| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Pearson: Will my hon. Friend specifically say something about what I call scorched-earth tactics--a deliberate tactic by owners and developers systematically to dilapidate their properties in the hope and expectation that, eventually, they will get planning permission?
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend raised that matter in his speech, and I hoped that I had conveyed the fact that the existing planning powers available to local authorities, if properly applied, provide a safeguard, in that there should be no presumption by a developer that he or she will secure planning consent simply by allowing a site to fall into disrepair.
If a site is necessary for the provision of local recreation space and open space for the community, that is a legitimate community need which the local authority can and should properly take into account in considering any application submitted by a developer for a change of use.
Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk):
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to introduce the debate. I also thank the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, for being here, and for his considerable courtesy in receiving my hon. Friends and myself on more than one occasion to discuss this important issue in the life of Suffolk.
Five of the 10 existing courthouses in Suffolk are under threat. Two are in my constituency, and the others are in the constituencies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), both of whom, I am sure, will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am most grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann), and I have here messages of support from my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard).
Throughout Suffolk there is a universal view that closure would mean a terrible breakdown of the criminal justice system locally, and would have a detrimental effect on local communities. There is a simple principle at stake here--that local justice should, if at all possible, be done locally, in local magistrates courts, by local magistrates.
The question at the heart of the issue is: is the proposal to close the five courts justified? I have to tell the House that I do not believe that there is any justification whatever. Suffolk is a rural county and settlements are geographically spread out. The public transport infrastructure is poor, and to the extent that it exists at all in many areas, it hardly works. It would certainly not be convenient for those seeking to use the courts. The small towns and rural communities of Suffolk are often self-contained, and very different one from another.
The working party report of the magistrates courts committee in Suffolk sought to justify the proposals. Under the heading, "The National Background", it says:
The report highlights economies of scale, as follows:
The courthouse system of local magistracy exists not for the convenience of court clerks but for the carrying out of the criminal justice system in local communities, and for defendants, witnesses, magistrates and solicitors.
Those are the people primarily concerned with making the system work well. Local magistrates know their communities and areas well, and the difficulties of recruiting magistrates are already well known. Everything would be put at risk.
Magistrates, the police, defendants, witnesses and solicitors would all incur substantial additional costs if the courthouses were closed. Here, I am delighted to have the support of the commander of the western area of the Suffolk constabulary, who entirely shares my view about additional policing time and costs.
The public purse would lose far more money through the closure of the courts than would be gained by any possible savings highlighted by the magistrates courts committee. Indeed, the North Essex and Suffolk Law Society says that additional costs for solicitors alone, primarily because of legal aid costs, would outweigh any possible savings, without even considering all the other cost pressures on the public purse.
In a letter to me dated 24 March, the justices' chief executive wrote:
The working party report says:
Another argument that the MCC has hinted at is access for the disabled. I have yet to have a complaint from any disabled person about access to the courts, where arrangements are made should the necessity ever arise in the first place. No local magistrate believes in the closure of the courthouses--that is an essential element in the situation.
One of the two courthouses in my constituency is in Haverhill, a town with a population of more than 20,000 and growing rapidly. Surrounding villages bring in another 8,000 people, and recruitment of magistrates has been especially difficult. Such is the real concern in that community about the potential closure of the courthouse, that I have had sackloads of letters from people there on the subject. The town council is prepared to spend £9,000 of its minuscule budget to help to keep the courthouse open.
The reason for that support from the local community lies in the campaigns, to which I pay tribute, by the Haverhill Echo and the Haverhill Weekly News, which have been most supportive. Both papers point out that it would be impossible for them to send a reporter long distances--to Bury St. Edmunds, say--to report what happens in the magistrates court, which is an important part of the local criminal justice system.
Newmarket, the world headquarters of racing, has a population of 20,000, soon to be increased by 5,000 in the nearby village of Red Lodge. Already, one prominent local magistrate has resigned because there is no adequate public transport between Newmarket and Mildenhall. There is a huge wave of public fury in Newmarket at that, and I salute the Newmarket Journal, the local newspaper, which has been running a coupon campaign. The fabric of the building concerned contains cells; it is adjacent to the police station; it is complete; and it works extremely well.
The Parliamentary Secretary has seen the correspondence, and he will know that the magistrates courts committee has a budgetary surplus this year and next year. All of the salient points that I have sought to raise in correspondence with the chairman of the MCC have been ignored; he has refused to answer those points.
That brings me to my final point, which concerns the consultation process--or rather, the lack of it. Solicitors in the county of Suffolk have been extremely angry at the lack of full consultation with them. We as Members of Parliament sought meetings with the chairman of the magistrates courts committee. We offered to meet him in London; we offered to meet him in Suffolk; we offered to meet him privately; we offered anything for his convenience; but he flatly refused to see us. That reflects an attitude of utter contempt for the democratically elected representatives of the people of Suffolk.
"In Suffolk we are fortunate that the County Council, the Police, the Prosecution Service and the MCC share the same boundaries. Nevertheless, we cannot be complacent and if we are to remain as an independent unit as one of the smaller MCCs we will have to be financially viable. We consider that a serious attempt by the MCC to prepare itself for the 21st century is essential."
I do not believe, and I am sure that the Minister does not believe, that there is any fundamental reason based on national criteria for the MCC to take that view, because it is not confirmed by reality.
"It cannot be considered either effective or efficient use of resources to have court staff travelling around the County when we already have a problem with the number of court clerks actually sitting in courts."
That reminds me of the story in which, at the turn of the century, someone was shown all the great yachts belonging to Wall street bankers--"This is Mr. J. P. Morgan's yacht, this is Mr. Rockefeller's and that is Mr. Vanderbilt's." That individual turned round and asked, "Where are the customers' yachts?"
"The Courts Committee has had regard to the poor facilities at those courthouses".
The Minister's predecessor as Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), visited the courthouses in my constituency in January last year, and saw for himself what the facilities were like. There was no question of criticism of their fabric. Furthermore, I have never heard any criticism from magistrates, members of the public or anyone else in the local communities about the facilities.
"Many rural courts are cramped and not conducive to the dignified delivery of justice."
That is a matter for magistrates and those involved in the local criminal justice system to decide, and those people are entirely happy with the fabric of the courthouses. That argument, like all the other arguments advanced by the MCC, does not wash.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |