 House of Commons |
Session 2002 - 03 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates Courts Bill [Lords] |
| Courts Bill [Lords]
| ||||||||||||
|
| Sitting | Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
| 26th June (a.m.), (p.m.) 1st July (a.m.), (p.m.) | Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1; Clauses 5 to 6, Schedule 2; Clauses 7 to 35; Clauses 37 to 45, Schedule 4; Clauses 46 to 65, Schedule 5; Clauses 66 to 85. | 5.00 p.m. on 1st July |
| 8th July (a.m.), (p.m.) | Clauses 86 to 94; Clause 97, Schedule 6; clauses 98 to 104; Clause 107; Schedules 7 and 8; Clauses 108 to 110. | 5.00 p.m. |
| 10th July (a.m.), (p.m.) | Clause 36, Schedule 3; Clauses 95, 96, 105 and 106; new Clauses, new Schedules and any remaining proceedings on the Bill. | 5.00 p.m. |
As we discussed the motion earlier in the Programming Sub-Committee, I hope that much of the scheduling of the Bill is straightforward and self-explanatory. I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien. Having served under your chairmanship before, I know that you have a reputation for being even-tempered and fair-minded, as all Yorkshiremen are—like my good self, as you will no doubt find out. The subject that we are about to discuss is relatively new to me, so I shall keep my contributions as simple and strategic as possible.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien. I entirely endorse what the Minister said about your chairmanship, and I welcome him to his new responsibilities. Although I cannot claim to be a Yorkshireman, I lived in Yorkshire for many years and fought my first parliamentary seat there, and I agree with the Minister about the fair-mindedness of Yorkshire folk.
Column Number: 004
We are content with the programme motion. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should be able to complete the business in a straightforward way in the time agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee, and I shall hold him to his word that he intends to be simple and strategic.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): I, too, Mr. O'Brien, welcome you to the Chair of this Committee on the umpteenth Bill this Session from the Lord Chancellor's Department, as was. Some of us are beginning to feel like permanent fixtures in Committee Rooms. I can lay no claim whatever to having a particular affinity with Yorkshire, but I hope that that will not be held against me. Somerset and Yorkshire enjoy playing cricket against each other, but that is about it.
The Bill is important. It has been improved hugely already, which is to everyone's credit, especially those in another place who fought for changes. We hope to improve it still further in Committee. I am interested in what the Minister's strategic responses will comprise. We await them with bated breath.
Question put and agreed to.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution and a Ways and Means resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the Room. Adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, I do not intend to call starred amendments, including those that may be reached during an afternoon sitting.
Mr. Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in
- clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out 'and effective' and insert ', effective and accessible'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 6, in
- clause 1, page 1, line 19, at end insert
'and in particular a detailed analysis of the operation of this Act, especially the question of accessibility of the courts to court users.'.
Amendment No. 109, in
- clause 1, page 1, line 19, at end insert—
'(5) In the course of preparation of any report under subsection (4), the Lord Chancellor must, in respect of each local justice area, consult with court users on the accessibility of courts situated in the relevant area.'.
Amendment No. 31, in
- clause 21, page 10, line 34, at end insert
', and shall take into account the views of lay justices in any local justice area before making any changes regarding that local justice area, and in particular shall not allow any court building in any local justice area to be closed if the lay justices believe that location needs a court to continue to operate there in the interests of local justice, regardless of Lord Chancellor's Department circulars and guidance.'.
Mr. Heath: It is always nice to start a Committee with the most crucial subject of the Bill under discussion. The first group of amendments goes to the heart of the concerns of many people, not just those represented in the Room, but people outside who will have to work with the Bill in the future and who, although welcoming some aspects of it, fear some of its consequences. The Minister will know from
Column Number: 005
reading the reports of the debates in another place how much the principle of accessibility was at the heart of the discussion. It is also at the heart of our worries, because over several years—this is not exclusively due to the actions of the current Government; it has been happening over a sufficiently long period for the blame to be spread—we have seen the closure of smaller courthouses and the concentration of court hearings in an ever smaller number of buildings, which, by necessity, are therefore more geographically remote from the people whom they serve.That worry has been exacerbated by a policy emanating from the Department formerly known as the Lord Chancellor's Department—I wish there were a shorthand way of saying that. It may be more convenient for Hansard if we still refer to it as the Lord Chancellor's Department, when we mean the previous Lord Chancellor's Department rather than the present Department for Constitutional Affairs. The policy laid down criteria that the present magistrates courts committees have had to follow, and resourcing streams that did not allow them the luxury of maintaining smaller cost centres such as courthouses in remote rural areas. However, the committees were blamed for the closures that resulted.
That was a wholly unsatisfactory position. It irritated and upset people in local areas when they found that their courthouse was closed, and closures had—and still do have—a disruptive effect on the principles of the justice system. In my area of the country and in many others, people were often obliged to travel considerable distances to a court. For those who have a car and a lot of time, that causes relatively few problems. For those who do not have a car and rely on the wholly inadequate public transport system in many rural areas, let alone in some urban areas, or for those for whom time means money because they are self-employed business men or similar people who find it difficult to take time out of their day, it makes it much more difficult for them to participate in the legal process. That is a worry.
Such a problem add costs for the police, too, because they have to devote whole days to being away from their normal patrolling area to attend a court distant from where they are based. It also adds time and difficulty for legal representatives. We already have a significant problem with the number of criminal defence solicitors in this country, and the number of people in general practice who are prepared to take on criminal work. Every additional burden for them in attending courts some distance from their normal practice is one more reason why they choose to cease to do that far from lucrative work and concentrate on other areas of legal practice.
There is also a problem with witnesses who cannot attend case hearings, with those who are affected by cases and wish to see the proceedings but are unable to do so, and with the defendants themselves. They are not the prime concern, but they, too, often find it difficult to attend the hearing in reasonable time. For all those reasons, we should deprecate the move toward the closure of courts. The Bill will increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the Court Service. That is its intention, and we have no quarrel with that.
Column Number: 006
Indeed we applaud it, but it also makes decisions more remote from the people whom the courts serve. They are taken at a national rather than a local level.Many people are concerned that that will accelerate not reduce the speed of closures of smaller courts. There is a clear argument that accessibility—accessibility can be expressed in a number of different ways, but geographical accessibility is an important part of it—should be at the core of the Lord Chancellor's duties in implementing the Bill.
That is not just my opinion, it is that of individual magistrates, and a view that is widely held among the general public and local authorities. It is also significant that it is also the view expressed by the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department. In the one report that it has produced so far, its members have made a clear recommendation that the text in clause 1 should be changed so that the general duty of the Lord Chancellor included the word ''accessible''.
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 26 June 2003 |
