Magistrates Courts (Hansard, 7 March 1991)

§ 5. Mr. Andrew Mitchell
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will request the Audit Commission to undertake a comparative study of the efficiency and effectiveness of magistrates courts.

§ Mr. John Patten
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to an audit gap in the present arrangements for the management of the magistrates court service. We are considering how best to fill that gap, including the possible involvement of the Audit Commission, as part of the process of reaching decisions on the magistrates court scrutiny. At this stage, however, given the scrutiny findings, I do not think that a further value-for-money study would be helpful until my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear his views on the scrutiny in an announcement which I expect not to be too long delayed.

§ Mr. Mitchell
Is my right hon. Friend aware that a survey carried out recently by the Audit Commission showed that productivity in our courtrooms can vary by a factor of 10—from 250 summonses dealt with in one session to over 3,000? Will he take into account the importance of a survey of not only productivity but the efficiency and effectiveness with which our courtrooms conduct their business?

§ Mr. Patten
It is perfectly true that the unit costs in magistrates courts vary widely from one place to another and that unit costs have risen considerably in recent years. The outcome of the scrutiny may lead to further value-for-money studies, possibly conducted by the Audit Commission, but at present there is no legislative provision, as my hon. Friend will know from the Local Government Finance (No. 2) Act 1982.

§ Mr. Randall
Is the Minister aware that it is more than a year since the publication of the scrutiny report? Does he realise that the Government's slowness in deciding what to do about it is delaying the implementation of a number of proposals that could tackle, for example, the serious problem of inconsistency in sentencing and poor cost-effectiveness? Will he be more specific and tell us exactly when we can expect a decision about the report?

§ Mr. Patten
With respect, the hon. Gentleman seems a little muddled. The scrutiny related to the effectiveness and efficiency of the management of the magistrates court system, which is a £280 million-a-year undertaking. It had nothing to do with sentencing issues. We are committed to preserving both local justice and magisterial independence in sentencing. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be able to make an announcement in the near future.

§ Sir John Wheeler
When he is considering the efficiency and effectiveness of the magistrates courts service, will my right hon. Friend look again at the Home Affairs Select Committee report on the Crown prosecution service, in particular the recommendation that draws attention to the efficiency proved by the Hampshire experiment, in which the use of information technology enables the police, the Crown prosecution service and the magistrates courts service to be more effectively used?

§ Mr. Patten
My hon. Friend, who is the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, is aware that I keep all his distinguished reports next to my bed for reference in the evening. I shall certainly dig out the one on the Crown prosecution service and look at the point to which he referred. The Hampshire experiment is excellent. It is within our grasp to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the magistrates courts service.