Bedford Magistrates Court
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Recently, Bedford magistrates marked their 650th anniversary—650 years of providing justice for the people and by the people. Now, that history of justice is being swept away, not by a democratic decision but by a small, distant group that blatantly disregards the will of the people, using a pretext that effectively, if not deliberately, misleads the very people they are supposed to serve. My objective tonight is to speak up for Bedford, to speak up for justice for the people of Bedford and to speak up for due process for the people of Bedford when important decisions about justice are made. In that task, I am very pleased to be joined by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt).
The proposal in question is to centralise Bedfordshire adult and youth crime, local authority civil and crime cases and probation cases at Luton magistrates court, and for Bedfordshire family work to continue at Luton county court and at Bedford Shire hall. That is being presented—I am sure I will hear the Minister say the same—as a reallocation of case loads, but as I and my right hon. Friend will demonstrate, it is clearly and evidently not what it purports to be. It is not a reallocation of case loads; it is a closure of Bedford magistrates court by the back door, cleverly but unfairly bypassing the rights of the people.
In decisions about case loads, under clause 30 of the Courts Act 2003, the rules for the places, dates and times of sittings of magistrates courts are deemed to be for the Lord Chief Justice. Separately, however, if a decision relates to a closure, then, as confirmed in a parliamentary answer on 1 July 2010 to the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), that decision is for the Lord Chancellor. That is right, because access to justice is a crucial social good. It is a social value, the arrangement of which needs ultimately to be determined by and to be answerable to Parliament.
In this particular instance, the people who made the decision, under the pretext of it being a reallocation of case loads, were a group called the justices issues group and the decision has not been placed under the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor. The justices issues group, at the meeting that made the determination, comprised—I think it is important to put their names on the record—Mr Barry Neale, who is chair of the Bedfordshire bench; Mr Neil Bunyan, the Magistrates’ Association representative; Mrs Diane Bedward, the Bedfordshire bench training and development committee chair; District Judge Leigh-Smith; and District Judge Mellanby. They were supported by clerk officials.
I am asserting that this is closure by the back door, so let me present some facts of my case to the Minister—I am sure that he is already aware of these. In his response to my parliamentary question on 24 February about the listing of cases in Bedfordshire, he kindly provided statistics for the past three years and the year-to-date figures for 2013. If I may, I shall use the statistics from 2012, as that is the last full year of data. In that year, 35,522 cases were heard in Bedfordshire, of which 19,675 were criminal cases. Of those criminal cases, just over 30%—6,148—were listed in Bedford and 70% in Luton. It is those 6,148 cases that will move.
In addition, the proportion of the 15,080 other cases currently listed in Bedford will also move to Luton. What will remain is the proportion of the 767 family cases that are listed in Bedford, which comes to 230—230 out of a total of 35,522. The key issue is whether that constitutes a closure.
As a result of that decision, just 0.7% of cases in Bedfordshire will be heard in Bedford, while 99.3% of them will be held in Luton. As a direct result, approximately 98% of the cases listed in Bedford will be transferred, but apparently that is not a closure, according to Mr Barry Neale and his fellow members of the Justices Issues Group.
This is a crucial issue for local people. It affects access to justice, the ability of people to get to their magistrates court and the costs for the police of attending when people cannot attend court and cases have to be deferred. It also puts pressure on that core part of the magistracy—the fact that we ask our magistrates voluntarily to give up their time to participate as members of the bench. It is also important because, as presented to me, it might represent an active manipulation of regulations to achieve an objective, a manipulation by people who ought to be sensitive to, and responsible for, not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the law.
Furthermore, that follows a pattern of reassurances being made to the people of Bedford but promises being broken. In 2010 this Government conducted a review following the closure of magistrates courts across the UK. I found the consultation document on proposals for Bedfordshire, which clearly states:
“There are no proposed changes to the provision of magistrates’ courts in Bedfordshire.”
In 2010 Mr Neale, as a member of the justices issues group, spoke to the local newspaper about changes being made to merge the Bedford and Luton magistrates benches. According to the newspaper:
“Mr Neale said if the merger were implemented, there were no proposals to close Bedford magistrates court… He added: ‘There will be no change as far as the public is concerned. Defendants, witnesses, victims and other court users should not be disadvantaged by where the case is heard… There will not be an adverse impact on the communities we serve. We will try to ensure that a case is heard closest to where the offence occurred and/or where the victim lives.’”
The concern is that the people of Bedford are once again being led down the garden path.
This is a crucial decision for justice for Bedford, but there is also a message for the people of Bedford, my constituents. We need to pull together more to achieve a better outcome for our home town. We need to be proud of our town, but we also need to do more.
Before I hand over to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, let me end with a quote from Kathryn Cain, a reporter with one of our local newspapers:
“What I love about Bedford isn’t just the amazing restaurants or the beautiful river, it is the sense of pride people living here feel about our town… Most importantly of all however is preserving local access to the justice system. Justice is meant to be administered by local people for local people”.
As a result of this decision, and with no democratic accountability, an effective closure of Bedford magistrates court is being undertaken.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I should like to join my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) in drawing to the attention of the House the proposed changes to the magistrates courts in Bedford and Luton. As he has said, this is an unhappy process. The dynamics at work are a series of measures in recent years to consolidate legal proceedings to be heard in Luton, and the gradual erosion of Bedford—the county town, with a long history of dispensing justice—as an appropriate centre of justice that serves a growing population who deserve as much as Luton to have justice dispensed, and seen to be dispensed, locally. This is also, as my hon. Friend said, an administrative decision with an underlying purpose that ought more properly to be within the remit of the Minister than of court administrators.
My constituency is the rural area to the north and east of the county town of Bedford—largely a collection of villages which, certainly to the north of the town, look to Bedford for main services, for police, for council activities, and similar. They have no connection whatsoever with Luton, which is hardly seen as a point of reference. My principal concern on behalf of my constituents is for victims of crime, families of victims, witnesses, and all the support services connected with the process of administering justice who will find their local centre of justice removed and their life made that bit more difficult in doing the job they are employed to do.
My hon. Friend has detailed the key facts, which, in so short a time, I have no wish to repeat. Like him, I have been in touch with representatives of local lawyers and those who service the courts, and attended meetings with those who were in the process of making the decision to make the points that we have outlined.
Let me draw some conclusions from what my hon. Friend has said. First, as the House has heard, the percentage of criminal cases heard at Bedford magistrates court is far higher than the percentage of family cases. In the meeting that we had with those deciding the fate of the courts in Bedford, they responded very vigorously when we said, “It’s a closure,” by insisting, “No, no, the family work is remaining.” They did not actually use words that would be familiar to Members of this House—“I cannot foresee the circumstances in which the courts would be closed”—but perhaps we can use such words. They correctly indicated that the proposed changes were not the result of costs. That may be the case for now, but is it not realistic to suggest that within a short time a further application will be made to close what will inevitably be seen as an outpost of justice—a single magistrates court in Bedford, in premises woefully underused, handling only family cases, when an economic argument would then appear overwhelming?
This is therefore a closure by other means, and an administrative dodge used to ensure that the decision avoids the Minister, who would be under political pressure to keep the court open, until it becomes so overwhelmingly obvious that no Minister would be allowed to take a reasonable decision to keep a redundant court open. Accordingly, I have reservations about those charged to make the decision and about how it was done.
On Thursday 6 February, my hon. Friend and I saw the justices issues group with representatives of local users, who had, as a local law society, complained that they had not originally been included in the consultation. It was, in diplomatic terms I have learned to understand very well, a frank exchange between us and the justices issues group, but I was left with the impression that the local lawyers had raised some new issues on costs and aspects of the decision to be made that required some consideration. That consideration took one working day, for on the following Monday the decision to go ahead with the changes was announced. That rather suggests that some minds were already made up.
On examining the consultation responses, it transpires that some 36 clear comments either for or against the proposals for Bedford Shire hall were made. Of those, 27 were against. That is not a big sample, but we are dealing with small expert groups who might have known what they were talking about, so a strong weight against might have prompted the justices issues group to decide against the proposals for Bedford. Those 27 equate to 75% of those who commented being against the proposals. They included Victim Support, two legal practitioners, 15 magistrates or their representatives—which, I would reckon, is not a bad proportion of the magistrates representing Bedford—and six local authority representatives. All were against the proposals and all were ignored. The issues raised were those that have been aired tonight: implications for victims and relatives; risks of non-attendance by those involved in cases, thus causing delay or abandonment of cases; travel difficulties for all; the future of Shire hall; and loss of local justice. In fairness, the issues raised were responded to in the official response dated 14 February, which gave explanations of why those objecting were being ignored.
However, the response included a classic in which many of my rural constituents might be interested. In response to the concerns about travel, the justices issues group said:
“We recognise that for the few users being in exceptionally rural areas it will prove a more difficult journey. However many people living in rural areas will be accustomed to travelling further afield for work, school or supermarkets which they visit more often and in many cases will have their own arrangements in place to do so.”
That about sums it up for those such as Kathryn Cain and many others who value something important about the county town of Bedford—its sense of localness with regard to justice as well as other things. They have been told, “It’s just too bad. You’ll have to get used to going somewhere else, which, of course, you are already used to.”
We ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether he is concerned about how this has been done. Is he worried about a lack of specific Bedford input into the decision-making body, beyond the consultation responses from Bedford, which were overwhelmingly against but rejected? Secondly, it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck. It is a duck. It is a closure. Is the Minister able, within his remit, to recognise it as such and take it back to his desk for proper consideration? We do not doubt that these are difficult decisions, but Bedford’s long history of a local magistracy deserves rather better.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) for securing this debate and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for so ably supporting him.
One thing is abundantly clear: both of my hon. Friends feel passionately about this issue. There is no doubt that they represent their constituents to the best of their abilities and they have done so admirably today. Their main concern is that there may be a closure of Bedford magistrates court. Let me address that up front: there are currently no plans to close the magistrates court in Bedford. The proposal is about listing arrangements —that is, the allocation of work between the various locations in Bedfordshire. There has been a consultation and were there to be any plans for a closure, it would have said so. The consultation that has taken place is for a different purpose.
Secondly,
“the maintenance of appropriate arrangements for the deployment of the judiciary of England and Wales and the allocation of work within courts”
is the statutory responsibility of the Lord Chief Justice, not the Lord Chancellor. I think that is recognised, but there still seems to be some anger coming in the direction of the Ministry of Justice. Listing is a judicial function and not one over which the Government have control.
Together with and supported by their justices’ clerk, local magistrates ensure that there is sufficient court time available to meet demand and that the right facilities are provided for the particular types of cases that come before them. That includes reviewing the sitting programmes of magistrates courts within their area. The decision may take into account the best use of resources, but it is not one that is based on saving money. The interests of justice are the overriding factor.
Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is committed to supporting local magistrates in doing that in order to provide an effective and efficient service to court and tribunal users and to focus resources on front-line services and provide access to justice.
In line with other areas, Bedfordshire magistrates regularly review the sitting programme for the courts in the area, to ensure it is properly aligned with the work load. The proposals for Bedfordshire will mean that criminal cases will be concentrated at Luton magistrates courts and that more family work will be heard at Bedford magistrates court. All family work will be retained and there will be increased capacity for it. I take note of the figures mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, but as far as I can see they refer to criminal work only.
More family work will be heard at Bedford magistrates court because the facilities at Luton are better equipped for criminal cases and Bedfordshire has the capacity to accommodate all tiers of the single family court. It is the view of the magistrates in Bedfordshire that the proposals will make more efficient use of the courtrooms and thereby reduce waiting times for victims, witnesses and other court users.
The proposals have been subject to wide consultation, including with solicitors, the Crown Prosecution Service and other court users. The local magistrates have carefully considered all the responses. The consultation took into account how justice could best be delivered in a suitable environment, while maximising the effectiveness and timeliness of hearings. In addition, the Bedfordshire bench chairman and senior officials met my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire and other local people, some of whom I believe were solicitors, to discuss the matter in more detail before a final decision was made.
Bedford magistrates court is a listed building with limited facilities. It has five courtrooms. It is not readily accessible for either court users or magistrates with limited mobility, other than one courtroom, which is used primarily for family work. Audibility is a problem and the fixed layout of the courtrooms does not lend itself to the use of modern technology. Two courtrooms have video link facilities, including the family courtroom. There is an upstairs secure witness suite that is accessed through the public entrance. There is cell provision, with limited access for custody vans. There is no court administration on site.
To provide the best service to victims and witnesses in Bedfordshire, it is intended that the current witness facilities at Bedford magistrates court will remain and be upgraded to provide a secure video link for vulnerable witnesses who give evidence in criminal cases at Luton or elsewhere.
Luton magistrates court, on the other hand, is a more modern courthouse with six courtrooms. It is accessible for those with limited mobility, both magistrates and court users. The courtrooms are well provided with hearing loops and there is video link capacity in place. It is proposed that that will be extended to provide the capacity in a courtroom with a secure dock. There are ample waiting and interview facilities. There is a secure witness suite with video link facilities. There is ample cell provision. There is also full court administration on site.
The facilities at Luton magistrates court clearly identify it as better suited to criminal work. It will improve the ability of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and other agencies to meet commitments under the code of practice for victims of crime.
Alistair Burt
I am listening carefully to the argument that is being put forward by my hon. Friend, but I would raise two issues. First, if the courts in Bedford are so manifestly inadequate, why did that not come out in the consultation process in 2010, when the courts were not considered for closure and these issues were not mentioned? Secondly, he referred to magistrates supporting the proposals. Of course, as I indicated, a substantial number of Bedford magistrates did not support them. Does that not weigh on the Minister’s mind? Will he take that further into account and ask those who are responsible for the decisions to do so as well?
Mr Vara
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising those two issues. First, he speaks of inadequate facilities, which implies that there is an underlying question of closure. There has been no reference to inadequate facilities because, as I speak, there are no plans for closure. I was not the Minister in 2010, but I presume that the closure of Bedford magistrates court was not considered at that time, when a large number of closures were considered.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend speaks of a difference of view about what has been said by the magistrates. There is one version and there is his version. I am happy to visit the magistrates court to meet him and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford. They can bring the people whom they wish to invite and I will bring my officials. I will ensure that there is a proper dialogue, so that if there have been any miscommunications along the line, we can ensure that they are put right. I will facilitate that meeting, and what is more, I will be at it and will visit the court.
I described the facilities at Luton magistrates court, and there will be greater certainty for witnesses about where trials will be heard. As for family work, which will be heard at Bedford magistrates court, it is equally important for that work to be undertaken in suitable court accommodation, separate from criminal work, with co-location of all tiers of the family court judiciary. On the whole, the centralisation of criminal and family work will enable greater capacity to distribute the workload more effectively and ease waiting times in hearing and completing cases. It will provide greater resilience to cope with unexpected changes to workload, or to judicial or agency resources.
I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire that the decision to change the listing pattern at Bedford magistrates court was not taken in isolation. There were many other considerations, such as the local reduction in workload, particularly for trials, the need for improved performance and better utilisation of criminal justice system agency resources, and the commitment to maximise the use of digital technology.
As a result of the change in the listing pattern in the Bedfordshire area, some magistrates may incur additional travelling costs. However, they should not be financially disadvantaged, as justices’ allowances allow for the reimbursement of travelling costs incurred in the performance of a justice’s duties.
Richard Fuller
I am, but I wanted to place on record my thanks to the Minister for saying that as a result of the debate he will come to Bedford, take a personal interest in the issue and listen to members of the local community. As part of that, will he listen to the members of the local magistracy who have submitted their opposition to the proposed changes?
Mr Vara
If they wish to attend the meeting, they are welcome to do so. The meeting is to be organised by my hon. Friend and by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, and if they wish to invite them along, I would be more than happy to meet them.
As with magistrates, victims and witnesses attending court should not be financially disadvantaged. They will not incur additional travelling costs, because those are paid by the Crown Prosecution Service.
As the changes take place in Bedfordshire, we will ensure that we continue to provide a good service for victims and witnesses, including vulnerable witnesses. That means that where the situation demands it, applications for special measures may be made in cases involving vulnerable witnesses. When the grounds for such applications are accepted, the court may direct that the witness gives evidence from a location other than where the trial is being heard. For instance, applications may be made for witnesses to give evidence from Bedford magistrates court, or any other courthouse or premises with suitable secure video connectivity, to the trial court in Luton.
I hope that I have been able to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford that the decision to change the listing arrangements at Bedford magistrates court is not the first step to closing the Shire hall in Bedford and is not a cost-cutting exercise. It is aimed at revising the listing arrangements for criminal and family work to improve efficiency in listing and timeliness, making the best use of court time and other resources and providing speedy justice for victims and witnesses. There is a commitment to ensuring that witnesses and victims have appropriate facilities and security when giving their evidence, including the availability of a video link.
The inconvenience of longer travel times for some will be outweighed by the expected improvements in court productivity, timeliness and the use of technology. We must also acknowledge that for people today, the concept of what is local goes far beyond what was considered local in the past. Local justice is no longer achieved solely by having a court in every town or borough. Indeed, there is no requirement of residence within the local justice area for appointment as a magistrate. Since the creation of the single local justice area, magistrates from across the county have been sitting at both Luton and Bedford without deterioration in the quality of justice, which is delivered through consideration of the evidence presented in open court using sound judgment and social awareness.
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate, and I thank him and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.