Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): The representatives from Ards and North Down Borough Council might want to come to the table because they will be going first. We are doing this alphabetically; there is no discrimination. They are grateful that it was not North Down and Ards — they will perhaps not want to reopen that debate.

I welcome Councillor Stephen McIlveen, Councillor Jimmy Meenagh and Mr Stephen Reid, who is the chief executive of Ards and North Down Borough Council. I will give you about six minutes to make your presentation, and then we will move on to the other councils. That will facilitate our discussion at the end, which will be in round-table format. You can kick off whenever you are ready, and I will maybe indicate if you are running over time.

Councillor Stephen McIlveen (Ards and North Down Borough Council): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. On behalf of Ards and North Down Borough Council, I thank you and the Committee for the invitation to give evidence. This is obviously an issue that our council feels is incredibly important. A delegation from the legacy council, Ards Borough Council, attended a meeting with the Minister, and there was a public event at Ards courthouse for us to ask questions and get as much information as we could on this.

Obviously, we are here because we do not feel that Newtownards courthouse merits having the axe hanging over it, which is what is in the consultation document. We recognise that there needs to be a better use of the court estate, and we feel that that could be achieved by more joined-up thinking across Departments.

A number of Departments have various tribunals and pay rent to private landlords. We feel that some of those rents are quite extortionate; if you think of some of the costs involved in using Millennium House for planning appeals, for example. We feel that the court estate could be used for those appeals and therefore ensure that, as a result, justice remains local. The DOJ also has responsibility for organisations like the Probation Service. There is no reason why that could not be housed within the court estate and could thereby save money and ensure that the courts remain open.

At present, Newtownards courthouse is the only courthouse in the new Ards and North Down borough, and there is obviously a desire to see coterminosity between the provision of court services and the new council areas. A number of years ago, Bangor courthouse was closed during the previous rationalisation. It is very important to keep the local aspect.

Turning to the idea of the use of the courthouse; Newtownards courthouse is the third busiest in the disposal of criminal cases, the second busiest in the disposal of civil cases and the second busiest for family cases. It outstrips even the likes of the courthouse in Londonderry. It is second only to Belfast, where it is proposed that all those cases will end up. If the courthouse is removed from Newtownards, given the quantity of cases going through the court, as a council, we would be concerned about the massive detrimental impact that will have on footfall in the town of Newtownards and the effect that will have on businesses. My colleague Councillor Meenagh will address the impact it will have on individuals.

Councillor Jimmy Meenagh (Ards and North Down Borough Council): Mr Chairman, thank you very much. The council believes that the Department's proposals are short-sighted and will have a detrimental impact on the Ards and North Down area and the growing population. Closure would create delays in proceedings and hearings, create a barrier for local people in accessing justice in general and impede the smooth administration of justice in Northern Ireland.

The transfer of business from Newtownards to Belfast would impact adversely on travel times for people in the Ards and Ards west district area. There is a lack of public transport to and from many rural areas. Translink is in a rationalisation process and is itself being redeveloped. This will affect people travelling back and forth to Belfast. Has consideration been given to rural proofing the proposals and carrying out a rural impact assessment?

I have a couple more points. A million pounds were spent on the existing courthouse building in Newtownards over the last four years. Closing the courthouse would render that investment wasted. It is hard to see how the cost of refurbishing other court facilities to accommodate the business from Newtownards courthouse and the decommissioning of activities stacks up. I think that the proposal is that the town hall, as they call it, and the Laganside Courts in Belfast will take all the stuff from Newtownards. I asked what sort of money it would cost to do that. I do not think that it has been costed yet. It is a brave old building, and I am sure that there is piling and stuff like that involved. It will be a lot of money. I said that it would be about £2 million at one time, and I was asked whether I picked that number out of the sky.

It would be very detrimental to Newtownards. There is building across from the courthouse that has been sitting empty for years. It is a massive building. The courthouse will be another one, and that is on the main street in Newtownards. As Councillor McIlveen said, the people who come in to use the courthouse use the facilities in Newtownards. I know that it is not part of your thingummy, but that is a lot of money to take out of the town centre. Thank you

Councillor S McIlveen: If we are looking at the individual court users, the courthouse in Newtownards services people who live as far away as Portaferry. The consultation document talks about the "nearest" court to Newtownards, but does not take account of the area that Newtownards serves. If you look at the travel time from Portaferry to Newtownards and then to Belfast, you could be talking about having to leave the house at 6.30 am to be in Belfast on time to have your case heard. You are talking about the guts of 6,000 additional cases being heard in Belfast from Newtownards alone.

It is about the use of facilities in Belfast. Are you able to consult in private? You have facilities in Newtownards and your local solicitors in Newtownards, so you can consult in the office and then go to the court. I do not believe that those things have been taken into consideration in the consultation. We feel that, before looking at the rationalisation of the court estate, we could look at not only the use of the court estate by other Departments but maybe at raising court fees, even by a small amount, as a means to fund local justice. That step was taken in England and Wales as a means to address the issue, and it should be looked at in Northern Ireland.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): Thank you very much, particularly for keeping to the time. Hopefully, other councils will follow that lead. I appreciate that.

I welcome the strategic director of Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council, Ms Sharon O'Gorman. You are very welcome. You should speak for six or seven minutes, if possible.

Ms Sharon O'Gorman (Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council): Thank you, Chair. Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council welcomes the opportunity to come here today to present evidence to the Committee on the rationalisation of the court estate. The council has already submitted a formal response, and, given the time frame today, I will draw attention to the key issues in that. I hope that the Committee has had a chance to review our full report in detail.

The council notes that the Department of Justice has published its proposals to rationalise the court estate and generate savings of £1 million. Armagh courthouse has been identified as contributing 21% to that saving. That is the second-largest estimated saving. The council believes that Armagh courthouse is a fine courthouse that offers excellent facilities. It is a historic building that has been recently upgraded and, for that reason, is an asset to the court estate, in that it offers better and more secure facilities than other modern courthouses. The courthouse in Armagh acts as an important asset for not only the Northern Ireland justice system but for the townscape and cultural tourism offering of the city of Armagh as a whole. Its closure would remove not only an asset from the justice estate but an important cultural and tourism asset from the city.

The council believes that the closure of the courthouse would be another step in the erosion of Armagh city's historical role as an administrative centre. The census of employment shows that public-sector employment in the city, and Armagh District Council area, reduced by 14% — 940 jobs — between 2009 and 2013. A decision to close the courthouse would have a further severe impact on reducing public-sector functions in the city, which, taken collectively, would undermine the role and vibrancy of the economy and how it contributes to the Northern Ireland economy at large.

Specifically, the council is of the view that the closure of the courthouse would increase the barriers to access to justice for the people of Armagh city and its hinterland. If Armagh residents were to use public transport, their journey time to either of the two new proposed court locations, Newry and Craigavon, would exceed the 60-minute limit outlined in the consultation report. Rural proofing is a key consideration of the Northern Ireland Executive, and the council would be interested to ascertain to what extent it has been a consideration in the proposal to close the courthouse.

The closure of the courthouse would also reduce the quality of the experience of the justice system for people in Armagh city and its hinterland. The council understands from engagement with the legal profession locally that the quality of the accommodation in Newry courthouse, which is proposed to be used for some of the business transfer, is inferior to that currently in Armagh courthouse and that further potential building investment would be required to equip the courthouse to the desired standard. The closure would also end the role of Armagh courthouse as a significant asset for the Northern Ireland justice system and therefore render nugatory the recent expenditure on upgrading it. The proposed closure would also seriously diminish the role of the courthouse as an important cultural and tourism asset.

It should also be noted that a closed courthouse would be very difficult to dispose of. The Armagh courthouse is a unique heritage building, and it is difficult to see apparent alternative uses. The building would be difficult to adapt, and the council, as the new planning authority, would not wish to grant permission for uses at variance with the historic status and site.

Therefore, there may be very limited or no realisation of capital value on the closure of the facility, and the cost of safeguarding and maintaining a closed facility could be high. The council has a number of heritage properties and is very aware of the significant cost of maintaining closed buildings.

It should also be noted that the consultation document fails to take into account the wider additional costs that would arise from the closure of the courthouse: additional investment might be required in Newry and Craigavon courthouses to bring them up to standard; and additional cost and time would go to legal aid because Armagh-based solicitors would incur additional costs travelling to and from the Newry or Craigavon courthouse. The Portadown, Lurgan and Craigavon solicitors' association has estimated an additional cost of between £42 and £43 per solicitor per day. It estimates that, with 20 to 25 practitioners attending court daily, the cost could exceed £1,000 per day and reach an annual cost of £260,000. That figure alone exceeds the projected saving of £217,000 from closing the courthouse.

The council is also of the view that deciding to close a special building in a special place requires a particularly high standard of proof. In the view of the council, the consultation document falls short of demonstrating that required standard of proof by not taking into account the wider implications of the closure. The council also believes that the proposals that have been advanced are flawed, in that they fail to put forward any option to maintain the courthouse in Armagh — the only options in the consultation document are alternative means of closing it. The projected financial savings are subject to major risks and uncertainty, and might be unlikely to be realised. The document also fails to take into account the potential investment costs required by other facilities and the wider implications of the proposal.

The council calls on the Committee and the Minister, in considering the proposals, to recognise the special status of Armagh courthouse as a listed building in a conservation area in a unique city and to have due regard to the wider social and economic context of Armagh city. The council's conclusion is that the costs of the proposed closure are certain and immediate in the form of reducing access to justice for the people of Armagh city and its hinterland, removing the courthouse as a significant asset from the Northern Ireland justice system and diminishing the courthouse as a townscape, cultural and tourism asset, as well as the indirect costs to the local economy and related businesses. However, the supposed benefits to the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service's budget are, we believe, uncertain and unlikely to arise. It is difficult to see how there could be an alternative use for the courthouse, so there would be no capital asset realisation. The estimated cost of maintaining the building could be higher than indicated in the report, and there are also investment costs for the other facilities that I mentioned.

Armagh courthouse is a special building in a special place. Consideration of its future requires an understanding that takes into account the economic, cultural and tourism value of this distinct asset, as well as the specific justice function. The council is of the view that the consultation document has failed to take into account those wider factors and is, therefore, flawed and incomplete. We urge the Committee to consider a more holistic approach and the other wider implications of the decision as outlined in our submission. Thank you for the opportunity.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): Thank you very much, Sharon. I appreciate that. Thank you for also keeping to time.

We now have Councillor Callan and Councillor Robinson from Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council. Gentlemen, you are most welcome. Whoever is kicking off has about six or seven minutes.

Councillor Alan Robinson (Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council): Thank you, Mr Chair and Committee members, for affording Aaron and me an opportunity to express our views on this very important matter.

Over the last decade, Limavady has lost a considerable number of private sector jobs, and losing a government-based service would only add to the employment difficulties in the area. The extraction of further jobs would create further despondency in our town. Limavady has relatively few public-sector jobs. Therefore, there is an imperative to maintain those that exist. Government must be aware of the need to spread government jobs across Northern Ireland, and not just have them in limited areas. Every government job in Limavady is greatly cherished and, indeed, badly needed.

The proposed reduction in courthouses would mean that a large part of the Causeway Coast and Glens region would have only one courthouse to cover a significant geographical area. Considering the large rural area that Limavady courthouse serves, I think that it is essential that people have good access to legal assistance when required. The closure of our courthouse would place an additional expense on those travelling to Coleraine or Londonderry and restrict access to the justice system to those who are vulnerable. That would particularly be the case in winter, when the mountain roads between Limavady and Coleraine are often ice-bound or snowbound, making travel difficult, and are sometimes even impassable.

The consultation asked whether, due to the current financial position, it was right to consider fewer courthouses when there is a suitable courthouse within a reasonable travelling distance. There is, however, no definition in the consultation as to what a reasonable travelling distance is. Five miles may be OK for some but totally unreasonable for others, especially those with disabilities.

Anyone arriving at Coleraine bus terminal will have to take an additional bus journey, a taxi or a considerable walk to Coleraine courthouse. The reasoning for closing the mentioned sites includes the cost of bringing properties up to Disability Discrimination Act compliance, so I have to ask: how does the Department justify forcing people who are protected under that Act to pay additional costs at the behest of the Department of Justice?

Those additional journeys for the people of Limavady and its hinterland are unjust and, therefore, attack people's ability to access the legal system. That is reprehensible. Having talked to local legal experts, I understand that the Limavady and Coleraine facilities are already under considerable pressure. Adding the Limavady workload could make the situation untenable.

Access to the legal system will be reduced to the detriment of the people of Northern Ireland. I do not believe that this proposal will help the delivery of justice. I do not want a legal system that can be accessed only by those who can afford it or that impacts negatively on the most disadvantaged.

Added financial and time burdens will be placed on legal teams, witnesses, defendants and an overstretched Police Service. Those sectors will pay the price for the DOJ's downgrade of the courthouse system. In closing Limavady courthouse, you will withdraw what is seen as a valuable legal tool for the hinterland of Limavady.

I am dismayed at the wording in the consultation documentation, which leads me to believe that a decision has already been taken by the DOJ and that we are simply indulging in a paper exercise. Paragraph 6.19 of the consultation document states:

That comment leads me to believe that the fate of Limavady courthouse has already been sealed.

I will end by highlighting the genuine fears of the people whom I represent that, if Limavady courthouse were to close and fall into dereliction, it would result in rodent infestation, antisocial activity and a severe drop in the market value of a property that is seen as one of the most historic in our town.

I thank the Committee for allowing me this small but vital opportunity to express my views on this important matter.

Councillor Aaron Callan (Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council): Thank you, Chairman, for giving me an opportunity to speak here.

I join my colleague in highlighting concerns at the proposed closure of Limavady courthouse. It is a vital link for the local community to have access to its legal system. Like health, justice should not be up for sale in Northern Ireland. We need to protect local access to our justice system.

When these proposals were revealed, there was widespread opposition to the closure of Limavady courthouse. There was a great response from the community to the proposals in support of keeping access to our local justice system.

This supposed cost-saving exercise is short-sighted and illogical, as highlighted by the Lord Chief Justice. It would bring additional costs to solicitors, victims of crime, users of the courts system and the PSNI. It is merely an exercise of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I echo the comments of my colleague in saying that this is a completely retrograde step and will put a knife through the heart of our community. Limavady courthouse has been in situ for over 100 years, and there has been a local court in Limavady for over 400 years. Losing this would be a devastating blow to Limavady.

The other aspect is that this will impact on the most vulnerable in our society; those who cannot have the means or resources to travel often to Coleraine courthouse, which is already at breaking point with cases. For example, there were 65 cases heard at the petty sessions in Limavady on Wednesday. Those 65 cases would be transferred to Coleraine, which would be an additional burden on those in the most vulnerable positions in our society. I join with my colleague in saying that it cannot be allowed to go ahead. We need to protect what is a fundamental part of our welfare system, local access to our legal system. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): Thank you both very much. From Derry City and Strabane District Council, I welcome Councillors Carlin and Kelly, and Mrs Craig, who is the change manager.

Mrs Rachelle Craig (Derry City and Strabane District Council): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Yes, I am the change manager for Derry City and Strabane District Council, but prior to that role I was the corporate policy officer for Strabane District Council and was working very closely with Strabane District Council at the time, back in 2012, when we submitted a very comprehensive consultation response to the proposed closure of Strabane hearing centre.

First, Mr Chairman, I thank the Minister, yourselves and the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service for listening to the forthright views we expressed at the time on the closure of Strabane hearing centre. It was a very strong advocating lobby around the very important services that are provided within the court service in Strabane. One of the key concerns that the council had, and that the new council now has, is the impact of the policy on section 75 groups, particularly people with disabilities, those with dependents, and young people. The proposals are going to have a negative and detrimental impact on those people. I have looked through the equality screening report for the policy proposal and feel that it is inadequate. We are proposing to move people with disabilities to a court with an inferior level of disability access. We are proposing to move young people who are vulnerable, particularly women who have care dependents, to a court, which will create more financial burden on them at a time when they are particularly vulnerable and need extra support.

We strongly advocate that the policy proposal presented in front of you should adhere to section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act. We also stress, from Derry City and Strabane's perspective, that we have the highest level of social and economic deprivation in Northern Ireland. The proposal aims to detract quality public service provision from an area that needs it. We have a high degree of social and economic deprivation — the highest in Northern Ireland — and there is a clear correlation between deprivation and social problems with crime. We are suggesting taking a vital local service that is needed, at a time when people are very vulnerable, to another area that has, as I said, an inferior level of disability access. On those key policy principles, we argue that you would need to retain the quality services that are offered in Strabane courthouse. I will now pass you over to my colleague, councillor Karina Carlin.

Councillor Karina Carlin (Derry City and Strabane District Council): Thank you very much, Chair and members of the Committee. First, on behalf of all of our colleagues on Derry City and Strabane District Council, I want to thank the Committee for taking the time out. That comes from the mayor right through the membership of the council. It is very important that the Committee hears what we have to say and hears the case on behalf of the courthouse in Strabane. Derry City and Strabane District Council has two courthouses, Derry court and Strabane courthouse. The courthouse up for closure is, of course, Strabane courthouse.

Were the closure to take place, the business would be moved to Omagh courthouse, which is outside the local government area. That would probably pose its own problems, because it is also, of course, outside the policing district area, in circumstances where the local custody suite in Strabane has in the past been closed and then had to be reopened because the Strand Road facility was deemed to be insufficient in what it was able to offer the PSNI in dealing with the business of custody. We fear that we could be faced with a similar situation where Strabane courthouse will be closed, and the realisation would dawn far too late that a facility that is much-needed is closed and we are not in a position where we can reopen it.

As Rachelle has referred to, we have been in this position before in the past number of years. In 2012, the Minister brought forward proposals to close Strabane courthouse as one of five closures. At that time, we engaged in a very robust response, and there was a very strong public sentiment that the courthouse was not only a vital public service but that it was very important from the point of view of the demographics that Rachelle referred to in terms of poverty, youth and disadvantage through disability. Of course, it is proposed that the business that Strabane deals with be removed to Omagh courthouse. At the end of the consultation process, when the decision was announced by Minister Ford on 22 November 2012 that, of the five earmarked for closure, Strabane was to receive a reprieve, he differentiated the case for Strabane on the basis that, when he had examined in person the building at Strabane and the facilities that it was able to offer and when he had examined Omagh courthouse and the facilities that it had to offer, he as a Minister of Justice could not be satisfied that the facilities that were offered at Omagh courthouse were of a sufficient standard to ask the court users to transfer their business 20 miles up the road to Omagh and that such a request was not warranted by what he had witnessed. I have to say that Omagh courthouse has not moved and that Strabane courthouse has not moved. Omagh courthouse has not been improved in any way. Strabane courthouse has not deteriorated in any way in those three years. Yet, we are faced with fighting the exact same battle again.

Respectfully, Chair, I refer the Committee to a number of submissions that have already been sent to the Minister. I know that you will have submissions before you from the former Strabane District Council and from the now Derry City and Strabane District Council. I have brought these today because I have been asked and because there is such a high public interest and such a high professional interest. I speak as a practising solicitor from the Strabane town area who works regularly in Strabane courthouse and in Omagh courthouse and, of course, Derry courthouse. I have been asked on behalf of the Strabane Solicitors Association and my own office, John Fahy and Company, which is the largest professional firm in the Strabane area, and also by Strabane Sinn Féin because I am a Sinn Féin councillor on Derry City and Strabane District Council to submit in paper form those three submissions as evidence of the points that we wish to make in support. I do not intend to labour those points before the Committee today; I appreciate that time is very precious to the Committee.

In closing, I will say that nothing speaks like a story in what the reality is for court users, and I have plenty of experience of being a court user as a practitioner and also when I witness the use of the court buildings through my clients' eyes. I am a family law practitioner across both courthouses and, indeed, other courthouses throughout the North. Recently, I brought a non-molestation order application for a young woman who was being cyberbullied by her ex-partner.

I remarked to her afterwards that she said how frightening it had been to come to court and how lovely the judge had been. She said to me that she had felt very intimidated when going into court, and I said that we would not have to worry about that very soon because the court is up for closure. She looked shocked and asked, "How can that be? That is unthinkable." I said that the proposals by the Minister of Justice are that it should close. She asked, "What would happen in a case like mine?" I said that I would have to bring her to Omagh or Derry in order to apply for a non-molestation order. This lady has a six-year-old child from a previous relationship. She did not want her family to know. She is extremely private. She was very safety conscious, and she did not want any of her family to know. Even when she was coming in to instruct me, she was concerned that some of my firm might be familiar with her. She said that if she had to travel 20 miles from the town, she would have borne the brunt of the most horrendous cyberbullying rather than travel and risk the case being found out about. She was so worried about the disapproval of her family or that they would find out about it.

She did go to a hearing, and she eventually got a full non-molestation order. The matter was contested. She was able to do it in privacy and in dignity at her local courthouse, and she was served by local interests.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): Can I ask you to finish up, as we have gone over time. It is just to be fair to other councils.

Councillor Carlin: I beg your pardon. Another case that I have been involved in recently included the most draconian power that a court can impose nowadays, which is the removal of children. In that case, which was in Omagh courthouse because we do not have a family proceedings court sitting in Strabane at present — and one of the proposals we had for improving the usage of Strabane courthouse was to move family proceedings court sittings to the courthouse once a month — my client, who travelled from Strabane with me because he did not have a car and I did not want him to have to use public transport, had to stand in a room that is much less than half the size of this one during the proceedings in which his children were made the subject of a permanent care order. The proposal by the trust was for adoption of the children. He had to stand through that, and it was only when I got up and gave him a seat that he was afforded — in that most profound of hearings — the basic dignity of a seat.

That is our reality at present, and I can say only that this is going to be magnified one hundredfold should we lose Strabane courthouse. That will be the daily reality for many court users. Thank you very much. I am sorry for going over time.

Councillor Patsy Kelly (Derry City and Strabane District Council): I will finish off briefly

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): Be very brief.

Councillor P Kelly: This is very much a cross-party issue in Derry City and Strabane District Council. All councillors are in agreement that we want to save a service that is vital to a very deprived area. When it comes to axe-wielding, this area seems to be at the top of the list in every Department. If you are in Strabane or that area, the axe falls.

Council queries the costs cited in the compass of all costs associated with the relocation of services to Omagh, including travelling costs for legal professionals, which, we assume, will be transferred to the legal aid budget. Customers and staff will have to be paid for travelling from Strabane to the other courts in Omagh, Tyrone, Fermanagh and Derry instead of presenting themselves at court in Strabane.

Again, with respect to disability access, you would be moving disabled customers to courts and offices with an inferior level of disability access by taking these customers out of Strabane.

The other effect will be on the business community in Strabane, such as restaurants that serve lunch there. Strabane has a high rate of unemployment, and what you are now doing is creating another issue, in that businesses in the restaurant sector will have to lay staff off due to the closure of Strabane courthouse. This town, with high unemployment, cannot afford to lose its courthouse.

Also, Translink is proposing reduced services to Derry and Omagh. This will have an impact on services from Strabane to those places.

There is also the cost to families — to those who can least afford it. I urge you to consider this. Maybe the Minister would come to the courts in Strabane and Omagh again to see the facilities that are there and are not adequate to cope with moving Strabane court proceedings to Omagh.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): Thank you; I appreciate that.

We now have Fermanagh and Omagh. I welcome Councillor Thomas O'Reilly, chairman of Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, and Mr Brendan Hegarty, chief executive. Again I ask you to take six or seven minutes in order to facilitate discussion at the end. In your own time, if you want to start.

Councillor Thomas O'Reilly (Fermanagh and Omagh District Council): Thank you, Chairman and members of the Justice Committee for allowing us this opportunity to come here. We already provided you with a paper outlining our concerns.

I have four main points. As you may well know, Fermanagh has one eighth of the landmass of the North of Ireland. One of our greatest assets is Lough Erne, which bisects the county. We have a couple of crossing points to get from one side of the county through Enniskillen to Omagh, and that creates its own unique movement problems.

One of our key objections to the removal of the court service from Enniskillen is accessibilty. You are looking at two of the most deprived wards in Fermanagh, as regards accessibility, by the indices produced. A return bus journey from Belcoo to Omagh takes four hours and 40 minutes; and from Rosslea, it takes four hours and 54 minutes. Like the previous delegation, we ask you to bear in mind that Translink NI is putting forward proposals to remove that bus link; so the accessibility will probably be greatly affected.

The only other way to travel would be by taxi, which would be an extra cost to the Court Service. No-shows will be an extra cost as well. On public transport, first you have to get to Enniskillen, and then from there to Omagh; so you would have to change services to get to the court.

The cost is being put onto already very stretched services, such as Women's Aid, to facilitate people to be able to attend court at the most stressful time for them. The cost to Women's Aid for their people to get to court is estimated to be an extra £7,000 per year.

In the 2012 report, Enniskillen was very much seen as a fit-for-purpose court service. It cost £183 per hour of sitting, which was the most economical in Northern Ireland. There is certainly something to be said for that.

Like the other delegations, we believe there will be an impact on our community. In an island town like Enniskillen, there is a legal hub of activity around the courthouse. Move that courthouse to Omagh, and you will possibly lose those legal people to Omagh. That would have a detrimental impact on not only the local economy but on the population of County Fermanagh in that people will then possibly have to travel to Omagh to get even legal representation. Add to that the possibility that with the Court Service moving to Omagh, the custody suite could end up moving as well. That would create further complications for people, and not just the court time that police would have to devote to moving between the court in Omagh and Enniskillen. A new public-sector hub is being proposed for the old Enniskillen hospital site. That could be an opportunity for the Court Service to move there, along with cutting down on the time wasted from a police point of view.

We have seen local closures in the motor tax office, parts of the Housing Executive and the income tax office, all of which have moved out of Enniskillen and County Fermanagh.

As we all know, once those services move out, it is very unlikely that you are ever going to get any of them back.

It is unthinkable that Fermanagh would be the only county in Ireland without a court service. The county will not have a court service if it is moved out. As I said, as Enniskillen is an island town, it is very difficult for people to move out of it without a large cost implication. Given the amount of money that is proposed to be saved, we contend that this is certainly not to the advantage of local people or of justice being served to people. We contend that it will not save money in the long run at all.

Mr Brendan Hegarty (Fermanagh and Omagh District Council): Chairman and members, thank you. I will add a wider concern about the impact that this would have on the status of Enniskillen itself. In the regional development strategy, Enniskillen is designated as a gateway and a subregional centre. Facilities such as a court service are key in achieving that sort of designation in the regional development strategy. Our concern is that, if this decision to close the courthouse in Enniskillen is carried through, it will have a significant detrimental impact on the status of Enniskillen in the regional development strategy and any subsequent reviews. The long-term consequences, therefore, would be much wider than just those arising out of a single decision to close the courthouse, and that exercises us to a large degree.

We have to recognise the difficulties with Enniskillen as an island town and the difficulties that arise with changes around it. I draw your attention to the BBC 'Town' series that was run a few years ago, one episode of which focused on Enniskillen and its uniqueness as an island town. It focused on the fact that what was known as the legal quarter had developed in the island and how all the legal services had developed around the courthouse. Any decision to close the courthouse could result in very significant impacts for Enniskillen. Chairman, I would just like to bring that to your attention and members' attention.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Let us bring in Castlereagh. I welcome Councillor Catney, Alderman Tinsley and Catharine McWhirter, the community planning officer. You have six or seven minutes.

Alderman James Tinsley (Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council): Thank you very much, Chair and Committee, for the opportunity to come along this afternoon to make our submission on behalf of Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council. We wish to maintain a courthouse in our city and have spent some time over the last month exploring in partnership the effects of a courthouse closure on the local area and its people. More specifically, we have explored an alternative to the closure. The council believes that access to justice in the local setting and justice being done within local communities is an important consideration. The following points are a summary of the deliberations that we have had.

Our council believes that, if the spirit of community planning is used, a different solution to the closure of Lisburn courthouse could be explored further by the DOJ in partnership with the council and others, looking specifically at a range of relative justice and community planning outcomes and the concept of the co-location of relevant and related services. Co-location builds relationships between providers and allows for the sharing of information and speed of execution of solutions to complex issues. There needs to be a greater connectivity between central government policies and local government reform. Through the OFMDFM early intervention transformation programme under the Delivering Social Change signature programme, a pilot project between a number of partners, including the community and voluntary sector, could be further explored, aimed at reducing the adversarial nature of the justice system and making it more efficient and effective and able to take advantage of the greater flexibility offered by a single jurisdiction model and to think about alternatives and early intervention initiatives.

The starting point for the rationalisation of the Courts Service should be need and not cost reduction.

That should link to community planning and outcomes and ensure that all key players are involved in the decision-making process, identifying all costs and benefits in a balanced manner. Any rationalisation process needs to be based on what the Courts Service currently provides; what it needs to provide and to whom in the future; what alternatives or ideas can contribute to new thinking; and what outcomes can be achieved moving forward. A range of cost options needs to be explored once that evidence base has been identified. That is likely to point to the need to look at alternatives.

The concept of a community safety justice hub has been identified in Lisburn as a significant alternative to the closure of Lisburn courthouse. That would involve co-location of the courthouse with other complementary community safety and justice-related services. It would likely mean the relocation of the courthouse from its present location to allow for further expansion, and so on. Other users and services in a co-located building could include the health and social care trusts. The concept of child-inclusive mediation, parallel therapy work and family mediation, which allows children to voice their views, wishes and feelings without placing any burden of decision-making on them, has been identified. Family mediation gives separating couples an opportunity to decide themselves what to do about their children and finances, with help and guidance provided by trained and impartial mediators. That is an alternative to the more traditional legal approach of using lawyers and maybe eventually asking a judge to make the key decisions that will shape the family's future. Other possible complementary and related users could include the Youth Justice Agency, the Probation Board and Women's Aid, and consulting rooms for solicitors, among others, could be provided.

Some ideas worthy of further exploration are in the area of improving community safety by helping children to stop offending. A community-based support system that assists young people through community-based disposal orders could help reduce reoffending and also reduce the numbers of people who currently fall through the net because of additional addictions or mental health issues. The concept of a small two- to three-bed bail facility and a helpline for young people in the area who become homeless and are within the judicial system but have nowhere to go afterwards was also mooted during our general discussions. Significant pressures are mounting on Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre (JJC), which was opened in 2007, and it is clear that the JJC is being used when no alternative accommodation is available for other young children. It was noted that, because of funding cuts, some of the services delivered by community and voluntary sector organisations are being cut back. Once again, many believe that the savings from the justice system achieved through the delivery of those services far outweigh their costs and that different social returns and investment models to evaluate such projects need to be used in assessing their value to the delivery of local services by government agencies.

The council's Bridge Community Centre is opposite the current courthouse and hosts a range of co-locating services, including Women's Aid and a citizens advice bureau. There are many opportunities for greater connectivity between Lisburn courthouse and community-based facilities. From the perspective of the council, other contemporary services through the court include enforcement, building control, health and safety, and food safety. A more detailed feasibility study is required to identify who could co-locate and at what cost, and from where resources could be sourced to establish and run the services. In such a feasibility study, it would be very important to consider the layout and entrance to such a building to ensure safety and security for all those involved, as well as to consider the range of different users of such a facility. There are a few site options that could be explored for a community safety justice hub locally, and a number of key players have demonstrated an interest in the concept. A number of other alternatives or options need to be explored alongside that concept, including pop-up courts, virtual courts, restorative justice, court-based mediation services and more use of video linkage. Those options need to be explored further in a more detailed feasibility study for Lisburn. Those types of services could result in even greater savings and could lead to less local disruption and improved local service delivery. It is clear that the assessment of costs has been done on the premise of reducing the costs for the Courts Service rather than by taking a wider view of cost savings across the public sector as a whole or by taking account of the transfer of those costs to those who use the service.

The council has concerns about the depth of analysis around the court's savings associated with the closure of the courthouse. Based on that consultation with the range of users, it contends that costs are more likely to be transferred to other users of the Courts Service, including families, witnesses, health trust personnel, the Prison Service and solicitors, to name but a few.

A fuller cost-benefit analysis therefore needs to be undertaken.

Finally, although we are time-limited today, we will report to the Committee in full on a number of issues and concerns later in the summer. Those include taking on board travel time and costs; parking fees; overcrowding at Laganside Courts at the minute; additional time out of the office for agencies that are attending court; the ownership of Lisburn courthouse; equality issues; and the economic effects of the closure on the use of restorative justice.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to come along, Chairman.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

OK. Mid and East Antrim Borough Council. I welcome the mayor, Councillor Billy Ashe, who, I am sure, will tell us that we have saved the best for last; Ms Anne Donaghy, who is the chief executive of the council; and Alderman Tommy Nicholl. Again, folks, I will give you six or seven minutes. Work away.

Councillor Billy Ashe (Mid and East Antrim Borough Council): Mr Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to present on the proposed closure of Ballymena courthouse, which is something that the people of mid and east Antrim feel very strongly about.

The closure will not only affect Ballymena. It will affect the people of Larne and will have major implications within the borough. The lack of a business case makes rebuttal difficult, and it is extremely difficult to see how savings are being made and are not simply being moved elsewhere. At a time when public moneys are being invested in Ballymena town centre, it is step backwards and will cause local businesses to close and/or relocate.

The council has already mobilised a group and is working on the most appropriate approach, moving forward, to keep the courthouse open. We were very pleased that officials from the Courts and Tribunals Service met us and heard at first hand some of the concerns that we will raise with you today. During the discussions with officials, they agreed to provide us with further information and responses to a number of questions. That focused, in particular, on the details of their processes, and we look forward to receiving that information very soon. With your permission, I will ask our chief executive to forward that information to you when we receive it, along with the detail of the questions that we have asked.

Whilst the council recognises the pressure on public finances, that cannot and should not be used as an excuse to slash public services. Only two years ago, Larne courthouse was permanently closed with all business being transferred to Ballymena. Now, the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service is proposing to close Ballymena courthouse. That poses a double blow to our constituents. Mid and east Antrim has faced many cuts to local public service delivery over the last decade, and it has failed to witness the improved quality of service that each closure has promised. Access to justice is and remains an important right for our citizens.

The Minister of Justice stated that he would examine the capacity of all court buildings and that the venues that would receive transferring business would be larger or more modern venues, with more courtrooms that are able to deal with a range of court business. However, I would point out that Antrim courthouse is not able to accommodate the transfer of all Ballymena courthouse's business. It is also proposed that all Antrim and Ballymena's County Court business will transfer to Coleraine. That is a journey of some 49 miles from Larne and 27 miles from Ballymena. That is a considerable distance to ask our citizens to travel to a courthouse. Under the proposals, Limavady courthouse will also be subsumed by Coleraine, which is already a busy courthouse. Coleraine courthouse has the potential to become saturated, slow to process business and, ultimately, to be a failure in the objective of achieving fairer, faster justice. Antrim is also a busy court, and it is doubtful whether it would be able to take on all the criminal cases that are currently processed in Ballymena courthouse without slowing the justice system down considerably and resulting in an overcrowded and under-resourced court.

Mid and east Antrim covers an area of approximately 400 square miles. Removing the courthouse will leave the borough council without local access to the courts. I will now pass over to my colleague Alderman Nicholl.

Alderman Tommy Nicholl (Mid and East Antrim Borough Council): Mr Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to put our case to you today. I have been a councillor for 34 years, and I have never felt so disheartened in relation to justice in the mid and east Antrim area.

Should what is being proposed happen, I believe that we will be the only one of the 11 councils with no courthouse.

Over recent years, £1·7 million has been invested in Ballymena courthouse. That is a significant amount, and the council believes that Ballymena courthouse is an important facility for the new mid and east Antrim area. The council believes that the wider services available in Ballymena complement the provision of court services.

When the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) rationalised its estate, it chose Ballymena as the location for its north Antrim office. As we know, probation staff fulfil a crucial role in courts, and it is nonsensical to close a courthouse in a town in which PBNI has based its local office.

Ballymena citizens advice bureau also offers a daily drop-in centre, which is ideal for offering support services to the local people who go there. The population served by Ballymena courthouse is 97,000. This is almost twice the population of the old Antrim Borough Council area, which was 54,000. The proposal to close Ballymena courthouse clearly has a disproportionate effect on the citizens of mid and east Antrim.

Traditionally, courthouses were located in the centre of towns and acted as a cornerstone for the local community. They were a source of civic pride and were a part of social life and ritual. Mid and East Antrim Borough Council strongly believes that Ballymena courthouse provides that role and that it should be strengthened and enriched rather than closed.

To close, and I feel very strongly about this, with the use of a community planning approach, Mid and East Antrim Borough Council believes that there is potential for a resurgence. Ballymena courthouse can be a vibrant and vital place that contributes economically, culturally and socially for all our citizens. I confidently leave the issue with you.

Ms Anne Donaghy (Mid and East Antrim Borough Council): To summarise, the elected members to Mid and East Antrim Borough Council feel that the proposal is very much a knee-jerk reaction by the DOJ to budget cuts. It is not just about the rationalisation of courthouses: it is about taking away local justice services from the people we serve. So, it is not just about the removal of a courthouse or a building; it is about the removal of the services within the building. As the mayor said, closing Ballymena courthouse would leave mid and east Antrim with no courthouse and no local services for justice.

We view the process as being piecemeal. Larne courthouse closed in 2009, and back then the people were told that the services would go to Ballymena. A few years on, we see that the Magistrates' Court work is going to be transferred to Antrim and the County Court work will be transferred to Coleraine. To make sure that there is enough space in Antrim, the County Court work from Ballymena, Larne and Antrim will be going to Coleraine. That seems quite bizarre.

When you look at the figures in the report, over the past few years, there has been a very clear winding down in the level of work being sent to Ballymena courthouse. This really challenges the fact that there has been a £1·7 million investment in the building during the same period.

Closing Ballymena courthouse would save roughly £250,000.

To put that into context, that is 0·02% of the overall DOJ budget, so we, as elected members of Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, do not believe that that makes a good value-for-money case. However, we have asked for a copy of the business case, and we await that. We have also asked for figures on the mothballing of Ballymena courthouse because, like any building and a significant architectural structure, it will require to be heated and maintained. That will cost a significant amount, so when you reduce that from the potential £250,000, it comes down to a minimal amount of savings.

All of this is done, we feel, in relation to budget cuts. There has been no or little value placed on community impact, on the community's view of justice and on community access to justice services. The elected members of Mid and East Antrim Borough Council feel that there is a need for a strategic approach to the overall provision of court services across the whole of Northern Ireland and that that should be done in relation to not only court services but all of the justice family services. We should make those decisions not just on budget but on need and look at it within a community planning context. We believe that the decision is not just about now and not just about today but is a decision for years to come, not just a decision on the financial position that we find ourselves in. Any court and justice system should be sustainable for Northern Ireland throughout the years to come.

Mid and East Antrim Borough Council has already examined other options for the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service to consider in terms of a public zone, a citizens zone and increasing the usage by other public services. We have submitted those options for consideration and await some direction, and we will leave those for your consideration of evidence.

In closing, we call for the Committee to consider requesting a strategic review of all of the court service provision across Northern Ireland rather than the piecemeal approach that we have found ourselves in.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): Thank you very much.

With the number of people here, we will ask people to stay in their seats, but we do have two roving microphones, which, hopefully, will work. The idea is for a big round-table discussion, and, if people want to indicate that they wish to make a contribution, somebody will bring them a microphone. Where councils have more than more representative, I ask that only one representative makes a comment, otherwise we could get bogged down. We have about an hour for discussion, and, hopefully, we will get as much information as we can.

I thank everyone for coming along today and making their contributions. I suppose that, as a Committee, we want to try to probe some of the issues and see what our view is. A number of councils have mentioned that this is being done for budgetary reasons. That may well be the case, but, of course, out of necessity, you can sometimes get the impetus for change or for modernisation. One of the things that we have noticed from Great Britain and the Irish Republic is that, where there has been modernisation of the court facilities, perhaps citizens have been happier with their experience of the courts if they have a better and more pleasant experience when they get to building rather than just because it is close. I wonder whether anybody has any views on whether the most important aspect of our court service provision right across Northern Ireland is that our facilities are up to scratch and that people have a pleasant experience when they get there as opposed to having an older building closer to them.

I also wonder whether anyone has any views around the model of court provision that we have in Northern Ireland and whether we want to keep to a model of local courts as opposed to specialisation of the courts. Again, one of the rationales that has been used is that specialised courts may provide a better service. Those are the issues to kick off the discussion and to see whether anybody has any comments to make on that. Other members of the Committee may wish to raise other questions or points.

Mr Douglas: First, I thank everybody for their presentations. I found them very helpful. In March this year, the Lord Chief Justice made representations to us.

He said:

He went on to say:

Today, some people have talked about the economic benefits as well. I am just wondering about the weight that has been given, outside of an effective and efficient court service, to other factors when making these decisions, including the whole economic factor. A number of people mentioned Women's Aid. I remember listening to the radio and to a representative from Women's Aid talking about the impact. Maybe somebody could explain what the impact will be on those whom Women's Aid would deal with. I imagine that, regarding access, they would be lone parents and children. I am not quite sure whether anybody would have the answer to the first question. What are the other factors apart from the effective and efficient court service?

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): Does anyone wish to make a contribution on any of the points made so far? Can I ask you to state your name and council, as Hansard will do a retrospective report of this session and it will make it easier when reporting.

Councillor Carlin: Thank you very much for allowing me in, Chair.

In relation to Strabane's courthouse, the proposed saving is £101,000, with an offset of what one of our colleagues described as "mothballing costs" of around £40,000. So, even on the Department's figures, there is a net saving of around £60,000 from the removal of a vital public service. We would query that, because what we are saying — and one of our colleagues from one of the other councils also referred to it — is that it is not about saving money: it is about moving cost. It is about moving cost on to the shoulders of those less able to bear that cost. You are moving costs on to the court user, be it the defendant in a criminal case, the person looking for a non-molestation order, the person looking to bring a case regarding their children to court, or the person defending a case where the state is looking to bring proceedings regarding their children to court. It may be for any number of reasons. It is simply about access to justice. That cost will not be eliminated; it will simply be put on to the shoulders of those whom we say are less and less able to bear that cost. It does not disappear.

As a final point; this year, we are celebrating the eight-hundredth birthday of Magna Carta. We have heard the great and the good celebrating that we created the first bill of rights in the world and that it has been a flagship for human rights and tolerance and the model for the administration of justice in the world. Articles 39 and 40 of Magna Carta say that justice should be in a discernable place and should be accessible. It should be in a fixed place, which people can access. Yet, today, in 2015, 800 years after Magna Carta was signed by King John, we have proposals for the removal and destruction of that very service and the very basic tenet of access to justice.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): Are we not quite spoilt in Northern Ireland, though? You can make the comparison with GB or even with the Irish Republic, where people live much further away from their local courthouses. I just wonder whether, if we were starting with a blank page, we would have the same court provision that we have at present. Perhaps, we have been spoilt in that we have had these local facilities, whereas, in the rest of the United Kingdom or the Irish Republic, that is not the case.

Councillor Carlin: I will take the Irish Republic example first. There, courts are sometimes held in session in local hotels. The damage to confidence in the administration of justice that this has caused in the state has been immeasurable. We have to weigh up confidence in the administration of justice against cost. What we say is that there is simply no value that can be placed on losing confidence in justice because that is a basic tenet of the legitimacy of the right to rule of law.

A recent description of the situation in Great Britain is that there are deserts of justice — entire swathes of the country, towns, villages and cities — where courthouses are absent. Is that the system of justice that the Committee wants to preside over? Is that the legal system that I wish to practise in? For my part, I can tell you that it is not, and I do not believe that, on your part, you wish to preside over such a system.

Councillor S McIlveen: We are talking about buildings, which are one thing, but it is more about users. People who use courts tend to be vulnerable — a much-overused word. They are looking for help and have come to the state to make a decision for them because that is the authority that can make such decisions.

From a Newtownards perspective, huge numbers of people in the area have never been to Belfast. Belfast scares them. The thought of driving or getting a bus into Belfast gives them cold shivers and the sweats. People from the area who go to tribunals in Belfast do not know where to go or where to park. The cost of parking is absolutely astronomical. If some 6,000 cases go into Belfast, think of the number of cars if people do not use the bus service. Where are they going to park? How are they going to get to the facilities to use them? More than anything, we have to think about the users. It is not about big shiny buildings. It is about access to justice and justice being done quickly in the most comfortable place for them, and that place is local.

Councillor Ashe: Mr Chairman, we believe that a strategic review of the need for fit-for-purpose courthouses is required and that it should be done on the back of a review on need, service integration and access, not just budget cuts. It is not necessary to have a courthouse in every town, but there should be a strategic positioning on need and not just a scattergun and piecemeal approach. We need to build a justice system for the future but we should not dismantle it in the meantime for the sake of budget cuts.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): Stewart, Raymond and Alban all wish to ask questions, so maybe we could take the three members together. Members should pose their questions, and then we will open up again to make sure that we have a conversational approach.

Mr Dickson: It is important to hear what people from the councils have to say, but the Criminal Justice Inspection (CJI), commenting on the court estate and the current financial situation, said:

An independent expert — the Criminal Justice Inspection — states that it is not an option. Everyone wants a courthouse on their street corner, but that is not an option. Councillor Ashe probably hit the nail on the head when he spoke about the need for a strategic review of the way in which the court estate is rationalised across Northern Ireland. On that basis, there are going to be winners and an awful lot of losers. If there is to be any change or movement, it is a matter for the Department of Justice, working with the new local authorities, which have a lot of flexibility and resources for multiple use — historic buildings, modern buildings and, in Lisburn, 1960s buildings that are well past their sell-by date but which may have valuable land underneath. All those things are up for grabs, but there is also a very tight time frame because of the financial crisis that we currently find ourselves in. Some very creative thinking is needed, and it needs to happen very quickly.

Mr McCartney: The presentations were all well made.

Each council made a pitch for its particular area, and that is understandable. To follow up on the points made by Stewart and Councillor Ashe in relation to a strategic overview, it might be an appropriate time — I am not sure what is causing me to echo. Is it a phone?

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): I would have thought so. [Laughter.]

Mr McCartney: I think that it is an appropriate time. It struck me that this is the first time that I have seen it that, as Councillor Ashe said, business cases were perhaps not put forward for this. In the absence of a business case, it is difficult to come up with some of the figures that are being put on it by the Department. In much the same way, a business case review would put up some of the other figures that we have heard. It might not be a bad suggestion for the Committee, coming out of this session, to look to see how that overview can be provided.

In the Lisburn presentation, they talked about the court facility becoming a centre of judicial excellence and other things, and that is a good point. An earlier presentation talked about tribunals. However, I know through the constituency office that there are some tribunals that people do not want in court settings. They feel that, if it is an appeal of a decision made by the Social Security Agency, going into a court setting will somehow make it look like they are guilty of something. It can be a mix and blend. However, we have to be prepared for the fact that there are other stakeholders in this argument who may not want some facilities in these buildings, as much as I think that it was excellent presentation.

Mr A Maginness: Thank you all for the very thoughtful and well worked out submissions to the Committee. My view is that the proposals are arbitrary. They are unworkable, impractical and will end up falling on their face. These are not going to work. There is a need for some rationalisation, but this is not rationalisation. I do not believe that any serious business case has been worked out in relation to these, and we will soon find that out. If they are introduced and imposed, we are going to be looking at considerable disruption and considerable lack of access to justice for ordinary people, whether it is in family law, criminal law or civil law. These are not going to work. I say that not just as a politician but as a former practitioner in many of the courthouses that you mentioned. I think that they are essentially daft, but, anyway, we will find that out in the near future. They are totally driven by economies that the Department is pushing forward.

The issue that I wanted to raise is status. The issue of status is important for a number of your councils. I select Armagh as an example just to highlight this. It is the historic capital for the Church in Ireland, the primatial seat of the Church of Ireland and the Catholic Church. It has a wonderful history as a town. It is a beautiful town, and the courthouse in the middle of the town on the Mall is splendid. It is just irreplaceable and cannot be used for anything else. You cannot turn it into a hotel. It would be a desecration if you did something like that. Status is very important to councils. I understand that, and I think that that is a very important element. It is not an add-on. It is an essential element to councils. I support you in relation to that.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): OK. There are a number of issues there. Stewart mentioned the CJI report that was published this week. There was media attention yesterday on that report's comment that retaining the current estate's infrastructure is not an option. It is clearly something that is on the agenda.

The multi-use aspect of buildings was mentioned by a few councils. I take Raymond's point. Even in youth justice, there is a move to take youth justice out of the formal setting. I wonder whether Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council has any response to that. Some of those agencies do not want to be in the formal setting. Perhaps you have given consideration to that.

The Mid and East Antrim Borough Council representatives talked about other usages for their building.

Mr Maginness talked about Armagh, and the findings in the CJI report suggest that Armagh's utilisation is around 29%. Is there anything that can be done in Armagh so that people use those buildings and get more community usage out of them? I think that there is a public interest in ensuring that buildings are used more often than they are at the moment. I put that out for comments.

I will just remind people to state their name and council.

Councillor Pat Catney (Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council): Thanks very much for letting me come in.

Mr Dickson, on the point that you made, as far as I am concerned, if these proposals go through in the way that is recommended, the only loser will be justice. I firmly believe that.

Moving on to Mr Douglas's point, I will put on my hat as a businessman who has a business in Belfast that is very close to the law courts. I do not want this to be my main point, but I agree with you about the economic spin-off from the courts during the worst parts of the economic downturn and bedlam that was dealt down to us in Belfast. We had the law courts, which generated people being about the place. That meant that people felt used, and it was probably the keystone that started off the economic revival of Belfast city centre.

I take on board Mr McCartney's point of view, and I am glad that he listened to the point that we were trying to make. We on Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council are trying to think outside the box. You brought up a point, Chair, about the youth system, and we are trying to bring together all strands of justice so that we can come up with some sort of viable concern. Remember that that was passed to us from the Assembly so that we could try to do the community plan. We are trying our best, but time is limited for us, given the way that this is being presented to us today. We are united in Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council on the idea that we need to hold on to that facility. We need to come up with something that is brand new and that thinks outside the box so that we can take in all the strands of justice that are there, make the place more welcoming and think of our victims. So, it is important that a heavy weight is put upon you today. I tell you this: justice will not be served if these proposals are allowed to go through.

Councillor O'Reilly: A lot has been said here about access and rural proofing. From a Fermanagh point of view, access and rural proofing have been talked about for a long time. We heard in a lot of the submissions today that that is something that has happened across all the councils.

The proposal that is being talked about is the strategic review of the delivery of the Court Service, but maybe there needs to be wider review of how the Government are delivering services to rural and all other areas, because we are starting to get a piecemeal approach to all the different issues on the back of the economic pressures that we face. I believe that is a knee-jerk reaction to where we are at this point. Once we start making these cuts and start losing these services right across all our areas, we will not be able to get them back. Somewhere down the line, we will see that the centralised approach has not worked. We have the evidence to back that up.

We had the whole idea of trying to devolve services, particularly to rural areas. I think that that idea was a very good one: it was well thought out and has the evidence base behind it. We are starting to lose sight of that. We are retracting back to the centre and trying to abide by the idea that big is best. We have seen time and time again that big is not best. The whole idea of the review of local government was to bring decision-making closer to the people. On the one hand, we are doing that, but, on the other, we are sitting here as representatives of the 11 new councils saying that we are losing services. So, there is no joined-up thinking in the wider government delivery of service. The time for talking about rural proofing has long gone by, and there needs to be action on it.

We should not just think about how we can strategically look at it whenever some crisis comes up. We need to have a wider strategic view on how all services are delivered.

Councillor Ashe: Mid and East Antrim Borough Council is already working with the Northern Ireland Courts Service and elected Members, including our MP and MLAs, to support the courthouse staying open and to look at new and innovative ways of keeping it open. In the meantime, however, we need a stay of execution on the decision. It is wrong simply to close the courthouses by the end of the financial year. We will regret that. It is wrong to make a decision in the absence of the strategic review and the business case.

Ms O'Gorman: I wish to pick up on a couple of points. The point has been made that Armagh courthouse is a listed building. It dates back to 1806 and is in a conservation area with no clear alternative use, and its setting is integral to the quality urban environment that it sits in. As a courthouse, it has undergone significant investment, and the point was made about using the facilities better. There was an £8 million investment in the mid-1990s, and there has been further investment since then. Our understanding from the legal profession is that there is capacity and scope to extend the activities available at Armagh and the nature of the business that can be done from there, such as Crown Court business, Magistrates' Court business, enforcement of justice and business and social security appeals, to name but a few. We are also aware that other venues in Armagh are being hired for tribunals. If we have a facility, can that not be considered? We therefore very much support the approach of looking at how we can make greater use of the facilities, and we feel that that is a very important consideration going forward.

The point about economic considerations was also made earlier. As I outlined in our evidence, we feel that those have not been given due regard in the consultation report that has been issued. From our perspective, the indicated savings of £217 million do not take into account the additional potential costs of legal aid or investment in other facilities to which the service would transfer. As others have said, there are also the additional costs of maintaining a building. We therefore feel that the economic considerations have not been given full attention as part of the review. There is a feeling that savings will be made, but, in fact, it will probably be more of a move from making savings to additional costs being incurred right across the board.

Mr Poots: I have a couple of points to make. First, we have not properly seen the figures on all the courthouses and how they really stack up. It is absolutely critical that we know the true savings before we make decisions that will have a really significant impact. Based on what has been raised today, there are two strands to this. There is a rurality issue, and a lot of people will have to travel considerable distances to courthouses. On the one hand, the weakness in the case for individuals there is that a lot of the courthouses are heavily underutilised — there is less than 30% utilisation — but, on the other hand, people will be affected much more as a result of any move. We then have the greater Belfast-type proposal, including those in Ards and Lisburn, where putting more people in Laganside Courts is being looked at. Anybody who is about Laganside in the morning will know that that place will not sustain considerably more numbers. Producing a figure that states that it is operating at 90% capacity and thus still has capacity is not that relevant because capacity in courts is not well utilised in the afternoon. You therefore cannot say to folks in Lisburn and Ards, "You can go down to Laganside from 2.00 pm onwards, and there will be plenty of capacity there for you", because those things happen in the morning. Solicitors do their work in the morning, and plea bargaining and so on goes on then, so it is not the way in which courts work. You just cannot just lift a figure and extrapolate it to say that there is space in that courthouse.

I do not believe that that can be described as at all logical, particularly without an appropriate business case and the figures being brought before us.

Mr Lynch: Many of the presentations had similarities. I think that the big criticism that we have is that this is being driven solely by savings. A number of presentations mentioned the transfer of the court work and where it is going. The courthouses are not sufficient or are overloaded. I will go back to what the Lord Chief Justice said to us about Omagh, and, obviously, we all have interests in our own areas, which was that the structures in Omagh:

So, in the overall sense, this has not been thought out as part of a business plan for the North of Ireland.

I know that you mentioned the South of Ireland, Chair. Whilst there was a rationalisation of the court estate there, it was done within a judicial framework, not within a savings framework. That is the difficulty. I agree with the members and with Anne at the back, I think that it was, who said that we need a strategic review. Maybe she will come back on that. I think that she mentioned us carrying it out — I might be wrong, Anne — and that the Justice Committee might have a role in that. In overall terms, the big criticism is that it was about savings in a judicial framework. There are huge distances there. A number of people talked about travelling two and a half hours and 60 miles. It is not about every town having a courthouse. We know that almost every town did have a courthouse, if we think back. They are all gone, so we are talking about the last remaining ones in huge areas.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): I will try to find a few questions in that to throw out. I think that it may be too much to ask our Assembly members not to state their own positions and to ask questions instead, but, nevertheless, it is always worth a try.

Edwin's point, and I think that Councillor McIlveen made it earlier as well, is that, in Belfast in particular, there are just not the rooms available for solicitors to bring their clients in to have a discussion beforehand. That is clearly a problem, but a wider one may be whether there are the right facilities in the courthouses that we have at the moment. So, we are moving towards a system of modernisation. I know that Alban always gets a little bit nervous around this sort of stuff, but there is an increase in video links. We need rooms for families and things like that in courts. We need to have the right sort of facilities available. What are your views on whether each council and the areas that they represent feel that their courthouses have the facilities that are required for a modern courthouse to ensure that victims and witnesses have a pleasant experience when they are there?

Seán expressed the view on not having a courthouse in every town. We recognise that there have been changes. From a strategic point of view, do any of the councils wish to offer an opinion on whether, in five years' time, we will still have all the courthouses that we currently have working in Northern Ireland or whether there is room for some rationalisation of the estate if we have improved facilities in the courthouses that remain? Or is the view very much that we just keep what we have at the moment and continue?

I tried to make questions out of those. I will throw them out to people if anyone has any comment.

Councillor Catney: Chair, thank you, again. We have shown in our presentation where we have been trying to look at different buildings and those that are close to try to bring all those threads of justice together. The answer to the first part of your question is probably no, but with a little bit of thought and work going into the community plan that we are trying to get out there, I believe that we can deliver this. We have already earmarked sites that are available at this moment to try, with the council and the Department, to show that we can deliver something that is fit for purpose and that will sustain and last. So, the will is there from us. We have already stated that we are trying to work really hard on the community aspect of some of the powers that you have passed back down to us. We are bringing everything that we possibly can. I have to say that the centralisation just does not work for what we are trying to do, and it has never worked when it comes to justice.

So, taking the whole thing right back — and we are talking about the courthouse wherever it is — it does not work. It has to be there, it has to be governed, and it needs to be within the area.

As a council, we will not be found wanting. With a little bit of time, we will come up with a scheme that is viable and profitable. By that I mean that the costs will be minimal and there will be drawdown. Who will be the winners in all of this? The winners will be the people we represent. It is important that we do not leave a stone unturned in order to set something up and look at all of the parts of justice that we can bring together for the vulnerable, the weak, the victims and those who commit the crimes. All of that is there together.

We have two prisons within our borough. I do not know if there are any more outside of that. It seems a little bit ludicrous to say that we can have that end of justice, on the occupational side, and then ask people to move to the greater Belfast area, which is not fit for purpose at the moment. There are all sorts of licensing. We have the licensing laws. We have the children. We have breakdowns in marriages. Other solicitors are better able to speak on that than me, but I think that that model has to be teased out by us. We are in the position — and we will not be found lacking — to try to deliver that model. All we need now is your support and a bit more time.

Councillor O'Reilly: I am the chairman of Fermanagh and Omagh District Council. Can I take up your question, Chairman, and a point that Seán made? Fifty or 60 years ago, we had small courthouses in a lot of the local towns. They were all moved out for greater efficiency in order to be able to deliver better services. I think that that trend is still a mainstay in what we are doing, but people want better services.

We have the old Erne Hospital site in Fermanagh, which we are trying to turn into a public-sector hub. The attitude from the different Departments to that has been blinkered. They all want to preserve their own specific budgets, and I think that that is what is happening here as regards the court services. It is not about buildings, as somebody else said, it is about the delivery of services. Delivery of service certainly has to change, not only for the court services but for all the other services. One of the greatest costs to the PSNI budget is the police having to come to court, sit there and wait for days, and then they do not get called. Imagine if you had the public sector coming into one hub and then delivering services from that hub. The economic benefit would be there with the ability for people to go there and not feel that they are there for just some of the cases and tribunals that they have to deal with.

Utilisation of buildings would be so much greater, and I certainly think that the ability to retain services would be greatly enhanced because of the economic benefit of a public-sector hub. We can certainly start something along that line. We have moved the South West College on to a portion of the site that has just been handed over. I am sure that other areas can also deliver public-sector hubs to the greatest advantage of people. We are looking for time to focus minds and create the urgency that is needed for all Departments. I come back to my previous point about not just a piecemeal approach but rural proofing generally being applied and a public-sector hub being delivered.

Councillor S McIlveen: Thank you very much. To address your question about upgrades of courts, Mr Chairman, I, too, speak as a former practitioner who has been around every single courthouse that has been mentioned and more.

We have had £1 million of upgrades in Newtownards in recent times, yet we are being told that we are under threat. Obviously, a significant amount of money has gone into Armagh as well.

We would all love more upgrades to our courts, but, first of all, we have to make sure that they stay. How do we make sure that they stay? The common theme that is coming across is the multi-use of courts. I am not sure about community use, but, in our presentation, we mentioned the various tribunals and localising decision-making. Newtownards courthouse already holds some tribunal hearings, with others being held in the SIGNAL centre in Bangor, so it is not alien for the court to be used in that way, and those decisions are made quite well. I know of nobody who has had a particular issue with going to it, because they know that they will get a decision, which is what they are really looking for.

The general issue is that we need time. We also need engagement from the Department. There is talk of community planning, but we need the Department to engage in community planning, to discuss it with us and to try to talk strategically in each of our areas. The Department should do that instead of presenting us with a consultation that looks like a fait accompli, where we are only ticking boxes and going through the processes when the decision already seems to have been made.

There is a very strong argument for a lot of the courts being kept. Mr Lynch made a point about the vast areas that are being served by the current court system. We will be left with a situation in which, as one of the councillors mentioned, there are deserts of justice in Northern Ireland if we remove all the courts that are under threat. The justice system will not be able to cope with the movement of numbers that will be required, particularly if, as Mr Poots mentioned in relation to Laganside, Newtownards and Lisburn were to close.

Alderman Nicholl: All of you on the Committee are younger than I am. I know most of you, but I want to share my experience from life with you. I used to be a little bit brash and would rush into things, but, over the years, I have learned to think a wee bit more and to look at things differently. This whole thing has been rushed too much. Use your influence to settle things down, and let us take our time and do the thing right for the people whom we represent and for justice. That is all we are asking for in mid and east Antrim.

The issue has certainly galvanised the local community in mid and east Antrim, and one blessing to come out of it is that it has brought us together more. If everybody works together as a team, we can achieve more than what is on offer at the minute.

Solicitors in Ballymena have, to a man, come out against the closure. They are completely opposed to it. A total of £1·7 million has been spent on the courthouse in Ballymena, and I assume that, that money having been spent, the building is fit for purpose. We have talked about things being fit for purpose, and the building is, as we say down the country, in good nick. We want to work with whoever wants to work with us in a community planning context, and our elected members and our officials leave ourselves open to be talked to.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): Thank you, Alderman Nicholl. One more.

Councillor Carlin: Thank you, Chair, for allowing me back in on the point that you raised, which is a very good one. I am aware that the CJI has stated that the status quo is not an option.

I ask you to consider that comment against the comments made by the Lord Chief Justice, the foremost lawyer in this land, when he talked about the proposals running the very serious risk of denying access to justice to those most vulnerable in our society.

We are in a time when there is a, some would say, deliberate downgrading of the court business in certain courthouses via the operation of court lists. That can be done through the NICTS choosing not to allocate a court day in a certain month to a certain courthouse. From the Strabane side of things, we say that there has been very serious evidence of that, not least insofar as Strabane always catered for the local Coroners' Court but no longer does so. Coroners' Courts are now listed in Derry. That means that people who are at their most vulnerable — at their lowest ebb — are being asked to travel to a foreign town, where they do not have the comfort and familiarity of their surroundings and are having to choose which family member should go and which should stay at a time when it is really important for people to be part of the judicial and legal process. Court listings are already deliberately downgrading certain courthouses. As I say, there is a very strong suspicion and some discernable evidence that the courthouse in Strabane is one of them.

When we talk about court time and court capacity — you talked about court capacity being something like 29% in one of the courthouses — we have to be very careful about how we measure them, because the Department of Justice and the NICTS are using a very strange measuring rod. They are using the time when the judge or magistrate is sitting on the bench: when he is in court and the court is in session. They are not talking about when the court opens or about the multiple uses that are made of the court building by people coming to do their business at the court office, be it to pay a fine, lodge papers or take away issued papers. They are not talking about consultations — solicitors or barristers being able to converse in private with their clients — which Mr Maginness talked about earlier. They are not talking about the most important part of court business, which is the negotiations between the various parties' legal representatives. They are not talking about the work that social services, social workers or the courts' children's welfare officers do. They are not talking about the work that Victim Support does. Therefore, they are not talking about a large number of other things that are happening, whether the judge is sitting or has risen. They are simply measuring that very narrow fraction of time when the judge is sitting. I ask you to think about that when you are looking at court capacity, because I believe that it provides a very misleading and unhelpful impression of what court sitting time and court capacity actually entail, and that could lead us to make decisions that the gentlemen from Ballymena talked about: rash decisions that we will revisit later with a great deal of regret.

The other thing that has not been mentioned here — it has been alluded to but not said — is the deterrent effect of having a courthouse in your town with the local press present. I do not do a lot of criminal law — I see one Committee member laughing, because I think that he will recognise what I am about say — but one of the big questions that clients will ask when they come in with a court summons is not, "What is the judge likely to do to me?", "What sentence am I likely to get?" or, "What punishment will be meted out?" but, "Will it be in the local press?" That very important deterrent will be lost if we lose local justice. I urge the Committee not to underestimate the importance and power of that when it comes to the justice remit that you have and when it comes to ensuring that the rule of law prevails, because that is what we are supposed to be all about here. It is a very incidental thing, but it is also very important to the public and their experience of being at court, for whatever reason. It is normally in the criminal sphere.

Lastly, to go back to the point that you made about the CJI report and statement about moving to more suitable, more modern buildings and a more modernised estate, in the case of Strabane, that has already been tested by the Minister, who has visited both sites. As I said in my presentation, he has already concluded, from what he has seen, that he will ask court users to move to an inferior court building with inferior disability access, parking and other facilities — security facilities, for example — if Strabane business were to move to Omagh.

If we couple that with the proposal that has been on the table since 2012 that Fermanagh business from Enniskillen courthouse also be moved into Omagh courthouse, we have a doubly strong argument. While, before, it might have been unthinkable for the Minister to do such a thing, it is absolutely beyond the pale that that should still be a sensible consideration for the Minister at this stage. In saying that, I say that the Minister did come down, which was very helpful, and I have to give him credit for that. I have to give him credit for the decision that he ultimately made in relation to our courthouse in Strabane. All politics is local, and that is what is closest to my heart.

In terms of the Committee and the decisions that you, as a membership, have to make, the invitation is very much open to you to come down. It is a warm invitation. We would not put you on the hook. We would be absolutely delighted if you, as Committee members, chose to visit Omagh courthouse and then perhaps Strabane and Enniskillen courthouses, as those two courthouses' business is supposed to be subsumed into the Omagh building. I invite the Committee to consider making a study visit, to look at what is proposed, to measure that against what you are being asked to do on rationalisation of the court estate and, then, to ask yourselves this at the end: is it a rationalisation, or is it an entirely irrational exercise that we are about? I will conclude for you, and I think that you will conclude for yourselves, that it is the latter. It is an absolutely irrational proposal that is before the public at the moment in terms of closures.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): Throw in a lunch and you might get some takers for that invitation. [Laughter.]

We have about five or six minutes left in order to stay on time. The Committee has quite a bit of business to do after that. I will ask one final question and ask that anybody who is responding keeps their answer to one or two minutes to facilitate our finishing up on time. The issue of finance and cost is one that has been brought up numerous times. In government at the moment, everything is being driven by cost. It is just the position that we are in, and I do not think that we can ignore that. Do any of the council representatives have any views on how we could save money in the existing court estate to keep open all the courthouses that we have at present? If anybody has any ideas about efficiency savings that they feel could be made in their own area or across the estate, I would be interested to hear that before we finish off. Are there any takers?

Councillor Ashe: I suggest that a wee bit more effort goes into collecting outstanding fines. I believe that there is £19 million outstanding.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): This is a perfect opportunity to talk about the Justice (No. 2) Bill. [Laughter.]

It is an absolutely excellent point and one that we have raised numerous times.

Councillor S McIlveen: I said in the presentation that we could look at raising the court fees slightly. That is something that happened in England and Wales as a means of bringing in more income. That could be done as well as Councillor Ashe's idea of chasing the fines. If we are talking about multi-use, other Departments will save on high rents and pay those rents into the Court Service, which should offset these savings.

Councillor O'Reilly: Notwithstanding my previous comments about the public-sector hub, one of the immediate things that could be looked at is the cost of security in light of the new prevailing dispensation that we are living in. The amount of money spent there is quite considerable and could offset the proposed costs that are being looked at being saved in Fermanagh. We are looking at a changed society where people are looking at multi-usage of all their buildings. The courthouse in Fermanagh is located right in the centre of town, and multi-usage is certainly something that could be used.

Mr Frew: A very important point was raised on the utilisation, winding down of some of the court services and uses for our established courts. I know that we have information on 2014-15 and have utilisation percentage points for 2012, but it might be interesting to find out whether we can progress backwards on that and maybe get some detailed data on the last 10 or 15 years to see whether there are any trends. It happened with our police estate and police stations when the local commanders did not feel the need to use certain establishments for their own purposes, which then led to the closure of police stations. This is a similar issue and trend. We hope that that will not be the case, but it would be interesting to see those figures and to see whether there are any patterns and, if there are, to get an explanation of the percentages.

Mr Douglas: Apologies for having to nip out there. I have hay fever, so, apologies if I start sneezing again.

Chairman, you mentioned the Republic of Ireland, where I think that something like 26 court buildings have been closed. Somebody also mentioned Larne and Bangor. Has a review been carried out on the negative impact of those closures? I wonder whether we would be able to get some information on that. It would certainly help us.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): OK. That is great. Thank you very much for all the contributions. We will get the information and return to the issue in the autumn. I think that today's event will certainly help our deliberations. Sometimes, when you pose a question, it sounds as if I am defending the Minister's position. That is always a danger in these things. It is not the case. I suspect that the Committee is very sceptical about some of the proposals, but, nevertheless, it is our responsibility to probe the questions. I think that it was a useful event. Once we get the Hansard report completed, we will make sure that we send a copy to everyone to check for accuracy. That might be useful to have as well.

Thank you all very much for coming along, and thank you for making such a forthright contribution. That will definitely help the Committee's deliberations in the autumn.