Proceeding contribution from Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 14 December 2010. It occurred during Ministerial statement on Courts Service Estate.
Courts Service Estate
My hon. Friend made a very cogent case for the retention of his court, and put the local case very strongly. I have to say that the judgment was finely balanced, but ultimately this decision was taken because the utilisation rates in the Surrey courts has been below 80%, and transferring work to Staines and Guildford magistrates courts will result in the rate increasing to 89%.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 520 c829
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Courts Cost effectiveness Closures Buildings Capital investment County courts Magistrates' courts Liverpool Travel Witnesses Victims Video conferencing HM Courts Service Newcastle-under-Lyme Prestatyn Camberwell
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-04-02 10:24:04 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_693661
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_693661
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_693661