Helen Hayes addresses the scale and implications of court closures, emphasising the need for face-to-face access to justice. She raises concerns over consultation flaws and criticises the government's lack of a comprehensive strategy for modernizing courts with technology.

Richard Benyon suggests that proper provision, including video conferencing, should be made to ensure access to justice remains accessible even after court closures.

Dawn Butler highlights the burden on courts that will absorb the workload of closing courts and the issue of travel times for constituents, arguing they are barriers to justice.

Helen Hayes responds by reinforcing concerns about additional burdens on remaining courts and the risks associated with closing courts before implementing a clear technology strategy. She emphasises the importance of demonstrating that digital alternatives provide reliable access to justice.

Albert Owen points out the need for extending mobile coverage in rural areas where court closures are planned, reinforcing Helen Hayes' argument about the inadequacy of relying solely on technology without a comprehensive plan.

Kevin Foster raises concerns about the impact of closures on local magistrates and the justice system's connection to the communities it serves, reinforcing arguments around access to justice in local contexts.

The hon. Lady makes a powerful point that will resonate with people in a lot of villages in my constituency. The Library document states that just 15% of people in my constituency will be able to reach court by public transport in one hour, and that is of great concern for those who have the trauma of having to give evidence after a crime has been committed against them.

The hon. Gentleman’s powerful point illustrates my argument. The Law Society has raised serious concerns about the effects that longer, more expensive journey times will have on the justice system for jurors. They will be more likely to find justifiable reasons to postpone their jury service, and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service will have to pay additional costs to compensate them for additional travel costs. The changes will also affect witnesses, many of whom already require a good deal of persuasion and support to attend court, and vulnerable residents who are being taken to court in circumstances where life is already stressful. Such people might find it extremely difficult to make it to court and, as a consequence, to have a fair hearing, because they are not there in person to explain their circumstances.

As a magistrate, I can attest to witnesses, sufferers of domestic violence or people with chaotic lifestyles who are completely put off by the extra travel needed to access justice.

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Resolution, which represents 6,500 family lawyers and other professionals who are committed to a non-adversarial approach to family law and the resolution of family disputes, says that the court closures will have a huge impact on the ability of families to access the justice system, and it emphasises that those who will be most affected are vulnerable people such as victims of domestic abuse. Requiring a victim of domestic abuse to travel further on public transport in order to apply for an injunction will increase risk and act as a further disincentive for people seeking protection, on top of the issues already presented by the lack of access to legal aid.

I strongly oppose the closure of Buxton court due to geographical challenges for constituents. Despite previous meetings with the Minister and a flawed consultation document, I reluctantly accept the decision as it has been made. However, I am concerned about the implementation details and urge the Minister to ensure administrative action is taken to move work to Stockport.

I question whether my proposals for Durham were dismissed because of lack of power or due to other reasons, as opposed to what happened with Buxton court where the Minister listened more closely.

I want to clarify that decisions on changes and closures of courts have been made without preferential treatment for Conservative Members, as seen with Labour-held Stockport constituency.

This debate is about public money and the decision to close Buxton court should be reconsidered in that context.

I commend the Minister for willingness to assess alternative options but question whether criticising officials undermines his oversight of the Department.

Like Andrew Bingham, I support Helen Hayes' call and highlight the flawed decision regarding Bridgend magistrates court and law courts, which would see state-of-the-art facilities be abandoned due to closure.

The movement of courts will cause huge problems for people's capacity to reach the new venues, especially in south Wales. The consultation and decisions fail to recognise the needs of those without access to a private car or those relying on public transport. For example, from Bridgend to Cardiff can take an hour by car with expensive parking; the journey by bus is indirect and takes over two hours before reaching the court. Two thirds of people in poor communities do not have daily access to a car, making reliance on public transport essential but costly and inconvenient. This will affect victims or witnesses of crime who disproportionately depend on court and tribunal services.

My hon. Friend agrees that the Government's consultation and decisions assume everyone has access to a private car, ignoring the challenges faced by those relying on public transport or without any means of transportation at all.

Added to Madeleine Moon’s point about reliance on public transport, noting that buses often do not turn up as expected, causing additional challenges for individuals trying to reach courts in time.

While supporting the debate, Bob Neill noted a historical context of court closures which did not necessarily undermine the quality of justice. He emphasised the need for balance in decisions regarding court closures.

Echoed Madeleine Moon's concerns, stating that although previous reviews led to some closures, the Government's stance on remaining courts being essential has not changed. He suggested that recent changes reflect only a shift in attitude rather than a change in the actual needs of communities for local justice.

Neill acknowledged the concerns raised by other Members about rural areas and access to justice. He pointed out that court closures have occurred under both Labour and Conservative Governments, emphasising that the issue is not partisan but rather a balance between centrally funded services and local needs. Neill referenced Lord Bingham of Cornhill's book, “The Rule of Law”, suggesting it should be mandatory reading for MPs due to its concise nature regarding the common law doctrine of accessibility. He noted historical contexts where fewer courts were spread over greater distances with limited public transport, emphasising that current challenges require a contextual approach rather than absolute solutions. Neill mentioned Justice Committee findings on court closures during the 2010-2015 Parliament, noting a significant reduction in crime and corresponding decrease in use of magistrates' courts by about 43%. He also highlighted some closures being necessary due to poor conditions of existing facilities.

Moon interjected, questioning the logic behind spending hundreds of thousands on court projects only to later close them. She was concerned about wasting investment made in these courts, arguing against the idea of closure purely for financial reasons.

Neill expressed concerns about the lack of progress in selling off court buildings closed as part of previous programmes. He highlighted issues with travel times and access to justice for people in rural areas, suggesting that digital technology should be implemented carefully to avoid exclusion. Neill also discussed potential solutions such as satellite courts and learning from local government practices on online decision-making.

The closure of Wakefield magistrates court is part of a series of changes to the justice system since 2010. The speaker highlights that this closure will affect local access to justice and impact the city's economy. She mentions cross-party concern over these closures, emphasising that justice needs to be seen as being done locally. The current closure in Wakefield will result in victims and witnesses having to travel long distances, wasting police time due to increased travel requirements. Creagh notes that despite funding cuts, Wakefield magistrates court has been performing at a high standard with an 87% conviction rate for cases in the district compared to the national target of 85%. She also expresses concerns about longer and more expensive journeys on victims, witnesses, defendants, and magistrates, particularly those living in rural areas who depend on public transport. The speaker argues that local justice is essential and calls for a whole-cost inquiry by the Justice Committee. Additionally, she raises issues regarding legal aid changes impacting families seeking justice after tragedies like carbon monoxide poisoning or fatal accidents.

Expressed concern that justice proposals might convict the innocent and protect the guilty.

Welcomed the decision to keep Stockport courthouse open, highlighting its importance for local justice and the economy. Emphasised the principle of local courts being administered by local people and argued against proposed mergers that could lead to closures in Greater Manchester. Cited economic benefits and accessibility issues associated with potential court closures.

Complimented William Wragg on mentioning the successful problem-solving court in Stockport, which combines jurisdictions effectively.

Mr Owen agrees with the previous speaker and commends his colleague Helen Hayes for securing the debate. He praises the Minister for his attentive approach to consultations but criticises the court closure programme as crude, against local justice principles, and contradictory to the Government's policy of localism. He focuses on the closures in Holyhead and Llangefni courts, arguing that moving cases to Caernarfon is impractical due to distance and maintenance costs. Mr Owen asserts that these closures disproportionately affect the poorest communities and undermines local justice. He proposes a full-time alternative court in Anglesey and emphasises the need for functional courts in peripheral areas of Wales.

The closure of the Torquay magistrates court has disappointed many local residents and organisations who rely on it for justice. The decision to close is a reflection of an overall plan that needs to be more focused on long-term asset planning, ensuring that funds are not wasted on buildings due for closure in the near future. Foster argues that cases without the prospect of custody could potentially be heard in alternative settings such as council chambers or committee rooms, thus saving resources and providing local justice. He also suggests reviewing how certain debts, like unpaid council tax, can be handled more efficiently through county courts rather than magistrates courts, reducing unnecessary travel for those involved.

Welsh MP concerned about the decline in access to justice, particularly court closures. She notes that fifteen courts were closed across Wales during 2010-2015 and fourteen are under discussion now. She highlights issues such as inadequate public transport affecting accessibility and potential impacts on staff employment conditions. Criticises government's justification based on cost-saving and reduced legal aid availability, suggesting this shifts the burden onto individuals engaging with the justice system. Emphasises the impact of closures on Welsh language use in courts and small independent law firms' viability. Advocates for remote hearing technology solutions while raising concerns about infrastructure quality and professional guidance from Lord Leveson's review.

The MP argues that Hartlepool magistrates court and county court should remain open due to their current operational standards, lack of necessary facility issues, and the negative impact on local unemployment. He questions the government's cost-saving measures and highlights the strain it would put on public transport in accessing justice, especially for victims.

The MP criticised the closure of two courts in Halifax, arguing that it undermines access to justice and local economic stability. She highlighted inefficiencies in the digitisation programme and sought assurances from the Government on funding, waste reduction, and support for local authorities.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for providing time for this debate. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing it and opening the debate so skilfully and eloquently. We share a concern about Lambeth county court, which covers many of our constituents. When I appeared at the court—as a witness, I hasten to add—to speak for leaseholders against Southwark council, that morning alone there were about 22 individual cases involving residents and the council. It is an incredibly busy court, which is why local legal professionals approached me and other Members about the Government’s assessment of how the court was being used. Their concerns related to both the time that that assessment took place and the consideration of preparation for cases. When this topic was discussed in Westminster Hall, these issues were not answered fully. It would be useful if the Minister could confirm whether alternative facilities have the capacity to provide the necessary preparation time and space. One aspect that has not been discussed today concerns law students. London South Bank University approached me to ask whether the Government are even considering assessing the impact on law students, the additional costs they will incur and the additional travel they will have to undertake to attend cases. Can the Minister tell us whether such an assessment will be conducted? The issue of travel has been raised many times. The 97% figure is also undermined in communities such as mine. In looking at the issue on behalf of individual constituents, I looked at journey times for constituents in Rotherhithe. It would take some of them four hours to go from Rotherhithe to Putney if they needed to appear there, and that would include six different bus journeys. Without the demonstrable capacity to deliver the justice we know is needed, it seems that the Ministry of Justice is rushing into these proposals and passing the buck to other parts of the public sector and to individuals—individuals who have experienced crime or misfortune, and who are now being served another layer of injustice.

May I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing the debate? The general tone has been that no one is opposed to change, and that is where I start from. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) said, the root cause of the proposals, whether we like it or not, is the attempt to save money and the small-state conservatism that the Chancellor of the Exchequer longs for. That has made the system throw up some very peculiar examples of injustice. The hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) said the consultation was clearly flawed, and I agree. What was not taken into consideration was the people who do not have access to cars. In my constituency, people use the magistrates court in Consett, and they were told in the public consultation that took place in the north-east that if they had to travel to Peterlee court—as they will now have to—they could go by train. Well, that would be a very circuitous route, seeing as there is no train station in Peterlee. Even if someone took another form of public transport, they would have to set off at something like 7 o’clock in the morning to get there by 9.30, and that depends on public transport being available. That also fails to recognise the rural nature of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass). I suggested to the Minister that it would make more sense for my constituents to travel to Newcastle or Gateshead—it would certainly be a lot quicker to get from Chester-le-Street, in my constituency, for example, to Gateshead or Newcastle magistrates court. A number of Members have raised the fundamental problem with the cost-driven nature of the proposals. Access to justice is a serious issue for the magistrates service and for the dedicated individuals who give up their time to serve as magistrates. Justice is supposed to be dispensed locally, but that will not be the case in future, when people will have to travel long distances.

Thanked colleagues for raising the issue and discussed issues around court closures, highlighting specific cases such as Bridgend and Neath. Emphasised flaws in consultation process including overestimation of utilisation rates and lack of transparency in travel time calculations. Raised concerns about increased hardship on low-income constituents who may struggle with transport costs and delays in justice due to proposed closures. Mentioned redundancy and job losses, impact on police efficiency, and the need for a robust explanation of how digital processes will support vulnerable individuals.

The hon. Member details issues with e-forms in divorce cases, the non-functioning client and cost management system, and warns against rushing online court proposals without rigorous testing.

The Minister acknowledges concerns but asserts that closures are necessary for modernising the courts and tribunals system. He outlines £700 million investment to improve efficiency and access, and addresses specific cases like Chichester's.

The hon. Member questions the lack of economic rationale for court closures, particularly in Chichester, and presses the Minister to reconsider without an economic case provided.

The hon. Member seeks clarification on the accurate relocation of cases from Putney to Camberwell and inquires about funding for video link facilities at alternative venues.

Mr Jones notes the Minister's comments about new technology but expresses concern that people in his constituency cannot easily reach courts compared to neighbouring areas. He asks for reconsideration of these issues.

Mr Vara acknowledges the extensive dialogue around the programme, emphasises that changes have been made in numerous cases, and expresses willingness to address specific concerns from Members. He also mentions improvements for victims of domestic violence through video conferencing facilities.

Mr Neill questions the status of 10 previously closed courts that remain unsold, requesting a written update from the Minister regarding this matter.

Ms Roberts inquires for more detail on alternative arrangements for eight courts, seeking further clarification and information.

The debate covers various local issues such as the need for a lift at Stanmore station, subsidies for bus routes, support for Crossrail 2 and redevelopment of the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital. It also mentions housing developments, school improvements, council policies like the 'garden tax', heritage sites like Bentley Priory Museum, challenges faced by disabled individuals in obtaining blue badges, compensation for Equitable Life policyholders, primary care signposting, smoking cessation services, and cultural visits to India.

Recognised Stanmore’s Radio Brockley winning the hospital station of the year award.

Mr Vaz discussed the anniversary of the Yemen conflict, stating that since the start of the conflict a year ago, 8,800 civilians have been killed or injured and 3 million children are out of school. He also commended the all-party parliamentary group on Yemen for raising awareness about the situation in Yemen. Additionally, he praised the introduction of the sugar tax by the Chancellor, and expressed concerns over the local health authority's decision to move diabetes support services from a public institution to a private company.

Mr. Amess spoke about c2c train services returning to be a misery line, fire safety regulations needing review, the Policing and Crime Bill potentially impacting ongoing arrangements for fire safety, delays in the Chilcot report, progress on his Driving Instructors (Registration) Bill, Southend’s plans as an alternative city of culture in 2017, responsible pet ownership event, salt awareness week with high levels of salt in staple products, testing medicines without animal testing, meningitis vaccine petition, health summits for better patient care and collaboration among healthcare providers, fuel poverty issues including a pilot Bill from 15 years ago, local businesses benefiting from the business rate changes, visit to the Maldives, support for the Philippines, and celebrating the Queen’s birthday.

Mr Affonso's story highlights the complexities faced by individuals who enter the UK as minors without proper documentation. Despite living in the country for over three decades, his efforts to secure citizenship have been met with bureaucratic obstacles, including being denied access to public funds during times of illness. The case underscores the need for more flexible and compassionate approaches to immigration and citizenship issues.

Critiques the 'Northern Powerhouse' initiative for its lack of attention to northern Lincolnshire. Emphasises the importance of better transport connections, specifically mentioning rail connectivity between Grimsby/Cleethorpes and London King's Cross, and road improvements such as upgrading the A180 to motorway standards. Highlights the economic significance of places like Cleethorpes pier and the port of Immingham.

Mr. Blackford has tabled an early-day motion praying for the annulment of Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations 2016, which affects frozen pensions. He highlights that these regulations deprive overseas pensioners of uprating adjustments to their state pensions and forces them through without a proper debate. The decision to freeze pensions for another year will affect 550,000 UK pensioners in April when the House is in recess. Mr. Blackford argues that the UK is the only OECD country to freeze pensions this way and provides examples of inconsistencies in how overseas British pensioners are treated. He gives three cases illustrating the hardships faced by individuals due to frozen pensions: Abhik Bonnerjee, Rita Young, and Anne Puckridge. Mr. Blackford also questions what will happen to UK pensioners living in EU countries after the upcoming referendum.

Jeremy Lefroy spoke about the importance of international development, highlighting a visit to Nigeria where he saw how UK support is helping in education and economic development. He also discussed local issues such as sports facilities, HS2 railway impact on his constituency, healthcare services at Stafford hospital, and praised businesses thriving in Stafford. He mentioned the loss of sports facilities due to university campus sale and urged for the preservation of cricket and football pitches near Shugborough estate, expressing concerns over the HS2 route's unnecessary high speed requirement.

Supports the town of Middlewich in her constituency, advocating for a bypass project that has been pending for 20 years. The speaker highlights chronic traffic congestion and the need for investment to unlock potential economic growth through new housing developments and job creation. She cites statistics such as over 2,000 homes and 6,500 jobs, emphasising its importance in regional development under the Northern Powerhouse vision. Additionally, she requests funding from the £475 million local majors funds for the project.

The MP highlighted concerns about diabetes in her constituency, the opening of new fast-food outlets near schools, and the importance of local infrastructure such as roads. She emphasised the need for investment in local areas like Chickenhall Lane and Botley bypass, which have been waiting for development since 1988. Davies also discussed initiatives supporting apprenticeships and career opportunities for young people. Additionally, she addressed health issues affecting local communities, including a crisis at St Luke’s surgery in Botley where patients are facing long wait times for appointments.

Thanked the Deputy Leader of the House for support, praised contributions from other Members on topics like transport infrastructure improvements, potholes, road quality, bypasses, and link roads. Highlighted issues such as Equitable Life scandal affecting constituents, the impact of Yemen conflict on civilians, Leicester Tigers rugby training, National Express issues in Southend West, health summits, NHS fragmentation, privatisation, Ceredigion's bureaucratic tangles, Cleethorpes pier of the year win, FA Trophy match for Grimsby Town, transport considerations south of Humber, and Middlewich eastern bypass. Mentioned local events such as Great Grimsby 10k run.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion raised a challenging case, which I will refer to the Home Secretary to see whether there is anything that can be done.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West praised the redevelopment of the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital and discussed issues such as c2c services, fire safety, police and crime commissioners, Chilcot inquiry, private Member’s Bill on deregulatory measures, alternative city of culture, animal welfare, health summits, salt reduction, meningitis, fuel poverty, business rates, Maldives, world humanitarian summit, state pensions payable worldwide.

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby referred to the Greater Lincolnshire deal and Transport for the North. I will pass her comments to the Department for Transport and ask Ministers there to reply.

The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber raised early-day motion 1235 concerning UK state pensions payable worldwide. I informed him that the usual channels have not yet been activated for a debate on this statutory instrument.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford started with a strong proclamation of his Christian faith and discussed his visit to Nigeria, sports fields at Shugborough Hall, and HS2 tunnel construction.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton made a compelling case for an eastern bypass around Middlewich, working with her council and local enterprise partnership to secure funding from the local majors fund.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh covered a wide range of topics including apprenticeships, GPs, and International Women’s Day.

Placed on the record appreciation for Alda Barry's service to the House of Commons over more than four decades, noting her retirement at the end of the month.

Responded with agreement and support for Mr Speaker’s remarks.