---

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

Magistrates Courts (Suffolk)

28. Mr. Spring: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to visit magistrates courts in Suffolk, to discuss possible court closures and amalgamations. [7623]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter): I am due to visit Haverhill and Mildenhall magistrates courts on Monday 28 January 1997 as part of a programme of visits to help maintain my Department's good working relationship with the individual magistrates courts committees, which are responsible for running those courts.

Mr. Spring: When my hon. Friend comes to Suffolk, he can be assured of a warm welcome, but when he meets magistrates from the Haverhill and north-west Suffolk benches he will also learn of their considerable concern about the future of those courts and their potential closure. It is my firm belief that local justice should be meted out

16 Dec 1996 : Column 610

by local magistrates in local courthouses. I must tell my hon. Friend that, should the current proposals be advanced further, I shall fight them every inch of the way both in Suffolk and in the House.

Mr. Streeter: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has spoken out on behalf of his constituents--he is well known in this place for doing so. There is no proposal to close the courthouses that he has mentioned. I look forward greatly to my visit to Suffolk in January. I know that I will receive a warm welcome at the hands of my hon. Friend's constituents, just as he received a warm welcome from me this afternoon.

Mr. Olner: When the Minister has completed his visit to Somerset--

Hon. Members: Suffolk.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman had better get his question in order: the Minister is not going to Somerset. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has noticed that the substantive question concerns Suffolk alone.

Mr. Olner: I apologise, Madam Speaker. When the Minister has visited Suffolk, will he also visit Nuneaton magistrates court in Warwickshire because, just like the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring)--

Madam Speaker: Order. I take to heart matters of such enormous importance, but the question is about Suffolk. I must be firm about this, and I call Mr. Llwyd.

Magistrates Courts (Closure)

29. Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the procedure for intervention by the Lord Chancellor's Department in the matter of a dispute about closure of a magistrates court; and if he will make a statement. [7624]

Mr. Streeter: There is no procedure for intervention as magistrates courts are not Crown property. The Lord Chancellor is involved in a dispute over a magistrates court only when an appeal is made by a contributing local authority against a proposed closure. The procedure for such appeals is set out in section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979. In the event of a such an appeal, the Lord Chancellor will call for a report from both parties and make a final decision, which is binding. In the absence of such an appeal, the Lord Chancellor has no locus in the matter.

Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware of my concern about my constituency of Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, which is one of the largest geographically in the United Kingdom. The magistrates clerk has circulated the preposterous idea of closing the last but one court, which would leave the entire constituency to be served by one magistrates court. The Minister is aware that an appeal is pending. Will he please meet a small delegation led by me as soon as possible so that that preposterous and ridiculous notion can be put to rest at last?

16 Dec 1996 : Column 611

Mr. Streeter: If an appeal in relation to the court that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned is pending, it would be inappropriate for me to comment. I would be delighted to receive a delegation from his constituency, as I have from other hon. Members in the past few weeks. I look forward to that, and I will listen carefully to the case that he puts for the retention of the courts in his constituency. We recognise that, in rural areas in particular, the distance that people must travel to court and the cost of their journey are significant matters.

Mr. Harry Greenway: When considering the possible closure of magistrates courts, or any other function of any other court, will my hon. Friend consider the recent incident in which a convicted murderer telephoned, or received calls from, a newspaper? That caused enormous distress--

Madam Speaker: Order. What does this have to do with magistrates courts?

Mr. Greenway: I am referring to the function of a court in achieving the conviction of an individual, and the subsequent behaviour of that individual.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did not describe his question in that way. The main question deals with magistrates courts, and so must the answer.

Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend raises an important point concerning the magistrates courts in his constituency and people who have passed through them in relation to offences that they may have committed. He speaks for many people when he describes the offence that has been caused by the incident that he mentioned, and his points are well made.

Hon. Members: Was that a challenge to you, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker: It certainly was a challenge, and I do not accept that the question put by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) was correct in following the substantive question.

Mr. Boateng: In view of the widespread concern about the erosion of locally administered justice, will the Minister revisit the arrangements for the funding of local magistrates courts committees to see whether we ought to have a better formula than is currently applied? Does not the present formula lead to overfunding in some areas and underfunding in others, and to an end to locally administered justice?

Mr. Streeter: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has missed it by a mile. The Lord Chancellor and I are committed to local justice being dispensed by local people for local people, and the funding is in place. The hon. Gentleman commits the Labour party to yet more spending every time he gets to his feet in the House. Unless he can come to the Dispatch Box and tell us where that extra money would come from, he will have no credibility in this place.

16 Dec 1996 : Column 612

Legal Aid

30. Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to avoid legal aid being granted for vexatious litigation against schools. [7627]

Mr. Streeter: It is for the Legal Aid Board to decide whether to grant legal aid. To qualify for legal aid, applicants must satisfy the merits and means test. Because of our concern that too many trivial and undeserving cases are being funded by the taxpayer, the Government have proposed reforms in the White Paper, "Striking the Balance", which will target resources on the most deserving cases. In the mean time, my officials are discussing with both branches of the legal profession ways in which decisions under the existing merits test can be further improved.

Mr. Arnold: Would it not be an absolute scandal if yobbish failures were to use public money to sue their own schools? Would not that scandal be compounded if public money had to be diverted from education to allow those schools to defend themselves? If we are to have such an appalling waste of money, would it not be appropriate for the schools to use that money to sue the very yobs who failed to use that valuable commodity--their education? More than £1 billion of valuable public money is being spent on legal aid. Is that not an appalling waste in far too many cases? Would that not be compounded by the rather extraordinary idea of Lord Irvine of Lairg--the legal godfather of the Leader of the Opposition--who wants to extend the use of legal aid to industrial tribunals? Does not that show that, wherever one looks, the Labour party intends to waste more and more taxpayers' money?

Mr. Streeter: As usual, my hon. Friend speaks for many people in expressing concern about the amount of taxpayers' money spent on wasteful, trivial and undeserving cases. He refers to the case featured recently in the newspapers about people intending to sue their schools in relation to their lack of achievement. I can tell him and the House that no application has been made for legal aid for such a case--nor, I hope, will any be made. He is right to speak out on this case. If the Labour party ever formed a Government, it would be a disgrace if it spent yet more money not just on a law centre in every town, but on tribunals. Labour would rapidly become not just the prisoner's friend, but the barrister's meal ticket.

Magistrates Committees and Courts (Midlands)

31. Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received regarding the proposed merger of Coventry, Birmingham and Solihull magistrates committees and courts. [7628]

Mr. Streeter: I have so far received 216 letters in response to the consultation document proposing an amalgamation of the Birmingham, Coventry and Solihull magistrates courts committees.

Mr. Cunningham: Given the concern expressed by magistrates, members of the public and organisations, will

16 Dec 1996 : Column 613

the Minister agree to meet a delegation from Coventry to discuss the issue? Does he accept that we are not talking about more money for magistrates courts, but that he is proposing cuts in the services for magistrates courts?

Mr. Streeter: We are certainly not proposing any cuts in the services for magistrates courts, but I recognise the strength of feeling in the midlands about the proposed amalgamation of the magistrates courts committees in the hon. Gentleman's area. I would be delighted to receive a delegation from hon. Members in respect of that proposed amalgamation--I have already received several letters of representation on the subject from hon. Members.

---