---

Departmental Agencies

32. Mr. Barnes: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many representations he received in the last parliamentary Session from hon. Members that were forwarded for answer to the agencies attached to his Department. [2868]

Mr. Streeter: In the last parliamentary Session, 642 representations from hon. Members were forwarded for answer to the agencies for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible.

Mr. Barnes: Quite correctly, Members of Parliament are not allowed to approach the courts, as that would represent interference in the operation of law and order. Traditionally they could approach the Lord Chancellor, but now in hundreds of cases it seems that many of our queries are being passed to the Court Service. Surely that suggests that that is one area at least in which the agency arrangements go too far. Our constituents expect us to be able to approach the top--the Lord Chancellor--in connection with court cases and get a response from him.

Mr. Streeter: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. There has been no change in ministerial accountability and responsibility to the House. In my opinion, it is quite correct that letters about specific court cases should be sent by the person with the day-to-day management responsibility--the chief executive of the Court Service. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member for nine years and surely he knows by now that, if he is unhappy with a response from the agencies, he can contact Ministers at any time. Once again I find myself saying to a Labour Member that my door is always open.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Would my hon. Friend agree to accept representations on the activities of judges? Is he aware of increasing concern in the House that judges are getting involved in political matters in judgments where they seem to be making up the law as they go along? Is he aware of a recent case in which a judge appeared on a television programme to campaign against my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's legislation? Does he agree that that is beyond the remit of a judge, who should be answerable to Parliament through the laws that we pass?

Mr. Streeter: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his timing. He makes an important point, because it is for Members of the House to legislate and it is for the judiciary to implement the law of the land. However, we welcome a lively debate, including the involvement of members of the judiciary, and we do not seek to stifle

18 Nov 1996 : Column 694

debate within our party, as, sadly, Labour Members have done in their own party in the past three years.

Law Centres

34. Mr. Booth: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has for the future of law centres. [2870]

Mr. Streeter: I have no specific plans on the future of law centres, which are independent and are funded from a variety of sources. On legal aid, it will be open to centres to bid for contracts of the kind proposed in the recent White Paper, "Striking the Balance", to provide legal services in their areas of expertise.

Mr. Booth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. Before I ask my question, I should declare an interest because I used to give regular free legal advice at a free legal advice centre. May I ask the Minister to commend the work of free legal advice centres and law centres, to do all he can to expand their work and to receive representations as to how that might be achieved?

Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that law centres are an important part of the provision of legal advice in this country, but we do not propose to expand dramatically the number of law centres in this country, as the Labour party proposes to do. That would take millions of pounds away from high-street and family solicitors and would be a further charge on the taxpayer. We have no plans to introduce such a policy.

Legal Aid

35. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has received about legal aid. [2871]

Mr. Streeter: I frequently receive representation on this matter from professional bodies and associations, pressure groups, advice services, individual solicitors and advocates and members of the public. I have been pleased with the level of public support for our White Paper proposals.

Mr. Marshall: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that he reads The Mail on Sunday and the article by Mr. Peter Dobbie, which highlighted a case that is funded through legal aid in which the litigants and the defendants seem to be citizens of a country other than the United Kingdom and are not appearing in court themselves? Does he realise that a raft of money is being wasted on legal aid and that most of us believe that the legal aid system is out of all financial control? The sooner his reforms come into effect, the better.

Mr. Streeter: No Sunday is complete without The Mail on Sunday and, of course, there has been a spate of recent cases reported in the newspapers confirming that we are on the right track with our White Paper proposals; that there are still too many weak, trivial and undeserving cases being provided with legal aid in this country; and that a budget of £1.4 billion, which is rising at a rate of 10 per cent. per annum, is far too high. My hon. Friend is right to make the point that we must proceed with our legal aid reforms, and that is what we are doing.

Points of Order

3.31 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I raise a point of order that is really a question about the moral or actual authority of you as Speaker in requiring the Government to make a statement before and not after British troops are irrevocably committed to a certain situation?

Since last Thursday, there has been a dramatic change in the circumstances in Zaire. I can understand that the Government may not have wanted to make a statement today and that they may have wanted to withhold a statement until such time as Brigadier Jonathan Thompson and his colleagues in the reconnaissance group return and report; but could we have some kind of undertaking that the House of Commons will be consulted after Brigadier Thompson has returned, but before there is any final decision to commit British forces to a situation about which--as became clear on Thursday--many hon. Members on both sides of the House are extremely anxious?

Furthermore, should not there have been some statement on the allegations that a British firm was involved in arms exports, absolutely transgressing every regulation that the House has laid down?

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, I have no authority to compel a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and to make a statement, but I am as keen to have information on this matter as any other hon. Member. I understand that the reconnaissance force will not be returning until either very late tonight or the early hours of tomorrow morning. I should have thought it right, proper and sensible that a thorough debriefing takes place and a report is made before a statement--an accurate statement--is made to the House. Hon. Members can be assured that I shall watch the matter very carefully--in fact, hour by hour.

Mr. David Shaw (Dover): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that there are very strict rules on access by strangers to the House of Commons. Are there no rules on access to the House of Commons that would prevent strange millionaires from turning up at the Leader of the Opposition's office with thousands of pounds in brown paper envelopes and leaving those brown paper envelopes in that office?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman paints a very colourful and hypothetical picture.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Mon): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Friday, the management of the Benefits Agency announced the wholesale closure of agency offices in Wales. Those wholesale closures will lead to agency office staff losing their jobs and the public losing their service. Do you know whether the Secretary of State for Social Security has made an application to make a statement to the House? If not, what pressure can be exerted to prevail upon him to make such a statement?

Madam Speaker: No Minister has let me know that he or she is seeking to make a statement on the matter. The hon. Gentleman might try to make use of the Order

18 Nov 1996 : Column 696

Paper, or submit a private notice question or make an application under Standing Order No. 20 for my consideration. The hon. Gentleman is a senior parliamentarian who has been in the House for a long time, and he must know how to make use of the Order Paper by now.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should be grateful if you could study the Official Report of Friday's sitting in the House when there were clear signs that Back-Bench Conservative Members were being directly briefed by civil servants who were present. As you know, that is contrary to our normal rules. Under normal circumstances I would not choose to raise the subject with you on the Floor of the House, but as Ministers were asked for an explanation during that Sitting and none was forthcoming, I hope that you will take a little time to consider what happened and perhaps rule on it at a future date.

---