TABLESitting Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 26th June (a.m.), (p.m.) 1st July (a.m.), (p.m.) Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1; Clauses 5 to 6, Schedule 2; Clauses 7 to 35; Clauses 37 to 45, Schedule 4; Clauses 46 to 65, Schedule 5; Clauses 66 to 85. 5.00 p.m. on 1st July 8th July (a.m.), (p.m.) Clauses 86 to 94; Clause 97, Schedule 6; clauses 98 to 104; Clause 107; Schedules 7 and 8; Clauses 108 to 110. 5.00 p.m. 10th July (a.m.), (p.m.) Clause 36, Schedule 3; Clauses 95, 96, 105 and 106; new Clauses, new Schedules and any remaining proceedings on the Bill. 5.00 p.m.
Courts Bill [Lords]
10:30 am
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Shipley, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman is mischaracterising the statements made by my predecessors. There has never been a denial of the right to appeal on such matters. Indeed, I understand that in recent times—for example, in respect of Grays magistrates court and elsewhere—Ministers took the view that they should not accept the decisions of the magistrates courts committees, and have been able to respond to local views. That kind of accountability and response to public views would not be possible under the terms of the amendment, given that the magistrates would have the final say on such matters. It is a rather strange, but perhaps unsurprising, amendment for his party to have tabled.
I do not deny that decisions on the court estate are not easy. Indeed, they can be difficult. It is important, however, that decisions are made properly, and the views of both court users and local communities are taken into account. We must balance the need for locally delivered services with the need to improve their quality within the available resources.
I was interested to hear that the new Conservative party policy is to consider reopening former magistrates courts. That is obviously a new policy statement, which has no doubt been fully costed and discussed with the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It might be worth hon. Members cross-examining their Treasury team to find out whether millions of pounds have been assigned to that, and what would be the effect on public expenditure.
We believe that the creation of a unified court administration will help to create a more efficient, effective system of justice in this country. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome to withdraw his amendment.