(9 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of court closure in Buxton.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I think this is the first time that I have spoken while you have been in the Chair.
I have called this debate on the closure of the court in Buxton, which is in my constituency of High Peak. The proposal is part of a recently concluded consultation on the future of many courthouses across the country. Let me be clear from the outset that I understand the need to look at the situation of courts and to investigate the possibility of rationalising the service. However, there are serious flaws in the rationale that has been applied to Buxton, as is the case for other parts of the country, which was highlighted recently in this Chamber by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) in relation to courts in his constituency. My concern today, however, is about my constituency and its court.
First, I will provide some context to the debate. High Peak is a large area covering more than 200 square miles, and the two main towns, Buxton and Glossop, are 15 miles apart. There are many smaller towns and villages in between and around those two towns. The constituency sits in the east midlands, yet much of it faces the north-west, particularly Greater Manchester, for many of its services. Leisure, employment and news are all predominantly accessed from the north-west. Part of the constituency, Hope Valley, faces Sheffield for all of its services. There is very little traction with the east midlands. Similarly, public transport links feed into Greater Manchester and Sheffield, and I will come to that issue later.
Despite High Peak’s proximity to those two great cities of the northern powerhouse, Manchester and Sheffield, we should be in no doubt that it is very much a rural constituency. It therefore faces lots of problems that are common to many such areas across the country, particularly access to and ease of travel. Not that long ago, High Peak was served by two courts—one in Buxton and one in Glossop. The Glossop court was then closed, so there is now only one court serving the whole of this large constituency.
The Minister is aware of my views on the consultation—I have aired them before in this room and the main Chamber—but I wish briefly to reiterate one or two points. I have been involved in public service for more than 15 years, first as a councillor and then as a Member of this House. During that time, I have read many consultations on a variety of subjects. They have varied in their quality and scope, but I can honestly say that I do not think I have seen one so riddled with errors and mistakes as the one relating to this court. I shall run through some of the glaring errors.
The consultation’s biggest error was that it said that there was no public lift in the courthouse, but it is patently obvious that there is. I am absolutely baffled about how such a fundamental mistake could be made. I assume that the author of the consultation did not visit the court because a lift is not an easy thing to miss —it is pretty obvious. I concede that an acknowledgement was sent out about that error, but only after several people protested in response to the consultation. The circulation of the acknowledgement—I was going to say “apology”, but I do not think that that is the right word—of the mistake is still open to question, however, as some people did not receive clarification about the lift.
The consultation claimed that the building was not compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, ironically citing the lack of a lift—we have dealt with that issue—but the building is fully compliant with disability legislation under the Equality Act 2010. It also claimed that the consulting rooms were poor. Those were rebuilt five years ago and have had panic strips installed. There are three consulting rooms, of which two have been redecorated recently, and those three rooms are for two courts. I have visited those rooms and they seem perfectly fine to me, so I struggle to understand what allows them to be termed “poor”. Interestingly, if I look at some of the offices in the Palace of Westminster, including mine and perhaps that of my researcher, William Crook, those consulting rooms stand up very well in comparison.
The consultation claims that segregation is not possible. However, in 2010, the waiting areas were reconfigured to create a separate entrance and waiting room, thereby segregating witnesses and defendants. The consultation writers choose, creatively, to state that vulnerable witnesses have to use a waiting room across the road. The ability for vulnerable witnesses to give evidence via a video link without even having to enter the courtroom is an invaluable asset to Buxton court, not a liability. When vulnerable witnesses attend court, probably for the first time, and have to give evidence, the experience can be traumatic. It is a great reassurance for those witnesses to know that they do not have to go into the same court as the defendant by whom they feel threatened. It seems somewhat bizarre for the consultation to make such comments about a lack of segregation and then to cite segregation, where that exists, as evidence against the court.
The consultation claims that the court is utilised to 27% of its capacity, but I cannot reconcile that figure with what I see. I have never seen it justified anywhere. I am told that the justices’ clerk for Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire has publicly admitted that the figure is wrong. Despite requests from the magistrates—I know they have put requests in—for a justification for and breakdown of that figure, such information is yet to be seen. It appears that the figure of 27% was almost plucked out of the ether. I have spoken to lots of people about this. I am told that the delivery director for the Courts Service has said that, in the case of Buxton, the utilisation and travel figures, which are two key facts in the consultation, act “as a guide only”.
Even if we assume that the figure of 27% can be justified—at this stage it has not been, and I wait for it to be—it is worth noting that a shortage of legal advisers available to the court in Buxton is often the reason for its restricted use. There are no legal advisers on Monday at all in Buxton court—none can be found—so we immediately lose 20% of the working week. However, the Minister should not take that as an indication of a lack of demand, because there is a demand for Buxton court.
There is currently a lead-in time of about 14 weeks before a court listing comes to trial. Effectively, there is therefore a 14-week waiting list for a case to come to trial in Buxton. Again, that situation is created by a shortage of legal advisers to support the magistrates. For any consultation to cite lack of use for any service when there is a 14-week waiting list is completely nonsensical. Those are just a few issues in the consultation, although I could go on about it for longer.
I recently had a meeting at the court with representatives of the Courts Service and two local magistrates, Michael Hilton and Pam Ashton. Officials were still unwilling to hold their hands up and admit that there were mistakes in the consultation document, or even to make a concession that the contents were in any way wrong, other than regarding the mistake about the lift. I would not even call the comments about the lift a full and frank apology—they were almost a begrudging admission. The officials refused to acknowledge all the rest of the facts. They even stood in the consulting rooms, which seemed fine to me, but they just did not seem to like them.
I do not want to dwell on the consultation document, as I have had my say on that here and in the main Chamber some weeks ago, so I shall move on to the actual issue. The court in Buxton provides a valuable service to the whole of High Peak, not just Buxton. The subject of this debate is “court closure in Buxton”, but this is not a Buxton issue; it is a High Peak issue. The suggestion that the court should close is wrong and the case for that has not been made. Furthermore, should the case be made—that is a very big “should”—the proposal that the usage should be moved to Chesterfield borders on ludicrous.
As I have outlined, the court serves the large area of High Peak. There are reasonable public transport links between some of the towns and villages, but such transport is by no means universal. The loss of the Glossop court some years ago made life very difficult for my constituents in Glossop and the north of the constituency, but they manage. Anecdotally, I think that about two thirds of the work that goes through the court in Buxton is from the Glossop area, so closing the court in Buxton will add further burdens to the people of Glossop, as well as having an impact on those nearer to Buxton.
The idea that the work should be moved to Chesterfield will be ridiculous to anyone who has studied carefully the geography of High Peak, which would have been apparent to the author of this lamentable piece of work if they had paid proper care and attention. Chesterfield might look nice and convenient on a map or in a road atlas, but I assure the Minister that it certainly is not. For most people in High Peak, public transport routes to Chesterfield are limited to say the least. I know the area intimately—I was born in the area and have always lived there—so I know every road in and out of both Chesterfield and High Peak, but I decided that I should not rely on my anecdotal knowledge from a mere 53 years of residency. Yesterday, therefore, I went on the Traveline website and found out that to be in Chesterfield for a 9 am appointment using public transport, someone travelling from Glossop would have to get a bus at 6.30 am, with two train journeys on top of that. I am using Glossop as an example because it is the biggest and most populous town in High Peak, and because, anecdotally, about two thirds of the court’s work comes from that area. However, there are many other towns and villages in High Peak, including New Mills, Whaley Bridge, Chapel-en-le-Frith and, indeed, Buxton itself, and getting to Chesterfield from any of those places borders on the impractical.
I stress again to the Minister and his officials that just because the court is in Buxton, they should not think of it as serving only Buxton; it serves the whole of High Peak—all 208 square miles of it. I believe that the court should stay in Buxton, but whatever court is used has to be accessible from all corners of the constituency, not just a small area. It is a fact that more than 70% of the population of High Peak—I think the figure is 73%, so this is almost three quarters of the population—will be more than two hours away from the suggested replacement in Chesterfield by public transport.
I have read many submissions and spoken to a lot of people about this. Buxton Civic Association made many good points in its submission, but the key line in it states that the proposal is not exactly
“access to justice for all”.
That is absolutely right.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
As always, my hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the implications for rural communities. There are not only concerns in Derbyshire about having to travel from Glossop or Buxton to Chesterfield, because we have similar concerns in east Cheshire about having to travel from Macclesfield over to Crewe. Does he agree that it is vital for the Minister to consider the implications of added travel costs? When such things are considered, the cost savings, if any, of the proposed closure of the courts in Buxton and Macclesfield will be much lower.
Andrew Bingham
My hon. Friend and neighbour makes a good point. I will address the costs in a while, but he is right that moving the courts to different areas will increase expenditure.
I have talked about travelling to Chesterfield from High Peak using public transport, but that is not the easiest of journeys for car owners. The clue is in my constituency’s name. High Peak is high, which means that we probably have some of the worst winters in England, although I would not challenge our friends from north of the border because they have it worse than we do. The road from High Peak to Chesterfield, the A623, is probably one of the country’s highest roads. I have travelled it many, many times, and in the winter it is often closed or passable only with care—it does get the weather. The road will add another barrier to getting to court not only for defendants, but for magistrates and witnesses.
Due to the problems of getting to Chesterfield, there may be the further problem of an increased number of defendants failing to present themselves at the appointed time, which will lead to the issuing of arrest warrants and increased costs. We must also consider the effect on officials who are required to attend court, be they police officers, officers from the council, who often have to attend court for various matters, or any other official. At present, they can attend the court in Buxton as part of their working day, as Buxton town hall is opposite the courthouse and the police station is within walking distance. Officials can attend a court hearing and be back behind their desk or, in the case of police officers, back on the beat, very quickly. We all want to see policemen out on the beat, but there will be implications for that if they have to drive to and from court all day. A journey to Chesterfield for an official from High Peak would effectively remove them from their post for at least half a day and frankly, in many cases, for a full day. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) said, the increased expenses incurred will erode the financial benefits of the proposal, if there are any.
On the subject of costs, let us talk about savings. The consultation claims that the annual operating costs of the courthouse in Buxton are £89,000, which I assume is the savings figure. I ask the Minister to consider such figures carefully because, of that £89,000, £43,000 are the magistrates’ expenses. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber will join me in thanking all those who serve as magistrates. They do it for no remuneration and for little thanks, and we should all be grateful for their valuable work. Magistrates are rightly entitled to claim for their expenses, and they will retain that right wherever they sit. Moving the court to Chesterfield will serve only to increase the expenses of those sitting on the High Peak bench, which chips away at the savings.
If the running costs of the courthouse in Buxton are £89,000, of which £43,000 are magistrates’ expenses, we are looking at a £46,000 saving. If magistrates’ expenses were to increase by 20%, which is reasonable given the increased distance to Chesterfield in terms of both time and mileage, that would reduce the saving by a further £8,000, so we would be down to £38,000. That does not even begin to account for the extra costs incurred by witnesses. In short, I do not see how there will be any significant financial benefit, if any, from closing the courthouse in Buxton.
Another concern we should consider is that the extra travel will prove prohibitive, meaning that we will start to lose our local magistrates, whose local knowledge and background helps them to discharge their important duty. At a time when we all seek to get people involved in public service, we are putting a barrier in the way of people from High Peak who might think, “I would like to do something for the community by being a magistrate.” Faced with having to travel to Chesterfield several times each week or month, they might think, “Actually, I’m not sure I want to do that.” However, they might wish to take up such a role if the courthouse was in Buxton.
If the consultation had suggested moving the court to Stockport, I could have seen the logic, as transport links to the north-west and Greater Manchester are better from almost all parts of High Peak. It is easier to get to and from Greater Manchester for all those who are likely to use the court. I am sorry to say that the real work has not been done. A thorough and proper investigation as part of the consultation would have shown that to be the case, and the reality of the situation would have become apparent. I think that the regional and county boundaries have been allowed to get in the way of common sense. The proposal has been made after looking at the boundaries on a map; no one has considered the unique situation and geography of High Peak. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield will probably concur that it is a lot easier to get to Stockport from not only my constituency, but his.
I have known the Minister for many years, and he is an honourable and reasonable man.
Andrew Bingham
That was only one “Hear, hear,” but I would say “Hear, hear” myself if I could.
The Minister has been very fair and open with me about the proposals. I thank him for the time that he has taken to speak to me, but I am afraid that he has been badly let down by his officials. He has been presented with a consultation document that is so flawed, erroneous and inaccurate that it is driving him towards a decision that appears to be straightforward, but is anything but. I hesitate to use the phrase “stich up”, because those are the words of tabloid newspapers, but this consultation appears to have been written to fit an outcome and the Minister is being driven down that road.
I could have gone into the consultation in greater detail, and I could have detailed all the combinations of journeys to Chesterfield from all the towns and villages in my constituency. I could have taken apart the financial aspects of the proposal even further, but I have already demonstrated that the savings are increasingly coming down and will dwindle to zero. Given the errors everywhere else in the consultation, if the Minister’s officials had bothered to get a breakdown of the usage figures, I am sure that they would be similarly incorrect and that I could very easily dispute them, too.
I want to give the Minister ample time to respond. I will meet him later this month, but I hope that he will take on board some of the points that I have raised today. I conclude by saying that I would like the court at Buxton to be retained. There is a case for it, and very good reasons support that view. I repeat that those are not just my assertions, or those of High Peak magistrates; they are those of the local council, which has considered the proposal and come out against it, of local people and of court users. I speak on their behalf, and I trust that the Minister will take my comments on board. They are factual and accurate, and they are the voice of the people of High Peak.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I believe it is the first time that I have done so. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) on securing this debate. As he said, we have known each other for many years, and I have always known him to be a diligent and conscientious Member of Parliament. His response to the consultation does him enormous credit, and his constituents should be proud of him. He spoke in the main Chamber when we had a debate there, and he and I have spoken about this issue on several occasions, as well as corresponding. He secured this debate, and there is a meeting to follow. His constituents cannot fault him for his sterling work in representing them.
My hon. Friend referred to a number of inaccuracies, and was unhappy with the apology given. I unreservedly and sincerely apologise for the inaccuracies in the consultation, and I add that whenever such inaccuracies have been brought to our attention, we have sought to clarify them as quickly as possible. I have before me a letter, which is dated 30 July and was sent to a number of people, from Lucy Garrod, the midlands delivery director. She refers to the absence of a lift and the travel times used as a guide, and specifies how the utilisation figures were calculated, simply saying that there were 248 sitting days every year and the calculations were made on the basis of five-hour days.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), who generously said, “Hear, hear” during the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak, made a very good contribution, referring to travel times and costs. We envisage a modern 21st-century court structure in which people do not travel as much as they do now. I will come to that a little later.
Notwithstanding the inaccuracies, which we have sought to clarify as quickly as possible, I believe that there is merit in including these two courts for consideration in the consultation. The world outside the courts is changing rapidly. When we speak of access to the courts, we must acknowledge how the 21st century is progressing. People expect to be able to transact their business online, quickly and efficiently, at a time that suits them, and modern technology allows them to do so. Cheques and paper forms have been replaced by contactless payment cards and smart apps, while shopping for almost anything can be done from the comfort of one’s home. It is such technology that gives us an opportunity to invest in our courts and modernise them to meet the present and future requirements of court users and improve the delivery of justice.
Such improvement cannot be secured without difficult decisions. We must recognise that one third of our courts are used at less than half their capacity. As we have been told, the utilisation of Buxton magistrates and county court in the last financial year was approximately 27%, and operating costs were approximately £88,000, excluding staff and judicial costs. When such utilisation figures incur such costs, we must ask in the interests of the taxpayer whether we are using that money effectively.
We must also appreciate that the way in which the public access our courts is changing rapidly. Access to justice need not happen only by attendance at a conventional court building. For example, we are exploring whether there are opportunities to hold hearings in local buildings, which would help just as effectively to maintain a local presence for justice. There is already proven technology in my hon. Friend’s constituency: a video conference facility is available at Buxton citizens advice bureau, and the police already give evidence via live links to courts in the west midlands. The citizens advice bureau with the video conferencing facility is just across the road from the court, but it could just as well be five, 10 or indeed 25 miles away. Through that facility, the courts can be accessed.
Our reform programme must also be considered in the wider context of our plans to transform how courts and tribunals operate and deliver services to the public. As my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary has said, the reform of the Courts and Tribunals Service offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a modern, user-focused and efficient service.
Many people encounter our justice system when they are at their most vulnerable, when they are a victim or a witness in a criminal case, or as an individual, business or family trying to resolve a dispute. We must ensure that we make better use of technology to provide easier access to a more responsive system, with swifter processes and more proportionate services. Front-line staff work incredibly hard to provide a high-quality service to the public. However, they and our customers are often poorly served by the infrastructure supporting the administration of a system in desperate need of improvement.
Of course we must respect our traditions, and we must ensure that there is a place for the most serious cases in the courts in the traditional way. However, progress towards a more proportionate approach to court attendance would eliminate wasted time and enhance confidence in the administration of justice. We have a duty to offer more convenient and less intimidating ways for citizens to interact with the justice system while maintaining the court’s authority for serious cases.
Andrew Bingham
I am sure that the Minister will come to this in his closing remarks, but he mentioned convenience. Will he address the issue that I raised about the potential of going to Stockport instead of Chesterfield? As I said, Chesterfield is completely and totally inconvenient. If the Government are to pursue that path, which I believe is wrong, will he at least give me some indication that despite the regional and county boundary, Stockport will be given serious consideration as an alternative?
Mr Vara
I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I can tell him that we are crossing borders and boundaries wherever necessary. He has made a powerful case for Stockport as an alternative. My officials are at hand, and I will personally see to it after this debate that they seriously consider that option.
I am mindful of the time restriction. I will round up by saying that we propose a reform programme fit for the 21st century. It is our intention that modern technology should make it unnecessary for many people who currently go to court to do that. That includes lawyers, who at present can find themselves hanging around at court for hours to have a 10-minute hearing before a judge. We envisage two sets of lawyers booking a 10-minute slot with a judge, who can then have a video conference or a telephone conference.
The world has moved on, and we must move on with it. The Lord Chancellor and I face difficult decisions. Many people have responded to the consultation. Generally speaking, the consultation has had more than 2,000 replies from members of the public and the legal fraternity. It will not be easy to take decisions, but I assure my hon. Friend that all his contributions, including the comments that he has made in this debate, will be considered seriously when we come to those decisions. I congratulate him again on securing this debate.
Question put and agreed to.