| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
International Sporting Events
Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to attract major international sporting events to the United Kingdom. [20753]
Mr. Sproat: The Government are strongly committed to providing promotional and diplomatic support for the bidding for and staging of major international sporting events in this country. The United Kingdom Sports Council, which was established on 1 January 1997, has, as one of its priority tasks, to help attract to this country major international sporting events. To ensure that there is a clear and co-ordinated UK strategy for all major events, we have asked the United Kingdom Sports Council to take the lead. Additionally the Government have demonstrated their commitment in a number of practical ways.
My Department chairs a wide-ranging working group to assist Manchester in organising a successful 2002 Commonwealth games, and to ensure that the event has the greatest possible impact, both nationally and internationally, in terms of sporting, tourism, economic and other benefits. The Welsh Office chairs a working group to ensure the success of the 1999 rugby world cup. I am also encouraging the British Tourist Authority to work closely with the organiser of events to ensure synergy, for example between the rugby world cup 1999 and the cricket world cup 1999, with a view to maximising the tourism benefits. Building on the success of Euro 96, the Government are strongly backing the Football Association's bid to host the 2006 world cup. We have already hosted two receptions on behalf of the FA, and I am chairing a co-ordinating group of FA and Government officials to ensure that we are assisting the FA as far as we are able.
To assist further, the sports councils have recently launched their national revenue grants programmes, one of which is designed to attract and stage those events which are of genuine major significance to the UK. The UK Sports Council advises the four home nation sports councils on the distribution of national lottery funds in support of bids for, and the staging of, major events in this country as well as on the facilities required to stage them.
All of these initiatives underline the importance which the Government attach to attracting and staging major events in this country.
Mr. Etherington:
To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the impact of new county court fees to be charged on debtors under the provisions of the County Court Fees (Amendment) Order 1996; and if he will make a statement. [19494]
17 Mar 1997 : Column: 365
Mr. Streeter:
Following the judgment in R v. the Lord Chancellor ex parte Witham, the Lord Chancellor has decided that litigants in the county courts and in family proceedings should be placed on the same footing as litigants in non-family proceedings in the Supreme Court. He has therefore made orders restoring the exemption and remission provisions which applied before 15 January 1997. As a result, most debtors on low incomes will not be liable to pay court fees.
Mr. Etherington:
To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the estimated projected annual income the Court Service will receive from levying new charges for (a) fee numbers (1) 2C (ii) application by debtor to vary judgment, (iii) 2C (2) application to set aside judgment, (3) 2C (iv) application to district judge, (4) 2C (vi) application to circuit judge, (5) 4 (i) (c) second or subsequent warrant and (6) 4 (ix) application to suspend warrant and (b) entering a counter claim against the plaintiff. [19502]
Mr. Streeter:
The question concerns a matter which has been assigned to the Court Service under the terms of its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Bill Etherington, dated 17 March 1997:
| Fee number and type of process | Projected income £ million |
|---|---|
| 2C(ii) and (ii) Application to vary or set aside judgment(3) | 0.975 |
| 2C(iv) Application to district judge or circuit judge ex-part or by consent | 8.3 |
| 2C(v)(vi) Application to district judge and circuit judge(3) | 2.0 |
| 4(i)(c) Request for second or subsequent warrant | 2.3 |
| 4(ix) Application to suspend warrant | 0.865 |
| Entering a counterclaim against the plaintiff(4) | No projection has been made |
(3) This is a combined projection for the two fees.
(4) The new fee payable on entering a counterclaim is the same as if separate proceedings were being issued for that amount.
Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review (a) the Supreme Court Court Fees (Amendment) Order 1996, (b) the County Court Fees (Amendment) Order 1996 and (c) the Family Proceedings Fees (Amendment) Order 1996; and if he will make a statement. [20641]
Mr. Streeter:
The Lord Chancellor is in the process of implementing wide-ranging reforms to the civil justice system following the publication of Lord Woolf's final report. As part of this process, the current fees structure
17 Mar 1997 : Column: 366
will be subject to review to ensure that fees are charged at an appropriate level and at appropriate points in the progression of a case.
Mr. Carlile:
To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the expected savings from each element of the (a) Supreme Court Fees (Amendment) Order 1996, (b) County Court Fees (Amendment) Order 1996 and (c) Family Proceedings Fees (Amendment) Order 1996; and if he will make a statement. [20643]
Mr. Streeter:
The question concerns a matter which has been assigned to the Court Service under the terms of its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 17 March 1997:
Mr. Carlile:
To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received (a) in favour and (b) against the (i) Supreme Court Fees (Amendment) Order 1996, (ii) County Court Fees (Amendment) Order 1996 and (iii) Family Proceedings Fees (Amendment) Order 1996; and if he will make a statement. [20642]
Mr. Streeter:
According to our records 91 representations have been received by Ministers relating to the Fees (Amendment) Orders 1996, three in the form of parliamentary questions and 88 in the form of letters from Members of Parliament. The representations made have expressed concerns about the effect of particular fees rather than views on each order as a whole.
Mr. Carlile:
To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to reverse recent increases in civil justice court fees in accordance with the decision in R v. the Lord Chancellor ex parte Witham; and if he will make a statement. [20640]
Mr. Streeter:
The judgment in R v. the Lord Chancellor ex parte Witham reinstates the former fee exemptions and remissions in the Supreme Court. It does not relate to the increases in civil court fees. To place county court and family proceedings litigants on the same footing as litigants in the Supreme Court, the Lord Chancellor has made orders reintroducing provisions for fee exemption and remission in these proceedings as well, and has made refunds available to those eligible.
Mr. William O'Brien:
To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received on the extent to which decisions of county courts are not implemented; and if he will make a statement. [18852]
17 Mar 1997 : Column: 367
Mr. Streeter:
The question concerns a matter which has been assigned to the Court Service under the terms of its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
PQ 97/318: Expected savings from court fees
The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question on expected savings from court fees.
The estimated additional income from the three fees orders is as follows:
Supreme Court Fees (Amendment) Order 1996: £8.8 million
County Court Fees (Amendment) Order 1996: £24.6 million
Family Proceedings Fees (Amendment) Order 1996: £6 million
These estimates do not take account of the possible impact of the judgment in Regina v the Lord Chancellor ex parte Witham.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |