| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Jane Kennedy: I honestly cannot answer that. We are talking about efficiency improvements, not cash cuts. We are seeking more for the money available. It is possible to receive more money and be more efficient if the increase in output--the performance of the courts--is proportionately greater than the increase in spending. We are concerned about the quality of what is delivered, not just the volume.
It may be helpful if I refer briefly to the way in which money is distributed, because funding for any MCC depends both on the total and the mechanism for sharing it. That mechanism is a calculation based on a formula that is currently being reviewed. We aim to have a new mechanism in place for the allocation of money for the financial year beginning in April 2001.
A substantial amount of money is spent on magistrates courts, but funds are not unlimited. The taxpayer's pockets are not bottomless, and that includes council tax payers as well as the payers of national taxes, because the courts are in part locally funded. Taxpayers--local and national--have a right to expect that the money provided should be spent well to obtain maximum value.
That brings me back to efficiency gains. MCCs are far from alone in being set an efficiency target. The target of 3 per cent. set for magistrates courts is exactly the same as the target for the Lord Chancellor's Department as a whole. It is also the target that was set generally in the last spending review for Departments responsible for the criminal justice system. That does not mean that expenditure is being cut. I have already given figures to show that spending has increased. Our policy is about doing better with the money that is available.
In the magistrates courts, we expect significant efficiency gains from our modernisation initiatives. That was made clear in the statement to both Houses in October 1997 about the MCC amalgamation programme. When the programme is completed in April next year, the number of MCCs will have reduced from 96 at the time of the statement to 42. That programme will make a large contribution to improving efficiency--leading to reduced overheads and to the promotion of economies of scale.
As I said in the House on 1 February, on the basis of an assessment by consultants of potential savings from a proposed merger of MCCs in the midlands, it is estimated that gains equivalent to 6 per cent. of the amalgamating MCCs budgets could be realised. Amalgamations will also contribute to the effectiveness and efficiency of the criminal justice system as a whole by aligning the boundaries of MCCs with those of other agencies.
We are also improving information technology, which will benefit the magistrates courts and the criminal justice system as a whole. Improved procedures will be introduced--for example, early administrative hearings--which achieve quicker disposal of cases and, as a consequence, release resources.
Those central initiatives contribute significantly to efficiency gains, and provide the foundation on which MCCs can build. Efficiency does not necessarily mean getting the same output for less money. It is about getting proportionately more for any level of funding. That is not
necessarily measured only in volume. A better quality of service for any given level of resources would represent a gain in efficiency.That is important in relation to the courthouse location debate because MCCs' courthouse location proposals--which courts are placed in which localities--reflect the aim and expectation that services and facilities offered to all court users be brought up to the standards required in the 21st century. Cases should take no longer to pass through the system than is necessary and the process of administering justice should be improved.
Older courthouses do not have the facilities that should be expected. Of course, the needs of local justice must be considered very carefully--especially access to the courts. I should always expect that to be explored most thoroughly in any proposal that might come to me on appeal.
However, an MCC's responsibility to consider those issues must be accepted. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall pointed out, cost savings are often small in the case of old buildings which lack modern facilities, but where they can be made, they are available to be ploughed back to support improved services and performance. Provided that all the issues and legitimate concerns have been weighed in the balance, that, clearly, must be a factor in any decision about courthouse location.
Finally, looking to the future, I should mention the review of the criminal courts that Lord Justice Auld is conducting. He will produce authoritative advice on the
lines on which the criminal justice system will be developed. He is due to report by the end of December and it is clearly too soon to say whether his advice will have any impact on the matters we have debated today. However, it is fair that I should remind the House of that review.As I have said, we are reviewing the mechanism for allocating money to MCCs. One of the proposals that will be examined, which will be of interest to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon, is a sparsity factor to reflect any higher costs of running magistrates courts in spread-out, sparsely populated, rural MCC areas. However, I can give no undertakings on that; we must await the outcome of the review.
The comprehensive spending review covered the three years from 1999 to 2002. The House will be aware that the spending review for the three years from April is now under way. The outcome of that will be known later in the year. The Lord Chancellor will put his case for the level of funding he believes is needed for magistrates courts, as he will for all the other matters for which he has ministerial responsibility. Of course, other Ministers will be doing the same and the outcome will reflect the Government's spending priorities. Whatever the outcome, the pressure to achieve greater value for money in magistrates courts will continue. It is right that it should.
- Adjourned accordingly at half-past One o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |