| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): I have no quarrel with the broad objectives set out in the statement. I take this opportunity to salute the work of the voluntary lay magistracy, which deals with the vast majority of criminal cases.
To marry the boundaries of police, CPS and MCC areas must be sensible. Does the Minister accept, however, that magistrates courts represent local provision of justice? Can he assure the House that his plans will not lead to the closing of a huge number of magistrates courts, particularly in rural areas, and the distancing of courts from the local communities that they serve? Can he tell us today precisely how many courts he expects to be closed following the announcements?
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no need to change the title "stipendiary magistrate", which is a clear and easily understandable term? I urge him, however, to consider appointing more such magistrates, especially if they are to have jurisdiction right across England and Wales.
I suspect that there is a drawer in the Government Chief Whip's office marked "Statements that we do not need to make, but which will be required when we need to delay the business of the House". Was not the real purpose of making this largely uncontroversial statement today to allow the Prime Minister to sneak out of the Chamber so that he could avoid coming face to face with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who is about to take his seat--having won a memorable by-election victory over the Prime Minister's personally
chosen candidate, despite two well-publicised visits by the right hon. Gentleman to the constituency during the by-election campaign?
If the Minister genuinely wanted to make a statement touching on his Department today, why did he not make one to the House about his proposals to reform legal aid--which have far-reaching social and legal consequences for the people of this country--rather than wasting 15 or 16 minutes drawing out a largely uncontroversial set of words about magistrates courts?
Mr. Hoon:
It is always difficult for the Government to get it right for the Opposition. Had we chosen to deal with the matter by way of a written question, tucked away in some obscure page of Hansard, no doubt the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) would have been leaping to his feet complaining that we were not making a statement. We have made a statement and given hon. Members the opportunity to ask questions of the Government on this important matter relating to the delivery of local justice.
The hon. and learned Member will know that 97 per cent. of all criminal cases begin and end in magistrates courts, so he must be aware of the importance of the proposals. He says that he has no quarrel with the Government's broader objectives and I am grateful for his support, but it is important that he emphasises to Back-Bench Conservative Members that court closures are not a necessary consequence of the proposals. Whether courts should close is primarily a matter for local magistrates courts committees. They take that decision. It is determined at local level and it is important that it stays at local level.
The hon. and learned Gentleman knows as well as I do that the only role that the Lord Chancellor has in this matter is to determine an appeal, in the event of one being made--that is the limit of the Lord Chancellor's jurisdiction. It is important that, instead of trying to make a few cheap local headlines, the hon. and learned Gentleman reflects the generality of the law in this sector.
I was disappointed that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not recognise the need to change the title of stipendiary magistrate. We are determined to consult on the matter. The term "stipendiary magistrate" is not well recognised; it is not recognised as being a judicial office. It is important that we try to bring up to date the titles that we give to people, particularly where they deal with as important a matter as criminal jurisdiction.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
Is my hon. Friend aware that he should be careful about amalgamating magistrates courts in his constituency, in mine and in other parts of Britain because amalgamation and making things bigger does not always work? Invariably, it is the opposite. To find out that that is true, we have to look only at the changing of the national health service in the 1970s under the Government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), at the local authority reorganisation and, latterly, at the closing of tribunal areas that are controlled by the Benefits Agency, which has resulted in a massive backlog of people wanting to be represented in those places.
However my hon. Friend deals with the matter, he has to bear in mind the fact that, although, as he says, magistrates decide whether courts remain open, they need
money and that if there is a shortage of money, those courts will undoubtedly close. Labour Members represent many rural areas now, as a party needs to in order to achieve a majority in the House of Commons. Remember, there is a vast difference between the anonymity of a city and the villages and small towns represented by Labour Members.
Mr. Hoon:
I have always been most grateful for the thoughtful and well-considered advice that my hon. Friend has tendered to me over many years. I assure him that the proposals for the amalgamation of magistrates courts committees will not have the slightest effect in his constituency in Derbyshire and in my constituency in Nottinghamshire because, in those areas, there is already consistency between the magistrates courts committee, the police authority area and the CPS. We are trying to introduce that best practice, already operating in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, throughout the rest of the country.
Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon):
Magistrates dispense justice in the community, and that should be done and be seen to be done in the community. We are concerned that there are likely to be closures of magistrates courts, especially in rural areas. What criteria are considered by the Government when an appeal is lodged against closure?
Mr. Hoon:
May I make it clear that, as I have already said, decisions on courthouse closures are primarily matters for local magistrates courts committees. The hon. Gentleman rightly emphasises the importance of justice being done and being seen to be done in the community. However, he is in some difficulty in arguing that such decisions should be taken anywhere else. If he came to me and said that he would not like a particular court to be closed on appeal to the Lord Chancellor, he would be saying that central Government should interfere in those local decisions. It is only when a local decision to close a court is made that the matter ends up on the Lord Chancellor's desk. In those circumstances, we are guaranteeing local justice.
I appreciate that there are appeals to the Lord Chancellor, but there are no specific criteria and each appeal has to be dealt with on its merits, which will depend on the grounds of the appeal. I can give the hon. Gentleman some of the considerations that will be taken into account. They are, in particular, the provision of modern facilities, facilities for the disabled, security arrangements in relation to violent offenders, and separate waiting areas for defendants and witnesses. There is also the question of delays. How can we ensure the provision of courtrooms that are best suited to enable cases to be listed in a manner that will achieve the Government's aim of reducing delays in the criminal justice system? We must take account of necessary renovations to bring the courthouse in question up to a modern standard. We also recognise the distance that people will have to travel, the
cost of that travel and the time that is taken to complete the return journey. Such a range of factors is taken into account.
Madam Speaker:
Order. As is clear to the House, many hon. Members wish to put questions. If I am to attempt to call even two thirds of them, I must have brief questions and, especially, brief answers.
Mr. Ross Cranston (Dudley, North):
What advantages does my hon. Friend see in the redrawing of the boundaries? He said that he was not simply redrawing them for administrative tidiness. What benefits will arise by having the boundaries of the Crown Prosecution Service coincide with the magistrates courts area and police authority boundaries?
Mr. Hoon:
The primary aim is to secure maximum co-operation between the different parts of the criminal justice system, leading to a reduction in the number of participants in consultation and in the amount of paperwork to be circulated, and to a more effective presentation of the concerns of magistrates courts. If we are to achieve our manifesto commitment to fast-track justice, we must ensure that the different agencies involved in the criminal justice system work consistently and coherently together. The proposals will achieve that.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham):
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the composition of the magistrates bench, while it is important to try to ensure a broad spectrum of occupation and background, the political views of applicants for the magistracy should be ignored? In that context, does he understand the dismay that has been caused by his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor who told the Magistrates Association that, all things being equal, if there were an imbalance he would choose Labour voters for magistrates?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |