Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

This area has been reviewed continually by previous Governments and by this Government. There is a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. It is for judges to ensure they understand what sentences should be for each offence, but we keep a very open mind and continue to look at the review as we go forward.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of trends in the number of litigants in person since the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 came into effect.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

12. What assessment he has made of trends in the number of litigants in person since the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 came into effect.

[Ian C. Lucas]

It seems the Minister, in the company of the head of the Courts Service, is alone in thinking there is no crisis because of the increase in the number of litigants in person in our legal system. If the Minister really wants to know what is going on, will he commission an anonymous survey of district judges and court clerks to find out the truth of the crisis in our court system that is happening as we speak?

[Mr Vara]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have had to take very tough decisions, which his colleagues would have continued had they been in government. The Government have invested £2 million to ensure greater support for litigants in person.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

As the Police Minister, I am sure some of my colleagues in the police force will be doing exactly that. I do not think there has been a better advocate for a constituency magistrates court than my hon. Friend. Every time he opens his mouth in conversation with me or my colleagues in the Tea Room, he talks about Skipton magistrates court. I would do exactly the same if I was in his position.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

When I had a meeting about my local magistrates court merger with the Courts Service, the court clerk in charge of the decision was based in Llanelli. Does the Minister regard that as local justice?

[Mike Penning]

I honestly think that when we look at the courts estate we need to make sure it is fit for purpose around the country. Where someone is based is immaterial. What we need to do is ensure we make the right decisions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

I absolutely recognise what the Chair of the Justice Committee says. As I have just said, we are increasing staff numbers at the prison: 13 more recruits are due to start next week, 12 have already joined and there are 22 reserve staff available. The prison will also have a further inspection next week, so we are keeping these matters closely under review. As I have said, more staff are joining.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say in all courtesy to the hon. Gentleman that HMP Northumberland is a long way from Wrexham. It may be that the hon. Gentleman has a constituent who is incarcerated there and if he can solemnly assure the House that that is the case, I shall be happy to hear him; otherwise, he might prefer to wait for another question.

[Ian Lucas]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

We will leave it there for now, but the hon. Gentleman will be heard. I feel sure of that—he always is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Lady is right to refer to our meeting about this matter and will be aware that in March we announced a court reform programme to ensure that the courts and tribunals of this country met the expectations of the public in the 21st century. Any decisions about the site in Farringdon row in Sunderland will be taken in the context of that reform programme. Currently, no decisions have been taken about the site.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Unless the Ministry of Justice commits capital funding to Wrexham magistrates court, it will be in the peculiar position of having no custody facilities. Will the Minister commit capital funding to construct cells at the court?

[Mr Vara]

As I just said, a reform programme has been announced. It will take a comprehensive view and all matters will be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes]

There are two major changes that will lead to a speedier and more just outcome, particularly for children. The first is a requirement that all cases involving care proceedings will be dealt with in 26 weeks, or half a year—only a couple of years ago, it was double that—and if there has to be an exception in the interests of justice, that will be made. Secondly, experts’ reports will not be commissioned and take up a huge amount of time unless that is necessary in the interests of the child. The process will be speedier, and children will have certainty much more quickly, as will their families and local authorities.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

But is not the Minister aware that the withdrawal of legal aid in family cases has caused a massive increase in litigants in person, which will undercut and undermine any move towards shorter times for dealing with these cases? The Government have undercut and undermined their own policy, and strangled it at birth.

[Simon Hughes]

That is very easy rhetoric from the hon. Gentleman, but the evidence does not support it. The evidence is that there were always litigants in person in the family courts, and the time it is taking for cases outside the public system to be dealt with has not fundamentally changed. They take on average between 16 and 18 weeks now, as they did before. In addition, legal aid has been retained for most of the important issues. In particular, legal aid is available for people to be assessed for mediation, and for mediation. For those who go to mediation, seven out of 10 have a successful outcome, which means that they do not need to contest their matrimonial matters in the court.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

I do not have the answer off the top of my head, but I am happy to look into the matter and try to provide one.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Proposals to merge Wrexham and Flintshire magistrates court benches are being carried forward without public consultation. Does the Minister think that is appropriate?

[Mr Vara]

That is a local decision for the local justices.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

Even by my hon. Friend’s high standards, that is inventive. As I have said to him before, we will of course consider again, as he has asked me to, whether Wellingborough is a suitable venue for a large new prison for the London area, but that is entirely separate from the judgments we need to make about how the rest of the estate operates. However, I will of course keep him informed as our thinking develops.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

The coalition has characteristically dealt with the difficult decision of whether the prison at Wrexham will be in the public or private sector by deferring it, probably beyond the next general election. How can we prepare to ensure that the type of incident that occurred at Oakwood does not occur at Wrexham in 2017, when we do not know how the prison will be run?

Criminal Justice (North Wales)

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this evening, Mr Deputy Speaker. I echo your festive greetings and wish you, your family and everyone in the House a merry Christmas. I also thank all the staff who have worked so hard for us over the past year. I would also like to extend Christmas greetings to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), to whom I apologise for detaining him this evening. He has only recently been installed—or should I say reinstalled?—in Government and it is a pleasure to have him back, but I am afraid that some of my remarks will be critical of his Department. I am sure that things will start to look up because of his appointment.

I should first declare an interest as a non-practising solicitor. I have not worked in private practice since I was elected in 2001, but I bring previous experience of working in the criminal justice system in north Wales, as well as in Merseyside and Cheshire. I have many connections, which I maintain, with people working in the criminal justice system in north Wales, including solicitors, barristers, magistrates, magistrates’ clerks, probation officers and police officers.

I have never known such a state of flux in the criminal justice system in north Wales and, even more worryingly, such a lack of information for the community as a whole about the Government’s justice policy and how it will operate in future. It is creating enormous uncertainty for court staff, businesses connected to the courts and magistrates who commit time and substantial energy to the service, as well as for court users generally.

Magistrates courts and criminal justice are important to their communities. Summary justice is hundreds of years old, and it depends upon local input for effectiveness. It is indeed ironic that a Government who purport to promote localism appear determined to erase local justice from the map. What is this Government’s agenda for north Wales?

Magistrates and solicitors approached me early this year, when Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service in Wales issued a consultation document on the review of local justice areas in North Wales, the gist of which was to merge six magistrates court benches into three. When I read it, I was struck by the fact that none of the reasons given for that proposal referred to court users, but instead focused on issues such as

“a more cost effective and viable financial base”,

and “reduced administrative burdens”, as well as

“improved flexibility in the listing of cases within larger justice areas”.

In my town of Wrexham, there is real concern about the proposed merger of the local bench, which has been established for hundreds of years, with Flintshire. That would enable Wrexham cases to be listed in Mold, which would have a substantial impact on defendants, witnesses, lawyers, probation officers, magistrates and clerks. It would be the latest in a long line of changes to court work in north Wales that have centralised fine enforcement, road traffic cases and TV licensing work, taking local work away from courts in an effort to centralise.

The effect in Wrexham might be even more profound, as North Wales police currently intend to move custody facilities from the town centre to Llay, which is situated between Wrexham and Mold. The current custody facilities are immediately adjacent to Wrexham magistrates court, but I am concerned that if they move to Llay and the Ministry of Justice succeeds in its bid to merge magistrates benches, the combination of both factors will form part of a future case for moving magistrates’ business away from Wrexham completely. We might be seeing the start of a process that ultimately leads to the closure of the magistrates court in the largest town in north Wales.

I know from speaking to north Wales parliamentary colleagues from all parties that there is real concern across north Wales about the Ministry of Justice’s courts agenda. In response to the consultation earlier this year, I lodged a detailed submission on 21 April 2013, five days before the closure date. I made various points about the usage of the courts, and I raised issues relating to travel, impacts on local businesses—they have expressed their concerns to me about the proposal—and the additional cost to the public purse from increased travel costs. I concluded:

“I would also welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters with Wrexham Magistrates.”

I heard nothing for some time.

It is striking how remote the criminal justice system is from Members of Parliament in north Wales. There appears to be no willingness to engage with us on the part of the Ministry of Justice or Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. That contrasts with our relations with the police force, the chief constable and even the new police and crime commissioner. The Ministry of Justice seems to be pursuing various agendas, thick and fast, without any consultation with the local community. What is the policy on courts and probation, and where is it leading? Even on the issue of Wrexham prison, where more information has been given, we still do not know whether it will be run by the public or private sector.

The roaring silence in response to my submission on court mergers continued. I wrote chasing e-mails. Eventually, on 22 May, I was informed that the consultation had been withdrawn

“as there was insufficient support from amongst the magistrates for a merger to proceed at this time”.

I was then astonished to be informed by local solicitors that the court service had cancelled the sittings in Wrexham on Mondays and that they were to be heard at Mold. It appeared that the proposals that had been envisaged in the consultation document were being taken forward despite the consultation and despite the reasoning that had been given by the local justices’ clerk for the withdrawal of the consultation. The proposals were proceeding without anyone bothering to have a consultation and expressly against the wishes of the local magistrates, who had not supported them.

The court is crucial to Wrexham. It is the biggest town in north Wales and a population centre. It is served by bus routes in a way that Mold is not and it supports small and larger solicitors practices that employ my constituents. Moving the magistrates court is of such importance to various groups in the town that they contacted me—something that they do not do often. They have asked me to look after their interests and the interests of the town. However, the court service has still not met me, despite my request, to tell me what is going on. I am willing to meet it, but I feel excluded.

Not everyone is excluded from the consultation. A lot of private discussion has been going on, from which the public and other interested parties have been cut out since the withdrawal of the public consultation document. On 2 July this year, the Secretary of State for Justice attended a political meeting of Wrexham Conservatives. In a report to Wrexham magistrates in August 2013, Sally Kenyon, the chair of the Wrexham bench said:

“I had the pleasure of meeting Chris Grayling…in Wrexham in July. I raised our concern that Wrexham is to lose the police cells adjacent to the court building”.

There is then a substantial passage setting out the views of the Secretary of State on his plans relating to the Ministry of Justice estate in north Wales. It quotes extensively, but selectively, from correspondence with the chair of the Wrexham bench. The Secretary of State concluded his correspondence by saying that

“there are no firm plans in relation to the relocation of criminal work to Mold.”

When I wrote to the Secretary of State subsequently for information on his discussions concerning Wrexham courts, he said:

“The purpose of my visit to Wrexham was for a private luncheon, rather than Departmental business”.

It is very clear, however, that departmental business was discussed at that private luncheon. In his letter to me of 10 October, on Ministry of Justice notepaper, the Secretary of State concludes with the same phrase that he used in his letter to the chair of the Wrexham bench:

“there are no firm plans in relation to the relocation of criminal work to Mold”.

In a letter to the Minister, I asked to meet him to find out about the agenda of the Ministry of Justice for the courts in north Wales. I am still waiting for a reply. A series of written parliamentary questions on the issue were answered with obfuscation and avoidance. I have, therefore, secured this debate.

Will the Minister please confirm that the Secretary of State conducted departmental business at what he described as a “private luncheon”? In particular, will he confirm that the Secretary of State discussed Wrexham magistrates court and Wrexham police cells with the chair of Wrexham bench? Will he release the full text of the Secretary of State’s letter to the chair of Wrexham magistrates bench so that the public can have confidence in the process, and so that all magistrates can see the full text of the correspondence? Does the Minister think it appropriate that the people of north Wales should be excluded from discussions on the future of criminal justice in north Wales? Does he think it appropriate for privileged access to the Secretary of State to be given to individuals because of political connections?

Will the Minister please arrange a briefing session for north Wales MPs to tell us, openly and honestly—as I am sure he will—what HM Courts Service intends to propose for north Wales? We had a consultation that was withdrawn as long ago as April, and actions have been taken by HM Courts Service to bring together services since then without any consultation or anyone having the opportunity to make representations. Does the MOJ have any intention to consult the people of Wrexham and, more broadly, of north Wales, on its proposals for courts in north Wales?

The way this issue has been handled to date is, quite simply, the worst I have encountered in 12 years as an MP. It has been conducted evasively, incompetently and, quite bluntly, with secrecy. I hope that the Minister will now open up the process so that MPs and the people of north Wales can be consulted about the criminal justice system in our area, and so that we know what is going on and can make appropriate representations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

The work that magistrates do in north Wales and across the court service is absolutely vital. The partnership between the magistracy and officials who manage the courts is an essential prerequisite for the successful operation of our magistrates courts. In the case of magistrates courts, this partnership is built up through regular meetings between bench chairs and officials, providing the opportunity to discuss the conduct of court business, including listing arrangements. It is therefore to be expected that the chairs of Wrexham and Mold benches would discuss the potential arrangement of local justice areas in north Wales during meetings with officials.

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the local justices issues group concluded in late 2012 that the reorganisation of local justice areas, including the merger of the Wrexham and Flintshire local justice areas, would provide the most efficient framework for the administration of justice in north Wales.

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman took the time and trouble to respond in detail to the consultation. However, as he will be aware, the consultation was suspended when it became clear that the wider proposals for north Wales no longer had the support of all the bench chairs, as had been previously understood. Following further consideration, the proposals were withdrawn. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take away from that the fact that the voice of the people who took the trouble to take part in the consultation was heard. This is a decision based on views taken in by outsiders, and not on decisions taken at the top.

[Ian Lucas]

On that point, the difficulty is that steps were taken subsequently, in terms of the transfer of business between the two courts, that seem to pursue the agenda suggested in the withdrawn consultation.

[Mr Vara]

I appreciate where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but the listing of cases is a matter for the judiciary to decide as it sees best so that it can get the business done and hear as many cases as possible. It is important to recognise that distinction. As far as the consultation is concerned, it was pulled. I understand that there is talk among the magistrates—not at the Ministry of Justice end, but among the magistrates—that there may be another consultation, but that is a matter I hope he will be able to address in direct communications with them. As I said at the outset, I will try to facilitate a meeting for him.

It is important to appreciate that any new proposals to merge local justice areas in north Wales would be subject to a consultation. I am aware that the bench chairmen for Flintshire and Wrexham are keen to consult on mergers, because they believe they will result in a more efficient and effective structure for the magistracy in north-east Wales.

If a consultation does go ahead, all local magistrates, local authorities, members of the local criminal justice board and other interested parties—including, of course, all local MPs and other locally elected officials—will be able to comment. It would be for the justices clerk and the local justices issues group to consider the responses to the consultation and, should there be a case for merger, they will then formulate their final recommendation in respect of the new structure.

In considering changes to local justice areas, account will of course be taken of access to justice and how to deal effectively with the business of magistrates courts. This will include the needs of local communities and the wider criminal justice system infrastructure, the deployment of magistrates and their need for support, and the workload and deployment of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service staff.

I emphasise that changes to local justice areas take place periodically and are driven by the need to create listing efficiencies and deploy magistrates as efficiently as possible. If a new consultation on changes to local justice areas in north Wales takes place, it should not be viewed as an automatic precursor to the closure of a courthouse. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, North Wales police has announced plans, following public consultation, to improve service provision in north Wales, but these will not automatically lead to the closure of magistrates courts. We are aware that the police will vacate their existing premises in Wrexham in 2016-17, which will have implications for the court and how it deals with custody cases, but when circumstances change in this way, the Courts and Tribunals Service will need to assess the most appropriate way for criminal cases to be effectively delivered in the area.

The hon. Gentleman might feel that the lack of cells will automatically lead to the closure of the court, but that is not the case. He did not dwell on this in his speech, but he will be aware of it and the consultation by the local police. I can reassure him that an open and transparent consultation process is used when deciding whether to close a court. Crucially, any proposals on the future of a court are considered with emphasis on the local area and how justice is best served there. Several factors will be taken into consideration before starting a consultation, including an assessment of the work load and utilisation of the court. The Courts and Tribunals Service also takes into account whether a suitable alternative location for the work is available and whether it could be accommodated elsewhere without a detrimental impact on service levels. If a consultation is published, it is important that local stakeholders and partners and elected officials be properly engaged to ensure that all relevant views are taken into account.

There is then a full analysis of all responses received before any decision is made. The response to the consultation is always accompanied by an impact assessment. I hope that this reassures the hon. Gentleman that when there are proposals to change the deployment of magistrates or the court estate, proper and distinct processes are followed, ensuring that decisions are made only once the views of relevant parties have been considered through the open and transparent consultation processes. I stress that the Government are committed to providing court users in north Wales with proper and effective access to justice. In so doing, hard-working taxpayers rightly expect us to reduce the cost of operating courts and tribunals while maintaining an effective service for court users.

In this country, we have one of the best justice systems in the world. Whatever decisions are taken, it is always central to our thought process that we ensure this world-class justice system continues. On that note, I conclude by wishing you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the court officials and the hon. Gentleman a merry Christmas. Also, I extend a special greeting to the security staff, who look after us while we do our work and ensure we can do it safely.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We are following a number of different paths, including an increased promotion of mediation services and making some mediation compulsory as a result of the provisions in the Children and Families Bill. We are also looking for other measures to help ensure that mediation takes place. It is much better if these issues can be dealt with through a mediation service, rather than through the cost and difficulty of a full legal process.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

But is the Secretary of State not aware that in the delicate environment of the beginning of a divorce case, specialist advice from legal practitioners leading to mediation is essential? That is why this Government’s policy has such a negative impact. Will he please look at it again?

[Chris Grayling]

I am not sure whether that is an attempted spending commitment from the hon. Gentleman. The reality is that we have had to take difficult decisions about the availability of legal aid in order to deal with the financial challenge we inherited. The issue is about trying to ensure that we make the best use of the network of mediators we have in this country. As I say, the number of actual mediations has not fallen, but we are not getting enough people into mediation in the first place. That is why we are changing the law, we are introducing better targeting of the routes into mediation and we are working with mediation organisations to help them get more people referred to them.

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I should like to start by offering an apology to the House and to you, Mr Speaker. I shall not be able to be here for the wind-ups at the end of the debate because, in my role as Lord Chancellor, I have to take part in the formal proceedings of the Lord Mayor’s banquet this evening. I have written to the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) and to the Chairman of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), to explain the position.

I have read with interest the reasoned amendment tabled by the Opposition, and it might be helpful to explain to the House what the Bill will do, and what it will not do. It will make reforms to the sentencing framework so as to bring to an end the situation in which a prisoner can walk out of the prison gates with £46 in their pocket and with no one to meet them, no one to plan for their release, and no one to ensure that they do not return to the same streets and the same people and commit further crimes with no one to try to stop them. The Bill will not make any changes to the probation service.

It is the plans to put an end to prisoners walking out of prison with no support that the Opposition are planning to vote against tonight. They are planning to vote against our plans to end the situation in which drug addicts serving short sentences are simply stabilised on methadone for a few weeks because the prison staff know that they will not turn up for rehabilitation when they leave and therefore think that it is not worth starting it. We also want to put an end to the situation in which a young person freshly out of care finds themselves in our criminal justice system and has no help or guidance to sort out their life when they are released. The Opposition are planning to vote against that proposal tonight.

Despite what is suggested in the completely flawed amendment, which is supported by the Opposition in the other place—and which on one reading would make it impossible for even the current probation trusts to alter their local delivery units without parliamentary approval—the Bill will do nothing to reorganise or restructure our probation services. It is not about probation. The changes that we debated two weeks ago are not part of the Bill. They are about our decision to put into action the reforms set out by the Labour Government in their Offender Management Act 2007, which provides us with the legal basis for our probation reforms. This Bill is not about those reforms.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

What will be the additional cost of the Government’s proposals?

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I pay tribute to the team that works in Winchester. They do a first-rate job for all of us, and Winchester will, of course, continue to play an important part in our work in the Prison Service. We are in the process of finalising plans to change the nature of our prison estate, with the local focus described by my hon. Friend, so that we will have a network of resettlement prisons from where most prisoners will be released into the areas in which they will then live.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

This morning Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons issued a report expressing concern about Oakwood prison in Staffordshire, which is the most recent prison to be built. What assurances can the Secretary of State give that the Wrexham prison to which he has referred will not have similar difficulties when the Government undertake its building?

[Chris Grayling]

Prison professionals all say that the early days of a new prison are difficult. Clearly there is still work to be done at Oakwood and that is a priority for us. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, however, that some of the criticisms of Oakwood refer to the fact that it is a privately run prison. I have taken no decision about the status of the prison in Wrexham, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the Labour party that took the decision to privatise Oakwood.