| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Bolton Magistrates Court
1.29 pm
Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East): I am most grateful for this opportunity to raise an important matter in my constituency: the need for new magistrates courts in Bolton. Whenever I have conducted an opinion poll in my constituency, law and order has always come out as my constituents' top concern and therefore the efficient administration of justice in Bolton is of the highest priority.
The Government admitted the need for new magistrates courts in Bolton as far back as 1989. Everyone in Bolton had been confident that, by now, work would definitely have started on the new buildings. The present courts were built in the 1930s with, initially, just two courtrooms, but the increasing pressure of work has led to eight courtrooms being squeezed into the original building, with totally inadequate facilities for everyone involved. Not only the general public, but the staff who work there, the lawyers, the reporters and everyone concerned with the administration of the courts have to suffer intolerable conditions.
I notice that page 4 of the Government's victims charter clearly says to the public:
The Association of Magisterial Officers has produced a leaflet emphasising the need for decent facilities. It says:
An overall score for quality of service is calculated by a complicated formula. It shows that Bolton has a score of only 607, compared with an average of 812. The best courts have a score of 1,221. Bolton's score is the lowest, so Bolton has the lowest quality of service of any court in clerkship category H. Therefore, without doubt, there must be an improvement in the service in Bolton.
Bolton nevertheless runs its overcrowded courts extremely efficiently. Another sheet produced by the Department shows the cost per weighted case. Bolton comes out with a cost of £18.50 per case, compared with an average that I have calculated of £22.75. That compares with the high figure of £27.80 in nearby Bury, so clearly Bolton is providing its service efficiently. We are getting administration on the cheap in Bolton, at the cost of services that should be provided.
The courtrooms in Bolton are in use for more than 7,400 hours per year--the highest in Greater Manchester, outside Manchester city itself. The average weighted cost per case for Bolton, which has 77,000 cases, comes out at £18.50. I calculate that, on the number of cases being transacted in Bolton each year, that is saving the Government more than £250,000 a year, so we have paid for our new courtrooms already.
That is all to the massive credit of Bolton's excellent team, brilliantly led by Peter Dawson, the chief clerk to the court, his deputy Robert Walker and the excellent chairman of the bench, Mr. Frank Woods. Bolton deserves every favourable consideration by the Government, instead of which it has been let down abominably.
More than seven years ago, the Government admitted the need for the new courts and we were delighted when, in 1994, we were given the go ahead. The Lord Chancellor kindly accepted my invitation to visit Bolton in autumn 1995 to lay the foundation stone. We set the date for 17 November 1995. In January that year, the Lord Chancellor's Department wrote to the council, somewhat ironically urging that there should be no slippage by anyone responsible in Bolton.
The council acted promptly. Tenders were sent out soon after and, in August, tenders were opened from seven national companies that bid for the contract, worth approximately £8 million. In September, the consultative committee of the local authority and the Magistrates Courts Committee advised the successful tenderer that they had approved his tender at a cost of £7.5 million, which was well within the overall cost limit of £8.7 million.
Those tenders were submitted in good faith by private sector firms that had incurred the cost of tendering, and the successful tenderer should have been awarded the contract, but the private sector was let down badly. All of a sudden, out of the blue--or perhaps it was out of the red--the Treasury stepped in to stop the contract and on 2 October 1995 the Lord Chancellor's Department wrote to the council to stop the tender being placed, literally on the day that that was going to happen.
Surprisingly, the Lord Chancellor still expected the new courts to go ahead. Perhaps it was a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing, because I
received a letter dated 10 October from the diary secretary suggesting a new date for the Lord Chancellor to visit Bolton--Friday 26 April 1996. That suggested to us in Bolton that there had been a bit of a delay, but that we could look forward to matters still proceeding, with any new financing arrangements that might be decided. Can the Minister confirm that that was the position on 10 October when that letter was written? Or was it just that one hand did not know what the other was doing?
On 20 December, the former Minister kindly met a delegation from Bolton, including Peter Dawson, and Roger Widdicar, then chairman of the bench, and the architect working in the town hall, who came to press for an early decision. A total of £600,000 of public money had already been spent on costs and fees. The former Minister led us to believe that the Lord Chancellor's Department was hoping that 10 successful schemes would be announced in the coming year. Leaving that meeting, we were fairly confident of progress although there had been a little delay. Sadly, the Lord Chancellor is still no nearer visiting Bolton. We would be delighted to see him, but we do not know when that might be; nor do we know if Bolton will ever get its new court.
What on earth has gone wrong? It seems that the Government have run out of money. Yesterday's financial statement confirmed that the national debt has doubled to more than £350 billion since 1990 when the Prime Minister came to power. He was formerly a banker and perhaps his greatest achievement has been to persuade the money markets to accept such massive debt. Plainly, such spending had to stop and it was Bolton's great misfortune to be at the door just as the Government decided to slam it shut. It is doubly unfair to Bolton, whose thrift saved the money to pay for the new court by running the present system more efficiently than any other in Greater Manchester. If every Government operation were run as efficiently as Bolton's court system, there would be plenty of money to pay for a new court.
It is said that the magic private finance initiative will provide for all our needs. The Government announced that the PFI would pay for the new court buildings, but they had not done their homework. At a meeting on 27 March it was felt that, even after six months, all would be well, but the Lord Chancellor's Department wrote on 10 April saying, in effect, "Oh dear, we can't do it--it's illegal." In a letter to Bolton's chief executive, Mr. David Adlington stated that
I read in the papers about confusion the length and breadth of the country. A headline in The Observer on Sunday states:
I understand that the Minister who is particularly responsible is the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who was formerly a Home Office Minister.
In 1992, when he was at the Home Office, he visited the magistrates court and agreed that it was necessary to renew it. That Treasury Minister is therefore aware of the need. He is also responsible for the administration of the PFI. Yet he seems to be one of the problems preventing us from proceeding.
On 27 November last year, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury wrote a "Dear Colleague" letter about the joys of the PFI. In the letter he states that the PFI is wonderful and under the heading, "Why is this better?" he says that
As I have said, the weekend press was full of alarms and excursions and I understand that the Prime Minister had a heated meeting with the heads of major Departments to find out what had gone wrong. I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor's Department was represented at that meeting. It certainly should have been, so that the Prime Minister could hear about what was happening in Bolton.
How are we in Bolton to make our decisions? We have to use temporary accommodation to keep going. The Minister will be aware of that, because on account of it there was an application for £100,000 to meet costs. Bolton needs to provide a full service. The people there should not have to travel to Wigan, Rochdale, Bury or Salford because the Government have decided that the courts should be amalgamated in the new scheme. I had a letter a short time ago from Peter Dawson, who said that he felt that the amalgamation would result in the loss of local identity and control of magistrates courts. I fear that that is what we are experiencing. If the Government think that somehow the work load in Bolton can be transferred to courts elsewhere, I can tell them that that is certainly not the service that people in Bolton expect.
Obviously, we need to provide a good local service. There is enough difficulty getting some witnesses to come to court without telling them that they might have to go to a different town. To do that would throw away the benefits of Bolton's efficient, low-cost service, and it would massively disadvantage the public.
The PFI model projects a requirement in Bolton rising from 7,500 court hours a year to 9,500 a year over 20 years. It is clear that the Government do not expect any diminution in the demand for court services in Bolton. It might be thought that if law and order measures were working well we would not need all the court hours, but Government figures on the future projected need for court services in Bolton expect continued expansion.
We need clear instructions and guidance on how to proceed, and I suggest that the Minister's best course would be to tell the Treasury that we should be excused from the PFI. We were caught in the door at the last minute and I do not think that at that time anyone realised that it would be illegal to use the PFI in Bolton. Excusing us would be the best course, if only on the ground that the best site for the court, which is next door to the existing one in Cheadle square, is owned by the local authority which has agreed to provide it. How could a PFI for a site somewhere else, paid for by private sector funds, meet the cost of the local authority providing a site at Cheadle square?
The Minister should demand that the Treasury reinstate the project and say that it is unsuitable for the PFI. If he insists on the PFI, we want clear ground rules and a proper
timetable so that we can get on with the job. If he does not do that, I fear that we shall never have the new courts that Bolton justly deserves. The Government say that they want to improve justice, but is that just rhetoric? An answer to a parliamentary question on 4 July shows that the average delay in Greater Manchester in bringing indictable offences to court for completion was 112 days. That is far too long, but if we do not have efficient courts how can we reduce it?
I understand that four other authorities are in the same difficulty as Bolton. They are Bedfordshire, Birmingham, Humberside and Newcastle upon Tyne. Therefore, the issue concerns not just Bolton. I congratulate all those people in Bolton, including Mr. Grogan and the town hall team, who have worked so hard. Frank Woods, the excellent chairman of the Bolton magistrates courts committee, recently sent a letter to the Bolton Evening News and I will end by quoting from it. It states:
"You can expect if you have to go to court as a witness you will be treated with respect and sensitivity.
Sadly, in Bolton, that is not true. While waiting to go in, victims and their assailants are forced to sit hugger-mugger next to each other in the corridor outside the court, to the obvious distress of the innocent victims. The other day, a social worker was assaulted while waiting to go into court.
You can ask to wait separately from those involved in the case."
"The physical environment of court buildings and courts are a significant factor in creating an effective atmosphere for local justice to be conducted. Each building should recognise and meet the differing needs of all users and should offer, as a minimum, the following: discrete waiting areas, separate facilities for families and children, non-smoking environment with designated smoking area, creches, public telephones, refreshment facilities, facilities for victim support and witness care, access and toilet facilities for wheelchair users, audio induction loops, facilities for nursing mothers and for baby changing, security arrangements which ensure a non-threatening and secure environment.
The Minister will be aware of the information published by the Lord Chancellor's Department showing courts' performance, including one showing the basic quality of service. A sheet headed "1995 MIS indicator values . . . clerkship category: H" on the performance of Bolton and the quality of service shows that the average courtroom has 48 interview rooms, whereas Bolton has only 20 interview rooms, and that on average there are 38 telephones available for professional users, but only seven, on average, in Bolton. On average, there are 25 separate waiting areas for domestic and juvenile cases, but Bolton has none. There should be, on average, 25 waiting areas for victims and witnesses, but there are none in Bolton. On average, there are three facilities for
mothers and children in other courtrooms, but Bolton has none, so clearly Bolton is unable to give the quality of service.
A service which is community based must be accessible to all members of the community. The court should be located in a central position with good affordable public transport and adequate car parking for its users. All persons including those with physical disabilities must be catered for."
"the Justices of the Peace Act specifically excludes capital expenditure from revenue grant."
The letter stated that amending the Act would require primary legislation. The Government have not made time available for primary legislation, so where are we now? The Lord Chancellor's Department promised to give Bolton guidance by January of this year on how the PFI would work, but we are still waiting for that guidance.
"PFI at risk of collapse, warns Clarke".
What way is that for us to get our new magistrates court? Perhaps the Minister will tell us how we can expect to proceed.
"the public get the service that they need."
Sadly, that is not happening in Bolton.
"We shall continue with the utmost determination to pursue our aim of achieving a new court complex for Bolton".
I certainly exonerate the recently appointed Minister from the previous failings of his Department, of which the Government should be thoroughly ashamed. I look forward to hearing how we can proceed with confidence to have new court buildings in Bolton as soon as possible.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |