§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. — [Mr. Ainger.]
7.39 pm§ Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield)I am grateful to the House and to Mr. Speaker for giving me this opportunity to raise the grave concerns felt in my constituency and throughout north Birmingham about the possible closure of Sutton Coldfield magistrates court. I record my thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department and her officials for the courteous way in which they have dealt with me during the past two months. They met me some months ago to discuss how the matter could be resolved. The Minister also generously gave her time last week to meet a delegation from Birmingham, and she is responding to this debate. I understand that she is to be congratulated on winning an award today as the Minister to watch. I certainly congratulate her on that, and assure her that she will be watched most carefully in Sutton Coldfield and north Birmingham as she tries to conclude this matter.
With the permission of the House authorities, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope on Tuesday 3 December to table a petition signed by no fewer than 5,000 people from north Birmingham. That, too, underlines the gravity of the matter as viewed from north Birmingham. The signatures on the petition were collected extremely rapidly, and I pay tribute in particular to the Sutton Coldfield Observer, one of our two local newspapers, which recently won the national award of the best free newspaper of the year. I congratulate it on the staunch stand that it has taken in defence of this most important local interest.
In Birmingham the political establishment agrees on almost nothing, and there are divisions within the political groups on almost everything that one can imagine. It is true that there are no divisions among Conservative Members of Parliament in Birmingham, but that, alas, is because I am the only one who represents the Birmingham conurbation—at the moment. However, I am tonight supported by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon), and I am most grateful to him. On this matter he is certainly my hon. Friend, and I will even forgive him for his rude article about my constituents in The Spectator. I should advise hon. Members with long memories that, as they may recall, The Spectator is a somewhat faded coffee-table publication with a good wine column towards the back.
All nine of the hard-working Sutton Coldfield councillors, and those throughout Birmingham city council, are unanimously opposed to the proposal to close Sutton Coldfield magistrates court. Such utter unanimity of view is unheard of. The council is the paying authority, hence its appeal to the Lord Chancellor's Department.
I have read the many debates that have taken place on court closures, and I fully understand the Minister's position tonight. She cannot say very much, but I hope that she will be able to tell us a little about the process of the appeal, and in particular how long she anticipates that it will take before she and her officials will be able 902 to pronounce judgment, and whether any more written evidence for our case would be helpful to her Department.
Debates have been secured by the hon. Members for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), all of whom raised the same important matters in respect of their areas. Each case bears some similarity to the one that I am putting, but I believe that the case for keeping the Sutton Coldfield court open is much stronger than those that the House has previously heard.
The proposal by the West Midlands magistrates courts committee to close the court in Sutton Coldfield is a dreadful mistake, and I hope that the debate will play a part in convincing the Minister of that view. Accompanied by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, representatives of the local bench and Birmingham city council, and Her Majesty's coroner for Birmingham and Solihull, I recently met the Minister, as I said, to outline the objections to the proposed closure. The meeting was useful and demonstrated the widespread cross-party support for the court and against the committee's proposal.
The current courthouse was built in 1956 and was refurbished and extended in the 1980s. It is adjacent to the police station and the many other offices and bodies that serve the infrastructure of a court location. Since the 1980s, almost nothing has been spent on routine redecoration or cyclical maintenance, so that today it is accepted that the court needs work to improve its appearance, but the basic fabric of the building is sound.
The committee has cited that chronic lack of investment as a reason for regarding the courthouse as unsuitable. Yet the committee is the body responsible for determining which buildings receive investment over the years. By consistently withholding money for maintenance, it has ensured that the building appears neglected. It is 11 years since it was repainted, yet the committee rejected out of hand an informal offer from the local magistrates to provide their labour to repaint areas of the court, if the committee would just provide the paint. It says something about the character and commitment of those in our local magistracy that they should have made that offer and sought to proceed in that way.
In the summer of this year, some £250,000 was spent on providing new cell accommodation at the rear of the existing courthouse. Those new cells, together with the new interview room facilities for solicitors and new kitchen facilities, greatly improve the utility of the existing courthouse. I have today accepted an invitation formally to open those enhancements to Sutton Coldfield's court facilities.
There is already a ramp and a lift providing access to the courthouse, and the Lord Chancellor's Department has allocated funds for the works necessary for building compliance. So the basic structure of the courthouse is sound, even though, as I have said, some redecoration is long overdue—and it has been withheld by those who now claim that the appearance of the building is a reason to close it.
It has been argued that because the courthouse is situated in Sutton Coldfield but serves around 100,000 people in the north Birmingham area, there is some 903 mismatch between those who form the bench and those to whom they dispense justice. However, the truth is that the bench is drawn from all parts of the community that it serves. The magistrates are drawn both from the leafiest parts of Sutton Coldfield and from the more deprived parts of the adjoining area. The bench is well balanced, and there is no evidence to support the contention that somehow the toffs of Sutton are dispensing justice to the poor of the wider area.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) —he hopes to catch your eye in a moment, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I are not presenting a partisan case, but a case for retaining that courthouse in north Birmingham. Sutton Coldfield magistrates court extends its administration far beyond Sutton Coldfield, taking in Erdington, Castle Vale and Kingstanding, making it in reality a court centre covering nearly a third of Britain's second city.
It is perfectly clear that for many years that courthouse has been a court centre based in Sutton Coldfield; it is not just Sutton Coldfield's court. Birmingham is the largest metropolitan council area in Britain. It is four times the size of most metropolitan borough councils, so it makes no sense to close down a court that currently handles a third of the city's work load.
There is no problem with recruiting magistrates to serve on the bench in Sutton Coldfield, and it is exceedingly uncommon for a case to be heard by only two magistrates, rather than the normal three. That contrasts markedly with the situation in the existing magistrates court in central Birmingham, where it has been a common occurrence for only two magistrates to sit. The existing courts in central Birmingham already constitute the largest courts centre in Europe.
Approximately half those currently serving as magistrates in Sutton Coldfield have said that if the courthouse were closed, they would not be willing to serve in central Birmingham. That would represent a loss of about 60 experienced magistrates. A loss on that scale will undoubtedly increase the frequency of cases for which only two magistrates are available. The loss of the court will have a profound effect on recruitment to the magistracy.
The five courts at Sutton Coldfield currently operate at around 88 per cent. of their theoretical capacity, compared with a target of 80 per cent. set by the West Midlands magistrates courts committee. I believe that that shows that the arguments about the efficient use of resources are specious. Sutton Coldfield's courthouse deals efficiently with a large number of cases. Each year some 15,000 cases are heard in Sutton Coldfield. Hon. Members will therefore appreciate that not only 15,000 defendants, but more than 15,000 witnesses, solicitors and people from all the other court agencies attend the courthouse. Any proposal to add to the number of people heading for central Birmingham runs contrary to the policies of the Government and Birmingham city council, which aim to reduce the number of journeys made into the already overcrowded city centre, but the potential to add to the traffic congestion is not the only issue.
904 One feature of the current justice system that the Government say they deem important is that
Magistrates are drawn from the local community and it is a great strength of the justice system that members of the community in which defendants and victims live are engaged in its delivery.I quote from the Parliamentary Secretary's letter, entitled "Justice for All". It would be a tragedy if we lost that fundamental connection in north Birmingham.The city of Birmingham is home to about 1 million people. It cannot by any stretch of the imagination be seen as a single homogenous community. It contains many separate and distinct communities, one of which lives north of the M6 and is currently served by the Sutton Coldfield magistrates court. As I am sure that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington will explain, his constituents do not look towards the centre of Birmingham, and there is a strong feeling throughout our communities—and much wider than that—that the court should remain in Sutton Coldfield.
The concept of local justice is one of the cornerstones of the magistracy, and it is threatened by proposals to close successful, efficiently run local courts. The specific proposal to build some super-courthouse in central Birmingham, on a site yet to be publicly identified, at a cost that therefore cannot be known, seems to fly in the face of both logic and the Minister's statement, which I quoted a moment ago. At our recent meeting with the Minister, Her Majesty's coroner for Birmingham and Solihull, Mr. Aidan Cotter, made clear his desire to hold weekly sittings in Sutton Coldfield. That desire is based on his recognition that those attending his court would face much less inconvenience and distress if they did not have the added burden of travelling into the city centre.
The existing courthouse in central Birmingham is a grade 1 listed building. It is, I understand, incapable of being expanded to cope with the proposed closure of the Sutton Coldfield court, and is itself in need of works to improve its efficiency. What would the future of that building be were the proposals to proceed? It cannot house more courts, it is not well suited to the technological age in which we live, and it is proposed that its use as a courthouse should cease. Is it to stand mothballed—and at what recurring cost? I know that that is of some concern to Birmingham city council.
The proposal to close Sutton Coldfield's court has met with widespread opposition, not only from local magistrates, Crown Prosecution Service staff who work in Sutton, the police, the youth offending team, solicitors, social services and Birmingham city council, but from nearly 5,000 local residents who have signed the petition to the House that I mentioned earlier.
I urge the Minister to promote local justice and keep Sutton Coldfield's magistrates court open, to cut through the inadequate and often specious arguments of the West Midlands magistrates courts committee, to reject a private finance initiative proposal that is, by common consent, seriously flawed, to hear the unanimous voice of our communities across north Birmingham, to deploy wisdom and judgment in the exercise of her office today, and to throw out such an intellectually inadequate case, which, if accepted, would do such damage to the efficient and effective administration of justice in the north Birmingham area.
§ Mr. Skôn Simon (Birmingham, Erdington)I am grateful to you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I am to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) and the Minister for their generosity with their time.
I shall not detain the House long. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has said pretty much everything that I would have wanted to say—and, I am sure, with far greater eloquence and insight. He mentioned the Minister's accolade of today. Unlike him—I fear that he was rudely snubbed by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), who is the editor of The Spectator, and not invited to witness the Minister's great occasion—I was fortunate to be on a table almost directly at her feet as she graciously accepted the first in what will no doubt be a long line of such awards over the years.
My primary purpose in attending the debate is simply to associate myself and my constituents with everything that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has said. This is a truly unique example not just of consensus but of universal agreement across the board. My constituents in Erdington have little love or affection for his constituents in Sutton, whom even he described as toffs. Perhaps I should not describe them as he described them in the meeting the other day—it was an appellation that they would have liked, but which would do little to endear them to my constituents.
As far as I can ascertain, every Birmingham MP, every councillor in my constituency-and, I believe, in that of the hon. Gentleman—all the groups on Birmingham city council and all the thousands of petitioners whom he wishes to bring to the House in a couple of weeks, are unanimous in their opposition to the plan. I have not met a single human being in Birmingham who supports the closure of Sutton Coldfield magistrates court.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, we have had meetings with my hon. Friend the Minister. She has heard the arguments already and he has elucidated them with great verve. I will not go on, but merely wish to reiterate that there is a fundamental misconception in the proposals, which were obviously drafted by someone who does not know or understand the city. In the administration of the court system my constituency is classed as being in Birmingham whereas the hon. Gentleman's constituency is not, so the assumption was made that it would be more natural for my constituents and those in surrounding constituencies to look inwards towards the city centre rather than outwards towards Sutton Coldfield. As the representative of those people, and having grown up in those communities, I assure the House that that assumption is wrong. We do not look towards the centre. We would much prefer to go to court in Sutton Coldfield than to be taken to court in the city centre.
Another issue arose in the meeting that my hon. Friend the Minister kindly granted us. She said that local justice was about justice by one's peers. Of course, it is. If she gained the sense that the toffs in Sutton Coldfield adjudicate over the less toff-like people in Erdington, we want to dispel that impression. As the hon. Gentleman has explained, that is not the demographic case. Even if that absurd notion were true, it would still not deal with the point about local justice.
906 Local justice and judgment by one's peers must ultimately involve the notion that the local people in our communities—not the Lord Chancellor's Department or the West Midlands magistrates courts committee—should be able to decide by whom we are judged. As the hon. Gentleman said, and as my hon. Friend knows, we want to be judged by magistrates sitting on the bench in Sutton Coldfield, not in a super-court in the city centre.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper)I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) on securing this debate on the proposal by the West Midlands magistrates courts committee to close Sutton Coldfield magistrates court. I thank him and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) for their kind remarks. They are much appreciated. I am sorry that I cannot take them into account when deciding the future of the courthouse.
I listened carefully to the issues that have been raised. I welcomed the chance to meet them and representatives from their constituencies to discuss the issues and their concerns. They have made passionate speeches on behalf of their constituents and about their concern at the proposal of the West Midlands magistrates courts committee. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said that he understood the current situation whereby the committee has made the proposal to shut Sutton Coldfield magistrates court. However, I cannot comment in detail at this stage on the points raised.
Hon. Members will know that magistrates courts are managed by locally based magistrates courts committees, as set out in the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Each committee is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the magistrates courts in its area. Decisions to close magistrates courts are also the responsibility of MCCs after consultation with the local paying authority.
In the case of Sutton Coldfield magistrates court, West Midlands MCC made a determination on 19 August 2002 to close it and to transfer the work to a new courthouse in Birmingham. That decision was reached after a period of consultation with both the paying authority and a wide variety of stakeholders. The paying authority concerned, Birmingham city council, lodged an appeal with the Lord Chancellor's Department on 19 September. It is common for MCCs to consult more widely than the local paying authority, which is the local council. Consultees usually include the magistrates, staff, the police, the probation service, the Crown Prosecution Service, MPs and other professional users.
The role for Ministers is as an appellate authority in the event of an appeal being lodged. Ministers do not decide on court closures that are not subject to appeal. Birmingham city council has lodged an appeal and I will need to consider it on the merits of the case presented by each party. The decision will come to Ministers when the dialogue between West Midlands MCC, Birmingham city council and officials in the Department has ended and all parties to the appeal are satisfied that they have made their representations and that their case is complete. Given that the appeal process is ongoing, I cannot comment on specific issues relating to the proposed closure because Ministers are the sole appellate authority.
907 The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield asked about the time scale. I cannot give a certain answer. As I said, the dialogue has to be completed first. Once everyone has made their representations, officials will need to draw those together and make a recommendation. I may also need to ask other questions and seek further information when I receive that advice. For that reason, I do not want to give him misleading guidance about the time scale in which the decision will be made.
I am keen to ensure that I hear the fullest possible representations from everyone concerned before I make a decision. I also need to ensure that I hear the full views of the West Midlands magistrates courts committee too. The meeting with hon. Members and their constituency representatives was useful and I listened carefully to the points raised today. In particular, it was interesting to hear their responses to many of the questions that I raised at the meeting on the issues discussed then. They are welcome to make further representations before the final decision is taken.
§ Mr. Andrew MitchellI am listening carefully to the Minister's helpful comments. She says that it is part of the duty of the West Midlands magistrates courts committee to take into account the views of a wide range of stakeholders and people who have an interest. As part of her appellate role, will she establish to her satisfaction that it really did take into account the views of all the different stakeholders? Apart from those who have a direct interest in the decision, I cannot discover any stakeholders who have approved of it.
§ Yvette CooperI can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will take into account the views of all stakeholders, and shall certainly seek information on whose views were sought and what they were.
I want to make a few general remarks about the issues that need to be taken into account when magistrates courts committees make such decisions and when appeals are made to Ministers. Much has been said about local justice. It is important that people are judged effectively by their peers. Magistrates who consider a case in a particular area should, where possible, live or work there too. We need to be realistic—local justice 908 cannot and does not mean having a courtroom on every street corner. Magistrates courts committees must balance many complex considerations when making decisions. Geographic access is one important factor to be taken into account. Others include disability access and facilities for witnesses and victims, the lack of which can hinder justice and access to it. For example, victims or witnesses may be intimidated if they do not have sufficiently separate facilities. MCCs must also ensure that they deliver the best combination of services for the entire area within their budget and provide value for money.
We are keen to look at closer working between the court service and MCCs on the use of courthouses, particularly on sharing facilities, where feasible, to ensure the better use of the estate and value for money. Sharing courthouses can often support local justice in areas where, without shared facilities, family courts or magistrates courts could be under pressure. Hon. Members may be aware of the way in which funding works for MCCs. Central Government provide 80 per cent. of their revenue grant and the local authority contributes 20 per cent. MCCs are given an annual allocation, but it is left to each one to determine how best to use the funds to provide services, including the effective and efficient management of courthouses in their area.
As I have set out, a series of issues need to be taken into account by MCCs when making decisions about the use of courthouses and allocations in their areas; Ministers need to consider a wide range of issues when those decisions come before them. As I hope that I have made clear, I shall consider seriously the points made by hon. Members this evening, as well as those they have made in meetings with me. I shall also consider the points made when I met the local coroner, the chairman of the bench and local councillors. I shall consider closely the views of the West Midlands magistrates courts committee and any other relevant points that are made. It is important that the right decision is made, and I hope that people will bear with me as I consider carefully their arguments. I shall keep in touch with them as the process is resolved.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Eight o'clock.