numerous flaws in the consultation document, to think again on some of these closures and acknowledge the importance of access to local justice.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate. I requested such a debate, with the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and other Members from across the House, for a number of reasons: first, because of the scale of the court closure programme, with 86 courts and tribunals closing, compounded by the closures during the last Parliament, when 146 courts closed; secondly, because of the level of concern expressed by colleagues across the House about the implications of the closure programme for access to justice, and a number of flaws within the consultation process that provided the basis for the closure programme; and thirdly, because the closures were announced in a written ministerial statement on the last sitting day before the February recess. I feel strongly that both the scale of the closure programme and its implications mean that the announcement should have been made in the House, and that colleagues should have had the opportunity to raise issues on behalf of their constituents, and ask questions about the planned closures and their impact at the time that the announcement was made. I am pleased that we will have the opportunity to do so today.

Courts have a very wide range of different users. If we consider the hierarchy of Crown courts, county courts, magistrates courts, youth courts, family courts and tribunals, we can see that the people who need to access the courts include jurors, magistrates, victims and witnesses, families in the process of breaking up, a range of public sector staff—those working directly at the courts, but also those bringing cases and acting as witnesses—members of the judiciary, and individuals facing trial. It is easy to think of those accessing our courts primarily as suspected criminals, but our courts are in reality a vital public service, reaching a very wide range of people in their scope, and it is important that we remember that as we debate the closure programme.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

If civic areas are to lose their courts as a result of this decision, does the hon. Lady agree that proper provision needs to be made, not least for video conferencing for people giving evidence? For example, local newspapers should be able to send a journalist on a particular day so that its readers cannot only be told where crimes take place, but hear about convictions, because justice must be seen to be done as much as actually done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes]

I will come on to talk about the role of new technology and other forms of provision in addressing some of the issues presented by the closure programme.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Although the court in my constituency will not close, it will take on the burden of the work of courts that are closing. On the Government’s own assessment, people will have to travel for over an hour to reach Willesden magistrates court. I think that is a barrier to justice.

[Helen Hayes]

My hon. Friend makes valid points about both the additional burden on courts that will have to absorb the workload of courts that are closing, and the very important issue of travel times, particularly for many vulnerable constituents. I will come on to talk about those things.

I do not have a court or tribunal in my constituency of Dulwich and West Norwood, but my constituents will be very much affected by the planned closure of Lambeth county court. Almost half the postcode areas covered by Lambeth county court fall within my constituency. I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to meet me during the consultation process, and subsequently for taking part in a Westminster Hall debate about Lambeth county court, but despite that engagement, my concerns remain. In justifying the closures, the Minister refers a great deal to the modernisation of the justice system and the use of new technology, but there is great concern that the closure plans appear to put the cart before the horse—closing courts and tribunals without a clear plan for replacing the capacity that will be lost with new technology.

The Government should have brought to the House a comprehensive strategy for modernising our courts and tribunals to make them fit for the 21st century. We need a plan that sets out clearly what new technology can deliver for our justice system, the investment that must be made to deliver it and the savings that can be made in physical infrastructure as a consequence of the introduction of technology. But there is no such plan. What the Government have announced is a very significant closure programme with a promise that, after courts and tribunals have closed, pilots will take place and investment will be made to introduce new technology. This is a very risky way to treat our justice system.

Access to justice is a vital principle in the UK’s unwritten constitution. It was argued by Lord Bingham of Cornhill, when he was the senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, that access to justice is one of the eight sub-rules that make up the rule of law. He said:

“My fifth sub-rule is that means must be provided for resolving, without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay, bona fide civil disputes which the parties themselves are unable to resolve…What it does is to recognise the right of unimpeded access to a court as a basic right, protected by our own domestic law, and in my view comprised within the principle of the rule of law.”

He went on to explain that the common law right of access to justice is composed of three rights, one of which is the right of access to a court. Lord Justice Laws has said:

“Access to the courts is a constitutional right”.

In relation to the planned courts and tribunals closure programme, the Government argued that

“effective access to justice does not…necessarily mean providing physical access to a building or require us to have a purpose-built court or tribunal in every local area.”

My contention is that this statement can only possibly be valid if the Government demonstrate that access is provided in a fail-safe way by other means, and that they simply cannot do that without setting out a clear strategy for how it will be delivered.

The Minister has spoken about various things, some of which are indeed already happening in some locations, that may be possible—video links for witnesses to provide evidence, facilities for filing court papers online, making a plea by mobile phone—but there is no national standard and no plan for delivery. No assessment has been made of which court and tribunal services and facilities should be available to everyone in every area, which of these can reasonably be provided digitally and which should be provided in dedicated facilities. Although I do not think there is much disagreement about the kinds of things that might be done, it is impossible to make an assessment of the extent to which access to justice will be provided at an appropriate level with the help of digital technology until the Government lay out a comprehensive plan.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

In addition to the plan for which my hon. Friend is calling, we also need a plan to extend mobile coverage to many areas. We just do not have that coverage in some of the rural areas where closures are planned.

[Helen Hayes]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. It reinforces my argument that without a plan—a proven and tested plan—the Government simply cannot rely on advances in technology to substitute for the closure of physical facilities.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Does she agree that the whole point of a system of magistrates courts is that local people make decisions about local crimes? Fundamentally, without a proper plan, magistrates may be drawn from areas surrounding the surviving courts, while many communities will provide no magistrates whatsoever.

[Helen Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about the long tradition in this country involving the justice system and the locality it serves.

I will turn to some of the specific concerns that have been raised about the consequences of the closures. The first is the straightforward issue of physical access to a court building for those who need to attend court either for a court hearing or to instigate an administrative procedure, such as applying in person for a stay of eviction. The Government response to the consultation says:

“It will still be the case that…97% of citizens will be able to reach their required court within an hour by car.”

This statement is simply not true. The data on which the Government response is based relate to the travel time between court buildings, not the travel time from residents’ homes to what will now be their closest court. On the basis of these data, residents who currently live within an hour of an existing court may now have to travel a further hour beyond that court to access their nearest court. It is time for the Government to undertake and publish an analysis of the physical accessibility of courts in terms of the journey times faced by residents on a postcode basis, not from court to court, so that the impact of the closures plan can be properly understood and scrutinised.

The second problem with the travel time data is that they rely too much on the private car as a mode of transport. Only half of households on low incomes own a car. Many of my constituents who have to attend court in relation to issues such as housing evictions are on low incomes, and the same is true across the country. The response to the consultation does not consider in any detail the accessibility of courts and tribunals by public transport, or accessibility by bus, which is often the only mode of transport that residents on lower incomes can afford, even where faster routes are available. I have looked at the travel times that residents from parts of my constituency—for example, a victim of domestic violence—will experience after Lambeth county court closes and they have to travel to Wandsworth, where some of the services will be provided. Many of those residents will face a journey of at least an hour each way by bus, and in the worst-case scenario, a four-hour round trip. That is in London, which has the best public transport network of any city in the UK. Colleagues who represent rural constituencies tell me that in some cases the journey times that their constituents will face are such that it will not be possible to travel to court and back in a single day, further adding to the costs of accessing justice.

[Richard Benyon]

The hon. Lady makes a powerful point that will resonate with people in a lot of villages in my constituency. The Library document states that just 15% of people in my constituency will be able to reach court by public transport in one hour, and that is of great concern for those who have the trauma of having to give evidence after a crime has been committed against them.

[Helen Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman’s powerful point illustrates my argument.

The Law Society has raised serious concerns about the effects that longer, more expensive journey times will have on the justice system for jurors. They will be more likely to find justifiable reasons to postpone their jury service, and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service will have to pay additional costs to compensate them for additional travel costs. The changes will also affect witnesses, many of whom already require a good deal of persuasion and support to attend court, and vulnerable residents who are being taken to court in circumstances where life is already stressful. Such people might find it extremely difficult to make it to court and, as a consequence, to have a fair hearing, because they are not there in person to explain their circumstances.

[Dawn Butler]

As a magistrate, I can attest to witnesses, sufferers of domestic violence or people with chaotic lifestyles who are completely put off by the extra travel needed to access justice.

[Helen Hayes]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point.

Resolution, which represents 6,500 family lawyers and other professionals who are committed to a non-adversarial approach to family law and the resolution of family disputes, says that the court closures will have a huge impact on the ability of families to access the justice system, and it emphasises that those who will be most affected are vulnerable people such as victims of domestic abuse. Requiring a victim of domestic abuse to travel further on public transport in order to apply for an injunction will increase risk and act as a further disincentive for people seeking protection, on top of the issues already presented by the lack of access to legal aid.

Let me highlight three examples from my constituency caseload that illustrate the vulnerability of many people who have to access the court system. The first is a man who came to this country as an asylum seeker having been a child soldier in Nigeria. He is doing his utmost to find work, and currently has a zero-hours contract. Sometimes his employer has work for him, and sometimes it does not. That is not within his control, but as a consequence he has a fluctuating income, which means that intermittently he has to apply for jobseeker’s allowance and housing benefit. Delays in processing his JSA claim sometimes mean that his housing benefit is frozen. That causes rent arrears, and at times he has been served with a notice seeking possession. None of that is his fault. He is a man with a traumatic past who is doing everything that he can to make the best of life, in a country that he had never imagined finding himself in. In my view, we should not be asking him to bear the additional expense and stress of having to travel long distances to access a court and engage in a difficult process that is not of his making.

Another constituent is recently widowed. Her husband was a social housing tenant, and for her to succeed to the tenancy, she needed to provide proof of his death. However, an administrative error with the death certificate caused a delay and meant that her landlord commenced eviction proceedings. She lives in the farthest flung part of my constituency in terms of access to a court. Is it right for her to face a four-hour round trip by bus to explain why the registrar made a mistake in recording her husband’s death?

The third case highlights some of the wider problems with a justice system that is already very stretched. This constituent is in his 80s. He suffered antisocial behaviour from his upstairs neighbour for many years, causing him and his wife great distress, and sometimes leading to him sleeping in his car to escape the noise. His council landlord did everything possible to gather evidence and commence eviction proceedings against the neighbour, but it took months for the case to come to court. When it did, the police failed to turn up to give evidence, and the case had to be adjourned. That situation would have been compounded even further by a longer journey time, or by moving proceedings to a court that did not have the capacity to absorb additional work.

Very often the circumstances that lead to someone attending court involve personal sadness, and many people who attend court are vulnerable. Fulfilling the obligation to make our justice system accessible must involve thinking about the considerable challenges that our most vulnerable residents face, and designing a system around those challenges, not around residents who have the most capacity.

The closure programme has the potential for significant hidden costs for the wider public sector, and those were not considered or scrutinised during the consultation process or in the Government’s response to it. The Law Society has highlighted the additional costs associated with prison and probation staff having to transport defendants for longer distances. Additional transportation costs may be incurred by the police, as increased numbers of people choose not to attend court and subsequently end up being transported there by the police. There will be increased costs for councils, as social workers and housing officers are forced to travel longer distances and spend more time away from their day-to-day duties to provide evidence in court.

There are already frustrations within the justice system. Many lawyers I have spoken to who work in London decry the experience of using the Central London county court since it moved to share premises with the Royal Courts of Justice. They describe a court that is so completely overwhelmed with the volume of work that it is beginning to resemble the chancery court in Dickens’s “Bleak House”, such is the lack of confidence that effective judgments will emerge from it. The Law Society and others have raised concerns about the impact of the closure programme on court staff, in a context where there are already frustrations about administrative problems and delays within the system. Such problems would be exacerbated if busy courts are closed and their workload transferred to other courts that are already operating at high capacity.

Many magistrates regard their work as a very local form of public service. There is a strong connection between the community they know and their role in ensuring justice for that community. There are serious concerns that having far fewer courts and requiring magistrates to travel long distances in order to serve will break this country’s strong tradition of a justice system that is rooted in the individual spatial communities it serves.

Concerns have also been raised with me about the sustainability of many duty solicitor schemes, which have already been stretched to the limit by cuts in legal aid and changes to the contract. Solicitors in my local area have said that many of them would be forced to give up duty solicitor work if they had to travel further to attend court, such is the marginal viability of the scheme already.

Finally, let me turn to the detail of the closure proposals and highlight just a few ways in which I believe the programme to be flawed. The proposed closure of Birmingham youth court would have a significant impact on young defendants, who would have to appear in an adult court, in breach of the Government’s statutory and international obligations. How was that proposal ever brought forward, and why were those issues not anticipated and addressed?

The proposal to close a brand-new, fit-for-purpose court in Rotherham, which contains a magistrates court, county court and family court, at a time, and in a town, in which child protection issues are at the forefront of everybody’s mind, is difficult to comprehend. In Bicester, the proposed closure of the court in a rural area with poor public transport services at a time when the local population is about to expand significantly, due to the Government’s designation of Bicester as a “garden town”, is simply short-termist.

In my local area, the closure of Lambeth county court remains deeply problematic. It is leased to Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, with nine years left to run on the lease, and as such, there is no large capital sum to be derived from the sale of the site. The lawyers I have spoken to who use Lambeth county court say that it functions extremely well as a specialist housing court.

I appreciate that, as a consequence of the representations that I and others made during the consultation process, housing possession hearings will not now move six miles away to Wandsworth but to Camberwell, which is much closer. That is welcome news, but there remain concerns about the victims of domestic violence who will still have to travel to Wandsworth, and about how the move to Camberwell will actually work in practice. There is time, within the current lease, to make a proper plan for Lambeth: to work out the role new technology can play in making our justice system more accessible; to work out the physical space necessary to accommodate an efficient court; and to plan properly for the transition. There is no evidence in the closure programme that any detailed feasibility work has been undertaken to explore lower-cost ways of accommodating court services locally—for example, in other public buildings or community centres. Although such options are mentioned, they really should have been explored in detail before the closure programme was finalised.

The accessibility of our justice system and the way it treats our most vulnerable residents is a mark of our civilisation. Too many people across the country have raised concerns that the Government’s proposed closures will have an unacceptable impact on vulnerable people, present additional costs for other parts of the public sector which have not been properly accounted for, and make our justice system less accessible.

I fully accept that new technology may have a role to play in creating a justice system that is fit for purpose for the 21st century, as well as saving costs, but we have no plan from the Government as to how that will be achieved. I urge the Government to rethink their approach. I urge them to come back to the House with a plan that addresses the concerns that have been raised and that balances savings to be made from the physical court estate with investment in technology to mitigate the impact of these changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes]

I thank every Member who has contributed to this debate. The level of concern about the decision to close 86 courts and tribunals is clear.

We have heard from across the Chamber concerns about the physical accessibility of courts as a consequence of the closures and about serious problems with the assumptions about the use of digital technology, especially in areas with poor broadband. Several hon. Members spoke about sensible and creative alternative proposals that were more responsive to local geography and demographics but which were rejected. We also heard about the overreliance on travel by private car and the flawed travel-time data underpinning the decision and about the interrelationship with other public sector cuts. How can police stations provide video links, when in my area so many have closed that the remaining ones are bursting at the seams? We have heard about many hidden impacts from the decision, including on the micro-economy of town and city centres.

I brought this debate before the House because I was concerned that the decision to close 86 courts and tribunals without a coherent, joined-up plan for ensuring access to justice would impact most on the most vulnerable victims, witnesses and defendants, would bring additional costs to several other areas of the public sector and would have a serious impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of our justice system. I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but I urge him to rethink these proposals and come back to the House with a comprehensive plan that addresses the many concerns raised.

Question put and agreed to,

Resolved,

That this House acknowledges the need for some underused courts and tribunals to close; notes the detrimental effect that too many court closures will have on access to justice for vulnerable families and individuals particularly in rural areas where public transport is less reliable; further notes with concern the effect these closures will have on the experienced and dedicated staff working in the 86 courts and tribunals; and calls on the Government to acknowledge the concerns of staff, magistrates and third sector organisations who highlighted numerous flaws in the consultation document, to think again on some of these closures and acknowledge the importance of access to local justice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend brings considerable experience from her time as a barrister. We welcome this decision. This is an important area of policy. It is also a Home Office lead, but I can reassure her that the relevant guidance for caseworkers was updated following the decision back in October.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

T7. Today is International Women’s Day, as other Members have noted. A recent survey by Women’s Aid of women survivors of domestic abuse who have attended the family courts regarding child contact found that a quarter reported being directly cross-examined by their abuser. Does the Minister agree that that is completely unacceptable? What action is being taken to address it?

Lambeth County Court

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of the proposed closure of Lambeth County Court.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. Lambeth county court serves residents across Lambeth and Southwark. I am pleased to be joined here today by hon. Friends whose constituents will also be deeply impacted by the planned closure of that court and to have the opportunity to raise our concerns about the impact on our constituents, on the staff who work at the court, on the lawyers who represent people there and on a wide range of other public sector staff who regularly attend the court, including housing officers and social workers.

Lambeth county court is the busiest housing court in the country, effectively making it a specialist court, and it is situated in an area with one of the highest concentrations of social housing in the country. In addition to housing possession claims, the other types of work undertaken at Lambeth county court are cases concerning children, domestic violence and money claims. The proposal on which the Government consulted was to close Lambeth county court and move all of its business to Wandsworth county court in Putney. That is almost five miles away as the crow flies, but it is a complicated journey on several buses for residents on low incomes who cannot afford the train or tube. East-west journeys in south London are invariably more difficult than journeys into and out of central London.

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

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and thank the Chair for chairing? For my constituents in Rotherhithe, it will take a minimum of two hours on three different buses just to get to court. The four-hour journey that is potentially being imposed will deter people from attending court and will result in higher appeals.

[Helen Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I will make the point later in my speech that the impact of the court’s closure on travel time is, indeed, worse than the impact of court closures proposed in many rural areas of the country.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

I am proud that my hon. Friend and I both represent Lambeth. This is a very timely debate. On travel, does she agree that it is not just an issue of cost? Many of our young people are living in an environment where it is quite dangerous to travel great distances, with serious youth violence affecting a significant minority. There is often an issue of safety for young people when they are travelling about in our area.

[Helen Hayes]

Indeed; my hon. Friend makes a valid and valuable point. It is some of our most vulnerable residents across the spectrum, including our young people, who will be most significantly impacted by this decision.

I took the opportunity during the consultation period to speak with lawyers from Lambeth and Southwark who represent residents at Lambeth county court about their concerns about the proposed closure. I am grateful to them for the time they took to do that and to the Minister for meeting me during the consultation to discuss those concerns.

The Minister has listened to some of the concerns raised during the consultation, and as a consequence, the proposed closure of Lambeth county court has changed somewhat, such that housing possession hearings will now move not to Putney but to Camberwell magistrates court. I have brought this matter to the House for debate today because that decision will not now be subject to further consultation; because there are important questions about the decision that need to be answered; and because, ultimately, I am not confident that the revised proposal will address all of the concerns raised about the closure of Lambeth county court.

The first area of concern is the impact of the closure on access to justice and the cost of justice for people who will now have to attend court in Putney rather than Kennington. Many people attending court will now be faced with a significantly longer journey, as my hon. Friends have said, and particularly those on low incomes who cannot afford to travel by train or tube. From parts of Lambeth and Southwark, residents will face a round trip of up to four hours on four different buses each way to get to Putney. That is worse than the impact on travel time of some of the court closures proposed in rural areas.

I know how difficult many of my constituents find it simply to get to other parts of Lambeth and Southwark to access services such as the citizens advice bureau. Indeed, I helped to arrange a CAB outreach service on one of my estates because it was so difficult for residents there to travel to other parts of the borough. My worry with a much longer, more complex journey to court is that many residents simply will not make it at all. The attrition in attendance experienced at family courts following a previous closure programme and the subsequent inefficiencies has been clearly documented and was raised with me only this morning by the borough commander in Lambeth. The consequence is that a theoretical cash saving on paper is translated in reality into either cases being delayed, causing additional expense to the public purse, or residents not having the opportunity to give evidence at their own hearing, therefore denying them access to justice.

The second area of concern is the loss of specialism at Lambeth county court. Lawyers who work in my constituency tell me that one reason the court works comparatively well is that it is effectively a specialist housing court. That specialism extends from the judges to the clerks, and means that cases are dealt with quickly and effectively, given the application of expertise built up over many years. The loss of that specialism at a time when the housing crisis is growing in London, the number of evictions in the private rented sector is growing and the Government are reducing the security of tenure of residents in social housing would, in my view, be a terrible shame.

A third area of concern is the potential impact of the closure on the duty solicitor scheme in Lambeth. The current duty solicitor service is staffed by dedicated legal aid lawyers who have chosen to stay in that area of law as legal aid has been cut, earning very modest pay, in order that they can represent the most vulnerable residents and ensure that those residents receive justice. The lawyers I have spoken to who work within that scheme tell me that the margins are so extremely narrow that the significant additional travel time associated with a move to Putney could easily mean the collapse of the current scheme because it will no longer be viable. I am extremely concerned about what that will mean for residents who have been able to rely on representation from trusted local law centres and legal aid firms for many years and, again, the impact on access to justice.

A fourth area of concern is the impact of the move on the public sector, and particularly the social work services of Lambeth and Southwark. If cases involving children are now to be heard in Putney, social workers who have to go to court will face a trebling of their current journey time. Those are the same social workers who have very heavy case loads and who work to support many vulnerable families who are already stretched and on whom the current cuts to council budgets are taking a heavy toll. I do not believe that the impact of the proposal on that area of the public sector has been considered at all, and I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that point.

A final area of concern about the move to Putney is the heavy reliance in the consultation document on the replacement of physical court facilities with digital services. Of course, there are ways in which new technology can aid the justice system and help to make it more efficient and more transparent. Of course, the use of technology to, for example, avoid the need for victims of crime to come into contact with perpetrators is a good thing.

The consultation document and the Government’s response to the consultation is, however, exceptionally light on detail in that respect. There is no indication of how much of the saving the Government will make from the sale of closed courts and tribunals will be reinvested in new technology. There is no articulation of the services that people should expect to see in their local court. There is no modelling of the anticipated impact of investment in new technology on the Courts and Tribunals Service, and there is no immediate action plan for urgent investment to ensure that technology is in place wherever possible to immediately mitigate the impacts of the closures. Without a detailed plan of action, the statements made about the use of technology are simply warm words.

I turn now to some of my questions about the proposal to move housing possession hearings to Camberwell magistrates court rather than to Putney, which was made in response to the representations made during the consultation process. Although I very much welcome the fact that the Minister has listened and responded to the concerns that have been raised, very little detail has been set out about how exactly the proposal will work. I recently met a number of lawyers from Lambeth Law Centre who confirmed my view that the devil will be in the detail on this proposal, so I ask the Minister today whether he can provide some of that detail.

Camberwell magistrates court is already very busy. It is on a constrained site, and it is not clear how Camberwell will physically be able to accommodate additional housing possession hearings on top of the current volume of cases that are heard there.

[Neil Coyle]

I think the words I was looking for before were “It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,” Mr Gray—I got that wrong earlier.

My hon. Friend is talking about the assessment that was made of Camberwell. In her discussions with the legal professionals in Southwark and Lambeth, did they also express concern that the assessment of Lambeth’s use was inaccurate? It was undertaken at a time when at least one judge was away and it did not take into account all the rooms that are used in preparation for court hearings.

[Helen Hayes]

Concerns have absolutely been raised that the figures used to underpin the consultation relating to usage levels at Lambeth county court were not, in fact, accurate at all.

On the move to Camberwell, it is not clear whether the administrative functions of Lambeth county court in relation to housing possession cases will now be based at Camberwell magistrates court, or whether they will move to Putney and only possession hearings will take place at Camberwell. If the administrative functions move to Putney, there is concern that some vulnerable residents facing eviction will still have to travel to Putney to initiate administrative processes that require attendance in person, such as applying for a stay of eviction. If the administrative functions move to Camberwell, it is imperative that Camberwell does not become overloaded. We know what overloaded courts look like: everyone I have met who has had any experience of the Central London county court since it moved to the royal courts of justice describes it as being like the Chancery Court in Dickens’ novel, “Bleak House”, such are the delays and inefficiencies there.

The detail is important here, and I ask the Minister to respond to the following points in his reply: how many judges will move to Camberwell? How many hearings will transfer to Camberwell? What physical space will be made available at Camberwell? Where will the judges at Camberwell be based when they are not sitting in hearings?

Finally, there is concern that even with housing possession hearings staying closer to the site of the current Lambeth county court, moving the remaining functions to Putney will mean that many vulnerable residents—victims of domestic violence, parents attending custody hearings, residents who are in financial difficulties—will have to travel a long distance on a complicated public transport route to access the justice that they deserve.

I come back to where I began. Lambeth county court is the busiest housing court in the country. Those who deal with it on a regular basis report that it works well in respect of housing and the other work that takes place there. Although there may be theoretical short-term savings to be achieved from its closure, there are very great risks that, as a consequence, justice will become less efficient and less easy to access, particularly for vulnerable residents on low incomes. The consequence of that will only be additional costs to the public sector in the long term.

I would be grateful for the Minister’s response to the concerns that I and my hon. Friends have raised. Fundamentally, I believe that this closure will have disastrous consequences for my constituents, and I urge him to reconsider it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise number regarding the 2,100 responses that we received, but it is fair to say that a number of them objected to closures. As I said, we carefully looked at all the responses that were given. If he gives me some time, I will say that we did actually listen to many of the points that were made—if he bears with me, I will come to that.

Despite the best efforts of our staff and the judiciary, the infrastructure that supports the administration of the courts and tribunals is inefficient and disjointed. It uses technology that is now decades old. We offer very few services online and rely on paper forms. We key in data and pass bundles of documents between agencies. When we need to take payment, we can often only accept cash or cheques. We convene physical hearings to discuss matters of process. We need to end the old-fashioned ways of working that create inefficiencies and which make it hard for the public to access justice.

That is why the Government have a significant reform programme in which there will be an investment of some £700 million over the next four years. That will transform the experience of everyone who comes into contact with the courts and tribunals. New services and new, more joined-up ways of working across the justice system will require a modern infrastructure to support them. The reforms will increase access to justice by making it swifter, easier and more efficient.

To achieve those benefits, however, we must make difficult decisions, and deciding to close a court is undoubtedly one of the most difficult. I want to emphasise that we have listened to the responses to the consultation. We have retained four courts and in one further case, we have retained one of the jurisdictions along with the building following the responses that we received. In 22 courts, we have modified the proposal in some way to reduce the impact of the closure on court users—indeed, Lambeth is one of those courts, and I will refer to specific points on that shortly.

In the case of Lambeth county court, the court is poorly used; it is only used for around 40% of its available sitting time. The building is in need of considerable maintenance, including the replacement of air conditioning, lighting and aspects of the heating and hot water system. In many respects, it is simply not fit for purpose as a modern and flexible court building.

As the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood mentioned in her speech, she and I had a meeting—I thought it was very productive—following which we were able to engage in conversation with my officials and she was able to liaise with the local council, Southwark council, and there was a very productive dialogue. Unfortunately, after Southwark council had carried out a feasibility study, it came to the conclusion that county court work could not be transferred to its premises, which we were open to considering. I am, however, pleased that following the representations that she and others made, and recognising the enormous number of housing possession cases that are at Lambeth county court, we have managed to shift the work two miles down the road to Camberwell Green magistrates court. I think that is not unreasonable, in that we have listened, and I would like to think that two miles is not a huge distance.

I understand that the closure of a court has a very real impact on the court’s users, staff and judiciary, but I want to make it clear that in England and Wales, the closure of 86 courts will only reduce the proportion of citizens who will be able to reach their nearest civil or family court within an hour by car by 1% and by public transport by 5%. It is also worth pointing out that the majority of the population will never have to attend a court, and for those who do, it is likely to be a rare occurrence.

The issue of access to justice featured prominently in the hon. Lady’s speech. Being able to access courts and tribunals when required is, of course, essential, but effective access to justice is not defined simply by the proximity to a court or tribunal building. It should be defined by how easy it is for court users to access the service they need, however they choose to do that. We want to take advantage of the choice and flexibility that digital technology offers. We will move towards a system in which face-to-face hearings are required only for sensitive and complex cases. Online plea, claims and evidence systems with much wider adoption of video conferencing into court will reduce the need for people to travel to court.

[Helen Hayes]

It is not clear to me what the timescale is for the investment of £700 million in new technology, or whether there will be a time lag following the closure of Lambeth county court, the move to Wandsworth and the introduction of the advantages that new technology may be able to bring. Will the Minister set out the timescale and process is a little more detail?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes]

I thank the Minister for his response and for taking the time to respond in detail. On video links, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) suggested, there is serious concern about the context in which police stations are closing. I met one of my borough commanders this morning who said Brixton police station is full and there is no capacity. I am not sure the Government have a plan for that. Southwark and Camberwell councils are rationalising a number of their premises, which is probably why they have difficulties in accommodating the Court Service. It is not clear that facilities for video links will be available.

[Mr Vara]

We have a video link in Wales that operates from a community centre. We can be broad in our thinking process.

[Helen Hayes]

My point is about the absence of a detailed plan in the context of a very big decision. The Minister has not responded to my detailed questions about the way in which provision will work at Camberwell and I would be grateful for a written response.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change the justice system. At the moment, it is a once-in-a-generation opportunity without a plan.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

The hon. Lady may want a lifetime opportunity, but I am afraid she has run out of time.

Question put and agreed to.

Safer Neighbourhood Policing: London

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I will do my best to stick to the timescale you outlined.

My first experience of working with the police as an elected local representative was as a local councillor working with my safer neighbourhood team, set up by the former Labour Mayor of London. I found the dedicated team of six officers to be hugely impressive, forging strong connections and relationships across the community and working in a way that was responsive to local needs and issues but also proactive and preventive. They also delivered results. We saw estates that had suffered episodes of gang-related violence have no such problems for years, and antisocial behaviour and drug dealing properly dealt with. We saw the perpetrators of spates of burglaries quickly apprehended and really valuable work, such as the detailed mapping of a large area of woodland in the ward, so that it was easier to find lost children. Most importantly, we saw the police out and about in the ward day in, day out, getting to know residents, understanding and responding to their concerns and preventing crime as well as responding to it.

I would like to pay tribute briefly to the hard work of the police in my constituency, which often goes above and beyond the call of duty. I was contacted on 23 December by a vulnerable elderly resident who had been the victim of a particularly nasty robbery in his home. He was calling to ask that I wrote to thank the borough commander because, in his words, the officers who responded to his call for help had been not only effective but kind, organising a small party and whip-round to show their support. We should not for a moment forget such excellent work when we debate policing in London.

The cuts to policing in London have been extensively covered by my colleagues, so I will not dwell on them in detail. I will simply say that the cuts have been devastating, and that the change from safer neighbourhood policing to the local policing model has been the most damaging of all. That reorganisation strips away one of the vital tools the police had for building deep relationships with the communities they serve, and we are seeing the impacts on the ground.

On one of the estates in my constituency, residents, many of them elderly, are not currently receiving any post because the postal worker who delivers there has been threatened and mugged, and Royal Mail has decided it is not a safe environment in which its staff should deliver. That could easily be resolved if the safer neighbourhood team could put resources on the ground, as it could previously. On another estate, problems of antisocial behaviour are not being dealt with as quickly as they could be before. On another street, a spate of burglaries running on for months and months culminated in a horrible attack, where the contents of a petrol canister were thrown over a local resident.

Our police have been forced by the cuts to become reactive instead of proactive, visiting the victims of burglary or robbery after the crime has taken place and responding to call-outs. However, a proactive approach through neighbourhood policing is vital to addressing some of the most serious and pressing challenges that we face—gun and knife crime, child sexual exploitation, radicalisation and terrorism, forced marriage and honour-based violence and hate crimes. Investigating and preventing those crimes requires the police to have the depth of knowledge and relationships with the communities they serve that cannot be fabricated in the heat of a rapid response, once a crime has taken place. As one community activist in Brixton said during a MOPAC roadshow meeting, in eroding safer neighbourhood teams

“you have taken the heart out of policing”.

Neighbourhood policing is vital to maintaining confidence and trust in the police. When communities know their officers and officers know their patch, the police have a public face at local level. When that is taken away, the public are left to rely on headlines and high-profile cases and the individual experiences of people who have sadly already been the victims of crime to determine their level of confidence in the police.

Finally, neighbourhood policing should not be regarded as the softer side of policing, but as the vital relationship-building bridge between the police and the communities they serve and the key to resolving and preventing many of the serious crimes that can threaten the security and stability of our communities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

There is broad bipartisan support for the idea of problem-solving courts. Lord Woolf, when he was Lord Chief Justice, and David Blunkett, when he was Home Secretary, both agreed that it was important to explore the potential of problem-solving courts, not just to keep our streets safe but to ensure that offenders changed their lives. I had the great privilege of meeting Judge Alex Calabrese last night. He has been very successful in this area, and I know that the Justice Committee has highlighted his work in America. We will make an announcement shortly on the joint work that the current Lord Chief Justice and I will take forward in this area.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

T8. The Government’s own figures reveal that the number of serious crimes committed by violent and sex offenders who are being monitored after leaving prison has risen by more than 28%, and that some 222 offenders under supervision in the community were charged with crimes including murder and manslaughter and with sexual offences in 2014-15. The National Association of Probation Officers has said that this is partly due to the privatisation of probation, which means that the exchange of information between agencies is not quick enough. What urgent steps is the Minister taking to address this issue?

[Andrew Selous]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to suggest that serious offences are a very serious matter from which we must learn every possible lesson to ensure that there is no repeat, but I do not agree that the transforming rehabilitation reforms are in any way responsible for a degradation of the probation service. I remind her that 45,000 criminals now receive probation supervision who did not get it before, because the last Government brought in probation for those who are sent to prison for less than a year.