| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Scottish Devolution
30. Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on his role in Her Majesty's Government's proposals for Scottish devolution. [395]
Mr. Hoon: Scottish devolution is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Lord Chancellor's Department is one of a number of Departments that are concerned.
Mr. Dalyell: What account is the Lord Chancellor's Committee taking of the natural desire of many Scots working in England to have their say in the referendum?
Mr. Hoon: The key criterion for voting in the referendum will be residence in Scotland. That is why we have provided that all those currently on the local government register in Scotland will be entitled to vote. All Scots who live in England and are registered as local government electors in Scotland will therefore be eligible to vote. The Government are currently considering the
most effective way of making the public aware of the "absent voting" provisions, which will be in place at the time of the referendum.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Lord Chancellor's Department knows better than anyone, this is a fundamental, massive and costly constitutional change. Will the Minister seek to persuade his colleagues that it would be outrageous and unthinkable for it to be introduced without a clear indication that a substantial majority in Scotland wanted it? Could we at least have a 40 per cent. rule to ensure that it will not happen unless a majority in Scotland want it?
Mr. Hoon: As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, there will be opportunities for all Members of Parliament to debate and vote on such a matter in due course.
Court Procedures
31. Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures he proposes to modernise procedures within the courts; and if he will make a statement. [396]
Mr. Hoon: The Government plan to conduct a review of the present proposals for reform of civil procedures and the legal aid system. An announcement will be available in due course. On the criminal side, we will streamline procedures so that we halve the time it takes to get persistent young offenders from arrest to sentencing. Both are important measures which are relevant to modernising court procedures.
Mr. Mackinlay: Has the Minister noticed that the most popular and successful Speaker manages to preside over the High Court of Parliament without wearing a full-bottomed wig? Is it not time that the compulsory wearing of Jacobean garb in our courts was ended?
We still maintain the dock system in criminal trials, although it is intimidatory and, I think, prejudicial to fair trials. Will that be reviewed?
Mr. Hoon:
Policy on court dress is indeed a matter for which the Lord Chancellor has policy responsibility. A practice direction was made on 11 April 1995 by the then Lord Chancellor Mackay, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and heads of divisions.
On a personal note, I have great sympathy with the point made by my hon. Friend. I recall the first time that I appeared in a Crown court. I should have been worrying about the law with which I was having to deal; I should have been worried about the defendant whom I was representing; what I was really worried about was whether my wig was going to stay on my head.
Mr. Peter Bottomley:
The Minister rightly referred to the criminal side of the courts. In the two and a half weeks since the Government changed--I do not blame the new Government for this--about 6,000 people have been convicted of a serious criminal offence for the first time. Would it be for the Minister's Department to commission
Mr. Hoon:
The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable suggestion, but I think that he would do better to direct it at my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Bermingham:
When reviewing the whole question of civil law, will the Minister consider the problems that are now being highlighted in respect of the Woolf report and the fast-track system? He might also consider a further slight amendment to the legal aid system that would save an awful lot of time: allowing the
Mr. Hoon:
The Lord Chancellor has indicated his support for the spirit of Lord Woolf's recommendations, which are designed to deliver a civil justice system that is quicker, simpler and cheaper. As we proposed in the manifesto on which my hon. Friend and I were elected, we shall undertake a review of the civil justice reforms and of legal aid; it will examine the workability, cost and benefits of the reforms. Meanwhile, we are continuing with the programme of work that should still enable us to deliver the reforms to the original target if that option were to be endorsed. We want to keep all the options open on this matter.
My hon. Friend made a helpful proposal on legal aid. I shall meet representatives of the Legal Aid Board later this week and discuss that matter with them.
Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I again rise on the question of your statement about the position of Members of Parliament who have not taken the oath. When you made the statement on Wednesday, it had the force of the common law of Parliament, and in due course it will be embodied in "Erskine May". Of course, when the election took place on 1 May the law of Parliament was quite clear and "Erskine May" states:
I sent you a memorandum on a broader question, Madam Speaker, but the position that I want to put to you is that those electors who voted for the two hon. Members concerned voted on the basis that although they may have been abstentionist in their policy towards the Chamber, they would be entitled to all the rights of Members in safeguarding the interests of constituents. In the light of your statement, the hon. Members for Belfast, West(Mr. Adams) and for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness) are denied the right to represent their electors in the broad and full way of other hon. Members.
In the memorandum that I submitted to you, which raises a range of other questions, the matter of privilege arose. But my present point is supplementary to that. Is it right that the law of Parliament should be changed retrospectively in a way that denies electors the rights that they legitimately believed they had when they voted, but which they now find have been taken away? I am aware that the Privileges Committee has not been set up and that
privilege should not be raised on the Floor of the House, but I would ask you to defer the deadline for the operation of your ruling until these aspects have been properly considered.
Madam Speaker:
I shall certainly look carefully at the matters that the right hon. Gentleman raises. He should look carefully at the list of services that were appended to my statement. The right hon. Gentleman says that he wrote to me on a wider issue. That is indeed the case: I received a memorandum from him on Friday, the first paragraph of which raises the matter and asks me to look at it as a matter of privilege. I am doing precisely that and I shall respond to the right hon. Gentleman as soon as I am able to do so. Therefore, the matter should not be raised on the Floor of the House.
Ordered,
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.25 (Periodic adjournments),
3.30 pm
"But although until he has taken the oath a Member may not sit and vote, he . . . is entitled to all the other privileges of a Member (but not to his salary), being regarded, both by the House and by the law, as qualified to serve, until some other disqualification has been shown to exist."
John Bright sat and voted on a Committee of the House before he had taken the oath.
That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 28th November, 12th December 1997 and 16th, 23rd and 30th January, 6th and 13th February, 6th, 13th, 20th and 27th March, 24th April and 3rd July 1998.--[Mrs Ann Taylor.]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.12 (House not to sit on certain Fridays),
That the House shall not sit on the following Fridays: 13th June, 4th July, 31st October 1997 and 20th February, 3rd April, 1st and 15th May, 12th and 26th June and 10th July 1998.--[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
Question agreed to.
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 22nd May, do adjourn till Monday 2nd June.--[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
Question agreed to.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |