General matters

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on bringing some festive cheer to this Adjournment debate with your red socks with green flashes. I am not sure whether those are holly leaves. [Interruption.] I can see things which other Members in the Chamber may not be able to see.

Unfortunately, the topic that I wish to raise today is a little more serious. In his statement of 14 December, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), announced plans for a more modern justice system that has

“more efficient courts, better facilities, and the faster conclusion of cases for the benefit of victims, witnesses, defendants, judges and the public at large.”—[Official Report, 14 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 816.]

I support the broad intention of those proposals, and I believe the Surrey courts service has supported this approach for some time. Since 1990, the year in which Woking court opened as the county’s new, purpose-built building, seven courthouses have been closed in total and just four magistrates courts now operate—in Guildford, Redhill, Staines and Woking.

Woking is still the best equipped court in Surrey with excellent disabled facilities, including wheelchair access and hearing loops in each court, and terrific youth and child witness provision. Woking is also the most efficient court in terms of the number of cases seen per hour relative to utilisation rates. The case throughput rate has risen from 5.43 per hour in 2008 to no less than 7.65 in 2010.

The Minister wrote to me on the day of his statement to tell me that Woking court was to close and that its workload would be transferred to Guildford and Staines. In his letter he said:

“By closing courts with low workloads, or facilities which do not meet the modern standards society expects, we have been able to release £22 million to improve and modernise the courts to which work will transfer.”

Presumably he is including potential Woking court receipts within this figure, despite it having neither a low workload nor poor facilities. However, he is closing Surrey’s most modern and best equipped court and he will find it almost impossible to raise the remaining three courts in Surrey to an equivalent standard. For example, the other courts have severe limitations with regard to which courtrooms prisoners can be produced in, whereas Woking can have prisoners produced in all three courtrooms.

The Government’s consultation response pointed out that the public areas of Staines and Guildford courts are accessible to disabled people. That is a wonderful thing for disabled visitors, but not so much use to a disabled person who wishes to access the actual courtrooms independently and safely.

While we are on the subject of the Government’s response, I am told that six financial advisers have been left off Her Majesty’s Courts Service list of staff affected by the closure. I hope the Minister will be able to correct this. There are also significant maintenance backlogs at Guildford and Staines, and I would be grateful if the Minister provided more details on them, as I believe the figures have recently changed.

If Woking court is so wonderful, why is it being closed? The reason seems to be that the Ministry of Justice has been unable to identify one of the older, less efficient courts—which would have been more in keeping with the terms of the consultation and the overall strategy—because the other magistrates courts in Surrey are co-located with county courts. Yet after seven closures in 20 years, I do not believe the county can afford to lose another court.

In 2008, Surrey had a population of just over 1.1 million people, which amounts to just over 278,000 people per court. Only one area had a higher figure—south Yorkshire—which has more than 316,000 people per courthouse, and it is not suffering a closure. If Woking court closes, Surrey’s figure will be comfortably the highest in the country, at over 371,000 per courthouse.

[Elizabeth Truss]

My constituency has also faced a court closure, at Thetford. Does my hon. Friend agree it is important not just that justice is done, but that justice is seen to be done locally? We need to make sure that our justice system does not become over-centralised, and that people locally need to be involved.

[Jonathan Lord]

I could not agree more, and I think the Government’s proposals tread a fine line in respect of the issues my hon. Friend mentions.

Not only would Surrey have 371,000 people per courthouse, but Surrey’s population is increasing, by almost 20% over the next 23 years according to Surrey county council. I will also send figures to the Minister showing that Surrey already has one of the highest numbers of crimes per courthouse of any police authority outside London.

[Neil Parish]

My constituency also faces the problem of a courthouse closing, in Honiton. Does my hon. Friend agree that a lot of defendants might not get to court if they have to travel a great distance? If they do not get to court, the police will have to arrest them later, so there could be much more bureaucracy and problems as a result of shutting a local courthouse.

[Jonathan Lord]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable and pertinent point. Woking also has a significant Muslim population, and it has built up good links with Woking courthouse, so the problem my hon. Friend mentions could be exacerbated in this instance.

If Woking court closes, the target utilisation rate for Staines and Guildford, where the work is due to transfer, will be 93%. That is very high, especially considering the need for significant remedial work and modernisation at those courthouses. Where will the cases go if the courts have to close to be repaired or updated? Where is the margin for error for the population growth I mentioned, or for the unexpected?

Finally, what possible grounds are there for stating that the court’s relationship with Woking’s Muslim community and with our Shah Jahan mosque

“will be maintained should the closure be ordered”?

The relationship between the mosque and the local court has been built slowly and sensitively over many years, involving specific officials from the court, who will no longer serve the current local justice area, and chairmen of a bench, which will cease to exist. The mosque will lose its link to the court because that link will be fractured, and its relationship with new and unfamiliar personnel, in an area outside its community, can neither be anticipated nor relied upon.

I urge the Minister to review all these points—I will elaborate on them when I write to him shortly—and to reflect on his decision. Several Members have intervened on me, and I sympathise with many colleagues who have also suffered closures, but I say to them that we have a court that is purpose built, has high utilisation rates, has a terrific bench, dedicated staff, fantastic disabled access and all the facilities I have mentioned, and it would be a tragedy for the county of Surrey to lose it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

In the spirit of Christmas and acting as Father Christmas, I now intend to extend the time limit from six to seven minutes.