Derbyshire Magistrates' Courts (Hansard, 22 July 1998)

§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg)
My Lords, this Question would be better directed to the Derbyshire Magistrates' Courts Committee than to me. These decisions are taken at local level. The proposed changes to the magistrates' courts structure in Derbyshire derive from a scheme prepared by the Derbyshire Magistrates' Courts Committee after consultation with Derbyshire County Council, the paying authority, under Section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997.
877 Appeals by the county council against the proposed closures lie to me under Section 56(3) of the Act. Appeals have been entered. I have, however, yet to receive full statements of the cases of both the county council and the magistrates' courts committee. When I receive them I will consider them and come to my decisions. Meanwhile, it is obviously not appropriate for me to say anything further while the appeals are outstanding.

§ Lord Methuen
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his reply. Is he aware of the very substantial objection to these proposals, particularly in west Derbyshire, where the four existing magistrates' courts will be closed leaving people to travel great distances at great disadvantage? Will he please bear that in mind when he comes to his decision?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I shall be aware of the full grounds when I receive them. Obviously, I shall consider them fully.

§ Lord Ewing of Kirkford
My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accept that if the people of west Derbyshire did not commit crime it would be possible to close all the magistrates' courts?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I shall resist any temptation to pre-judge the issues on these appeals.

§ Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor tell us how many other areas of the country have similar appeals currently outstanding? I am conscious that in West Yorkshire there are proposals to close Keighley and Bingley magistrates' court with similar problems of family courts being held further away from where parents and children may be willing to travel. There are similar problems of public transport. Can the noble and learned Lord say whether it is a general problem throughout the country or are these two exceptional cases?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, no. There are quite a few appeals. I shall write to the noble Lord with full details of those that are outstanding and those decided over the past 12 months.

§ Lord Hooson
My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that in rural Wales there have been many complaints about the courts being centralised? Is he further aware that a great deal of public and private money has been lost through cases having to be adjourned because of defendants and witnesses failing to arrive at court owing to lack of public transport?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I repeat that these are matters for local decision, subject to appeal to me. 878 When the appeals come to me, if I consider it right to allow them, I shall; if I consider it wrong to allow them, I shall dismiss them.

§ Baroness Byford
My Lords, following the noble and learned Lord's comments about awaiting representation from the magistrates' courts committee, may I advise him that this weekend I was in contact with someone who expressed great concern about the closure of some of these magistrates' courts, especially as Derbyshire is such a spread out and rural area? Indeed, some 30 bus companies cover the area. Is it not possible to update some of the existing courts to save people having to travel? Courts are best supported and made more available to people if they are sited in the local community. Derbyshire is predominantly rural and it is difficult for people to get to the courts.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, again I resist all attempts of noble Lords and noble Baronesses to have me anticipate the issues in the appeals. The position in relation to Derbyshire is that five courthouses in west Derbyshire—two in Chesterfield; one at Ashbourne; one at Bakewell; and one at Matlock—are being closed and replaced by a wholly new building in Chesterfield, which will consist of seven courtrooms. That is the subject of an appeal to me. Also subject to an appeal to me is that three courthouses in south Derbyshire—two in Derby and one at Swadlincote—are being closed to be replaced by a single new courthouse in Derby, consisting of 11 courtrooms.
When such appeals come to me, I consider each on its own merits in the light of local circumstances. Typically, I address the quality of the existing courthouses and the facilities they offer; the feasibility and cost of bringing the existing courthouses up to modern standards; the efficiency of the distribution of existing court business among the existing courthouses; accessibility for all court users; the extra distance that some court users may have to travel; and the time taken to complete that return journey. When the parties to the appeals give me their full grounds, I shall consider them.

§ Lord Taylor of Blackburn
My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that throughout the country there is a great deal of dissatisfaction where courts have already closed? That was done as a cost-saving exercise, but it has not saved a penny. It has cost a lot more and has inconvenienced many magistrates, witnesses and counsel.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, it must be appreciated that some people feel such an affection for particular courts that they almost constitute themselves as local preservation societies in order to keep them. However, some courts are quite incapable, at economic cost, of being brought up to modern standards, particularly for the disabled. The range of considerations I have already listed are those I apply in considering all appeals.