Magistrates Courts (Wiltshire)

John Glen Excerpts

Friday 22nd March 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

The purpose of this debate is to challenge the decision made by the Ministry of Justice to merge magistrate benches in the Wiltshire and Swindon local justice areas, and to reallocate cases to the three courts of Swindon, Chippenham and Salisbury.

Under proposed changes to the magistrates court matrix in Wiltshire, custody remand cases will be transferred to Swindon and, in all but exceptional circumstances, trials will take place in Chippenham. The £19 million Salisbury court development will handle family work, a limited number of early hearings and straightforward cases involving an associate prosecutor. The changes have been proposed on the grounds of a declining criminal case load, funding cuts and the need to reduce the number of collapsed trials.

In 2003, my predecessor Robert Key drew attention to the need for better court facilities in Salisbury, commenting that

“the current situation is unfair to the accused, who have to be bussed around Wiltshire to find a courthouse”.

Now, 10 years later, we have a state of the art, £19 million courthouse. It was constructed deliberately next to the police station with the only custody suite in south Wiltshire to ensure it could deliver swift justice for the people of Salisbury. As a former justice of the peace for six years, I recognise the underlying logic that leads to proposals to centralise resources. However, the changes to the matrix proposed in Wiltshire have generated widespread concern among my local magistrates, solicitors and victims’ representatives. They fear that the proposals

“demonstrate no interest in delivering fair and just outcomes”—

and that—

“common sense is going to be thrown to the wind to affect a budgetary fix.”

There are three key factors that demonstrate this: the physical geography of Wiltshire, the likely financial costs which are currently overlooked, and the needs of victims and witnesses.

The physical geography of Wiltshire and Swindon is significant. Wiltshire is a predominantly rural county, and more than half of the population of Salisbury lives in rural settlements. Swindon is a largely urban district with an identity that is very much separate from Wiltshire. There is a distinct natural divide in the Salisbury plain that separates the north and south of the county, and makes transport from one side to the other difficult. That was recognised by the Lord Chief Justice in 2010 when he was consulted on the closure of Trowbridge county court. He emphasised that

“Chippenham is situated in the north of the catchment of this largely rural area...for many, it is not readily accessible, if at all, by public transport.”

Despite that, the matrix consultation document states that

“the expectation will be that, for the majority of contested cases, the trial will be heard in the Chippenham Magistrates’ Court.”

It really does nothing for public confidence in the system if these real and practical issues are not addressed properly.

To demonstrate how the geography has an impact on victims and witnesses, the proposals should be distilled and applied to individual cases. For instance, one constituent in Downton would spend one hour and 18 minutes travelling by car. However, that is merely an inconvenience; access by public transport is impossible in time for a 10 o’clock hearing. If my constituent takes the first bus, the 7.04 am X3 service from Downton, they will arrive at Salisbury bus station at 7.22 am. From there, they walk for 15 minutes to the railway station where they will catch the 8.30 am service to Bath Spa, arriving at 9.35 am. Following an eight-minute wait, they will take the 9.43 am to Chippenham and arrive at 09.54 am, and then walk for some 30 minutes to finally reach the court at 10.30 am. They will have been travelling for three and a half hours, which makes a mockery of the consultation document’s statement that

“court users should not have to make long or difficult journeys”.

A quarter of my constituents in Salisbury, St Martins are without a car, and will be at the mercy of this new system.

This is not an isolated case: these challenges are replicated across south Wiltshire. The area has six key towns—Salisbury, Amesbury, Downton, Mere, Tisbury and Wilton—only one of which has a public transport link to Chippenham, and that is a 90-minute train journey from Salisbury. Allowing time for the 15-minute walk between bus and train stations, only Amesbury and Wilton have bus services that will ensure arrival in time for the 7.19 train. This is the latest service north to Chippenham that will enable someone to be at court before the 10 o’clock start. Even within Salisbury, there will be problems. Someone in the residential area of Laverstock, for example, would have to walk for 40 minutes to the train station, because there are no buses early enough.

Those are the difficulties faced within the major settlements. The situation in the towns and villages, where more than half of south Wiltshire’s population is based, is far more problematic. For instance, although villages such as Shrewton are geographically closer to Chippenham, the transport links are such that the journey still requires a 40-minute bus journey to Devizes, a further 40-minute wait and then another 45 minutes on a bus to cover just 23 miles.

The problem with these travel times will also be apparent when defendants remanded into custody have to attend hearings in Swindon. In those areas, the impact will be on solicitors and family members supporting bail. If a defence solicitor has been dealing with a client in interview who is then taken into custody, they will be faced with 24 hours to clear their appointments for the following day, including three hours simply to travel. If that defendant is then released in Swindon on bail, they will be expected to find their own way back home, either in the form of a 92-minute train journey or a two-hour bus journey.

So strong is the divide between the north and south of the area that there is a probability that the defendant will never have been to Swindon before. Because of the lack of infrastructure created by the divide of the Salisbury plain, the risk of non-attendance is higher, if individuals are reliant on public transport connections running on time or the roads being clear. In order for a trial to proceed as planned, three magistrates, court staff, a defendant, a solicitor and all witnesses must be able to reach the court. All it would take to prevent that is an accident on a major carriageway, a broken-down bus or one individual missing their connecting train. None of those facts can be controlled by defendants, victims and witnesses, yet they are the ones who will bear the brunt of the disruption. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service argues that trials have a

“better chance of proceeding on the day the trial is listed, thereby minimizing inconvenience to victims and witnesses.”

Those benefits will inevitably be damaged by individuals failing to attend court through circumstances not of their making.

The consultation sums up the challenges presented by Wiltshire and Swindon’s geography by stating that

“public transport links are poor in some parts of Wiltshire”.

That does not do justice to the scale of the problem, I am afraid. The physical geography of Wiltshire is a natural barrier to good, integrated public transport. Where trials were scheduled around staff and resources, they will now be arranged around bus and train timetables. Some 17% of my constituents are without access to a car—a figure that worsens considerably as incomes decrease. Under these proposals, they would also be without access to a compassionate justice system, faced with appalling travel times and penalised unfairly despite being victims. I echo the call made by the police and crime commissioner for Wiltshire, Angus Macpherson, that there must be a

“right to local disposal for cases which generate these excessive travel times”.

I now turn to the second major issue: the financial implications of the process. I do not believe that the expected savings from this process will be fully realised. If we assume that a defendant is funded by legal aid, getting their solicitor to Swindon would add approximately £116.70. When they are bailed, there is a further £24 for a single train ticket to return them to Salisbury. If their trial is scheduled in Chippenham, their travel costs will be £26 and their solicitors will be £98. In addition, there will be mileage claims for three magistrates from across the county and witnesses, which could add another £60. As a result, the bill for simply transporting those involved in one case across the county reaches a staggering £323.

Those costs will quickly chip away at the financial savings accrued through centralisation, especially where cases collapse or adjourn more frequently. Moreover, the consultation document does not provide a breakdown of the estimated savings to the courts. They will be dependent on reducing the number of collapsed trials—something that is not proven yet and that many local magistrates do not believe will happen. My local magistrates association tells me that it believes that the impact on the justice system is not acceptable and will worsen the situation. There will be a large increase in the number of ineffective trials because defendants and witnesses have been unable to attend. It seems that the gains in throughput due to administrative efficiency will simply be cancelled out.

I recognise, as do my constituents, that savings have to be found, but they should not be made at the expense of a logical local justice system. In a single day last December, Wiltshire police and civilian officers collected a remarkable £28,000 in unpaid fines. We have some £5.5 million uncollected in the county. It seems unfair to penalise my constituents as victims and witnesses by expecting magistrates serving their community to travel such distances and for the law-abiding majority to foot the bill, while that sum cannot be collected. One of my constituents who practises as a solicitor, Stephen Ritter, describes the proposals as a

“budgetary fix for the next year or two, which will probably then generate a greater amount of money being spent to remedy the issue”

that will be created.

Thirdly, there is a strong case to be made that the proposals are designed for the convenience of the court system without fully considering the needs of victims, witnesses, magistrates or advocates. It is easy to picture the chaotic scenario whereby a case that originated in Salisbury goes to trial in Chippenham. Three magistrates are called. One is based in Swindon, one in Chippenham and another in the south of the county. The defendant drives to the north of the county on the A360, the main road connecting Salisbury to Chippenham, and gets stuck in traffic due to an accident. The victim has no access to a car. Even though they manage to catch their bus and walk to the station, their train is delayed due to a fault on the line. The trial would collapse and the case would have to be adjourned. The frustration of those involved would be extremely understandable. A victim who had done nothing wrong might find themselves unable to get to court and would have to arrange further time off, child care and transport to go through the extremely stressful process all over again. The same is true for defendants. Let us imagine someone who was felt to be a crucial witness being stuck in traffic. We would be left with the prospect of the case proceeding in their absence. Magistrates, advocates and staff would have wasted considerable time and effort on an ultimately fruitless exercise.

It is also critical that we retain the confidence of serving magistrates in Wiltshire. I pay tribute to them and all the vital work they do. Introducing the matrix as it stands will inevitably act as a barrier to new magistrates, by effectively requiring them to have access to their own transport. Asking currently serving justices of the peace, who freely give up much of their own time, to spend up to three additional hours travelling to court is a tall order. I know from personal experience how challenging it is to juggle a hectic working schedule. Had I been asked to travel such distances regularly, I simply could not have continued. Stephen MacMahon, the Wiltshire magistrates association chairman, tells me that he fears that

“many magistrates will resign because of the unnecessary and pointless inconvenience”.

A further point to consider is the implications for advocates in remand cases. Only 16% of in-custody defendants are brought before the Salisbury court. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service sees that as a justification for moving such cases to the north of the county; I see it as a reason to retain them. It seems ludicrous to send such a small proportion of cases 43 miles away when the facilities—expensive ones at that—are literally on the doorstep.

Swindon is ill equipped to deal with cases from the whole area as it has only five cells. The transportation of defendants will have to be staggered—a further completely illogical complication. Solicitors are spending hours of their day travelling across the county for the sake of convenience, with no guarantee that their case will proceed. Richard Griffiths, a distinguished solicitor who has practised in my constituency for 32 years, tells me that

“given the logistics of the county it is better to let Salisbury look after the Southern half of the County and deal with their own remand prisoners”.

I completely agree.

The proposals ultimately have implications for everyone in the area. It is testament to the level of concern among solicitors that a Chippenham-based firm is opposed to the centralisation of trials there. That firm’s submission states

“looking at the wider interests of justice for the whole county, we do not believe this is a sensible proposal”.

The views I have put forward today are supported by my hon. Friends the Members for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and for South Swindon (Mr Buckland). My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon, who could not be here today, wished to express the view that

“local justice is at its best when it is in touch with local people and the problems on the ground. There are problems unique to Swindon and problems unique to Chippenham. This merger will threaten the capacity of magistrates to deploy their local knowledge to full effect. I wholeheartedly support the call for the Government to rethink these changes.”

As a Government, we have committed to putting victims at the heart of the criminal justice system, yet these proposals are at odds with that agenda. Why should my constituent, as someone who has suffered crime or abuse, be expected to spend at least two hours anxiously travelling across the county to ensure the person who injured them is punished? As one such victim commented,

“these proposals scream that they don’t understand the needs of victims”.

Administrative efficiencies are certainly a worthy cause, but they should never be allowed to override the fundamental principle of access to justice. Uncosted, unproven savings based on speculative assumptions are not the basis for a sound policy.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We take the whole issue of sexual offences very seriously, which is why one of the coalition commitments is to expand the availability of rape crisis centres. I visited the team running one such centre in Devon last week, and I pay tribute to them for their work. The Government will do everything they can to ensure that offenders and people who commit serious sexual offences are brought to trial. Any ideas that come through our rape crisis network of ways we could do that will be listened to.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I want to refer to the Justice Secretary’s proposals to reform the probation service. I have received a communication from the police and crime commissioner for Wiltshire who expresses grave concern about the degree of consultation prior to that announcement, and about the level of involvement and discretion that the commissioners will have in providing those services locally.

[Chris Grayling]

One thing we are doing before launching our policy is consulting on the broad direction of travel. That creates an opportunity for police and crime commissioners and others with an interest to take part. We are listening.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on the importance of sport in the earliest years. I am sure that he will join me in applauding what the Government have done through the school games and the £1 billion youth strategy, and the role of people such as Ellie Simmonds and Jess Ennis at the Olympic games in inspiring the next generation. Perhaps he should focus on that positive record and applaud the work of the Government.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

5. What progress her Department has made in rolling out rural broadband.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

We are making very good progress. Nine local projects have agreed contracts, and I switched on the first street cabinet supported by the rural broadband programme at Ainderby Steeple in North Yorkshire on 13 December.

[John Glen]

I thank the Minister for that answer. It is excellent news that Wiltshire council is now able to roll out superfast broadband. However, the Minister has to agree that a small percentage of households—typically 2% to 3%—will not be affected by the roll-out. What does he have to say about the small number of rural communities that will not take advantage of the roll-out of broadband across the county and across England?

[Mr Vaizey]

Our ambition is to get 90% of premises connected to superfast broadband, but to get all premises connected to broadband speeds of 2 megabits per second. There should be a broadband service for almost all households and that will be technologically neutral, so it should be the right technology solution for them.

Presumption of Death Bill

John Glen Excerpts

Friday 30th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

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

I will speak briefly, because we had a full discussion on Second Reading and in Committee and I do not wish to repeat the arguments. I think that it is appropriate that I draw attention to the considerable work that has been done by the Justice Committee, the charity Missing People and the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who have supported me in bringing the Bill to this stage.

The Bill will introduce a new court-based procedure to enable those left behind to obtain from the High Court a declaration that a missing person is deemed to have died. The certificate will be conclusive about the presumed death and effective for all purposes and against all persons. Essentially, it will act as a death certificate. I believe that the Bill will provide a great deal of solace to those families who are going through an extremely difficult time by simplifying the number of legal processes and financial hoops they have to go through to tidy up the affairs of the estate of a missing loved one or relative.

The Bill will ensure that England and Wales are on the same footing as Scotland and Northern Ireland. It will make a real difference to the lives of those who are left behind. We anticipate that between 30 and 40 such declarations will be made each year. The Bill makes provision to deal with the unlikely possibility that a person might not have died; there is provision in clause 5 to allow variance on a certificate and to revoke a declaration.

During the Bill’s passage through this House so far there has been some consideration of the provision of guardianship, which many people wanted to be included. That has not been included in the Bill but, as I have said on previous occasions, I believe that it will need to be looked at in future. There are several issues relating to how that process would work and considerable consultation is needed. I serve notice that I will be looking at the matter in future, because I think that ideally it should have been included in the Bill.

There is little more to say, as the Bill was not amended in Committee. I hope to see it progress and receive Royal Assent in due course.

Presumption of Death Bill

John Glen Excerpts

Friday 2nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

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

As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was fortunate enough to come 14th in the ballot for private Members’ Bills. Unsurprisingly, a few hours after hearing that news I returned to my office to find a full inbox, and over the next days the amount of mail that I received increased substantially. One letter gave me some hope. It was from the former Member of Parliament for Chertsey and Walton, Sir Geoffrey Pattie, who wrote that in the 1970s he had managed to get legislation on to the statute book having also come 14th in the ballot. That has given me a little encouragement, and I hope that the House will be minded to look seriously at my Bill and will allow it to proceed as well.

Having been given this opportunity, I thought carefully about the legislation I should present to the House. I concluded—on the basis of my time as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on runaway and missing children and adults, and also on the basis of personal experience—that a means of supporting families by dealing with the uncertainties surrounding presumed death would be an extremely worthwhile cause to champion.

As I have said, I have some personal experience of the effects of such situations, although at one step removed. In 1996 my sister’s godfather disappeared. His name was Norman Harriss, and he was an airline pilot, married, with two sons. The case was reported at the time. He had taken a yacht on to the Solent. The yacht was found with the engine still running and the dinghy missing, and with no sign of him. A search ensued, but, unfortunately, he was never found.

When I was thinking about taking up this cause, I contacted one of Mr Harriss’s sons, Alistair, to ask whether he thought the proposals were a good idea and whether it would have helped his family if such a law had been in place in 1996. Fortunately, he was unequivocal in his response: he said he was more than happy for me to mention his father’s case and stressed the effects of his disappearance on the family when no provision was in place to acknowledge properly his father’s death.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I just want to put on record my total support for my hon. Friend’s work in this area. It builds on the work done by a brilliant organisation based in my constituency: Missing People. It has on its books hundreds and hundreds of examples similar to the case my hon. Friend has just outlined, of families who are unable to move on as a result of what is effectively a bureaucratic barrier. My hon. Friend’s Bill addresses that barrier, so I wish him all the luck in the world and I hope he succeeds.

[John Glen]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I will talk about the Missing People charity later, but for now let me just commend it on the wonderful work it does.

Alistair said:

“The 7 year wait on the death certificate was a serious strain on everyone involved with my father’s case. Dad made sure that we would have been provided for in the event of his death but due to the circumstances the death certificate was not released for nearly 7 years. Our house was defaulted on and sold, the boat was sold and I very nearly had to change schools in the middle of my GCSEs. Due to some serious hardships from my Mum and step father I managed to complete my GCSEs and A-levels and am now flying as a commercial pilot. I think I was one of the lucky ones!”

As a result of my researches into the issues involved in such cases I have also been fortunate enough to meet Peter Lawrence, the father of Claudia, who has now been missing for more than three and a half years. I, along with many people throughout the nation, have been extremely moved by his story. I have listened carefully to his testimony, and he is very clear that the law needs to be updated. Peter would also like provision to be made for guardianship, and I shall touch on that subject, too.

For all the reasons I have set out, I hope this Bill can be progressed, and the law can be improved for people with missing family members who find themselves in the distressing situation of not being able to deal with their affairs following the disappearance of a loved one.

I am acutely aware of the fact that many people have spent a great deal of time—more than I have spent—in campaigning on this issue, and in bringing energy to advancing a solution to this problem. Some of them are present today, supporting the Bill. I must mention a 2009 private Member’s Bill introduced by the former Member for Daventry, Lord Boswell of Aynho. Unfortunately, his Bill did not make it on to the statute book, but I have based my Bill on its contents.

I also wish to put on the record my gratitude to Baroness Kramer, who has a similar Bill in the other place. Should my Bill be fortunate enough to progress, she will be able to assist in the other place. I have also had a great amount of cross-party support from hon. Members, particularly those associated with the all-party group on runaway and missing children and adults, especially the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), who, unfortunately, cannot be here today.

At this point, I should mention the help I have received from the Missing People charity, whose sharing of expertise has been so invaluable on this subject. I am thinking, in particular, of the valuable evidence it gave the Justice Committee prior to the publication of its report in February. Missing People was founded in 1986 by Mary Asprey OBE and Janet Newman OBE following the disappearance of the estate agent Suzy Lamplugh. The charity supports the friends and family of those who have gone missing, young people who have run away from home and missing adults. Missing People offers advice and practical support, as well as maintaining a database of missing people and providing a central point of contact to report sightings. It also provides advice on working with the media and the police, and on the legal and financial difficulties faced by families when somebody goes missing.

I would like to use my speech to pay a particular tribute to the chief executive of Missing People, Martin Houghton-Brown, who has been a tireless champion of presumption of death legislation. He has made his case persuasively in the media over many years and during the Justice Committee’s inquiry. Martin is, unfortunately for Missing People, about to leave that organisation, but I know that I speak for everyone he has worked with in wishing him well in his new role. Martin is generally acknowledged as one of the most effective advocates and campaigners in the charity world.

The Justice Committee’s report on presumption of death strongly recommended primary legislation on this subject. It stated:

“Non-legislative solutions to the problems of resolving the affairs of missing people are necessary but not sufficient. Primary legislation is required…the fact that, in 34 years, only one person who was the subject of an order under the Scottish Presumption of Death Act 1977 has reappeared is a compelling argument that the legislation provides a clear, robust court process to resolve the question”—

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

rose—

[John Glen]

I would be delighted to give way.

[Mr Hamilton]

I wish the hon. Gentleman well with his proposals. Would it not be relatively simple to use the Scottish and Northern Irish approaches, and then replicate them in England? That would make things much easier. We are not starting anew; we can actually adopt what happens in other areas to see how things can go forward.

[John Glen]

I am grateful for that helpful intervention. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and this Bill indeed builds directly on the provisions in Northern Ireland and Scotland, learning many of the lessons from their experience.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

The Scottish example, where there has been only one revocation, is often cited. I have not seen anything about the Northern Ireland example. Is that because there has not been a revocation of any particular measure there?

[John Glen]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. I am not certain on that point, so I would need to examine things further. However, my understanding is that such situations are extremely rare and it is quite probable that there has not been a revocation from the Northern Ireland legislation.

Let me return to the point I was making. The Justice Committee said that

“the fact that, in 34 years, only one person who was the subject of an order under the Scottish Presumption of Death Act 1977 has reappeared is a compelling argument that the legislation provides a clear, robust court process to resolve the question of whether a missing person is alive or dead. We therefore recommend that the Ministry of Justice introduce legislation based on the Scottish Act.”

It continued:

“The law relating to the affairs of missing people will only affect a limited number of people. It will, however, allow families placed in extremely difficult emotional circumstances at least to resolve the financial and legal affairs of their missing relatives. We believe the time is long overdue to extend to English and Welsh families the protection that is available to Scottish and Northern Irish families.”

At present in England and Wales we do not have a single certificate procedure that deals with a situation where somebody goes missing and is presumed dead. This, as the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) said, contrasts sharply with Scotland and Northern Ireland, both of which have legislated in this field. Scotland has the Presumption of Death (Scotland) Act which has been in place since 1977, and Northern Ireland has the Presumption of Death Act (Northern Ireland) 2009. If the Bill progresses and is enacted, it will put England and Wales on a par with Scotland and Northern Ireland in this respect.

It may be helpful for hon. Members to know that there are currently about 360,000 reports of people going missing annually, and 25,000 of those remain open for more than a week. About 2,000 people remain missing for more than a year, and in 2010 the charity Missing People had 346 cases on its UK database which were more than seven-years-old.

At present, when a person goes missing and is thought to have died and there is no corpse, a death certificate cannot be obtained in the usual way. This means that there can be difficulties for surviving spouses or civil partners, and property cannot be distributed in the way that it would if death were confirmed through the production of a body. There are a number of procedures that must be gone through in order to deal with the missing person’s affairs if they are presumed to have died. These include dissolving a marriage, applying for an inquest, sorting out probate, and dealing with benefits and other administrative matters.

All these are separate processes and involve considerable time, stress and legal advice, not to mention costs, to complete. Of course, there is great uncertainty and a lack of direction as the expertise and experience available among the police and legal profession is not generally available with sufficient depth in one single place. Therefore, a single process that provides a document that would act like a death certificate would be a great improvement for families going through this awful, traumatic experience.

Let me turn to the Bill and explain what it contains. It will introduce a new court-based procedure that will enable those left behind to obtain a declaration from the High Court that the missing person is deemed to have died. The High Court will be able to make that decision if it is satisfied that the missing person has died or has not been known to have been alive for a period of at least seven years. When the declaration has been made, a copy will be sent to the Registrar General for England and Wales and the details will be registered in a new register of presumed deaths, which will be linked for research purposes to the register of deaths maintained under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953. The certificate will be conclusive as to the presumed death and effective for all purposes and against all persons.

Following this, property can then pass in the usual way, as if the missing person had been certified dead in the normal way. His or her marriage or civil partnership will end, just as a marriage or civil partnership ends on death.

There will be, in effect, a certificate of presumed death that can be used by those left behind to deal with the property affairs of the missing person as if he or she had actually died and a death certificate had been issued. There is provision to allow the declaration to be revoked should emerging facts require it, and of course the register would then be amended. Based on the Scottish experience, it is anticipated that we would expect, on average, 30 to 40 declarations per year.

It may be helpful at this point to reflect on what is really involved. The situation can obviously be incredibly traumatic for many of these families. Families who have worked with the charity Missing People highlight the constant mental anguish and uncertainty as to what has happened to their missing person. On top of this, dealing with various financial affairs—changing mortgages, selling equities or other investments, drawing on pensions, or selling or disposing of property—can be particularly difficult. Many have pointed out that engaging a solicitor to deal with these affairs can be prohibitively expensive. I realise that the Bill will not be able to address the trauma and constant anxiety and concern that is inevitable when somebody goes missing, but it can simplify the complexity of dealing with an individual’s affairs and bypass the need for expensive legal advice and services.

I should now like briefly to go through the Bill and outline, clause by clause, its precise provisions. Clause 1 enables the High Court to make the declaration of presumed death, and it sets out who will be able to apply for this declaration—usually a close relative, spouse, civil partner, parent, child or sibling of the missing person. However, the Court can also hear an application from someone it believes has sufficient interest. There must also be a connection with England and Wales, either via the missing person or the person making the application. The missing person must either have been living in England or Wales at the time of the disappearance or habitually resident for the previous year, or the person making the application must satisfy similar rules.

Clause 2 relates to the two bases that the Court has for making the declaration. They are distinct. The Court must be satisfied that the missing person has either died or has not been known to be alive for at least seven years, although the person does not have to have been missing for seven years for the Court to believe them to have died. This part of the Bill also sets out when the Court deems the person to have died, which can be extremely important in determining property interests.

Clause 3 goes on to explain the effect of the declaration—that it is conclusive proof of a missing person’s death, and as such effective for all purposes against all persons. The declaration also ends a marriage or civil partnership, just as a marriage would end when someone has died. It also extends to matters of property ownership, and it is final once it is no longer subject to an appeal or any previous appeal that has been dismissed or withdrawn.

Clause 4 allows the Court to make any order it considers reasonable in relation to any interest in property acquired as a result of the declaration. For example, it requires that even if a variation or revocation order is made, any interest is not recoverable under certain conditions or under any conditions. Some hon. Members have raised the scenario of when a revocation is necessary, and clauses 5, 6 and 7 deal with this. Variation orders involve important safeguards. They allow the High Court to vary or even revoke a declaration of presumed death. That means that if evidence comes to light that the missing person is not dead, the Court can determine to revoke the order.

If that happens, there might be issues regarding property that has been disposed of as a result of the original declaration. The Bill addresses such circumstances. If a variation order is made it will not necessarily affect the property that has been acquired as a result of the original presumption of death declaration, but it will allow the court to make further orders that it deems reasonable and necessary as to the property acquired. A variation order does not revive a marriage or civil partnership; otherwise, subsequent marriages or civil marriages could be invalidated.

Schedule 1 provides for the establishment of a register of presumed deaths, to be maintained by the Registrar General. As I have said, the register would be linked to the register of deaths maintained under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, so it would be searchable in the same way as the register for death certificates.

Finally, clause 17 gives the Secretary of State the power to amend certain periods of time specified by the Bill—for example, the seven-year period in which a person has not been known to be alive.

The rest of the Bill is fairly self-explanatory, but I want to address a couple of points that hon. Members might raise. Guardianship is one of the most difficult issues that I encountered as I contemplated this Bill. I know that the Justice Committee has recommended that laws should be put in place to address this issue, and many people I have spoken to would like a provision to appear in the Bill. I also acknowledge the views of Peter Lawrence, who explained to me a couple of weeks ago how he found it frustrating that we could not make such a provision at this time. Guardianship would give a suitable person certain powers over the property and affairs of the missing person, but without having to satisfy the standards for a full presumption of death certificate. It would, in effect, be an interim measure that could then be superseded at a later point by a presumption of death certificate, if appropriate.

Such a system exists in Australia, where a court can make an order only if there is a need for decisions to be made about the missing person’s property, if the decisions are made in their best interests, and if all people with a relevant interest are notified. However, after consulting widely and taking advice from a number of respected experts in this field, I decided not to include guardianship in the Bill, despite my firm belief that it needs to be legislated for in the future—in fact, as soon as possible.

I was concerned that including guardianship would have caused problems for the passage of the Bill, because the structures of guardianship are very complex and require far more work than it is possible to undertake during the time frame available for this Bill. Ideally, there would need to be a consultation about the exact form that guardianship orders should take and the criteria that should be applied in making them. That would make this a more contentious Bill, so I took the view that it is more important to work towards getting presumption of death legislation on to the statute book for England and Wales, so that they can be on level ground with Scotland and Northern Ireland. I did not want the debate and concerns about guardianship to prevent that from happening.

If this Bill were enacted, it would be entirely right to push for guardianship. In fact, I believe that the Bill lays the foundations for that to happen very quickly. I consider it a first step in that process, and should the House wish for it to proceed it will be a stepping stone for further legislation.

It makes absolute sense for there to be an interim measure whereby the closest relatives of a missing person can be legally enabled to take control of their assets. Of course, many issues need to be considered and resolved, but if other jurisdictions have managed to overcome those obstacles and develop the appropriate legal framework, it seems incumbent upon this legislature to do so as quickly as possible, learn from their experiences and develop an appropriate guardianship system for England and Wales.

I anticipate that some people will be concerned about the costs of using High Court applications for declarations of presumed death. After consideration, however, I have decided that it is right that the High Court is used because of its expertise in the area. It should be the Court to take the decision in the first instance. As Members will be aware, the presumption of death is a decision of great seriousness and requires the careful weighing of evidence, as it has enormous, life-changing implications for those involved.

There is also merit in the point that the High Court should test the standards that will need to be applied in all cases. As there will be perhaps 30 to 40 cases a year, it would be sensible to have them at one court that has expertise and can establish those standards, rather than at a number of courts that may not be fully conversant with the protocol owing to it not having sufficient cases to develop expertise. However, I recognise the possibility that cases could be devolved to certain county courts under secondary legislation at a later date, if it seemed that the expertise was in place at those courts to deliver the same reliable outcomes as the High Court.

The time is right. In fact, I think it would be fair to say that it is now long overdue to pass legislation in this area. Not only is it right from the perspective of the numerous relatives and friends of those who are missing, but the need is generally accepted by all parties in both Houses. The Government’s response to the Justice Committee’s report was clear, stating:

“Introducing a single procedure to obtain a general purpose certificate of presumed death equivalent to a death certificate in England and Wales will bring the law of England and Wales into line with the law in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The new procedure will replace the existing range of procedures providing specific limited outcomes, which taken together currently provide the equivalent protection to that available in Scotland and Northern Ireland. This simplification should make it easier for those left behind to deal with the affairs of a missing person, who is thought to be dead, notwithstanding the very difficult circumstances in which they have been placed.”

That clearly indicates that there is wide and deep understanding of what should be done.

I hope that the Bill will bring some measure of finality to distressed families who have to live daily with the emotional trauma and distress of not knowing whether they will see their loved one again. Allowing friends and families to obtain a certificate of presumed death, after careful deliberation by a judge on all the evidence, will enable them to move forward and deal with the missing person’s affairs, and perhaps begin to rebuild their lives. I ask Members to support the Bill so that it can proceed quickly to Committee and move forward as soon as is practicably possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We have had a useful discussion of many of the issues raised in the Bill, and I am grateful for the contributions made by Members, particularly the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who referred to the Justice Committee’s report. I pay tribute to the Committee’s work in laying the foundations for the Bill; I also pay tribute to the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who unfortunately could not be here today.

The provisions relating to guardianship are clearly the most contentious, but it would have been difficult to proceed with the Bill if we had included them. I hope that, in Committee, we shall have opportunities to consider how we can best establish a basis for progress in the future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) made a powerful speech in which he raised what is, essentially, the new issue of people who go missing abroad. That will need to be given special consideration in Committee: we shall need to think about what can be done to ensure that the families of such people are helped in the best possible way, hopefully by means of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) powerfully set out the challenges involved in having to go down seven different routes in order to tidy up the affairs of someone who has gone missing. That underscores why this Bill is necessary.

I am extremely grateful for the support I have received from both Front-Bench teams, and I hope we can move forward swiftly. As many Members have said, it must be almost intolerable to have to deal with both the trauma involved in handling the affairs of someone who has gone missing and the emotional strain of trying to come to terms with the loss when it is difficult to believe that that person is dead. This House can put in place legislation that would allow a presumption of death certificate to be granted, however, and thereby at least enable families to tackle the affairs of someone who has gone missing and therefore move on in at least one regard. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

It is simply a result of the culture of the last 50 years, at least, that this has always been described as a “discount” for a guilty plea. Most of the general public do not appreciate that a discount applies. If members of the public are asked whether a discount on the sentence should be given for someone who pleads guilty early, they say no. But if they are asked, “Should someone who puts the victim through the ordeal of the witness box get a longer sentence than someone who pleads guilty?” they answer yes. Because we could not find a resolution to the risk of some of the more serious offences attracting too short a period in custody, and judicial discretion could not be devised to cover that, we have now decided to stick with the long-standing process whereby a one-third discount is available for an early guilty plea.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

17. What steps he plans to take to reduce rates of reoffending.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

The Government set out their radical plans to reduce reoffending in response to the “Breaking the Cycle” consultation. We will pay by results to incentivise rehabilitation programmes that successfully prevent offenders from returning to a life of crime.

[John Glen]

I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. As a serving JP, one of the things I find particularly frustrating when considering sentencing is the several pages of antecedents involving multiple short sentences and failed attempts at drug rehabilitation. What work is being done to improve the effectiveness of drug rehabilitation, which is so crucial in stopping reoffending?

[Nick Herbert]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. The good news is that in April this year the Department of Health assumed responsibility for funding all drug treatments in prison and in the community. That joint commissioning of services by the health and criminal justice agencies will facilitate a more co-ordinated approach. We must move to programmes that ensure that we are dealing with the problem properly and getting people off drugs, not simply maintaining them, as has too often been the case in the past.