---

Judges' Statements

30. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance he (i) has issued and (ii) plans to issue to judges on the subject of public statements on (a) constitutional matters and (b) other matters of current party political controversy. [12247]

Mr. Streeter: In accordance with the principle of judicial independence, my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor made it clear in advice issued in 1989 that it is for each judge to decide individually whether to make public statements. A copy of that advice, which was sent to every judge at the time and is sent to new judges on appointment, is available in the Libraries of both Houses.

Mr. Prentice: Do not judges feel that their independence is being compromised, as Lord Ackner very recently said in another place? Will the Minister join me in condemning the views of the chairman of the Conservative party, the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), who was exhorting members of the public to write to judges and seek to intimidate them if they handed down sentences that were considered too light? Is it not about time that we took the appointment of judges away from politicians and instituted an independent system for appointing members of the judiciary? Will not many judges otherwise be fearful that, if they speak out on controversial matters, they will be blackballed by the Government and not promoted?

Mr. Streeter: That was a fairly extraordinary outburst. On appointment in 1987, my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor relaxed the rules to enable judges to speak out on issues of the day. It is important that experienced and senior judges speak out, express their opinions and take a full part in debates in the House of Lords. If the hon. Gentleman expects me to condemn my right hon. Friend, the chairman of the party, he is living in a fantasy land. It is important that members of the public make their views known, if they feel that sentences passed in local communities are not appropriate, by going to see or writing to their Members of Parliament. That is what we call democracy, and Conservative Members actually believe in it.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be far better for the respect with which the judiciary is held if it were never tempted to get into any party political arena and never given the opportunity to do so?

Mr. Streeter: My hon. and learned Friend makes a valuable point. It is not appropriate for members of the judiciary to involve themselves in party politics; I am not

3 Feb 1997 : Column 672

aware that they are doing so. It is important, none the less, that debates on issues in which they have experience are enriched by their contribution. That has happened in the past and we look forward to it happening in the future.

Magistrates Court, Bolton

31. Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has had about the need for improved magistrates court accommodation in Bolton; and if he will make a statement. [12248]

Mr. Streeter: Representations have recently been received from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), who is in his place, and from the chief executive of the Bolton metropolitan borough council. The Bolton scheme is in our existing programme, but was not selected as part of the first tranche to be taken forward, as others had an even more urgent need. A further selection is due to be made in the autumn.

Mr. Thurnham: Is the Minister aware just how deeply disappointed, indeed angered, people in Bolton are not to be getting the long-needed new court? Will he act now to restore Bolton to its first place in the priority, as it has long deserved?

Mr. Streeter: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has expressed his view in such strident terms. While the hon. Gentleman has been shouting and criticising from the sidelines, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West has been working hard. Indeed, only last week, he brought to see me the chairman of the Bolton bench, and I believe that we have thrashed out a basis on which we hope to be able to support an interim refurbishment programme for the Bolton court. My hon. Friend has been working hard and getting results; the hon. Gentleman has been criticising from the sidelines and getting nowhere.

County Courts

32. Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many county courts there were in England and Wales in 1967; how many there are currently; and if he will make a statement. [12249]

Mr. Streeter: In 1967, there were 301 full-time county courts and 105 part-time offices. Currently, there are 240 full-time county courts and three part-time offices. Before the Lord Chancellor decides to close any county court, there is a full public consultation on the proposed closure.

Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that reply. I do not know whether he is aware that the nearest county court trial centre to my constituency is at least an hour and a half's drive away. If there are to be any further closures pursuant to the Woolf report, I urge the Minister to consider carefully the issue of local access to justice, including county court centres.

Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman has been diligent in championing the cause of county courts in Wales and I pay tribute to him. He will understand that the Court Service constantly monitors and reviews the viability of the court

3 Feb 1997 : Column 673

network in the light of workload trends and business needs. I can give him the assurance that he seeks because we intend to ensure that there are sufficient county courts throughout England and Wales as we implement the Woolf reforms in full over the next two years.

Mr. Miller: Will the Minister look more carefully at the issue of the closure of court offices, to which he referred in his response? Does he not realise that his actions have meant that constituents of mine now have to make a bus journey to make payments at court offices and that, as a result of one of his earlier decisions, people now have to make two bus journeys to get to a magistrates court? That cannot be right.

Mr. Streeter: I am sorry to learn of the hon. Gentleman's complaints about decisions that have already been made. He might have done better to come and discuss the matter with me at the time, but he will understand that it is important to review the efficient performance of the Court Service from time to time. We endeavour to make decisions that deliver access to justice at local level.

Property Law Report

33. Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he plans to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Law Commission in its report "Property Law: Liability for Chancel Repairs", Law Commission No. 152. [12250]

Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend has long championed a change in the law relating to liability for chancel repairs. He will understand that the likelihood of legislation in this Parliament is now remote.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, although it was disappointing. This is a complex issue and the problem is that those people with the liability find that it is arbitrary both in the timing and in the amount that they have to pay. Will my hon. Friend accept that it is an anachronistic concept? Tithes were redeemed with compensation some time ago. Does my hon. Friend accept that that should be the ultimate aim for chancel repairs liability? Will he seek to continue to discuss the problem with the relevant parties so that something can be done?

Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend has been determined in pursuit of that important matter. He will know that the Law Commission report threw up some complex issues of principle and law that require full and careful consideration. Some of the concerns remain and we will of course continue to consider the matter carefully. I am sure that he will continue to lobby on behalf of his constituents.

Legal Aid

34. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received about the 1997-98 legal aid budget. [12251]

Mr. Streeter: No representation has been made to me specifically about the 1997-98 budget, although I have on

3 Feb 1997 : Column 674

a number of occasions received correspondence concerning the level of legal aid expenditure generally. The Government are introducing a major reform of the legal aid system to bring the budget under control.

Mr. Marshall: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he accept that most people welcome some control over the legal aid budget, which they think has got out of control? Most people are appalled that the shadow Lord Chancellor wants to extend legal aid to industrial tribunals, which will cost the taxpayer dear and benefit his chambers.

Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Our White Paper reforms are intended to bear down on and seize control of the legal aid budget to improve the service that we deliver. In contrast, the Labour party is talking openly and widely about expanding legal aid further by installing a law centre in every town and extending legal aid to industrial tribunals. Those proposals will cost the taxpayers many millions of pounds. There is an apparent conflict of interest when people call for an extension to the industrial tribunal system knowing that it would benefit themselves.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Instead of talking about the amount that legal aid costs, why does not the Minister astonish the House by looking at the way in which legal fees are raised by solicitors who spend well over a year deciding on whether or not to pursue a case--all the time seeking legal aid fees--and who then tell some of my poorest constituents that there is no case to pursue? If he were doing his job properly, there would be more than enough money to extend representation to industrial tribunals.

Mr. Streeter: The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, and I accept that there are times when the service delivered by solicitors falls short. If she is aware of a specific case, I hope that she will raise it with me, the Law Society and other appropriate channels.

35. Dr. Spink: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about the level of the legal aid budget over the past three years. [12252]

Mr. Streeter: In 1993-94, net expenditure on legal aid was £1.2 billion. In 1995-96, expenditure had risen to £1.39 billion, an increase of just under 15 per cent.

Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend take time in the near future to set out how the Government intend to control legal aid expenditure more rigorously, and whether they will set caps on it? Is it not shameful that the legal profession and Opposition Members seek to extend the legal aid budget, particularly to industrial tribunals?

Mr. Streeter: Once again, my hon. Friend is on to a good point. The White Paper reforms announced last July are right and have acquired an unstoppable momentum. They will resolve the current shortfalls in the system. Colleagues will be pleased to learn that I am examining a number of proposals to deal with some of the more obvious abuses in the short term, including perverse decisions by area committees and soft opinions by some barristers to enable their clients to get legal aid. I will have more to say on that shortly.

3 Feb 1997 : Column 675

---