| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Digital Television
10. Mr. Fraser: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received concerning the Independent Television Commission and digital television; and if he will make a statement. [7506]
Mr. Chris Smith: The recent award of licences to operate digital terrestrial television multiplexes was a decision which was, by statute, entirely for the Independent Television Commission. I have accordingly received no representations concerning that decision, although some opinions have been expressed to me about its possible implications.
Mr. Fraser: Does the Secretary of State agree that the licence fee for digital television should be higher than that payable for terrestrial television?
Mr. Smith: No, I do not necessarily agree with that proposition. Those, of course, are matters for further debate and discussion. The BBC's licence fee arrangements are in place for the next four years--agreed by the Government of the day, whom the hon. Gentleman now supports from the Opposition side of the House. I see no reason at this stage to move to a higher licence fee.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the frustration felt by people in north-east Lancashire, who are fed up with being treated as country cousins, with no Channel 5 and very little cabling? To cap it all, digital terrestrial and digital audio, which will roll out across the country next year, will touch only 60 per cent. of the population. What does he have to say to people in north-east Lancashire who will be left behind by that? We all pay the licence fee. Surely, digital terrestrial and digital audio should reach 99 per cent. of the population, not just 60 per cent.
Mr. Smith: I agree entirely that that must be the aim. Indeed, if we progress properly and speedily with the introduction of digital terrestrial television, we will be able to expand it to a much greater extent than that envisaged by my hon. Friend in making his point.
Mr. Green: The Secretary of State will be aware that Channel 4 has been awarded one of the digital multiplexes. In the light of an answer that I received from the Treasury two weeks ago, merely saying that if Channel 4 were to be privatised the amount raised would depend on the means of sale, will he take this opportunity to state unequivocally, once and for all, that the Government have no intention of privatising Channel 4?
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is slightly incorrect in that the multiplex has been awarded jointly to Channel 4 and Channel 3. I can confirm that we have no intention of privatising Channel 4; nor, indeed, does his party, which did not propose that before the general election.
Football
11. Mr. Coaker: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to assist the campaign to host the soccer World Cup in England in 2006. [7507]
Mr. Banks: The Government are committed to attracting major sporting events to the United Kingdom and are giving full promotional and diplomatic support to the Football Association's bid to host the 2006 World cup. I am chairing a co-ordinating group of FA, Premier League, Sports Council and Government officials to ensure that we focus the campaign as much as possible.
Mr. Coaker: Is my hon. Friend aware of the tremendous support throughout the country for bringing the World cup to England in 2006 and of the great boost that it would be for soccer? Will he comment on the ways in which football clubs and supporters might work with the Government to assist in his campaign to bring the World cup here?
Mr. Banks: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that it would be an enormous boost to British football, and indeed to tourism and to the country as a whole.
My hon. Friend asks what clubs and supporters can do to assist the Government, the FA, the Premier League and others in getting the 2006 World cup here. I would say to him and to all football supporters that they should be on their best behaviour, especially when travelling in Europe next season for the various European competitions. I shall be travelling with my club, and I can assure the House that I shall be on my very best behaviour. If football fans laid off the lager and were a little more Gauguin than Gazza, that might assist us enormously.
LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
Public Defenders
29. Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his policy in respect of public defenders. [7528]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Any criminal defence services funded by legal aid would have to be independent, adequately resourced and of the right quality to play an effective part in a criminal justice system. We have not ruled out the possibility of engaging employed solicitors, or indeed solicitors under specially designed contracts for particular kinds of work, if those would be the most suitable arrangements in all the circumstances.
Mr. Fabricant: As the hon. Gentleman and his Department have expressed some concern about the quality of the Crown Prosecution Service and the solicitors employed there, what assurance can he give that, if he were to go ahead with a public defender system, he would be able to ensure that solicitors of the highest calibre were employed, and not simply those who were unable to get jobs elsewhere?
Mr. Hoon: In setting up publicly funded services, we would guarantee lawyers of an appropriate quality and
standing. We intend to adopt the most appropriate system for delivering legal services, according to the nature of the work in question. We have not ruled out the possibility of having employed lawyers; indeed, there is likely to be a pilot scheme in Scotland in due course which will allow us to test precisely the quality of the service that is made available.Woolf Report
31. Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his Department's policy towards the recommendations contained in the Woolf report on civil justice. [7531]
Mr. Hoon: My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has invited Sir Peter Middleton to review current proposals for reform of civil justice and legal aid systems. He is to produce an interim report by September. The Lord Chancellor, however, has made it clear that, in the meantime, he wants the preparatory work to continue, to preserve the planned implementation date of October 1998 as a realistic option.
Mr. Hawkins: In the light of that reply, and given that the Woolf report was one of the most thorough investigations ever undertaken into any part of the justice system, what on earth do the hon. Gentleman and the Lord Chancellor think that Sir Peter Middleton can tell them that the Woolf report has not already told them?
Mr. Hoon: In the first place, the Government were elected on a commitment not only to review the Woolf report but to examine, at the same time, proposals for the reform of legal aid. We consider it appropriate and necessary to consider both aspects of planned reforms as part of a thorough review. The Lord Chancellor has made clear his support for the spirit of Lord Woolf's recommendations, which are designed to deliver a quicker, simpler and cheaper civil justice system. The purpose of Sir Peter's review is to ensure that we are on the right track.
Mr. Garnier: How does the Department intend to reconcile the differences between its policy on the Woolf report and the decision in the Witham case?
Mr. Hoon: I have said that we will carefully examine the review following Sir Peter's report in September. It will then be appropriate to consider his recommendations in the light of any decided cases.
Legal Aid
32. Mr. Baker: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will extend the provision of legal aid to cover defence from libel actions. [7532]
Mr. Hoon: There are no plans at present to extend the scope of the legal aid scheme to include defending libel actions. Successive Governments have taken the view that the outcomes of such cases are uniquely difficult to foresee and that, even if the general mechanisms against
unmeritorious proceedings could be strengthened, they would still not provide an effective safeguard against the potential waste of public money.
Mr. Baker: I am disappointed by that reply. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will incorporate consideration of extension in the review of legal aid. Does he recognise that libel actions, and the threat of them, have been used by people such as Robert Maxwell to inhibit freedom of speech and abuse the course of law? Would it not be fairer to ensure that those who wished to publish articles could not be subject to unfair actions for libel from people who want only to shut them up?
Mr. Hoon: After the previous Lord Chancellor's Question Time, the hon. Gentleman kindly sent me a copy of various documents produced by his party, one of which referred to the Liberal Democrat proposal that legal aid should be available for libel proceedings.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested a defence of offering to make amends. First, such a defence is included in the Defamation Act 1996, which provides for an offer to be made by defendants where certain circumstances are satisfied. Those procedures are not yet in force, but we are carefully considering whether they might appropriately be introduced. Secondly, it is possible for plaintiffs to bring proceedings in the small claims court, so long as the award is not more than £3,000.
Mr. Skinner:
Listening to the Liberals over the past eight or nine weeks, I get the impression that they have spent their 1p on tax about 11 times. How can the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) raise such cases, given the present limits on legal aid, when some people who take out compensation claims against employers cannot get legal aid because the employers argue that they have not got enough money to pay out compensation? Surely that should get priority over what has been put forward by these tinpot Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Hoon:
My hon. Friend is, as ever, understated in his response. He knows that Sir Peter Middleton is examining all aspects of legal aid and, in particular, ways to extend legal advice and assistance to those who do not presently enjoy their benefit. Only last week, we approved a further extension of existing pilot projects to allow the Legal Aid Board to support, for example, advice and assistance in advice agencies. That may well give legal advice to people who have not previously enjoyed its benefit in the cases to which my hon. Friend referred.
My hon. Friend also commented on the total cost of legal aid and the financial wisdom of extending it. I have made such points to the House before, but they bear repetition. Legal aid expenditure has trebled since 1989 and is still one of the fastest-growing areas of Government expenditure. Its cost doubled between 1990 and 1996. Those are significant factors that any responsible Government must take account of in considering the cost and extent of legal aid.
Mr. Hogg:
Would the hon. Gentleman be at all reassured to learn that his substantive answer is broadly supported on the Conservative Benches? Most Conservative Members believe that it would be a mistake to introduce legal aid in terms of either promoting a libel case or defending it. That said, will he consider the
Mr. Hoon:
I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's support--or at least I think I am. The purpose of Sir Peter Middleton's review is to consider all aspects of the ways in which we can support those who need high-quality advice and assistance. I have received several suggestions--not least from the Bar--that useful work could be done exploring a practical contingency fee system.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster:
Before offering an extension of legal aid that would benefit the few, will the Minister consider the higher priority of reducing current court fees, which were imposed by the previous Government, and which are denying the many access to the courts?
Mr. Hoon:
My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor made a statement on that question recently in another place. He said--I hope that my hon. Friend will agree--that it is not so much court fees that deter people from going to court as the cost of lawyers who appear in such cases. If my hon. Friend is concerned about those people of lesser means--I suspect that he is--I refer him to a series of exemptions and qualifications that allow those in receipt of benefit, for example, to have their fees waived. There should be no reason why court fees should prevent anyone from accessing courts and justice.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |