HC Deb 19 December 2001 vol 377 cc385-9W
Mr. Stinchcombe

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 840W, on judges' accommodation, if he will publish (a) the terms of reference and (b) the comparison made of the value for money provided by judges lodgings undertaken as part of the triennial review of judges lodgings. [23912]

Mr. Wills

The notional comparison referred to in my previous reply was undertaken merely to test the overall assumption that lodgings should continue to be the main method by which accommodation is provided. The terms of reference were to compare the cost of lodgings with alternative forms of accommodation providing appropriate standards of security, privacy and comfort. Hotel costs were calculated on the assumption that the judge and his clerk would be accommodated in a high quality hotel, that the judge would occupy a suite of rooms consisting of a double bedroom, a lounge/study and en-suite bathroom facilities, and that the clerk would have a single room with en-suite bathroom facilities. Allowance was also made for other associated costs e.g. transport to and from court.

This comparison was an academic exercise using notional representative costs and only formed a small part of the triennial review. Additionally, the costs attributed to hotel use excluded any additional security costs that would inevitably be required to provide the safe and secluded environment provided by lodgings. It would therefore be misleading to publish the comparison.

Mr. Stinchcombe

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the average cost of running judges' lodgings per judge accommodated at each of the individual lodgings in the Lodging Estate for the financial years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01. [24128]

Mr. Wills

It has not been possible in the time available to provide the average cost per judge accommodated for each lodgings. However, the following four tables show the average cost per judge week for each of the lodgings based on:

  • Total costs;
  • Total costs excluding capital charge; and
  • Costs solely attributable to judicial occupation

The figures for 2000–01 are yet to be audited and may therefore be subject to slight change.

Judges lodgings costs per judge week used 2000–01
Lodgings Total cost Total cost (ex. capital charge) Judicial cost
Birmingham 3,533.91 2,699.39 1,575.38
Leicester 4,762.45 4,762.45 2,014.00
Lincoln 4,243.80 4,243.80 1,394.48
Nottingham 4,390.58 3,673.53 1,713.84
Northampton 6,656.09 6,656.09 2,957.22
Oxford 7,151.67 7,151.67 3,027.67
Stafford 4,795.15 4,795.15 1,475.21
Warwick n/a n/a n/a
Worcester 4,156.39 4,156.39 2,494.23
Hull 1,531.60 1,531.60 531.60
Leeds 3,396.48 3,396.48 1,875.43
Plawsworth 3,609.13 3,162.78 1,577.22
Sheffield 5,648.90 4,930.35 1,887.64
Carlisle 2,894.76 2,894.76 1,380.47
Liverpool 2,572.33 2,572.33 1,464.24
Manchester 3,545.65 3,204.06 1,768.03
Preston 4,923.96 3,774.42 2,345.18
Chelmsford 8,006.79 8,006.79 1,325.09
Lewes 7,324.39 7,324.39 1,851.19
Maidstone 9,562.82 6,599.90 1,624.16
Norwich 7,668.02 5,859.42 1,443.11
Reading 7,879.09 4,609.15 2,750.35
St. Albans 6,517.64 4,086.66 2,154.30
Caernarfon 4,621.95 4,621.95 2,365.17
Cardiff 3,765.72 3,348.43 2,056.06
Chester 7,678.89 6,800.42 2,408.72
Mold 9,141.94 9,141.94 2,546.64
Swansea 5,662.69 5,005.88 2,362.40
Bristol 4,591.42 4,591.42 1,676.56
Exeter 2,214.01 2,214.01 972.89
Plymouth 3,568.68 3,568.68 1,857.96
Truro 3,317.57 3,317.57 1,026.95
Winchester 4,615.57 2,899.21 1,666.25
Judges lodgings costs per judge week used 1999–2000
Lodging Total cost Total cost (ex. capital charge) Judicial cost
Birmingham 2,876.90 2,289.93 1,449.13
Nottingham 4,702.90 4,003.62 1,866.48
Leicester 3,303.62 3,303.62 1,227.78
Oxford 4,108.95 4,108.95 1,956.76
Worcester 4,138.25 4,138.25 2,158.81
Lincoln 4,175.64 4,175.64 1,602.87
Northampton 5,441.63 5,441.63 2,363.53
Stafford 3,569.39 3,569.39 1,450.80
Warwick 1,305.70 1,305.70 1,128.76
Leeds 2,824.77 2,824.77 1,676.55

Judges lodgings costs per judge week used 1999–2000
Lodging Total cost Total cost (ex. capital charge) Judicial cost
Plawsworth 2,971.92 2,444.50 1,599.24
Sheffield 7,098.81 6,437.52 1,791.37
Carlisle 3,068.06 3,068.06 1,138.70
Liverpool 2,743.22 2,743.22 1,325.40
Manchester 3,455.46 3,131.71 1,983.10
Preston 3,922.62 2,951.78 1,941.19
Chelmsford 3,361.45 3,361.45 863.91
Lewes 6,016.60 6,016.60 1,862.79
Maidstone 7,798.97 5,855.74 1,738.38
Norwich 4,836.31 3,910.96 1,257.34
Reading 5,155.12 3,480.41 2,536.65
St. Albans 6,526.01 4,384.25 2,242.23
Caernarfon 5,296.55 5,296.55 3,388.50
Cardiff 3,552.48 3,135.69 1,890.13
Chester 4,999.98 4,304.70 2,372.98
Mold 10,131.43 10,131.43 2,070.52
Swansea 6,196.83 5,312.62 2,547.83
Bristol 3,315.83 3,315.83 1,411.90
Exeter 3,482.10 3,482.10 810.02
Plymouth 5,623.55 5,623.55 2,625.57
Truro 4,996.84 4,996.84 1,306.44
Winchester 3,461.95 2,754.38 1,624.54

Judges lodgings costs per judge week used 1998–99
Lodging Total cost Total cost (ex. capital charge) Judicial cost
Birmingham 2,856.91 2,357.07 1,487.28
Nottingham 2,802.23 2,404.89 1,615.48
Leicester 3,769.64 3,769.64 2,103.60
Oxford 5,284.32 5,284.32 3,234.05
Worcester 3,491.08 3,491.08 1,546.46
Lincoln 3,988.73 3,988.73 1,313.98
Northampton 5,021.86 5,021.86 2,567.08
Stafford 5,306.43 5,306.43 817.91
Warwick 1,644.05 1,644.05 1,392.05
Leeds 3,852.17 3,852.17 2,169.48
Plawsworth 3,840.67 3,271.12 1,580.26
Sheffield 6,252.50 5,679.93 1,948.07
Carlisle 2,648.33 2,648.33 1,336.01
Liverpool 3,892.21 3,892.21 1,899.50
Manchester 2,830.63 2,568.57 1,764.47
Preston 6,479.53 5,403.21 2,529.82
Chelmsford 3,038.26 3,038.26 693.29
Lewes 5,464.20 5,464.20 2,454.96
Maidstone 7,834.84 6,568.36 1,625.89
Norwich 4,596.76 3,873.48 1,434.15
Reading 6,621.13 4,953.60 2,883.90
St. Albans 8,558.11 5,916.78 2,237.04
Caernarfon 5,356.68 5,356.68 1,740.05
Cardiff 3,516.80 3,136.46 1,981.07
Chester 5,834.61 5,150.78 2,857.79
Mold 5,641.53 5,641.53 1,438.88
Swansea 11,842.66 10,507.26 3,123.63
Bristol 2,983.57 2,983.57 1,528.26
Exeter 4,102.47 4,102.47 1,241.47
Plymouth 3,377.18 3,377.18 1,749.64
Truro 2,821.11 2,821.11 1,209.87
Winchester 3,962.79 3,163.77 1,747.46
Judges lodgings costs per judge week used 1997–98
Lodging Total cost Total cost (ex. capital charge) Judicial cost
Birmingham 2,986.24 2,164.86 1,594.29
Nottingham 4,170.22 3,477.96 1,860.28

Judges lodgings costs per judge week used 1997–1998
Lodging Total cost Total cost (ex. capital charge) Judicial cost
Leicester 3,250.92 3,250.92 2,292.38
Oxford 5,314.22 5,314.22 2,898.02
Worcester 3,875.66 3,875.66 2,142.06
Lincoln 4,633.50 4,633.50 1,597.65
Northampton 9,203.92 9,203.92 2,171.35
Stafford 4,453.38 4,453.38 944.64
Warwick 1,342.73 1,342.73 1,389.23
Leeds 4,188.48 4,188.48 2,277.69
Plawsworth 2,931.25 2,462.51 1,589.49
Sheffield 7,133.36 6,899.23 2,247.91
Carlisle 2,594.40 2,594.40 1,145.03
Liverpool 3,755.24 3,755.24 1,860.92
Manchester 2,258.38 2,204.99 1,840.68
Preston 5,091.80 4,760.03 3,369.78
Chelmsford 7,173.80 7,173.80 1,089.71
Lewes 6,082.34 6,082.34 2,483.14
Maidstone 5,626.91 4,341.27 1,689.13
Norwich 5,906.86 5,385.04 1,653.75
Reading 6,832.71 6,063.71 3,847.25
St. Albans 7,522.03 6,379.12 2,468.59
Caernarfon 7,007.99 7,007.99 3,864.64
Cardiff 2,462.49 2,439.58 1,817.53
Chester 4,651.06 3,736.86 2,076.27
Mold 12,783.80 12,783.80 3,002.27
Swansea 5,787.72 5,429.20 2,874.06
Bristol 2,590.13 2,465.39 1,432.53
Exeter 4,144.44 4,144.44 1,084.05
Plymouth 3,089.98 3,089.98 1,734.57
Truro 3,888.54 3,888.54 1,408.22
Winchester 2,457.83 2,357.20 1,576.91

Mr. Stinchcombe

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary,Lord Chancellor's Department what is the capital value of the leasehold Lodging Estate in which his Department accommodates judges on circuit. [23705]

Mr. Wills

Of the leasehold Lodgings Estate only two have a notional capital value (as the rents are nominal and/or historic). These are the lodgings at Birmingham and Winchester, with a combined estimated capital value of £2.75 million. The remainder are held under leases where the rents are reviewed frequently and which therefore have no capital value to the Department.

Mr. Stinchcombe

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to theanswer given on 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 840W, on judges' accommodation, how many (a) butlers, (b) cooks and (c) security personnel are employed by the Lord Chancellor's Department to look after judges on circuit. [23916]

Mr. Wills

Details of the numbers of butlers and chefs/cooks employed to look after judges on circuit were provided in my earlier answer given on 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 840W. The answer also states that we do not employ dedicated security staff at lodgings. All staff are expected to be vigilant and ensure that the lodgings are secure at all times.

Mr. Stinchcombe

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what his definition is of a guest house of the Wolsey Lodge variety; and how it is differentiated from other forms of accommodation for judges on circuit. [24100]

Mr. Wills

I am advised that "Wolsey Lodges" are a consortium of privately owned homes providing a small number of quality rooms for temporary rental. While the properties vary in size and style, they are essentially a public hotel chain. As such Wolsey Lodges are completely different from the network of private lodgings maintained by the Court Service to provide accommodation for High Court judges while on circuit.

Mr. Stinchcombe

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 840W, on judges' accommodation (a) if the comparison made of the value for money provided by judges' lodgings examined each judges' lodgings individually and (b) which judges' lodgings were assessed not to provide value for money. [23911]

Mr. Wills

As stated in my earlier answer, the notional comparison undertaken as part of the triennial review was merely to test the overall assumption that lodgings should continue to be the main method by which accommodation is provided. It did not form the main value for money examination within the review.

While a comparison was made for each judges' lodgings individually, the 'hotel alternative' costs were indicative only and did not include additional security costs which would necessarily be incurred for the protection of Her Majesty's High Court judges. It would therefore be misleading to base any decision on the future viability of individual lodgings on this comparison and to publish details of the same.

It should also be recognised that, when discussing alternatives to lodgings, cost is not the only issue. The availability and proximity of suitably secure, private and comfortable accommodation has also to be considered.

Mr. Stinchcombe

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 840, on judges' accommodation, what action has been taken since publication of Lord Justice Auld's report to assess the value for money provided by individual judges' lodgings; and what action will be taken in respect of judges' lodgings assessed not to provide value for money in line with the recommendations of the Auld report. [23917]

Mr. Wills

As my hon. Friend is aware, Sir Robin Auld's report was only published on 8 October. Public consultation on his recommendations takes place up to 31 January 2002.

Consequently, no new assessment of the value for money provided by individual lodgings is being considered until this period of consultation has concluded. The Lord Chancellor will then decide on a course of action with regard to lodgings in the light of this and the findings of the triennial review.