House of Commons Hansard Debates for 2 Jul 1996 (pt 44)

Mr. Hoon: Cheered.

Mr. Miller: I prefer to hear that.

I wish the Bill well, but I remind the House of those observations. I think that we will have to return to it much sooner than we would have thought. I urge the House, particularly the Procedure Committee, to think carefully about this and the other broadcasting measure.

11.7 pm

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The note on which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) concluded his remarks has, in many ways, characterised

2 Jul 1996 : Column 872

the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons. I should like to add my strong thanks and appreciation to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage, my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology and all the members of the Committee. I should also like to thank the extremely hard-working officials from the Department of National Heritage, who laboured long and hard and who frequently kept their heads when all about them lost theirs. We are extremely indebted to them. I should like to thank the Opposition, especially the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and his team. The spirit of constructive debate has been extremely impressive.

Despite the comments of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston about how the Committee could have been handled better, it has been my impression that the regulators and the broadcasters have effectively been offering sessions to hon. Members of whatever persuasion to seek to consider options constructively and to provide information and advice to the best of their ability. In short, in many ways, it has been a model of careful scrutiny. Following the detailed debate and discussion in another place, I believe that it leaves our deliberations improved, modified and made more sensitive and appropriate to the evolving needs that have been described by many.

I dispute the suggestion that the Bill is not appropriate to current circumstances. I believe that the comment made earlier today by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) that it is easy to become dazzled by technology was fair. We have to regulate and establish a framework for the world as it is, albeit while recognising the very fast pace of change. It was because of the digital future that it was so necessary to introduce the legislation now, enabling us to be on the front foot and to provide the United Kingdom with a platform to take a world lead in digital broadcasting.

The Bill also gives media companies the freedom to expand into new sectors. It provides greater choice and it protects the interests of viewers and listeners. Hon. Members have already described some of the ways in which they believe that improvements have been made.

The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy raised a specific point that I should like to address. We think that the regulatory gap that the Independent Television Commission perceives is, in practice, not a major concern. If a broadcaster acquired a small newspaper, it would become a newspaper proprietor and subject to the newspaper merger provisions if it then proceeded to make a major newspaper acquisition. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission, on reporting the matter to the Secretary of State, would no doubt take into account the fact that the newspaper proprietor held a broadcasting licence when that appeared to be a relevant factor. In other words, we believe that there is adequate regulatory protection.

I suppose that I am pleased that the voice of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is fairly isolated in being quite so critical of the Bill. The careful process of consultation on cross-media ownership and on digital television was followed by the Bill's launch in December, and that process was widely endorsed and commended by those in the industry and by other commentators for its detailed consideration and debate.

Of course rapid change is occurring, and we must be prepared for the future, but the legislation represents a very substantial process of deregulation, offering media

2 Jul 1996 : Column 873

companies a great opportunity to extend and to move into new markets. The divisions that emerged among Opposition Members earlier in the debate over the degree to which they were able to embrace the future were extremely marked and interesting.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) has played a very active part in the Bill's passage, and I share his view of the positive opportunities for the future. Few would have predicted that satellite would have expanded as it has; I believe that the opportunities with digital television will be similar.

The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) asked a very important question about Doncaster. I shall never visit Doncaster again without worrying about being interviewed on radio, particularly if it is to see the developments of the Earth Centre, which is one of the millennium flagship projects there. I shall ensure that he receives a proper answer, and that there is further consideration of the matter that he raised.

I am delighted about the tribute that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) paid to officials at the Department of National Heritage, where he is remembered with great affection. I cannot promise that digital will solve all the reception problems to which he alluded, but I think that it will offer greater opportunities--certainly to develop regional and local services, which is not possible on satellite.

The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) made some important points and spoke a little about equal opportunities. Although it does not relate to the Bill, I shall send her a copy of what I told the Royal Television Society and skill set on that matter and on the need for people in television to act on the basis of enlightened self-interest, which, of course, means wise choices in staff. My remarks also dealt with the importance of investing in training and with the need for talented people. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who was a member of the 1990 Bill team. As he rightly said, the great success of Classic FM and Channel 4 since then is only a small indication of the opportunities that we now see for the future.

I thank hon. Members. I believe that we have ensured that the Bill, which we have seen through its Commons stages, will have the overall support of the industry, of

2 Jul 1996 : Column 874

regulators and of listeners. It safeguards and enhances the prospects for British business, British jobs and the British people. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

11.15 pm

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South): I make no apology for raising in this Chamber, yet again, the question of legal aid--although I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for the hour at which I am doing so. However, he has the bonus that it gives him the opportunity to comment on the Government's White Paper "Striking the Balance" on the very day of its publication.

As my hon. Friend knows, I have raised the subject of legal aid many times, both in Adjournment debates and in parliamentary questions. I have found that the concerns that I have raised have been echoed by many colleagues within the House, and by many people outside it. I obtained from the Library today a list of the questions asked on the subject of legal aid over the past 14 months. They number 250, which shows the concern of a large number of hon. Members about the position.

I pay tribute to the interest of the press in the matter. Both the Daily Mail and The Sunday Times have shown great interest. Whenever I have spoken on the subject and been quoted in the press, there is always an influx of letters from people all over the country who are concerned about the way the system is administered.

Paradoxically, while there has been a dramatic rise in the size of the legal aid bill--it was under £100 million in 1979, about £200 million in 1983-84, had grown to £1.2 billion 10 years later and is now about £1.4 billion--eligibility has been restricted. As my hon. Friend said only yesterday, the proportion of the population eligible for legal aid has fallen from 70 per cent. to 49 per cent.

Ironically, as my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor said, at a time of record expenditure on legal aid, the esteem and reputation of the Legal Aid Board are probably at an all-time low. There has been widespread concern that the taxpayer is not getting value for money, and that some of the cases supported by the legal aid fund are a disgrace.

A case referred to in parliamentary questions involved a prisoner who had absconded from prison, but was still being supported by the legal aid fund. The board might at least have said, "If you come back to prison, we will carry on funding you."

Only yesterday, we read about the disgraceful case of an individual suing the national health service because he has not died on time. It is a new concept of medical negligence--"You told me I would live for six months, but I have lived for three years. I am going to sue you, and it will be funded by the legal aid fund." The thought of taxpayers' money being used to sue the national health service for keeping someone alive beggars belief. I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend has called in the chief executive of the Legal Aid Board to discuss the matter.

Our constituents feel that the Legal Aid Board has not been a good judge of the quality of cases. The basic principle of legal aid--that no one should be denied access to justice--has been subverted in civil legal aid cases, because the legally aided litigant can blackmail his opponent. Such litigants know that, win or lose, they will not be out of pocket, but their opponents know that, win or lose, they will.

2 Jul 1996 : Column 876

In the north-west, people have sued chief constables for wrongful prosecutions. The insurers told the defendants that it was cheaper to settle than to continue the cases. Defendants have to calculate how much to offer, because the legal aid certificate might be withdrawn at that stage. They have to try to work out an absurd equation: will it be cheaper to fight or settle a case which logically they know that they can win but in respect of which they could lose financially?

In my constituency, there was the case of a partnership that had broken down. One partner sued the other. The party that was being sued was told by his lawyer that he had a wonderful case and would win. He fought it and won, but he was substantially out of pocket because of the legal costs. While the Legal Aid Board is sometimes asked to contribute toward the cost of a successful defendant, the number of cases in which that happens is negligible. A written answer on 16 October 1995 stated that, in 1994-95, help had been given in 158 cases; in 1993-94, the figure was 186.

There is a feeling that the wrong people have sometimes obtained legal aid. It is a scandal that some very well-heeled individuals have managed to get it. One thinks of Mr. Ernest Saunders, the man who made the miraculous recovery from Alzheimer's disease--"Guinness is good for you, it cures Alzheimer's". He was reconciled with his wife and her assets once he no longer needed legal aid.

There was Mr. Gordon Foxley, who short-changed the taxpayer when he was employed at the Ministry of Defence, and did so again when he applied for legal aid, despite owning houses and cars and seeming to have substantial assets. Those people's legal bills, which were often substantial, were paid by taxpayers who live in much less salubrious homes. Why should the not-so-well-off be asked to pay the legal bills of people with luxurious life styles?