House of Commons Hansard Debates for 8 Jun 1992

Mr. Cryer : I started, Madam Speaker, by asking the Secretary of State whether his Department would produce legislation to stop the illegal removal of funds from this country to offshore islands.

Mr. Lilley : Stealing pension funds has always been against the law.

Mr. Stephen : Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the Governments of Switzerland and Liechtenstein, where much of the pensioners' money has been salted away, that if they want good relations with this country they had better make it clear to their financial institutions, which have profited from dealings with the Maxwell family, that they must meet their legal and moral obligations to the pensioners?

Madam Speaker : Order. That is a most interesting question, but it is totally out of order. Would the Secretary of State like to make some comment?

Mr. Lilley : I am not sure that I can keep my answer in order, but I am sure that my hon. Friend's excellent point will be brought to the attention of the relevant powers. I will ensure that it is.

Mr. Meacher : Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the things about which the Maxwell pensioners action group, which is lobbying today, is deeply aggrieved is that it is having to spend more than £1 million per month on legal and administrative fees to recover the stolen assets? That money cannot be used to pay pensions because, legally, advisers' bills must be settled before any benefit can be distributed. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those bills include 17.5 per cent. VAT, so the Government are getting their cut from the pensions as well? Will he therefore accept the proposal--

Madam Speaker : Order. I remind the House that this question relates to additional costs to the Minister's Department. It is very narrow and I ask the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to relate his question to the narrow point of additional costs to the Department.

Mr. Meacher : Does the Secretary of State accept the suggestion that the pension rights should be assigned to him and that he should pay the pensions and then recover the costs by pursuing the banks? If that was right for Barlow Clowes, is it not right for the Maxwell pensioners, who are far more deserving?

Column 13

Mr. Lilley : I am sure that the hon. Member will have an opportunity to put that question--in order--in response to my statement later this afternoon.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Church Security

28. Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what advice is currently being offered by the Commissioners on the matter of security in churches.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners) : None--the Commissioners areprimarily responsible for the financial support of the clergy while responsibility for parish churches rests with the parochial church council and church wardens. However, I can advise the hon. Gentleman that the General Synod's Council for the Care of Churches offers advice on security and has published a booklet entitled "Church Security--A Simple Guide", a copy of which I shall send him.

Mr. Banks : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I find it peculiarly nasty that people should steal from unattended churches, especially as a number of the stolen artefacts are going abroad. It is a pity that the good Lord cannot look after his own gear a little better--the odd thunderbolt from on high might bring the villains to book. Is it not possible to draw the Commissioners' attention to the need for co-ordinated action across the Church and, indeed, internationally as a number of the artefacts being stolen go abroad?

Mr. Alison : Yes, it is worth investigating whether we can do more to safeguard churches. Local churches could consider an equivalent to the neighbourhood watch scheme. The problem--it is a subtle problem--is that the best way of keeping burglars out of churches might be to get them into churches.

Clergymen

29. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many clergymen are (a) owners of the parson's freehold and (b) licensed priests in charge ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Alison : As at 31 December 1991, there were some 6,500 rectors and vicars with freehold office and nearly 1,300 priests in charge and team vicars.

Mr. Greenway : Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the gradual reduction in the number of parsons who own their freehold, and does he agree that the authorities probably intend that that should be so? Does he further agree that we do not want a bunch of vicars who are all yes-men, which we shall have if the freehold is abolished as it appears that it will be?

Mr. Alison : I sympathise with much of my hon. Friend's suggestion about the clause relating to parsons' freehold, although he will understand that the General Synod is considering the terms and conditions of the incumbent's basis of work. Part of the difficulty is that frequent requests have been made by hon. Members on

Column 14

both sides of the House for some way of estimating the productivity of parsons, which can be done only if the freehold is abolished.

30. Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many Church of England clergy who are not yet retired (a) hold the living of their parish with no required retirement age, (b) hold the living of their parish, with a required retirement age, (c) are not instituted to any benefice, but only to a limited contractual term of office and (d) minister by virtue of other arrangements.

Mr. Michael Alison : In the parochial stipendiary ministry, of the the approximate 6,500 vicars and rectors with freehold office, nearly 6,000 must retire no later than age 70, although the pensionable age is 65, whereas the remainder have no required retirment age. There are about 1,200 team rectors and vicars with leasehold office and 2, 800 priests in charge, assistant curators and parish deacons.

Mr. Hughes : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I realise that this is a rather technical matter. Would I be right in suggesting that, contrary to the view suggested by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), it would be cheaper and would offer better value for money- -not for individual priests, but the Church of England as a whole--to move to a system whereby everyone has a contractually fixed period, as opposed to the traditional system whereby people are inducted for life and cannot be moved? If so, is that not the right way for the Church of England to proceed so as to avoid unnecessary expenditure based on historical arrangements?

Mr. Alison : I do not honestly think that there would be measurable financial advantage in changing the basis of the freehold purely in terms of the cost of pensions, partly because the flexibility which already exists between the ages of 65 and 70 gives a continuing option to a number of clergy to do what they want and partly because if there were no freeholds the determination of their retirement age would fall entirely into the hands of the bishops who had licensed the clergy. Also, each case for retirement will be determined on its merits, probably with a good deal of flexibility.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

Judicial Delays

33. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what efforts his Department is making to reduce court waiting hours.

39. Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action he proposes to reduce delay in civil litigation.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor) : The Government are currently implementing a programme oreforms in the civil courts designed to meet representations by the civil justice review for reducing delays and costs, promoting simplicity and accessibility, and updating procedures. A number of initiatives are also being taken, aimed at reducing delays and waiting times in the Crown court and the magistrates courts.

Column 15

Mr. Arnold : I welcome my hon. Friend on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, especially as I understand that this is the first question answered in the House by the Lord Chancellor's Department and I wish him well in his programme of reforms to which he referred. What progress is being made on the situation in the courts in northern Kent?

Mr. Taylor : I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks, which are much appreciated. I will answer his supplementary question in the terms in which it was asked. Cases in the county courts in north Kent--at Dartford, Sittingbourne and Gravesend--are currently heard within 50 working days of being ready for trial at the Medway county court trial centre. I am sure that my hon. Friend, as an assiduous constituency Member, will be keeping an eye on that performance.

Mr. Mackinlay : Why does the Parliamentary Secretary ignore the repeated representations of the Law Society about the chronic delays in the county courts in London and the south-east? Is not the problem the fact that the Government failed properly to fund and resource the county courts following their increased jurisdiction as a result of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990? Is not the problem further aggravated by the fact that the Government have orchestrated a recession which has caused an enormous growth in debt collection and repossessions through the county courts, in turn leading to a great choking of the system?

Mr. Taylor : No, the answer and the remedy lie elsewhere, in following the recommendations of the civil justice review body. The key to the better dispatch of civil justice lies in matching the nature and weight of the case to the authority of the court to deal with it. There has been a great deal of decanting of court cases from the High Court to the county court and, in particular, to county court centres. The number of trials disposed of in county courts has risen from 9,000 in 1988 to more than 25,000 in 1991 while waiting times have been maintained at an average of 45 days.

Mr. Clappison : Does my hon. Friend agree that improving the administration of both civil and criminal justice is not just a question of increasing resources, which has taken place in the past 12 years with a huge increase in the number of circuit judges and so forth, but a question of setting performance targets for courts so that the public can know which courts are most successful?

Mr. Taylor : Certainly I agree with that. In the Crown court, it is necessary to improve the pre-trial dispatch of business to prevent, wherever possible, cracked trials. The future in the magistrates courts lies in best practice, in the Government's White Paper and in block listing so that everyone does not turn up at 10 am, which means that some people wait until the end of the day.

Mr. Bermingham : Does the Minister agree that if one does not provide litigants with legal aid as speedily and appropriately as possible, one builds up a backlog? Does he agree with the Lord Chancellor's circular that the way in which cases are banked up has delayed matters, just as the failure to grant expert witnesses and the failure to grant civil legal aid to most people have done? In all, there is no justice in this country because the Conservative party has sought to destroy the whole litigation system.

Column 16

Mr. Taylor : That is a fairly sour mouthful to ask me to accept, and I do not accept it. I will say a little more about the circular later.

Criminal Legal Aid

34. Mr. David Atkinson : To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when it is proposed to introduce fixed fees for criminal legal aid.

Mr. John M. Taylor : Standard fees have been in operation for some criminal legal aid cases in the Crown court since October 1986. It is proposed to introduce a standard fee system later this year for most criminal legal aid cases heard in the magistrates court. An independent survey is to be conducted to give guidance, not least on the evaluation of standard fees.

Mr. Atkinson : Will my hon. Friend confirm that his Department's decision to introduce fixed fees was arrived at before the recent cases of miscarriage of justice came to light? Will he give an assurance to the House that any recommendation by the royal commissioners against the decision will be immediately honoured?

Mr. Taylor : The proposals for standard fees--I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind if I correct him--were first mooted in 1987 and the Lord Chancellor has said that they will be cost neutral to the profession when they are introduced. I personally share the view that standard fees reward those who can do the work proficiently and with dispatch. The present system of payment by the hour or by the item can fall down by rewarding the slow and inefficient and penalising those who operate concisely, effectively and well. That cannot be in the public interest and it cannot be in the interest of taxpayers. We must remember that in every case, although the taxpayer does not appear as a party on the face of the action, sure enough, the taxpayer is involved.

Mr. Morgan : I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his appearance at the Dispatch Box. Will he confirm that one of the ways in which to defray any additional costs which may arise from the change in the system of reward for criminal investigations could be to reform the green form system of paying legal aid as well, as the present system is wide open to the defrauding of the taxpayer by a small minority of bent solicitors? Does he also agree--this is the Lord Chancellor's responsibility--that the slowness of the investigations branch of the Legal Aid Board and the antiquated nature of the computer is holding up all the fraud squad investigations into the small minority of solicitors who have been exploiting the system in the past few years?

Mr. Taylor : The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that I was studying his written question on this very subject this morning. There are some 27 cases of fraud on green form and, clearly, that is totally unacceptable. On the other hand, I gather than the hon. Gentleman's complaint related to computer delays may not be found to be substantiated. Certainly, there are cases of fraud and that is quite unacceptable--as, indeed, is the total amount that we are paying on legal aid at the moment. I should like the House to know that gross expenditure on all legal aid was £1.15 billion in 1991-92--a third more than in the previous year and more than twice the gross expenditure four years ago, in 1987-88.

Column 17

Calder Valley Courthouses

35. Sir Donald Thompson : To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to keep two old courthouses in Calder Valley.

Mr. John M. Taylor rose -- [Hon. Members :-- "Get on with it."] I apologise for keeping the House waiting.

The Lord Chancellor has received an appeal from Calderdale borough council against the Calderdale magistrates courts committee determination to close two courthouses. No decision has yet been reached.

Sir Donald Thompson : I have invited my hon. Friend to come to Calder Valley with me to look at what is happening there. Does he agree that, although what goes on in a courthouse from day to day has nothing to do with the Member of Parliament concerned, where a courthouse is situated, and who attends it, has everything to do with that Member of Parliament, who is right to use every means available to ensure that that courthouse remains?

Mr. Taylor : I concede the general point and, in particular, I concede that my hon. Friend is an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament. I should tell him and the whole House that magistrates courts can be closed only on a local recommendation of the local magistrates courts committee, and that that decision can be officially opposed only by the local paying authority. Only at that point does the Lord Chancellor have any locus or status in these matters ; until then, he does not. The initiation of a closure is local.

Legal Aid 36. Mr. Byers : To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Lord Chancellor will withdraw the recent circular sent to justices' clerks concerning the proofs of wages paid or benefits received which are required from claimants before their applications can be considered.

Mr. John M. Taylor : The circular was issued in response to concern expressed by the Public Accounts Committee and other bodies to the effect that the regulations governing the grant of criminal legal aid were not always being properly followed. The circular was not intended to represent any change of policy. The Lord Chancellor and I have already agreed that consideration should be given to altering the regulations. In all the circumstances, and in the light of the widespread concern that has been expressed about paragraph 10 of the circular, the Lord Chancellor and I have decided that paragraph 10 should be withdrawn. A notice to that effect will be issued as soon as possible.

Mr. Byers : I welcome that most constructive reply. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give the House a guarantee that when he considers issuing new guidelines, he will consult all interested parties? We share a common view that we need to achieve value for money, but we also believe that those seeking legal representation should have appropriate legal representation immediately so that they can face the courts. Will the Parliamentary Secretary advise the House today what he would say to a defendant remanded in custody? How would that defendant have access to the 13 weeks pay slips necessary to qualify for legal aid?

Column 18

Mr. Taylor : What I have just said about the withdrawal of paragraph 10 should have met the critical question with which the hon. Gentleman concluded his inquiry. The whole House should know that, early in April, the Lord Chancellor's Department could not look lightly on the fact that the audit of the Department for last year had been qualified by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and that the Department had been heavily criticised by the Public Accounts Committee. To do nothing to try to tighten up the system would have been a neglect of duty.

Mr. Fraser : I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his unique appointment and remind him--I am sure he will follow me--that he owes his first duty to justice and principle, above the interests of party and, incidentally, the Treasury. By withdrawing paragraph 10 of the circular on legal aid, the Minister has made a good start because that paragraph could have caused many injustices, and we are glad that he has withdrawn it. I hope that he will look in a similar light at fixed fees in magistrates courts and perhaps refer that issue to the Royal Commission on criminal justice.

Mr. Taylor : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courteous remarks. I shall, of course, take fully into account the fact that my duty is to the administration of justice. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about paragraph 10 and I will bear in mind what he said about standard fees. However, in the spirit of candour that is appropriate in this House, I am bound to say that I am rather attracted by a regime of standard fees.

Industrial Tribunals (Legal Aid)

37. Mr. Janner : To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether he will make legal aid available for claimants in industrial tribunals.

Mr. John M. Taylor : No, Madam Speaker. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman will know that green form advice is available in preparation for tribunals and lay representation is, of course, available in various forms.

Mr. Janner : I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. Before he settles too deeply into the Establishment, will he reconsider the issue? However complex, crucial or important a case is to a claimant, surely it is wrong that he or she has no right to legal aid? Will it not get worse when the Government--absolutely rightly--increase the jurisdiction of the tribunals by transferring to them many cases involving contracts of employment and disputes which are at present, wrongly, dealt with by courts?

Mr. Taylor : The hon. and learned Gentleman has a well-merited reputation in industrial law. I remember many years ago listening to instructional tapes recorded by him in an earlier stage of industrial law. However, he would acknowledge that the whole intention of tribunals was to achieve a greater degree of informality than the courts. It is common for both applicants and respondents to present their own cases in those proceedings and there is certainly no requirement for the parties to be legally represented. I remain conscious of the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman argued. However, we must all accept that the public purse is not bottomless and it is unrealistic to think in terms of the legal aid budget growing even faster than it is already.

Next Section (Debates)

Home Page