House of Commons Hansard Debates for 1 Feb 1993

Mr. Ron Davies : Something is obviously worrying the Secretary of State, because we have had an increasingly eccentric performance from him this afternoon. As he does not live in, and as he does not represent, a Welsh constituency, obviously he does not understand the problems of Wales as we understand them. Does he not realise that the tight revenue settlement, together with capping, means that many local authorities are unable to spend even their reduced capital budget and that that will mean cuts and job losses in the schools and road building programmes and in homes for the elderly and the fire service? When will the Secretary of State acknowledge that unemployment in Wales is rising because of the Government's policies, not despite them?

Mr. Hunt : If eccentricity is a virtue, the hon. Gentleman displays it on every occasion in his comments to the Secretary of State. He must face up to the realities of the present situation, which are, clearly, that today we have been able to announce a record level of capital spend for next year over this year and that local authorities on their current account are having to face up to some very difficult

Column 13

decisions, just as the Government are having to face up to those difficult decisions. If the hon. Gentleman calls eccentric a performance by the Treasury Bench which has just won one Welsh Question Time seven nil, then I am quite happy to plead guilty.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Land

24. Mr. Flynn : To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what is his latest estimate of the numbers of hectares of land administered by the Church Commissioners.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners) : At 31 December 1992, the commissioners' agricultural portfolio consisted of about 62,000 hectares of mostly let farmland.

Mr. Flynn : Will the right hon. Gentleman persuade the Church Commissioners to re-read the beautiful passages in Isaiah, chapter 11, and Hosea, chapter 2, on the kinship between human kind and the animal kingdom and then to reconsider their policy of allowing the barbaric cruelty of deer hunting, hare coursing and fox hunting on Church Commissioners' land, or is their Christian charity confined to one single species?

Mr. Alison : I shall certainly read the scriptures that the hon. Gentleman prescribes. By going back even earlier in the Old Testament, the hon. Gentleman will recall the earliest provision of all made for derelict human kind after the fall, which was the slaughter of innocent sheep to provide woollen clothing.

Investment Policy

25. Mr. John Marshall : To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement about the investment policy of the Church Commissioners.

Mr. Alison : The commissioners' investment policy is to seek to achieve the best total return on their assets--that is, growth of both income and capital. This reflects their primary objective, which is to provide adequate financial support for the Church's serving and retired clergy.

Mr. Marshall : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the failure of some of the recent investments in property suggest that God works in a mysterious way his miracles to perform? Does he also agree that these failures will lead to the Church having to raise more money in the parishes, which is probably in the long-term interests of the Church of England?

Mr. Alison : My hon. Friend will note that the losses suffered by the Church of England in its investment in property have been matched by the losses suffered by most of the secular world at home at the same time. There is nothing exceptional, therefore, about that. My hon. Friend will recall that the diversity of our investments meant that when the stock exchange crash occurred in 1987 we were scarcely affected by it. My hon. Friend, however, is absolutely right. There is enormously more

Column 14

scope for contributions by the man and women in the parish. I look forward very much to that contribution increasing in 1993.

Mr. Enright : In view of the right hon. Gentleman's views reported at the weekend that there should be no investment in the 10 pits, will he urge the Church Commissioners to love their neighbour rather than to pursue his "beggar my neighbour" and "am I my brother's keeper?"-type policies?

Mr. Alison : The hon. Gentleman refers to a press quotation which does not ring a bell as being correct, but I must stay in order, Madam Speaker : the Church Commissioners have no direct investment in coal property or coal mines.

Ordination of Women

26. Mr. Waterson : To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many Church of England clergy have been in communication with the pensions board because they are contemplating leaving the ministry as a result of the decision of the General Synod to permit the ordination of women to the priesthood.

Mr. Alison : About 500 clergy have been in touch with the pensions board on that matter since the vote by the General Synod. Most have given no indication of their intentions.

Mr. Waterson : Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is strong feeling on this subject among the clergy in my constituency and that it would be unfair if individual clergy who chose to leave the Church on a matter of conscience were in any way penalised as a result of pension implications?

Mr. Alison : Yes. I take note of what my hon. Friend says, but, as I think he knows, provisions have been made for substantial financial compensation for clergy who wish to leave the Church of England as a result of the clergy ordination measure. We reckon that the cost is likely to be in the region of £1 million per 100 clergy retiring per annum, so the compensation figures are substantial.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

Legal Aid

33. Mr. Mullin : To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consideration he has given to the effect of increases in lawyers' fees on the legal aid budget ; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor) : All matters relating to total legal aid expenditure aretaken into consideration when setting provision for legal aid.

Mr. Mullin : What thought has the Parliamentary Secretary's Department given to reducing the legal aid budget by making the courts more efficient, even if it is at the expense of

inconveniencing the odd judge or two?

Mr. Taylor : Very tempting. Considerable efforts on a very broad front are being made urgently in the Lord Chancellor's Department to try to reduce delay. The hon.

Column 15

Gentleman and the House will probably agree that we must all be the enemies of delay because it is expensive and demoralising. We are introducing a White Paper and a Magistrates Courts Bill to try to get best practice among magistrates and the inspectorate and better block listing. Likewise, in the county courts, cases below £1,000 will be dealt with far less formally and more cases will be dealt with in the county courts in lieu of the High Court. These are only a few examples of a broad front endeavour to achieve what the hon. Gentleman wishes.

Mr. Dickens : When the new proposals for legal aid are laid before Parliament they are not debatable, so does my hon. Friend think that the Lord Chancellor would accept amendments?

Mr. Taylor : No, I do not think that the Lord Chancellor, having satisfied himself at the appropriate moment that he has it exactly right, would be such a man--he will stick to his own proposals, explain them and, if necessary, defend them.

34. Mr. Barry Jones : To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures he will adopt to publicise the availability of legal aid ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John M. Taylor : The Legal Aid Board produces leaflets and posters on the legal aid scheme and distributes them widely.

Mr. Jones : Does the Minister agree that, whatever amount of money is spent on advertising, about 7 million people in Britain will lose access to legal aid? Does he accept that in Wales, tens of thousands of people on low wages, but just above benefit level, will be excluded from access to legal aid? Even at this late stage, why does he not tell the Lord Chancellor's Department that it should think again about its reprehensible decision?

Mr. Taylor : No. I think that the hon. Gentleman may find that the position in the Principality is more reassuring than he suspects. Since 1979, the number of acts of assistance given under legal aid has increased from 900,000 to 3.1 million and, during the immediate forecast period of the next three years, it is expected to rise to 4 million. So far from our having cut legal aid, it has doubled over the past four years and is due, under the autumn statement, to increase in the next three years by 10 per cent., 10 per cent. and 10 per cent. It is available to almost half of society and more than one fifth of society will receive it free. It is arguably one of the most generous systems of legal aid in the world.

Mr. Stephen : I congratulate my hon. Friend on the figures that he has just given, but does he accept that the key question to be answered is what proportion of our national resources can we afford to spend on the dispute settlement system?

Mr. Taylor : I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's question. We may need better ways of resolving disputes and, in considering the application of resources, we must certainly consider the interests of one party who is a party to every legal aid case--the taxpayer. All too often, the taxpayer seems to get left out of such considerations.

Mr. Boateng : Bearing in mind the concern that exists among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the Lord Chancellor's legal aid proposals, will the Minister

Column 16

tell the House by what authority and at how much expense the highly contentious document going under the misnomer "Legal Aid--The Facts" was produced? Will he answer that question bearing in mind the widespread concern about the Lord Chancellor's proposals in the profession and among consumer associations--of which he is well aware--and the fact that the real fact of the matter, which the document does not reveal, is that up to 12 million people will lose all eligibility to free legal aid?

Mr. Taylor : I just cannot see how 12 million people can drop out of a system that is being used by 3.1 million people ; it does not make sense. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know who is prepared to accept responsibility for the document in this House, the answer is--I am.

Mr. Garnier : Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the best ways of achieving the best use of the Lord Chancellor's budget for legal aid is to improve the efficiency of the courts? Does he accept that a higher quality of court manager and therefore a better use of the listing system-- through, for example, computers--is something to aim for, and will he endeavour to ensure that his Department trains court listing officers to the highest possible degree?

Mr. Taylor : I am entirely sympathetic to the drift of my hon. Friend's question. It seems to me to be a proper ambition--and it is perhaps becoming an urgent ambition--that the various courts should be linked by computer. In that, I include the magistrates courts. Often, as one Opposition Member found to his cost not long ago, a defendant may be summoned to appear in two magistrates courts simultaneously, may choose the one of his own liking--or least disliking--and may simply not tell the other court that he does not intend to turn up, causing great inconvenience and cost to that other court. I am sympathetic to the aim of linking the courts, their records, their information and their planning by means of modern information technology.

Judges and Magistrates (Election)

35. Mr. Skinner : To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether he will now introduce legislation to elect judges and magistrates.

Mr. John M. Taylor : No. The Government do not consider that elections would provide a suitable basis for appointment or be compatible with the principle of judicial independence.

Mr. Skinner : He was quick to do it with the trade union leaders, though. Why is it that judges are seemingly alone in not having been dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world? Instead of simply dressing up in powdered wigs and kinky clothes, why do not judges have to fight for their jobs? Why are they not selected and reselected like Members of Parliament? And why do not the Government clean out the freemasonry? Why, in working-class communities, are there more Tory magistrates than Labour magistrates--even in areas where the Labour vote is three times greater than the Tory vote? The whole thing stinks and it is time that they got rid of patronage, had judges elected and re-elected and made them fight for their jobs.

Column 17

Mr. Taylor : There is no reason why a judge should not be a freemason-- [Interruption.] --or a member of Rotary or Round Table. The judge takes a judicial oath, and that oath will guide him as to his interests in any matter and whether he is qualified to deal with it. I am anxious to answer the hon. Gentleman fairly and squarely in dealing with the question of the composition of benches and the background to them. It may be useful for him to know that in Derbyshire, his county, the Lord Chancellor is confined to those who offer themselves for appointment in the first place. That is the recruiting ground. To be a magistrate, a candidate should apply. To become a judge, it is necessary first for the candidate to apply for part-time judicial service. So the Lord Chancellor is limited in his recruiting ground to those who offer themselves.

Mr. Burns : Does my hon. Friend agree that it is puerile to call for the election of judges and magistrates and that should such an unfortunate development ever occur, it would lead to the politicisation of the judiciary, which would seriously undermine the independence of our justice system?

Mr. Taylor : Our judges and magistrates are, by their oath, independent. There are elections for judges in the United States and I am not sure that the results are always very edifying.

Ms. Eagle : Does the Minister feel that if judges were elected, we might end up with a more representative sample of society serving on the bench, including more women, remembering that at present there is a disgracefully low level of women sitting on the bench? Is he aware that that leads to people taking perverse views of the roll of women in society and to some comments that are unfortunate, to say the least, being made in some cases?

Mr. Taylor : The uppermost rule must always be that the best people are chosen, though I share the hon. Lady's view, as does the Lord Chancellor, that there should be more women and more representatives of minorities. The problem at relevant past times in the recruiting grounds in the legal professions was that there were not enough representatives of the right ages of those minorities. But they are joining the legal professions in far greater numbers now, so that shortly, when they move to the age when they will be eligible for appointment, they will be there for promotion. The hon. Lady looks forward to that time and it may surprise her to hear that I do, too.

Legal Aid

36. Mr. John Marshall : To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about the growth in cost of legal aid since 1979.

Mr. John M. Taylor : Net expenditure on legal aid has risen from £99 million in 1979-80 to £906 million in 1991-92. It is estimated that legal aid will cost more than £1.1 billion this financial year, some 28 per cent. more than last year.

Mr. Marshall : Does my hon. Friend agree that that increase of 10 times underlines the need for the reforms that the Lord Chancellor is introducing? What are the

Column 18

income limits below which legal aid will still be payable under those proposals, and how do they compare with 1979 income limits?

Mr. Taylor : My hon. Friend asks whether the increases that I reported in my answer were of themselves a fundamental reason to get legal aid under control. The answer must be absolutely yes, they are.

Mrs. Dunwoody : Is the Minister aware that the changes will be extremely damaging to women who want to apply for aid in domestic violence cases? Is he further aware that if he is serious about wanting to bring about cuts in the legal aid budget, he should consider the rapid appointment of several stipendiaries, a step which would not only clear court cases but, in the long run, save an enormous amount of money?

Mr. Taylor : In the instance that the hon. Lady gives, of a woman at threat and risk of domestic violence, she will find that in all normal cases--if that lady goes for representation--the solicitor, quickly satisfying himself that she is eligible, will give her an emergency legal aid certificate, start to represent her and get help for her, such as perhaps restraining orders, at a very early stage. I believe that we have about the right number of stipendiaries. Our long tradition of a lay magistracy has served the country well. The stipendiary must be seen as complementary and not an alternative to the lay magistrate.

Lady Olga Maitland : In view of the staggering increase in spending on legal aid, and recalling that my hon. Friend the Minister said earlier that Britain's legal aid system is the most generous in the world, would he spell out how Britain's legal aid system is the most generous in the world because it is a fantastic success story?

Mr. Taylor : I have never said that Britain's legal aid system is the most generous in the world, but I suspect that it may well be. Legal aid is available to half of the population, and it is available to more than one fifth of the population for no contribution at all. Far from the legal aid system being cut in the autumn statement, it is due to increase by 10 per cent., 10 per cent. and 10 per cent. in the next three years. The number of acts of assistance is expected to increase over that period from 3.1 million to 4 million. That is generous.

38. Mr. Byers : To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will amend the rules relating to the availability of legal aid in order to assist those individuals involved in class action.

Mr. John M. Taylor : The Legal Aid Board has recently established special procedures relating to multi-party actions which are intended to assist the progress of such actions in appropriate circumstances.

Mr. Byers : Is the Minister aware that the 1,700 people who are involved in the class action against the manufacturers of valium librium and mogadon have had their legal aid suspended, and that the reason given for that suspension is that some of them have weak medical support? In the light of the decision to suspend legal aid for those people, will the Minister review the guidelines to which he referred a moment ago to ensure that those with strong legal cases are not denied legal aid because of the weakest case? In particular, will he take urgent steps to

Column 19

review the decision which has been taken to suspend legal aid from those involved in the valium, librium and mogadon action?

Mr. Taylor : No, I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that in any civil case there must be enough medical and other evidence to make the grant of legal aid

Column 20

reasonable. As with privately funded cases, the prospective winnings should also be enough to make litigation worth while despite its costs. However disappointing it may be for the plaintiffs, it is not fair to ask the rest of the tax-paying community to pay for cases that will not prosper or, if they do, will produce no net winnings.

Next Section (Debates)

Home Page