Court Closure, Coalition plan to go ahead with closure despite advice of top judge... Options

[Richard Garvie]

A written reply from Richard... or his PA or SPA???

[Guest_NWNREADER_*]

A written reply from Richard... or his PA or SPA???

I have had each, and each was totally satisfactory. Whether in his hand or in his name, if the response meets the needs of the recipient who else is to have an opinion?

Perhaps there were typos in the senders address that meant Great leader Garvie's answer went elsewhere?

[Richard Garvie]

He knows how to get in touch. But this isn't about me or you, it's about saving our local courts and I can't see him doing anything himself so people want to know why he is yet again going against his word!!! So much for "terrier with rat"

[Iommi]

Let's not lose sight what our MP said. Whether Richard Garvie has had a reasonable response from Richard Benyon is a trivial matter by comparison.

[Guest_NWNREADER_*]

Let's not lose sight what our MP said. Whether Richard Garvie has had a reasonable response from Richard Benyon is a trivial matter by comparison.

Agreed, but he does get very upset when he is not agreed with, let alone listened to.

I have asked Mr Benyon some questions on both issues and will await his response

[gel]

Register your concerns with the sudden quiet on issue; perhaps the terrier's down some hole somewhere, or sleeping?



This is Michele, his PA's address:DEANGELIM@parliament.uk

Justice should be seen to be done, local closure of courts would hinder this apart from other issues re witnesses already highlighted.

Let's remember that politicians, judges, and Civil Servants work for us the populace. )))))

[On the edge]

Are we really that worried about the local magistrates court going to Reading? That's where the County and Crown courts have been for many years. The magstrates these days are not really local worthies responsible only to the Crown to dispense justice as they saw fitting in the locality. They are now no more than cyphers for the civil service. That's OK - but means that justice does not need to be dispensed locally. There were far greater and perhaps more important functions that have migrated away from Newbury with little if any fuss. The maternity unit at the local hospital for instance. Quite happy that this is good political knock about - but its hardly a critical issue and looking at the previous threats on this forum the local magistrates don't seem overly effective anyway!

[Iommi]

So because other greater issues have happened is a good reason not to get excited about any other? This issue was important enough for our MP to get excited about it back then, it would be interesting to see how he deals with it now.

[Simon Kirby]

So because other greater issues have happened is a good reason not to get excited about any other? This issue was important enough for our MP to get excited about it back then, it would be interesting to see how he deals with it now.

You make a serious point of course. If RB has backed away from his stated position then that's not quite right. But it's not completely obvious that he has abandoned the magistrate's court to its fate is it? He said he'd make strong representations to the consultation and I see no reason to suppose he's done any different, but as a cabinet minister he has an obligation to the government so unless he feels strongly enough about the issue to resign from cabinet I don't think he can make too much public noise about it.

He made the terrier comment in opposition and before the CSR. Everyone knows we're in worse shape now than it might have appeared last summer. Personally I don't see what the problem is taking the train to Reading, and if it means a hospital ward doesn't have to close or school kids can have books then that's no great sacrifice is it?

[Iommi]

He made the terrier comment in opposition and before the CSR. Everyone knows we're in worse shape now than it might have appeared last summer.

I don't think that is true. I think that is cobblers designed to support their potentially unpopular budgets.

Update: Wait a minute, I see what you mean...I slightly take that back, but I am suspicious of the ConDem excuse about things being worse than imagined.

In any case, if this was the case, I think it would be prudent for our MP to make a statement about it. He mustn't look like he's shying away from local issues to further his career.

Personally I don't see what the problem is taking the train to Reading, and if it means a hospital ward doesn't have to close or school kids can have books then that's no great sacrifice is it?

150k theoretical saving a year? But it isn't just about 'me' taking a train to Reading. This also means local plod a lawyers having to do the same. Is it free for them? I presume the tax payer will stump that bill as well? let's see the maths (before I can comment properly).

Like I said: it was an issue last year but not one now.

[Richard Garvie]

Yes Iommi, £150k saving in terms of the building not being operational, but running the West Berks cases will cost more than £150k by moving them all to Reading plus an increase in time it takes to convict somebody. Therefore I don't see why the closure will stop a hospital ward from closing or buy books for children, but no doubt this will be the justification used as to an untrained eye that would sound like a decent thing to do.

Let me know if our MP responds, he has refused to answer any of the questions I have sent!!!

[Richard Garvie]

..

[Guest_NWNREADER_*]

Let me know if our MP responds, he has refused to answer any of the questions I have sent!!!

'Refused' or just hasn't answered?

I don't want to know for myself, but I trust you are a constituent? And if you ask as a representative of the local Labour Party then maybe different protocols apply.

I'm not into judgemental terminology used to appear to strengthen a cause

[On the edge]

So because other greater issues have happened is a good reason not to get excited about any other? This issue was important enough for our MP to get excited about it back then, it would be interesting to see how he deals with it now.

Well we are in rather a mess financially right now. As all the rest of the Courts have been based in Reading for some considerable time - the cost of getting lawyers and Police (headquartered in Castle Street Reading) are a little spurious. Of course, there will be an overhead - you don't get anything for nothing. However, I'd much rather see attempts to cut back the legal system than ripping support for OAPs, etc. away. We need a sense of priority here - what are the important things we need to retain? Equally, a little imaginative thinking wouldn't go amiss - for instance, no reason why the Magistrates couldn't meet in other accommodation - many years back they met at the Pelican. Would be a sensible use of Newbury Town hall - which appears empty most days. So why not just have the Court - not the admin. overhead - or is that too radical?

[Iommi]

Well we are in rather a mess financially right now. As all the rest of the Courts have been based in Reading for some considerable time - the cost of getting lawyers and Police (headquartered in Castle Street Reading) are a little spurious.

Why spurious? I'm sure Mr Campbell (is he still doing it?) will be happy to invoice for his time.

Of course, there will be an overhead - you don't get anything for nothing. However, I'd much rather see attempts to cut back the legal system than ripping support for OAPs, etc. away. We need a sense of priority here - what are the important things we need to retain? Equally, a little imaginative thinking wouldn't go amiss - for instance, no reason why the Magistrates couldn't meet in other accommodation - many years back they met at the Pelican. Would be a sensible use of Newbury Town hall - which appears empty most days. So why not just have the Court - not the admin. overhead - or is that too radical?

This is the point, perhaps moving the court is a financially sensible move, for the legal budget, but often this just puts a financial pressure somewhere else. I am left thinking as well, why was the court good enough to have had a recent referb (I bet that wasn't cheap), that it is somehow now dispensable. I agree, however, it would be good if we could be just a little more imaginative with our administration costs.

The Tories were for decentralising, but this seems to be going in the other direction. I am not aware of the figures, but this seems like a drastic measure to save what appears to the layman as a relatively small amount of cash.

[On the edge]

Why spurious? I'm sure Mr Campbell (is he still doing it?) will be happy to invoice for his time.


This is the point, perhaps moving the court is a financially sensible move, for the legal budget, but often this just puts a financial pressure somewhere else. I am left thinking as well, why was the court good enough to have had a recent referb (I bet that wasn't cheap), that it is somehow now dispensable. I agree, however, it would be good if we could be just a little more imaginative with our administration costs.

The Tories were for decentralising, but this seems to be going in the other direction. I am not aware of the figures, but this seems like a drastic measure to save what appears to the layman as a relatively small amount of cash.

The decentralisation point is a good one. Wonder how many at Central Office have noticed these clashing policies. Suspect the return argument will be how local is local - the NHS certainly feel Reading is local for all sorts of things. Although we were promised the budget wouldn't be 'salami slicing' - that's just what this has turned out to be; simply the easy option. Not sure that it would gain much traction with our politicians, but one answer might have been to have asked the staff. And I do mean the staff and not the trades unions. I was in a firm once, where just as significant cuts were needed and the CEO did just that - with brutal honesty. They did come up with several workable answers, one of which hurt at the time, but its still trading today

[Richard Garvie]

Funny you mention the NHS, which is actually facing a cut to frontline services to fund the changes brought in by the Tories and the Liberals. They both said they wouldn't mess with the NHS, and that spending would be protected, but when you look into the detail the real terms spending on frontline spending is reduced.

Back to the courts proposal here in West Berkshire, the changes will end up costing slightly more, bobbies will spend less time off the beat and solicitors and victims will have to travel fyrther at their own time and some of their own expense such as parking. I doubt anyone is fighting this closure on the basis of disruption to criminals. What this is about is protecting the level of service. Richard Benyon said he would fight this like a terrier with a rat, but what has been doing??? In recent weeks he has been almost absent, only speaking to support the rise in tuition fees and the bodge job that was made of child benefit. When put to him that I had said I was hurt that he appears to be doing very little in this weeks NWN, Richard said my concern was "utter nonsense", saying he had "co-ordinated" the magistrates response. From what I remember, he was invited to a meeting by the magistrates and now he is taking credit for their work. Does he honestly believe that magistrates would not have responded had he not have attended that meeting. The only other evidence that he has actually done anything id the letter he sent as part of the consultation.

How many Government minister / MOJ civil servants have came to see the problems we face??? Why after Lord Justice Goldring spoke has he not rammed this report down Ken Clarkes throat??? Maybe now that he is starting to feel a little heat he might actually do something, but I still doubt he will vote against any bill (which he seems to think won't even be presented to the house(!)). I challenged him to a debate with Labour and any other party that wishes to take part so that he can tell us what he has been doing, hear OUR concerns collectively and also to ask questions about the CSR. He told us his party would protect Sure Start, yet it appears the evidence suggest not. He said he was against a hike in tuition fees, so will he vote against that bill? He said he was against reform of child benefit, yet he now says something else. Why shouldn't we be able to pose these questions to him in public, why must he hide away in Westminster. As our representative in Parliament, surely he should be pleased to attend these type of events???

[On the edge]

You are quite right - there has been a lot of politicing going on. However, the fact still remains we need to cut expenditure. Yes, that does mean making sure that the cost of implementing the cuts doesn't actually cost more. So are there any solutions? I think there may be - for instance have the Court itself travel but centralise the admin. There may be more. I'd think Richard Beynon would be more likely to respond properly to some alternative solutions than just swapping emails which simply state party positions. Let's be frank - the centralisation proposal isn't new - it was on the table when the last administration were in office. So its just what the civil service would say was a quick win. To fight it - let's say how we'd save the money and still deliver the cut.

[Richard Garvie]

In the case of Newbury Court - We would save money and keep performance levels by keeping it as it is. By moving all business 6to Reading, it will cost millions to extend Reading courts but there may not be cell access, so any crime punishable with possible custodial sentances will more than likely face long delays. You could make even more savings by closing Slough or Maidenhead, something which Lord Justice Goldring also seemed to suggest by raising his concern about most of Berkshires courts being clustered in the east of the county.

[gel]

And I note today that Reading parking charges have gone up to £1.50 an hour which will not be reimbursed as a witness or jury member.