| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Keith Speed (Ashford) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) on the temperate and moderate way in which he has raised an important subject. He has talked about Kent, but, as he has pointed out, the problem extends to other parts of the country. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for the courtesy and helpfulness with which he received us on 22 January to discuss these matters.
I shall not repeat the arguments that have already been advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham. Let me simply say that I largely agree not only with his general comments, but with the specific proposals that he has put to our right hon. Friend. For instance, he mentioned the courthouse in my constituency. The debate is timely ; only this afternoon, I heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that the new international station was to be built in the centre of Ashford, serving both Network SouthEast and the channel tunnel trains. It will bring many benefits not only to the community of Ashford, but to east Kent, east Sussex and that part of England generally. I am delighted, because I have been fighting for such a development for a long time ; inevitably, however, it will mean more criminals trying to smuggle in drugs or people, or simply involving themselves in general criminal activities.
That, coupled with the opening of the channel tunnel next autumn, will place a heavy burden on the law enforcement agencies in my constituency, my hon. Friend's constituency and the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and
Column 722
Hythe (Mr. Howard), where the tunnel is situated. It is therefore important that facilities are provided locally for cases to be tried.Let me now strike a positive note, which I hope will appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister. When the proposals were mooted, a committee was set up in Ashford, under the chairmanship of Mr. Barnes : he has done extremely well, concentrating on the greater utilisation of the Ashford court and the need to improve its cash flow, and to ensure that it is properly used and housed in a modern, purpose-built courthouse sited alongside the police station. That is a good way of ensuring that the courthouse will stay open and will, as it were, pay its way.
I thoroughly applaud all the efforts that are being made. We want to see the maximum utilisation of space, and those in charge of courthouses with surplus space that is not being used properly should bear that in mind. I also hope that we can remove the swords of Damocles that are hanging over courthouses not only in Kent but elsewhere. I mention Kent particularly because it is a fast-growing region which contains the channel tunnel and involves a number of other activities that will inevitably increase the load.
Some people--not many--have said that this is part of the Government's cuts. I have tried to disabuse them, but even law firms in my constituency have been trying to make political points on the subject. I consider that attitude to be thoroughly unjustified, but it exists, and I have a slight feeling that it is tied up with the way in which we are funding legal aid. Perhaps I have a nasty suspicious mind.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will give careful consideration to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and me. Certainly, none of us wants inefficient, under-utilised courthouses, with no consideration given to ways in which staff and buildings could be better used. Equally, none of us wants local justice to become no longer local : we do not want defendants, witnesses, solicitors and clerks to have to travel long distances for the sake of some formula that may or may not be working properly.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give us some assurances, and will join me in paying tribute to the very good work that is being done by most of our courts, particularly those in Kent.
8.34 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten) : This debate is important for justice in Kent. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) both on his good fortune in securing it, and on the powerful way in which he set out his case. He did the same when, in January, he discussed the issue with me, along with our hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber.
I was extremely pleased to hear both my hon. Friends comment on the fact that overall expenditure on the magistrates courts is currently being expanded. Figures show that, in real terms--taking inflation into account-- we are spending half as much again as we were spending in 1979. The service is in extremely good condition, and is growing--as was demonstrated by the published public expenditure programme announced in the autumn by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Column 723
Having said that, I must make one thing clear : I am as wedded to the concept of local justice as are my hon. Friends. My constituency is, in some respects, not dissimilar to theirs, and I too want the provision of good access to local justice. That is not to say that every courthouse in the country is in a state of grace--some are pretty run-down--or that every courthouse is necessarily particularly well utilised or well run. In such a large service, it would be amazing if that were the case. I stress, however, that we seek to introduce efficiencies within increasing public expenditure, while at the same time taking into account the pressing need for local justice and the traditions of such justice.My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham would like to turn the present system inside out and start again. Perhaps he is right--and I shall make sure that tomorrow my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor receives a copy of the report of our debate. My hon. Friend is saying that the present system is inadequate because it does not provide sufficient access for local people who wish to make known their views about proposed courthouse closures--unless the paying authority, in this case Kent county council, chooses to apply to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for a review of the decision.
That is the position under the current law. My hon. Friend, in effect, wants new legislation, because considerable changes in statute law would be needed to bring about the circumstances that he considers desirable. I shall bring that to the attention of the Lord Chancellor, as he will assume responsibility for the magistrates courts from 1 April. Only tonight, I attended the farewell party--or wake--of the Home Office division that is to be transferred, with no fee, to administer the service in the Lord Chancellor's Department from 1 April. It has given very good public service.
Mr. Moate : I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend. I wish merely to say that even I could draft a very simple amendment to the present legislation to ensure that others had the right to generate an appeal.
Mr. Patten : Certainly, C2 division--that is what it is called ; that is my contribution to open government tonight--could do it just like that, but a Bill would be needed. Indeed, such a Bill will have to be presented to the House in due course to make other changes to the service, consistent with the proposals in the White Paper published a few days ago by the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. That cannot be too far away ; the Bill must come down the track fairly quickly after the next general election. Such a development will certainly give my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham an opportunity to make his points in the next year or two--I cannot anticipate future Gracious Speeches. At present, decisions about whether courthouses should remain open--like most other decisions affecting the courts service--are primarily local decisions made by magistrates courts committees, in conjunction with their paying authorities. In our view, it is right for such decisions to continue to be made locally: only in that way can proper attention be paid to the full range of issues. That, I think, is where my hon. Friend sees a fault. He envisages full consideration of issues locally, but notes that, if local people's views are not taken into account and
Column 724
no appeal is made to the Home Secretary, they will have no right of appeal. I sense that he feels that there is an injustice in the way in which local justice is administered, and I understand what he has said. At the moment, only as a matter of last resort, if agreement cannot be reached between a court committee and its paying authority, would the matter be passed to the Home Secretary or, after1 April, to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.Those procedures are part of a separate process for determining court accommodation under the Justices of the Peace Act 1979--not such an ancient statute. Under the provisions of that Act, magistrates courts' accommodation is a matter for the committee to determine, in consultation with the paying authority which meets 20 per cent. of the overall costs, the balance being met by Government grant. The paying authority's input-- both the 20 per cent. contribution towards the running costs and the consultative role that it carries out with the court committee to take account of local interests--is very much part of the system. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham, in his radical and reforming speech, said that that should also be done away with and that, as I understand it, there should be 100 per cent. Government funding.
I will have to draw those two substantial matters to the attention of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor--first, the unfettered right of appeal to a Secretary of State by people who do not like the local decision, and, secondly, that, not satisfied with cash limits, we should move to 100 per cent. funding of magistrates courts. However, I might have misunderstood my hon. Friend.
Mr. Moate : I do not think that my right hon. Friend has misunderstood, but I do not wish to appear as radical as he suggests. If, as seems likely from the Welsh precedent, we are to move to unitary authorities within a local government structure, we will have to rethink the paying authority and who will determine such matters. During that rethink, it seems logical that we should reconsider the sort of matter that we are discussing.
Mr. Patten : I hope that my hon. Friend realised that I was speaking in tease marks when I used the word "radical".
The third matter that I must draw to the attention of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is the subject that my hon. Friend has just brought to the attention of the House--the local government reorganisations, which will be introduced on a rolling basis, should local communities so decide. I do not know what the situation is in Kent, but already in that part of my constituency which used to be in Berkshire people are looking forward to the reintroduction of Berkshire. Many of my constituents write to me from Abingdon on Thames, Berkshire, rather than Oxfordshire.
During the next few years, there will be all sorts of fundamental changes. There may well be unitary authorities. I cannot pre-empt the decision of the Local Government Commission, which will look into applications from local people perhaps to introduce different tiers or single-tier authorities. However, my hon. Friend is right as that will have considerable implications for the administration of local justice. Also, it will have considerable implications for the administation of the police service, which we will also have to consider. I see
Column 725
that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham has the assent of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, and he is right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that we must consider the matter in the round.Tonight, the plate is full with three separate ingredients for possible future reforms in the way in which we look after the magistrates courts service. The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham was extremely valuable in drawing attention to some of the problems which may come before it during the next few years, especially if there is legislation.
While there may be amalgamations and a few closures--there have been only a few recently--in the five-year period from 1991-92 to 1995-96, 28 new courthouses have been opened or are being built, providing 185 new court
Column 726
rooms. Perhaps that is the other side of the coin which I need to put before the House. Many of those new courthouses and court rooms will have the most up-to-date facilities. While a period of change and of challenge is before us, there will also be a period of considerable growth.I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend in the House on such issues, when they will undoubtedly be handled from the Dispatch Box by that entirely new being to whom he referred, a junior Minister representing the Lord Chancellor's Department in this place. Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Nine o'clock.
| Written Answers Section
| Home Page |