| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Pro Bono Work
31. Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon): If he will set minimum requirements for pro bono work as a qualification for appointment to Queen's Counsel status. [76336]
The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): My right honourable and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has no plans to set minimum requirements for pro bono work as a qualification for appointment to the rank of Queen's Counsel. A commitment to pro bono work is, however, taken into account when considering Queen's Counsel applications.
Mr. Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that, at the very least, it would be appropriate for QCs to spend some time on pro bono work, bearing in mind the fact that they earn up to £500,000 even before they are appointed as QCs? Does not the fact that the QC system has, so far, signally failed to provide pro bono work indicate a wider, symptomatic problem? Is not the QC system an anachronistic restrictive practice which does not work in the public interest and should be scrapped?
Mr. Hoon: As I said, a commitment to do pro bono work is taken into account when considering applications for QC status. The Government recognise the contribution that the process of appointing QCs has played in selecting senior lawyers. There are no present plans to review that.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Will the Minister concede that if pro bono work is to be taken into account as a consideration in deciding whether a barrister should become a QC, such a stipulation should apply also to Members of Parliament who are barristers, and who hitherto have become QCs, as I understand it, as of right?
Mr. Hoon: I am not aware that that is the case.
Dr. Lynda Clark (Edinburgh, Pentlands): Has the Minister any idea, by way of a survey or otherwise, of the amount of pro bono work done by QCs--both as QCs and prior to becoming QCs? I can speak only for Scotland, where my contemporaries and I have done vast amounts of pro bono work in our time.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that information. The matter is taken into account in considering applications for QC status.
County Courts
32. Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): If he will make a statement on the role of county courts in serving their local communities. [76337]
The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The location of county courts has historically reflected the business needs of the people in the immediate areas that they serve. As technology and communications advance, however, we will consider how services can be more economically and efficiently provided without affecting the level of service offered.
Mr. Brady: I am grateful for that response, but the Minister could have gone further and recognised the enormous quantity of family and other work done by the county courts, which is of great importance in the local community. He is aware of concern in the courts surrounding Greater Manchester about proposed closure and relocation, and of my concern that the local function of courts should be taken into account. In that connection, will he give a commitment that where there are other court facilities that are under-utilised--I am thinking here of the Sale magistrates courts--those facilities will be looked at prior to any new-build options in the centre of Manchester?
Mr. Hoon: It is important to draw a distinction between the times when people need to go to court for a case, when we must clearly take into account the distance that they have to travel--although that is quite rare because, fortunately, most people do not need to go to court repeatedly--and the function of the court service in providing information, which can be much more effectively delivered locally by telephone, fax or modern technology. To make that appropriate distinction will be to the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, allowing us to use the court estate as efficiently and effectively as possible.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): My hon. Friend is a sensible fellow, and I know that he will bear it in mind that there is absolutely no point in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions asking people not to move important state facilities away from where people live and work if, at the same time, individual Whitehall Departments take decisions on a narrow economic basis. If he will undertake to bear that in mind before any more county courts are closed, we will all be a little happier.
Mr. Hoon: I assure my hon. Friend that we will take that into account. Let me repeat that it is important to distinguish between the relatively rare occasions when people go to court for cases, and the provision of information. We need to ensure that much more information is provided locally and that we use modern technology to deliver it much more efficiently than at present.
Magistrates Courts
33. Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes): What assessment he makes of the (a) environmental implications and (b) inconvenience to individuals, in reaching decisions on appeals against closure of magistrates courts. [76338]
The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Environmental issues and accessibility are certainly taken into account, but they cannot be overriding considerations. Other themes that are common to the majority of appeals against courthouse closures include accessibility to all court users; the facilities available; the cost of necessary renovations to bring the court up to standard; and courtroom use. Each appeal is considered on the merits of the arguments presented by the parties. There are no statutory criteria.
Mr. Baker: Is the Minister aware that the court service proposes to close the magistrates court at Haywards Heath, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), which serves my constituents? That will require my constituents from Wivelsfield to go to the court in Lewes, where there is no proper public transport connection, and those from Ditchling to go to Brighton. Should not justice be accessible to all? The closure, if it goes ahead, will lead to considerable inconvenience to my constituents.
Mr. Hoon: The court service is not responsible for the provision of magistrates courts, which are the responsibility of the magistrates courts committee. An appeal against that proposed closure might, eventually, be dealt with by the Lord Chancellor. I have had substantial--even weighty--representations from the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), and I assure both hon. Gentlemen that their views will be taken into account.
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal): Will the Minister admit that absolutely no notice is taken of the issues when appeals are made to the Lord Chancellor? Courts in my constituency that did not infringe any of the criteria were closed after appeal. Are not the Government supposed to have the environment at the heart of all their policies? How, then, can the environment not be a consideration that overrules all others? Frankly, the Lord Chancellor allows any court to be closed that any magistrates courts committee thinks it would like to close.
Mr. Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. He came to see me, with a delegation of hon. Members, and his representations were carefully considered, as are those of all right hon. and hon. Members. It is not the case that every single appeal is dismissed. Indeed, I would be perfectly happy to give him statistics demonstrating that some appeals are allowed.
Legal Aid
34. Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet): What estimate he has made of legal aid expenditure in 1998-99; and what the figures were for (a) 10 and (b) 20 years earlier. [76339]
The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Legal aid expenditure in 1998-99 is expected to be about £1.6 billion; in 1988-89, it was £474 million; and in 1978-79, £83 million. Those figures show that the cost of legal aid over the past 20 years has increased by more than 490 per cent. above the rate of inflation.
Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the Minister agree that this is a classic case of introducing a benefit or grant for which demand will escalate? During his review of legal aid, will he appreciate that everything that he has said today and previously points to the single, simple objective
of controlling the amount of legal aid? Will he address the fact that he is cutting whole sections of qualification for legal aid that arise from genuine need?. Finally, in case there is any misunderstanding, let me declare that I am not a lawyer.
Mr. Hoon: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman talk in that way when it was the Government whom he supported for many years who slashed eligibility. The present Government are delivering reform of the legal aid system by ensuring that those who need assistance will get it--and will get the best quality assistance at an appropriate time and in an appropriate manner.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |