House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 May 1995

Madam Speaker: Order. The last part of that question was rather out of order.

Mr. Sproat: If it is in order, Madam Speaker, I add my congratulations to those offered to Blackburn Rovers on winning the league after 81 years. That is a fine achievement and Blackburn Rovers deserve the credit.

With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, it is extremely important, particularly in the case of the beautiful villages that he described, to ensure that the needs of housing are balanced by the benefits which accrue to the tourism industry. I am aware that my hon. Friend has followed the matter very closely over many months and I congratulate him on that. I will certainly draw the important point that he has made to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. William O'Brien: With regard to the 21 million people who the Minister says visit these isles, will the Minister consider the importance of developing tourism in west Yorkshire, particularly in relation to the Yorkshire mining museum? Will he do all that he can to ensure that we have our fair share of tourism in west Yorkshire so that people can see the heritage of the Yorkshire region?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, I am glad to say that the percentage of tourists travelling out of London has been increasing. I very much support the Yorkshire mining museum and I am looking forward to visiting it again very shortly.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Pension Funds

27. Mr. Barnes: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what plans the commissioners have to respond to the recent report of the Social Security Committee on the operation of pension funds, the Church Commissioners and Church of England pensions. [22494]

30. Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners if he will make a statement on the findings of the Social Security

Column 13

Committee in its second report of Session 1994-95, HC 354, in respect of the operation of the Church of England pensions provision. [22497]

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Church Commissioners welcome the view of the Select Committee on Social Security that a pension fund into which contributions are payable needs to be established and that that will help to protect the continuing scope of the commissioners to contribute towards the pay of clergy in the poorest parishes. That is consistent with the principles for future arrangements, on which discussions with diocesan boards of finance are well advanced. A report is to be made to the Church of England General Synod in the summer, following which the necessary legislation will be drafted.

Mr. Barnes: The Select Committee revealed some very serious problems in terms of Church of England pensions--£800 million losses, secrecy, recklessness and foolishness. When shall we reports and accounts for the 44 subsidiary companies, all of which are loss-making? When we deal with the matter further in the House, will the right hon. Gentleman support the notion that it should be dealt with by means of a full Bill which is discussable and amendable, rather than by a 90-minute take-it-or-leave-it statutory instrument?

Mr. Alison: On the last point, I am sympathetic towards the hon. Gentleman's idea, but it must be something to which the Church of England would agree as it has the majority interest in the issues being discussed. With regard to the pension side of the matter, I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the assets of the Church Commissioners, which are now in the region of £2.4 billion, are very comfortably able to cover the whole of the past actuarial responsibilities for pensions and future pensions up to the point which is now likely to be cut off by a new contributory fund.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to reflect on the full and searching debate which took place in the Chamber on Thursday night, in which it emerged that virtually every mistake in the book had occurred in the management of the Church Commissioners' funds? Does he agree that it is now urgent to establish a properly funded pension scheme so that past members of the clergy will be relieved of any anxiety that their pensions will not be properly paid?

Mr. Alison: I can assure my hon. Friend that past liabilities are very comfortably covered, as actuarially computed, by the £2.4 billion of assets in hand. My hon. Friend also referred to the future pensions liability. He will be aware that we have announced that there is to be a new contributory scheme to take account of that.

Churches

28. Mr. Fisher: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what consideration the Church Commissioners give to local opinion when considering offers of purchase and change of use for churches. [22495]

Column 14

Mr. Alison: The commissioners' policy is governed by the Pastoral Measure 1983. When a Church of England church is closed for worship, the Measure lays emphasis on the diocese seeking a suitable use and that is what is most commonly achieved. Each case is decided by the commissioners on its merits, taking into account the advice of their statutory advisers-- the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches--the nature of the building, the options available and the views of the diocese. Dioceses are sensitive to local opinion in seeking uses. Formal objections made to the commissioners about proposed uses are most carefully considered.

Mr. Fisher: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent can see no evidence that the commissioners are seriously taking into account their views in relation to St John's Hanley, which the diocese wishes to sell to a company wishing to establish a climbing centre in a handsome church in the middle of the city? Whose interests are being served there? Will the right hon. Gentleman try to ensure that the local views which have been expressed coherently and sensibly with well thought out alternative ideas are taken into account?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman knows that the climbing centre proposal was a good deal further ahead than the Friends of St John's community centre proposal. However, the climbing centre proposal has not gone ahead and it is still fully open to the Friends of St John's community centre project to be considered fairly alongside it. No final decision has yet been taken, and the hon. Gentleman's own preference may in the event win the day.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

Legal Aid

36. Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what further measures he proposes to control the granting of legal aid to prevent those who should not be entitled to legal aid from receiving it. [22503]

39. Mr. Waterson: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is proposing to exclude wealthy individuals from legal aid entitlement. [22506]

43. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has received about the proposed changes in legal aid for the apparently wealthy. [22511]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): The Lord Chancellor has announced the measures that he intends to take forward following the consultation exercise on the granting of legal aid to apparently wealthy applicants.

Mr. Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend take further the welcome consultation on legal aid for the apparently wealthy by urging that a further look be given at cases in which legal aid is granted to those who have a long record of previous criminal convictions when those people are taking civil cases which are often entirely unmeritorious and constitute a serious nuisance to the law-abiding people who are often the defendants in those cases?

Column 15

Mr. Taylor: I shall certainly pass my hon. Friend's remarks on to the Lord Chancellor. Three of the proposals are that there should be a special investigation unit to handle complex cases, a discretionary power to include the assets of friends, relatives and children where these appear to be material to the life style of the applicant and the power to require an applicant for legal aid to transfer ownership to the legal aid authorities of any assets which he fails to declare in the application.

Mr. Waterson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in many cases apparently wealthy people have their assets frozen by injunctions during protracted and complex litigation? Can more be done following the hopefully successful end of that litigation to extract more money back from the beneficiary of legal aid by way of a statutory charge or other means?

Mr. Taylor: I am sure that that is a fruitful line of inquiry to pursue.

Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is a source of great anger that wealthy parasites such as Ernest Saunders and Roger Levitt should receive legal aid while many people with more modest life styles are refused it? Any action that my hon. Friend takes on that front will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House and across the country as a whole.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes his point clearly, as he has done before. I am well aware of his views.

Mr. Frank Field: Does the Minister recall a question that I asked him recently requesting that he list the top 10 barristers and top 10 solicitors' firms gaining the most from legal aid funds? As that information must exist, does the Minister think that his departmental officials are being economical with the truth when they say that they cannot produce the information for him and for the House?

Mr. Taylor: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to come and see me about that. [Interruption.] I am keen that he should be satisfied about the matter, and I shall return to the Dispatch Box to put my answer on record, as the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) would like it to be.

Mr. Skinner: How on earth can the Government justify handing out large sums of taxpayers' money to wealthy people such as Saunders, Selig, Levitt, the Maxwell brothers and Asil Nadir, when someone in my constituency who needs to fight a civil claim in respect of an accident at work was told by one of those tinpot solicitors that he would be looked after and get legal aid, but then halfway through he was told, "Sorry, but the case is not strong enough to win"? Not only are those wealthy people making a small fortune out of the taxpayer, but barristers and all the rest of them are raking it in because they can make a ton of money backing the wealthy but they will not make a great deal looking after some poor constituent with a civil claim.

Mr. Tony Banks: Hang all lawyers.

Mr. Taylor: Barristers can claim what they like, but they will get what is assessed.

Column 16

Mr. Bermingham: I declare an interest as a lawyer, and I wait for my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to hang me. Will the Minister not rush headlong into what could be a catastrophic situation which will cost the country money? Much is said about large cases, but in efforts to reassess legal aid will the Minister bear in mind that it is sometimes more economical to grant legal aid at first instance in the magistrates court on the very first day of charging so that a matter is speedily disposed of, rather than to wait over several hearings for legal aid to be granted, with additional cost to the taxpayer and other sources, and achieve the same result in the end? Surely expedition is sometimes profitable.

Mr. Taylor: But we cannot disregard the Comptroller and Auditor General or the Public Accounts Committee in determining the circumstances in which legal aid is granted in magistrates courts. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have no reputation for headlong rushing, but he need not wait long for the Green Paper on legal aid. It will be out later this week--on Wednesday.

37. Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he last discussed the legal aid recovery procedure with the chief executive of the Legal Aid Board; and if he will make a statement. [22504]

Mr. John M. Taylor: I discuss all aspects of the legal aid scheme with the board's chief executive from time to time.

Mr. O'Brien: Has the Minister discussed the recovery of payments with the chief executive of the Legal Aid Board? Will he take on board the situation involving a constituent of mine? When the recovery people attended the home, because no one was at home they started making inquiries of neighbours and informing them of the situation. That was totally deplorable and unscrupulous of those agents who are employed by the recovery section of the Legal Aid Board. Will the Minister impress upon the chief executive that such practices must cease and that people should not be subjected to such humiliation in front of their neighbours because agents acting on behalf of the Legal Aid Board behave unscrupulously?

Mr. Taylor: I will gladly look at that case if the hon. Gentleman will give me the details. I am not entirely sure whether he is referring to recovery by the Legal Aid Board of costs out of winnings, contribution as agreed at the onset of the grant, or the statutory charge which operates after a case has been concluded. Solicitors are under a duty to explain to their clients how the statutory charge works so that they are left in no doubt. The application form is required to be signed by both the solicitor and the applicant on that score to say that it has been explained and understood.

38. Mr. Fisher: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish an analysis of the net income levels of those receiving legal aid in the last financial year. [22505]

Mr. John M. Taylor: I have no plans to publish the analysis that the hon. Gentleman requests.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister reconsider? I suspect that any analysis would confirm hon. Members' suspicions

Column 17

and the suspicions put to me constantly by the citizens advice bureau in Stoke-on-Trent that a great number of applications for civil legal aid are being turned down, limited or otherwise impeded. People of quite modest means are being prevented from pursuing rightful cases because of the way in which the civil legal aid system works. That cannot be right, and I suspect that it is of general concern to all hon. Members.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman refers to net income levels, but it would be very difficult to produce the analysis required because net income is disposable income and in the determination of disposable income many allowances can be made which will depend on the enormous variety of individual circumstances of applicants.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: On the other hand, has my hon. Friend observed the type of case that I have come across in my advice surgeries recently, involving people who have previously been reported to be wealthy but who have passed the income assessment and been legally aided by the Legal Aid Board for civil cases? That cannot be right.

Mr. Taylor: If an individual case, as my hon. Friend puts it, cannot be right, anyone can challenge a grant of civil legal aid, including my hon. Friend.

Mr. Boateng: If the Minister has no plans to analyse the income of those currently denied legal aid, does he have any plans, belatedly, to deal with the issue of restrictive practices within the legal profession? Is he aware that there has been an increase of some 600 per cent. in the cost of legal aid to taxpayers while restrictive practices within the legal profession on the part of the Law Society and the Bar Council go unaddressed? Is it not time to redress the balance of legal aid in favour of the taxpayer and the consumer?

Mr. Taylor: That must be an ever-present intention, but the hon. Gentleman should know that the number of people helped under the legal aid scheme--3.5 million in 1994-95--will increase by 25 per cent. by 1997-98. As for restrictive practices, he will know--and I invite him to welcome the fact--that under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 monopolies of various kinds of legal practice are being steadily eroded. He will find, I dare say, that among the legal aid proposals will be that legal aid funding will be available to law centres and citizens advice bureaux supported by him. The Green Paper will be out on Wednesday--more then.

Public Record Office

40. Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the procedures and criteria by which papers are transmitted to the Public Record Office. [22508]

Mr. John M. Taylor: The Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967 provide for the transfer, under the guidance of the Keeper of Public Records, of those public records which are to be made available at the Public Record Office normally when they are 30 years old. The procedures and criteria are detailed in the "Manual of Records Administration".

Mr. Dalyell: May I ask a question of which I have given the Lord Chancellor's Secretary notice? As the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) certainly

Column 18

acted in good faith in March 1989 when he was Secretary of State for Transport, could his background papers relating to Lockerbie be expedited to the public view, along perhaps with those of Sir Charles Powell and the then Prime Minister? Could the Lord Chancellor have a word with his colleagues in the Crown Office, who are not answerable to the House, and tell them not to be so childish in respect of the ridiculous defamation of potential witnesses?

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice that he wished to mention the Lockerbie bombing. However, all I can say in answer to his question is that it will be for the relevant Government Department, as advised by the Public Record Office, to decide at the appropriate time which records should be selected for permanent preservation.

Mr. Lidington: Will my hon. Friend encourage Government Departments, through the Public Record Office, to make as many documents as possible available not only on paper but on CD-ROM, microfiche and microfilm so that researchers do not always have to travel the inconvenient distance to Kew to inspect these documents?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend may like to know that by the end of last year some 25,000 additional records had been released as a result of the open government initiatives. As for the advance of information technology of the type to which he refers, it is not merely inevitable but welcome.

Courts Service

44. Mrs. Roche: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about the cost of the Courts Service becoming an executive agency. [22512]

Mr. John M. Taylor: The total cost of the Court Service's move to agency status is approximately £900,000, spread over three years.

Mrs. Roche: At a time of crisis in the Courts Service, with long delays and more than 10,000 complaints under the courts charter, is it not a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money when there is no evidence that it is improving access to justice?

Mr. Taylor: Far from being a scandalous waste, it is money well spent. The Government believe that generally the more businesslike focus of the agency will lead to greater efficiency, as well as higher standards of service.

Judges

45. Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what advice is offered to judges in terms of their comments made in open court. [22513]

Mr. John M. Taylor: Each judge is independent. However, the Judicial Studies Board is responsible for the training of the judiciary. Its courses emphasise the need for care, consideration and sensitivity in court.

Mr. Banks: Does the Minister recall a letter that I wrote to the Lord Chancellor arising out of something in

Column 19

the Fleet News ? A Crown court judge, Recorder Mr. Nicholas M. Atkinson, told two people who were being convicted at Winchester Crown court--I paraphrase rather than quote--"I would jail you if you were wearing Chelsea kit." That was a propos nothing because, so far as I was aware, they were not in any way connected with the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). How can a recorder say something as outrageous and insulting to all decent Chelsea supporters as that? How does the Minister intend to call that individual to account?

Mr. Taylor: It is indeed within my knowledge that the hon. Gentleman has raised that case with the Lord Chancellor and I read those press notices as well. I am instructed to say that the Lord Chancellor will reply to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

Column 19

Next Section (Debates)

Home Page