| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Agenda 2000 (Farming)
10. Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine): What decisions his Department has taken regarding the Agenda 2000 agreement as it affects the method of payment to farmers of the beef and dairy national envelopes and the successor scheme to hill livestock compensatory allowances; and if he will make a statement. [87523]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): No decisions have yet been taken pending the assessment of responses to earlier consultations and the adoption of the necessary European Union implementing regulations. From 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament
Sir Robert Smith: Does the Minister recognise that the failure to take a decision means that farmers will face uncertainty? They have enough problems without lacking certainty, which enables them to plan for the future. Will he at least make a commitment that, if there is any delay in the introduction of the new scheme and because of that uncertainty, a transitional scheme for HLCA payments will keep the cash flow going so that farmers at least do not face the penalty of late payments?
Mr. Macdonald: I can give a commitment that we shall try to provide a transitional scheme. The delay has been caused by the fact that the final detailed set of European Commission regulations is not yet ready; but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, when they are available, we shall consult widely on them with the farming community. The matters that we discuss will include the change from headage to area-based payments of HLCAs, and we shall take the results of the consultation very much into account.
LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
The Parliamentary Secretary was asked--
Law Society and Bar Council
30. Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead): What representations he has received on the conduct of professional examinations by (a) the Law Society and (b) the Bar Council. [87544]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz): In the last year, the Department has received one letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on behalf of his constituent, complaining of an individual instance of inadequate administration of the Bar vocational course. The legal practice course and the Bar vocational course are conducted by approved providers, rather than directly by the professional bodies.
Mr. McWalter: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, but is he aware that the case that I raised with his Department concerned someone who had failed an examination marginally because she had been sent an erroneous examination paper? When she appealed against the decision, she was asked on what ground she was appealing. As failure to administer the examination properly was not deemed to be a possible ground for appeal, she had to find some other ground, which made the case for the appeal somewhat convoluted.
I should be grateful for an assurance from my hon. Friend that the legal bodies will possibly allow appeals on the basis of failure by those bodies themselves to conduct their affairs in a satisfactory manner--however rare such failures may be.
Mr. Vaz:
I know of the case that my hon. Friend has described. His constituent must be very frustrated and distressed, because she failed to get on to the course in question by only one mark. I know what it is to lose by only one, having lost a European selection by just one vote. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was also contesting the seat.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock):
We was both robbed!
Mr. Vaz:
I am trying to find the person concerned to thank them for not voting for me.
Ministers have no say in the way in which such papers are marked, but I spoke to Mr. Niall Morrison, chief executive of the Bar Council, this afternoon. If my hon. Friend will send me the papers relating to the case, I will send them to Mr. Morrison, who has promised to look into the case for me.
31. Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley):
If he will make a statement on the application by Chorley citizens advice bureau to obtain a contract for the provision of services under legal aid. [87545]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz):
Chorley citizens advice bureau was not invited to bid for a contract because its application related to categories of law specified as low-priority by the north-western regional legal services committee's draft strategy.
Citizens advice bureaux will be an essential element of the local networks in the Community Legal Service. The fact that Chorley citizens advice bureau does not have a legal aid contract does not preclude it from being accredited to the Community Legal Service quality mark, once that is available, and taking part in its local referral network. Indeed, Chorley's plans to work closely with the local authority's welfare rights service fits well with the proposals for the Community Legal Service.
Mr. Hoyle:
What assurance can be given to the people of Chorley? Does my hon. Friend's answer mean that there will be provision through welfare rights, or does it mean that we shall have to travel somewhere else within central Lancashire?
Mr. Vaz:
I congratulate my hon. Friend on championing the work of Chorley CAB, which does an excellent job. As he knows, the north-western regional committee launched a strategy, and engaged in consultation. A representative of Chorley attended the meeting on 25 November last year, and did not object to what was being proposed.
Chorley CAB has a vital role to play in the Government's plans for a community legal service. It will act as a referral agency; it will continue its excellent work, supported by my hon. Friend; and I am convinced that it will play its part in ensuring that we have a decent, modern system of justice.
Madam Speaker:
I call Mr. Burnett, who should make particular reference to Chorley, of course.
Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker:
Order. Hon. Members must take these matters seriously. It is a specific question. It relates simply to one citizens advice bureau, and that is Chorley.
Mr. Burnett:
I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker. As a precursor to my question, I should remind the Minister that, last week, he stressed the importance of abolishing legal aid for personal injury matters. [Hon. Members: "What about Chorley?"] I am getting to Chorley. That was despite objections throughout the House. What are the savings likely to be as a result of that closure and will he apply the savings to help the not-for-profit sector--for example, the citizens advice bureau in Chorley?
Madam Speaker:
Order. That was a very good try, but Members should watch the questions to which they wish to put supplementary questions.
Mr. Vaz:
I have no specific figures on Chorley concerning the points raised by the hon. Gentleman and
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are satisfied with the arrangements that have been made. The conditional fee arrangements will enable people in Chorley and elsewhere to have the benefit of receiving good legal advice on personal injury cases.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex):
Did the contract application from Chorley contain a reference to legal aid being granted only in cases where solicitors themselves undertake the legal aid work? In view of the hon. Gentleman's astonishingly complacent reply to my query about the issue in respect of my constituency, will he assure the House that, when Chorley again makes what I am sure will be a successful bid, such a clause will be present in that agreement?
Mr. Vaz:
Chorley was not invited to bid because the areas on which it wished to make its bids were regarded as low priorities.
32. Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
If he will make a statement about the continuing review and scrutiny of training for judges. [87547]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz):
The Judicial Studies Board is an independent body, controlled by a board whose members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. It is chaired by Lord Justice Waller, a Lord Justice of Appeal. For accounting purposes, it is treated as an advisory non-departmental public body. Its powers and obligations are set out in a memorandum of understanding with the Lord Chancellor's Department. The board produces and publishes a report to the Lord Chancellor each year.
Mr. Bercow:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that informative reply. I take this, my first, opportunity to congratulate him on his recent appointment.
Given the importance of training, both for individual judges and for the standing of the judiciary as a whole, will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that future training will be such as to ensure that we can avoid a repetition of the embarrassment that Lord Hoffmann recently inflicted on the judiciary by his failure to declare a relevant interest in the Pinochet case and then to withdraw from it?
Mr. Vaz:
Their lordships have already ruled on that case. Obviously, the issue of declarations of interest is important and is dealt with in an important way by whoever sits on the Bench. I am certain that the training that the Judicial Studies Board initiates, both at the induction stages when new judges are appointed and
Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley):
Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the measure of success his Department is having in moving towards judges being appointed from a much wider cross-section of society?
Mr. Vaz:
It is always the Lord Chancellor's wish to ensure that judges are appointed from a wide section of society and it is right that, in the past year, 24 per cent. of the appointments made by my noble and learned Friend have been women. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in congratulating Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss on her appointment as the first woman president of the family division. It is important that the appointments should reflect society, but it is equally important that those appointed to the Bench should be appointed on merit. That is how my noble and learned Friend appoints people--they have to be of the highest quality. I believe that we have the best judiciary in the world and it is important that the merits tests are met.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath):
I join the Minister in his congratulations to Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss on her appointment as the first lady president of the family division. As the Minister said, the British judiciary is the finest in the world, but I am sure that he agrees that there would be grave concern throughout the legal profession and the country if there were to be any sign of the politicisation of the judiciary in the future. Will he confirm, for himself and his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, that the Government have no intention of politicising the judiciary? Will he further confirm that he recognises the sanctity of the separation of powers doctrine so that we will not see any interference by Parliament under this Government in the freedom of the judiciary?
Mr. Vaz:
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his first appearance in his new role at the Dispatch Box during Question Time. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, of course, the judiciary must be apolitical. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor wishes to ensure the integrity and impartiality of those appointed to the judiciary and he has made sure that that has been the case.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock):
Is the Minister satisfied that the training and instruction of judges provides them with sufficient sensitivity to arrange their private passions and interests to coincide with the natural holiday time of the courts? Given that many jurors find that they lose pay, their businesses suffer or they miss out on tickets to Wimbledon, does he share my dismay that one of the learned judges has put his passion for Wimbledon above his obligations to the court? If Madam
Mr. Vaz:
My hon. Friend--he is a good friend--was present at the European selection meeting when I lost by a single vote, but I have no spare tickets for him. Judge Hooton, the judge to whom my hon. Friend has referred, had booked his annual leave some time ago. It had been estimated by the lawyers that the case, which he was due to have started on Monday, would last for three to four days. At the outset of the trial, the lawyers informed the judge, without providing the court with any prior notice, that they anticipated that the case would last five or six days. On that basis, the judge was forced to adjourn the case. In my view, it is disappointing that the judge should have been placed in that position.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |