Family Justice (Transparency, Accountability and Cost of Living) Bill

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Friday 26th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming]

That is very true. If Parliament wishes its laws to be enforced, it needs to protect people who want them to be implemented, but at the moment we do not so. We have seen it with the Savile saga, but that is not unique. Let us remember all the bullying and threatening that went on to cover up Hillsborough. That is another example of a cover-up that succeeded in part through intimidating people.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I support the hon. Gentleman. We had a case some years ago—I will not go into it now, because this is an intervention—involving the NHS in Coventry and a doctor who was a whistleblower. The whole thing ended up in court, and he is still suspended.

[John Hemming]

That is the problem. Unless we allow people to complain and we protect people’s right to complain, the rule of law cannot apply, because we do not know that somebody has infringed the law. This applies in all areas.

If the Government decide to knock out all but one of the clauses, leaving only protecting the right to complain, that will be progress. There are many clauses, but they do not all have to go through. I would like a lot of them to progress, but, at the end of the day, the Government are in control. There is no doubt about that. If we keep only one, however, let it be the one about the right to complain, protecting whistleblowers, preventing cover-ups and protecting children who complain. These children were not only ignored but punished—their punishment was only the withdrawal of privileges, but still that cannot be right. Parliament cannot tolerate such a thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

I support the Bill. I will speak mainly about clause 1, but first let me say that clause 2’s provisions are based on the personal experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), who campaigns tirelessly and fearlessly on behalf of his constituents and others. I know how angry he was when a constituent was threatened over even speaking to him. To say he feels passionately about injustice—especially when perpetrated against those least able to fight for themselves, such as children—is an understatement.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you missed a wonderful explanation of thermodynamics, which I am sure will be to your eternal loss. We do not need an explanation of thermodynamics, however, to understand that making energy-cost savings of £1.1 billion by 2020 is an extremely laudable aim.

We are living in strange times. The Savile scandal is not only still rumbling on, but there are now suggestions that more public figures will be exposed. The press is reporting that we are now trying to substitute transparency for trust, because people no longer trust our public institutions. It seems that trust is becoming an old-fashioned word. The foundations of trust are shaken to the core when the actions of well-loved figures are uncovered—unfortunately, discovered too late for many people—and that is why this Bill is so important. We cannot have trust without transparency, and that is very pertinent to elements of the Bill.

A particularly helpful aspect proposes family group conferences which would give the extended family a say in resolving problems in a consensual manner instead of decisions being made in what can appear to be a rather high-handed manner by people who are not specifically involved with the family. Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 enshrined the rule that the court must treat the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration. Under the care and supervision proceedings in the Act, the child concerned can be taken into care only if they are

“suffering, or…likely to suffer, significant harm; and…the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to…the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or…the child’s being beyond parental control.

The Act goes on to state:

“Before proceeding with an application, the local authority should always obtain and consider legal advice on whether, in the circumstances of the case and in the light of the available evidence, the court is likely to be satisfied”

that the conditions I quoted are met

“and that an order is in the best interests of the child and that making a care order would be better for the child than making no order at all.”

However, that is not always the case, because sometimes, as we have discussed, the expert evidence is based on opinion, which cannot be challenged. The purpose of my hon. Friend’s Bill is to ensure transparency so that the reasoning behind the opinion can be tested. He cited the example of an expert opinion in a case where a child was taken away from their mother because she took the view that the child—a baby—should be fed on demand. It is scandalous that someone could give that opinion without any kind of challenge.

The provisions on proceedings in the family court and the Court of Protection would clarify the role of the friend and/or the McKenzie friend. They would also ensure that grandparents and other members of the wider family may have a say and offer their own perspective. Grandparents have knowledge of the situation and an interest in a positive outcome. They feel strongly about family break-up, but as things stand, although they do not have any say in the family court, they are often literally left holding the baby. The McKenzie friend system assists parents in the family court, who are often in need of a legally trained friend of the family or someone who has a little more expertise and advice to give. Not every parent can afford to have a lawyer in the family court, and that is against the spirit of what it is supposed to provide. Such psychological support, whether it is practical or results merely from the person being there, can be extremely valuable.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

The hon. Lady is making a very good case, and I totally agree with her. In many cases, the authorities can pay for their legal advice but the appellant cannot. She is therefore right to advocate the increasing use of McKenzie friends, if possible.

[Lorely Burt]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We see examples of this in many walks for life. I have been involved with a group called the Association for Shared Parenting, which provides the McKenzie friend system for parents who have been separated from their children and are trying to regain access to them. In the spirit of the big society, we should allow that sort of thing to be permitted much more widely.

On clause 2(5), it is very important that children in whose best interests it is to be in care should be placed locally where there is good reason to do so. We saw tragic examples in Rochdale of what can go wrong. In that context, the contribution by the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) was most welcome. If children are placed locally, they still have their local connections and are not so isolated and prey to the apparently flattering but ill-conceived intentions of people seeking to groom them for all kinds of nefarious activities which can ruin the rest of their lives. Under the current system of independent scrutiny of children in care, children can complain to the perpetrators. For example, if the body they complain to is the local authority, and the body responsible for the care that they are given is the local authority, I see no logical reason for opposing the possibility of separating out the two in the interests of fairness and transparency. Earlier I told my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley about the schoolchildren who complained about the molesting activities of Jimmy Savile and were actually punished for doing so. These children must be able to go to somebody independent to whom they can complain.

As we have heard, there can be prejudice against children in care and after they have been in care. It is absolutely scandalous that a child can be branded and disadvantaged for life through, usually, absolutely no fault of their own. They need the protection that my hon. Friend offers in clause 3, subsection (4) of which addresses the prejudice that he described. The protected characteristics to which he refers, which are defined in the Equality Act 2010, are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, and sex and sexual orientation. It is sad that someone’s having been in care in their younger life should be added to that list, but unfortunately I can see why he thinks so. It is important that any child can make its way in the world without additional discrimination of that kind.

Part 3 contains measures on the cost of living to achieve lower fuel bills. It would require a strategy to be produced by the Secretary of State that would help to end the misery of cold homes for millions of people. I suggested earlier that my hon. Friend was seeking three bites of the cherry, but given the rarity of one’s name coming up in the ballot, we want to address all the burning issues—if you will pardon the pun, Madam Deputy Speaker—that we have been thinking about for a long time. We want it all, basically.

The Bill would provide that the Secretary of State must

“by 2020…require any replacement heating system”—

that is, boilers. Apparently, 1.3 million boilers give up the ghost every year, and they are the ones we most need to replace with the best quality boilers that can be envisaged. I say “envisaged” because we are talking about 2020. We are making improvements in the quality and efficiency of boilers all the time, so I do not think—contrary to what the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) said earlier—that a band 6 boiler is necessarily too big an aspiration.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, particularly now, as we are hitting the winter, with the change in climate, the bad weather and so forth. She is quite right, because whichever way we put the argument—and without wanting to get too political—one of the issues is that the price of fuel and heating continually goes up, but it never goes down. She is therefore making a valuable point. Most of the families concerned cannot always afford to get their boiler put right, so she has hit on a sensitive issue.

[Lorely Burt]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am sure he will welcome the fact that by that time we will be in a position to use green deal funding, so as not to be a burden on the taxpayer. Although some of the technologies are not quite ready yet, the fact that we can aspire to that is an important aspect of this Bill.

In conclusion, I do not understand the laws of thermodynamics, but I do see that the energy innovations of combined heat and power, and flue gas will make a major difference to household bills in the UK, and I commend all of this Bill to the House.

Policing

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

Indeed it would. The former Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), writing in The Daily Telegraph only yesterday, made it clear that the Liberal Democrats tried to sabotage the poll, which is why it is now to be held in November. I think we should send the bill to the constituency office of the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane, and ask him to pay the £100 million cost on behalf of the Liberal Democrats who, I remind the House, are standing in only 24 of the 41 areas.

The Electoral Commission has also said that the central website provided by the Government will not be sufficient because it requires people to access the internet. It is estimated that 7 million adults outside London have not used the internet in the past 12 months, but how do the Government decide to promote their campaign? By putting it only on the website. Which groups are least able to access the internet? People who live in the north, people on low incomes, people over 65, and women. There is disproportionality built in to these elections which the Government should be careful of.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

What makes the shambles worse is that we had a referendum in this country on the voting system, yet now we find that the Government intend to use the supplementary vote. Who authorised that?

[Mr Hanson]

Indeed. Most people do not know how to use the supplementary vote. That will add to the confusion on 15 November, which will not be helped by the lack of information on the selection. The Minister has authorised taxpayer-funded adverts, which are generating fear of crime more than knowledge of the elections. They promote police and crime commissioners as an answer to the awful mess, but they do not mention some of the real challenges that people will have to face. If turnout is low, as I fear it will be but hope it will not be, the only people who have to answer for those mistakes are the Government.

It is no secret that Labour voted against the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) said, we would have spent the £100 million on 3,000 new police officers instead. But Parliament has spoken and we intend to fight the election hard. In answer to the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), we have decided to stand 41 candidates in 41 police areas. We are more in favour of the policy than the Liberal Democrats who voted for it, but we will not stand aside and allow Liberal Democrat and Conservative candidates to be elected and to act as cheerleaders for the Government. We have an excellent set of candidates and a proud record, as crime fell by 43% in the years of the Labour Government.

We will fight the elections supporting neighbourhood policing, tackling antisocial behaviour, supporting victims, protecting the operational independence of police, forming local partnerships and opposing the Government’s reckless 20% cuts in policing, which have seen 6,800 officers gone from our front line already. I would be grateful if, in his contribution, the Minister confirmed that 6,800 officers have gone from the front line. If he does, he will be directly contradicting the Prime Minister’s claim that front-line services will not be hit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

We are always keen to support work and training initiatives in prison and with offenders. A significant number of policy initiatives are now coming forward that might be able to incorporate the kind of service and training that Mr Dosanjh is offering, and I will ask my officials to contact him to see what might be possible.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

15. Whether he plans to bring forward proposals to enable magistrates to sit in community centres and police stations.

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

We are currently developing a programme of reforms that will deliver swift, sure and visible justice—we intend to publish details shortly. As part of that, we are considering new and innovative ways to involve magistrates in delivering justice, and we will work with magistrates to develop these plans.

[Mr Cunningham]

What credence does the Minister give to press reports that police stations could be used as magistrates courts? In relation to these innovations, how many more magistrates will he need, and what will the cost be?

[Mr Djanogly]

I had not heard that, but it sounds as though the hon. Gentleman could be confusing it with virtual courts, where the courtroom is extended into the police station. The defendant would be in the police station, with the defence counsel either in the police station or in the magistrates court, but the magistrates would still be in the magistrates court.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

In family justice we are placing much more emphasis on mediation, which should be much more comfortable for all the clients and will lead to a much easier and less traumatic resolution of many disputes. We are putting more money into mediation and more money into training for mediation. We should remember that the purpose of this public service is to resolve disputes with the minimum of cost and time and to take all the emotion out, so far as is possible, of these difficult family cases. Access to justice is access to the most civilised way of resolving disputes. Access to justice does not depend only on how many lawyers the taxpayer pays for to go into adversarial litigation on every such issue.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

11. What recent representations he has received on the treatment of victims of domestic violence in the criminal justice system.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

Improving the treatment of victims of domestic violence is a high priority for the Government, and I encourage organisations providing support to victims of domestic violence to give us their views in response to our consultation document, “Getting it right for victims and witnesses.”

[Mr Cunningham]

Does the Minister agree that victims of domestic violence need safe refuge, an effective non-privatised police response and access to free legal aid advice? Are not his Government failing on all three?

[Mr Blunt]

No, they are not. Victims of domestic violence will continue to receive civil legal aid in order to apply for protective injunctions, and we will continue to waive the financial eligibility limits in those cases.

Police Stations (Overnight Staffing)

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Ian Austin]

I think those in the public gallery have done their bit. They have every right to have their case heard.

Led by Chris Sims and his senior colleagues, the force has seen crime across the region fall over the last few years, but many of us are worried that the force will find maintaining its performance impossible, because it is being forced to cut its budget by £126 million over four years. It is losing 14.5% of its funding, one of the biggest cuts in the country. As a result, the force is losing 1,250 officers, recruitment has been frozen, and experienced and valuable officers are being forced to retire early because they have completed 30 years’ service. Other savings are being made in back office functions and administrative functions as well.

The force is now proposing that the front desk at Dudley and a number of other police stations be closed to the public during the evening or overnight. Dudley’s front desk has been closed to the public between 10 pm and 7 am for the last four years or so, but under the new arrangements the front desk would close at 6 pm and not open again until 10 am the next morning. I think it is fair to say that were it not for the need to save £126 million, West Midlands police would not have put this proposal forward. However, they have to make savings and they have put forward a number of arguments, which I will set out and deal with.

First, it is said that

“The review of front offices found that public demand is very low in the evenings and overnight and recommended that staff be redeployed back into contact centres to increase the efficiency of call handling.”

Secondly, the force will

“continue to provide 65 front offices open to the public; a service to local communities far wider than most other police forces offer across the country.”

Thirdly,

“households will never be more than four miles from a 24/7 police station”.

Finally, the force is looking for other locations in which to meet the public and more modern ways of communicating, such as Twitter and Facebook. The force has established a new appointments system so that officers will visit the public instead of expecting the public to come to them.

I am all in favour of new ways of communicating with people and having more locations in which the public can meet the police, but there are specific factors in relation to Dudley which I am not convinced the current proposals have taken into account. As soon as the proposals were brought to our attention, my colleague Councillor Shaukat Ali and I launched a petition asking that the proposal for Dudley police be dropped. The fact that more than 2,000 residents signed our petition in just a fortnight illustrates the level of local concern. Residents, businesses, publicans and students in the town all expressed their concern. The Central Dudley Area Committee held an emergency meeting and unanimously called for the proposal to be dropped.

There are a number of specific factors in relation to Dudley. First, the nearest station run by Dudley police for many will be at Brierley Hill, five or six miles away for many residents. Secondly, I receive frequent complaints about antisocial behaviour on estates near the town. Much of this obviously occurs during the evening, and people strongly value having a station open should they need it. Thirdly, Dudley is the largest town on the list and I do not think there is anywhere of similar size in the region that would not have a station open to the public in the evening.

I am all in favour of using new methods of communicating with people, but it is to the West Midlands force’s credit that it operates so many more open front desks than other forces. The fact that there is a busy and active, fully staffed station is very important to traders and shoppers.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend knows that we are in the same position in Coventry. It will be difficult for the public to get access to a number of police stations, particularly over the weekends, as a result of the reduction in hours. Not far from where I live is Chace police station, which is a major station for Coventry. More important, when anyone is arrested for alleged terrorism, they are normally held there until they are moved somewhere else. It is vital that the Minister take a serious look at this.

I do not know whether my hon. Friend has experienced another problem. At weekends, when crime is more likely, it is difficult to get a senior officer at these stations to talk about certain incidents that may happen in the centre of Coventry or in different locations in Coventry. Several police stations in my constituency, but equally in the other two MPs’ constituencies, will be experiencing the same thing. It is vital that people have an open police station at the weekends so that they can get to the people they want. It is no good leaving sergeants in charge.

[Ian Austin]

My hon. Friend is correct. There are various ways in which his and my stations could be kept open in the evenings and, in his case, at weekends by looking for savings in other areas. It would help if the force was not being forced to find this level of savings in the first place.

As in Coventry, specific factors in Dudley mean that it is important to have a station open in the evening. We have got £30 million being spent right now on new college and sixth-form buildings in the town centre, which will result in hundreds more young people in and around the town during the evenings. The new college includes a theatre, which will bring hundreds of visitors to the town at night. Our town centre market is about to be rebuilt, strengthening the town centre economy with, again, more activities in the evening. Several pubs and cafés and a wine bar are currently being refurbished. Much of the regeneration of the town centre is based on driving up trade and activity in the evening. Finally, there is strong public support for my campaign to open up the castle in the evenings during the summer for concerts and plays, which would bring thousands more people to Dudley during the evenings.

On the number of visitors, the force’s own figures show that a third of front desk enquiries come between 6 pm and 10 am. That is bound to increase as a result of our ambitions to boost the town’s night-time trade and visitor economy. In the light of these particularly local factors, I want the Minister to ask the force to reconsider this particular proposal. Not unreasonably, the chief constable says that if front desks are not closed, savings will have to be made elsewhere. I understand that, but I need to be convinced that all possible savings have been found from administrative and back office functions before front-line services such as Dudley’s front desk are cut.

Forces across the country buy pretty much the same cars and other vehicles, uniforms, protective clothing and equipment. They use similar computer systems and so on. Will the Minister explain why individual forces are still procuring cars, vehicles and equipment individually and separately instead of driving down costs by purchasing centrally and getting bigger and better deals for the taxpayer? Will he tell me why we have police, fire and ambulance services in the west midlands operating separately instead of merging some common functions? Why do they all need separate finance, human resources and PR departments, for example? Why have we got 40 separate local or regional police forces across England—four in the west midlands alone—all providing different and separate services instead of sharing expertise and knowledge, as well as administrative functions and computer systems, for example?

Rationalising such functions would save a fortune, but I can think of other savings that we could be making, too. Many of the areas I have listed are precisely the areas that we identified as part of the 12% efficiencies that we would have made over four years, rather than the 20% cuts that have been front-loaded and that are being imposed on police forces at the moment. Is it not the case that the Government’s decision to go much further and much faster has probably impeded forces’ abilities to make efficiency savings, which would take time to work out with other police forces, but would limit the impact on the front line? They are being forced to do these things more quickly and more severely. That has forced them into quicker but more damaging savings, such as reducing the number of front-line officers and closing stations in the evening instead of the administrative and procurement savings that I have suggested.

We should also consider why the police authority and force are based in costly offices in the middle of Birmingham city centre, which is probably the most expensive place to run a service anywhere in the west midlands. Like me, I am sure my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) and for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) could identify offices in their own constituencies where services could be provided much more cheaply.

The Minister will no doubt say that he cannot do much about where the authority is based, but he ought to be ensuring that it has found savings from all the other areas before touching the front line. He can certainly do something about the way the police force is funded.

The police authority and leaders from all parties in councils across the region have made representations to Ministers on two specific issues. Although all police authorities have been subject to some reduction in the Government grant, authorities such as the West Midlands police authority have effectively been penalised because they kept precept increases to a minimum over the past few years. They are, therefore, more reliant on the Government grant compared with authorities such as Surrey, which increased precepts at a faster rate and are therefore less reliant on the Government grant.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

My hon. Friend makes a comparison between the west midlands and Surrey. In the west midlands the authority relies on an 80% grant from central Government, whereas in Surrey it is the reverse. That shows a real disparity.

My hon. Friend also mentioned efficiencies. I do not have a lot of evidence, but once or twice I have noticed that during an incident such as the arrest of a person for causing a problem on a bus, it can sometimes take six police cars to surround that bus and remove the individual. When talking about efficiencies, perhaps that practice should also be examined.

[Ian Austin]

My hon. Friend is correct. Total spending power—the Government grant and the precept—in the west midlands will reduce by over 4% in 2011-12, compared with only 1.5% in Surrey. As the Minister will know, that position is exacerbated further by the application of grant damping, together with the “floors and ceilings” that have been applied every year since the last funding formula review. As a result, the West Midlands police authority will receive £27 million less than its full formula entitlement, whereas Surrey will receive £4 million more. It means that the West Midlands police authority, which has one of the highest policing demands in the country, will be forced to make the biggest percentage reduction in spending, while areas such as Surrey that have much lower need and demand will make the smallest reductions. As the West Midlands police authority says,

“this is neither fair, reasonable nor indeed equitable.”

Stations such as those in my constituency would not be faced with closure in the evening if the Government introduced arrangements that properly reflected the need and demand for policing services in the west midlands, and which treat that area and the people who live and work in it fairly and equitably.

I will suggest one other saving. Although I am not against elected police commissioners in principle, I am not sure how they will find enough things to keep them busy and in particular to justify their enormous salaries—I thought about that when I visited the police authority last week, and it is an interesting point. One argument that was recently advanced for police commissioners cited the great job that we were told the Mayor of London did during the recent riots. The Mayor of London, however, looks after a whole range of services and functions across the city, and has a much bigger area of responsibility than simply the police. I am not sure what police commissioners will do to justify being paid £100,000—as I understand it, the police commissioners in the west midlands will be paid £100,000, and they will be the best paid in the country. That seems an odd priority when resources are so scarce that we are losing 1,200 officers and face the evening closure of stations such as that in Dudley.

Finally, does the Minister think that the officers in question and my police station’s front desk are front-line services? I would have thought it difficult to identify anything more front line than a full-time police officer and a public inquiry desk. At the election, the Prime Minister promised that there would be no front-line cuts, and that any Cabinet Minister who proposed them would

“be sent straight back to their department to go away and think again.”

Does the Minister think that the cuts in question are front-line cuts, and will he do what the Prime Minister promised would happen under such circumstances and think again?

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

May I encourage Ministers to face the House, so that we get the full force of their eloquence head-on?

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

T2. Has the Minister done an impact assessment on the effect of the legal aid reforms on women?

[Mr Djanogly]

Yes, an equality impact assessment was carried out.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

This rather substantial group of Government and Opposition amendments concerns legal aid for family and immigration matters, including domestic violence issues, as well as certain technical amendments to the Bill. I shall begin with a group of technical Government amendments, before moving on to the family and immigration ones.

Government amendments 10, 11, 13 and 14 amend paragraphs 3 and 33 of part 1 of schedule 1 in order to ensure that funding can be granted to the personal representative of a deceased child, vulnerable adult or victim of a sexual offence who wishes to pursue a civil claim for the benefit of the estate. The amendments are necessary because the Bill, as currently drafted, would limit legal aid to the child, vulnerable adult or victim personally. Where that individual dies, it is clearly right that legal aid should remain available to that individual’s personal representative to pursue a relevant claim on behalf of their estate. It is not necessary to make equivalent changes to other paragraphs in part 1 because relevant paragraphs do not exclude claims being brought by a personal representative. For other paragraphs, the case would either fall away with the death of a claimant or there would be another party who would be equally able to bring the claim.

Government amendments 15 to 18 relate to vetting and barring under section 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 and applications relating to disqualification orders under sections 31 and 34 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. The amendments are technical and seek to ensure that funding for advocacy is provided in the relevant tribunal or court for these types of cases. In our consultation paper, “Proposals for the Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales”, we announced our intention to retain civil legal services for section 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act, which provides for a right of appeal to the upper tribunal against a decision to keep someone on a barred list from regulated activity relating to children or adults. The consultation paper provided that we would continue to fund those types of appeals to the upper tribunal on the basis that inclusion on a list would have a significant and lasting impact on the life and livelihood of an appellant who might have been included on the list in error.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Has the Minister made an assessment of the amendments’ impact on organisations in Coventry such as the citizens advice bureau and the law centre?

[Mr Djanogly]

I expect the amendments to be generally well received.

The Bill currently refers to funding for advocacy being available in the first tier tribunal, and amendments 17 and 18 correct that position by making available funding for advocacy for appeals to the upper tribunal. Amendments 15 and 16 serve a similar purpose but in relation to sections 31 and 34 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act. Appeals under section 31 are to the Court of Appeal, rather than the first tier tribunal, and funding for advocacy for such appeals is already covered by paragraph 2 of part 3 of schedule 1. Appeals under section 34 are to the High Court, and funding for advocacy for such appeals is already covered by paragraph 3 of part 3 of schedule 1.

I now turn to the family and domestic violence amendments, almost all of which have been debated in Committee already. I would like to reiterate why we are taking most private family law cases out of the scope of legal aid. The cost of legal aid, as it stands, is, we believe, simply unsustainable, and legal aid resources need to be focused on those cases where legal aid is most needed. Accordingly, for most divorces, child contact applications or ancillary applications to carve up family assets, legal aid will no longer be available. We believe that it is right to encourage families, where appropriate, to resolve their disputes without going to court. We want to prioritise mediation, which can be cheaper, quicker and less acrimonious than contested court proceedings. Legal aid will, therefore, remain available for mediation in private law family cases, and we estimate that we will spend an extra £10 million a year on mediation, taking the total to £25 million a year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady misunderstands the nature of mediation. In normal circumstances, it is not for the mediator to sit in judgment on the individuals who turn up for mediation. That happens in the assessment. The mediator should explain to the individuals the purpose of mediation and it is for the individuals themselves to decide whether mediation is appropriate. If violence was involved, the mediator might suggest that, in those circumstances, mediation is not appropriate. If domestic violence is involved, the Government believe that legal aid should be provided.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

rose—

[Joan Ruddock]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

I shall give way one more time on this point—to the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham).

[Mr Cunningham]

I want to be helpful to the Minister. Can he clarify how the amendments on legal aid would apply, for example, to rape crisis centres such as the one we have in Coventry? I am not too clear about how that will be affected.

[Mr Djanogly]

The Government are supportive of crisis centres. We have increased our provision for them. The amendments do not in any way affect the issue one way or another. That is a separate policy item.

Police Detention

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I note my hon. Friend’s point, but I think that officials wished to ascertain, with ACPO and in consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service, what the full implications of this judgment were before they came to Ministers with advice, because they needed to be able to advise Ministers properly on the extent of the implications. We will continue to work very closely with ACPO to do everything we can to support the police in doing the job that they have to do.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I think that what hon. Members are trying to get at is this: when the Home Office knew in May why could action not have been taken right away to set something in motion?

[Nick Herbert]

I say to hon. Members that it would be better if we dealt with the substantive issue, because I have repeated on a number of occasions the timeline and the reasons why. In particular, I have discussed the need to take legal advice to understand the implications of a complex judgment that was simply not expected. That is why ACPO has taken two sets of legal advice, and it was this morning that ACPO formally asked us for emergency legislation. I hope that that explains to the hon. Gentleman the sequence of events and why we have come to the House today to explain what we want to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

2. What assessment he has made of the potential effects of his proposals for legal aid reform on the provision of face-to-face legal advice; and if he will make a statement.

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

We published initial impact assessments, including equality impact assessments, with our reform proposals, including the proposal to establish the community legal advice helpline as the single gateway to civil legal aid services. Face-to-face advice will continue to be available where it is appropriate.

[Mr Cunningham]

I am very interested in that reply. What does the Under-Secretary mean by “appropriate”? That seems to me to be a little get-out clause. I assume that he does MPs’ surgeries. If so, he knows that people need face-to-face contact with their representatives—in this case, solicitors—to help them out. The measures will hurt some of the poorest families.

[Mr Djanogly]

The hon. Gentleman needs to appreciate that we are not considering some future project—the advice line exists. It was used by 600,000 people last year and it is getting something like a 90% satisfaction rating. Poorer people can be called back so that they do not pay for the call. Those who live in remote areas often greatly appreciate the telephone call, and those who are disabled also much appreciate having access by telephone. I take the exact opposite position from the hon. Gentleman and say that the advice line will help vulnerable people.

Police

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 2,000 police officers will go in the west midlands under the proposals?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right: West Midlands police are being heavily affected and are set to lose a large number of police officers. That is already having an effect on communities across the area, with some police officers reporting considerable difficulties as a result of the recruitment freeze that has had to be implemented and the consequences that is having on their ability to go to neighbourhood meetings and to respond to concerns that are raised with them.