§ 23. Mr. David Kidney (Stafford)If she will make a statement on the Lord Chancellor's proposals for a unified criminal courts system and the representations that he has received in response. [89158]
§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper)The Auld review proposed that there should be a unified courts administration to improve the effectiveness of the courts and of the justice system. We are taking that recommendation forward, but with some modifications. Those modifications include the introduction of local courts administration 12 councils, which go further than the Auld recommendations. We have received a wide range of representations and continue to work closely with stakeholders on the design of the new organisation.
§ Mr. KidneyI thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that there needs to be a good degree of sensitivity in ensuring that the new unified courts system has a good strong local connection for management and accountability purposes? Magistrates and magistrates clerks in Stafford have a constructive attitude towards the change, provided that they are involved properly with other local stakeholders. Will my hon. Friend ensure that there will be consultation at every stage in the future, so that people feel involved in the decision-making process as well as in the system that we eventually get?
§ Yvette CooperI welcome what my hon. Friend has said, and the response from the magistrates and clerks in Stafford. He is right to say that we are keen to involve in the design of the new system all stakeholders in the criminal justice system and the courts service. The new design must learn from and build on their experience. In particular, it must have a local aspect, which is why we have introduced the courts administration councils. For the first time, magistrates, judges and local people will be able to have a say in how all courts in an area are run.
§ Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)Does the Lord Chancellor ever listen to the representations made to him? Will the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that the experimental night sittings will not be taken forward in the new system and that they have been abandoned after costing £5.4 million and an average of £4,000 per case? Will she confirm that all informed opinion told the Lord Chancellor that the experiment would not work—with the exception of No. 10 Downing street? What is the point of consultation if responses are not listened to?
§ Yvette CooperThe Lord Chancellor of course takes very seriously all the responses to consultation. It was right to set up the pilot programmes in Manchester and in one magistrates court in London. The final report on those programmes is yet to be published. It is true that the night courts proved disproportionately expensive, but the early-morning sittings were useful. The final conclusions have yet to be drawn, and the final decisions have yet to be taken.
§ Mr. William Cash (Stone)Will the Parliamentary Secretary say how she and the Lord Chancellor intend to satisfy the profound concerns of the Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committees? The role of courts councils under the proposed model is inconsistent with clear principles of local management and accountability. As she knows, that and the weak and ineffectual consultative councils are unacceptable to the magistrates courts committees. How can she deny that the uniform court system is driven by the political objective of reducing public resources for political purposes, rather than of improving justice? The Lord Chancellor's unacceptable comments—addressed to judges and magistrates in the present and future unified 13 courts—that many first-time burglars should be sent to prison only as a last resort are driven by the political objective of reducing the prison population, rather—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The Parliamentary Secretary should answer part of that question.
§ Yvette CooperWhat a lot of nonsense. There were about eight different attempts to ask questions. The hon. Gentleman started by making a point about the Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committees. I understand its views and have had many meetings with it, but I completely disagree with it. It wants the new courts organisation to mirror the current structure of the magistrates courts committees, where 43 different organisations run the courts. That is contrary to the recommendation of Sir Robin Auld, who pointed out that having 43 different organisations running the courts led to fragmentation, division, complication and duplication of procedures.
It is right that there should be considerable local decision making. That is why we have set up the courts administration councils, which will increase the voice of the local community for the Crown courts and county courts for the first time and extend the voice of the local community for magistrates courts, which are currently covered in the main by magistrates, not by other members of the local community.