While the provision of judges’ lodgings is kept under constant review, and the comparative cost of hotels considered, there is presently no intention to provide judges with an independent accommodation allowance while simultaneously running lodgings.
A straight comparison of the cost between housing judges in hotels or accommodating them in lodgings is not easily made. Judges’ lodgings are an essential requirement for accommodating high court judges sitting outside of London. They provide a safe and secure environment and enable the judges to work in privacy and ensure confidentiality for extended periods, which hotels are unable to match except at prohibitive cost.
In the current locations where we have a requirement for less than 50 judge nights per year we do not own lodgings; instead we rent them.
The following are the major changes that have taken place since 1997:
The lodgings at Mold was closed.
The lodgings at Exeter, Lewes, Oxford and Truro have been replaced with better value accommodation.
There have been a significant number of actions to reduce running costs including the removal of the outdated butler posts.
A more cost-effective system for getting judges to court has been introduced using the Government Car and Despatch Agency.
Introduction of new finance and accounting regimes reducing the management overheads of running the lodgings.
The five judges’ lodgings with the lowest occupancy in judge nights during 2005-06 (all of which are hired, not owned) were Warwick, Caernarfon, Lincoln, Northampton and Worcester.
The highest cost per judge night during 2005-06 were Maidstone, Swansea, Winchester, St. Albans and Chelmsford.
The Maidstone lodging is being sold.
A schedule showing rights of occupation is detailed as follows.
Property name Freehold Leasehold Licence Hiring Birmingham judges’ lodgings v — — — Bristol judges’ lodgings — v — — Caernarfon judges’ lodgings — — v — Cardiff judges’ lodgings v — — — Carlisle judges’ lodgings — — v — Chelmsford judges’ lodgings — — v — Chester judges’ lodgings v — — — Exeter judges’ lodgings — — v — Kingston Upon Hull — — — v Leeds judges’ lodging — v — — Leicester judges’ lodgings — — v — Lewes judges’ lodging — — — v Lincoln judges’ lodgings — — v — Liverpool judges’ lodgings — v — — Maidstone judges’ lodgings v — — — Manchester judges’ lodgings v — — — Newcastle judges’ lodgings v — — — Northampton judges’ lodgings — — v — Norwich judges’ lodgings v — — — Nottingham judges’ lodgings v — — — Oxford judges’ lodgings — — — v Plymouth judges’ lodgings — — v — Preston judges’ lodgings v — — — Reading judges’ lodgings v — — — Sheffield judges’ lodgings v — — — St. Albans Judges’ lodgings v — — — Stafford judges’ lodgings — — v — Swansea judges’ lodgings v — — — Truro judges’ lodgings — — — v Warwick judges’ lodgings — — v — Winchester judges’ lodgings — v — — Worcester judges’ lodgings — — v —
My officials are in regular discussion with the judiciary regarding both the cost and future of judges’ lodgings.