| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
The Advocate-General was asked--
Legislation
22. Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere): How many Bills introduced in the Scottish Parliament she has considered; and on how many occasions she has advised that such Bills are not within the Parliament's competence. [109632]
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): Thus far, two Bills have been passed by the Scottish Parliament and I have not considered it necessary to refer either to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. They are now the Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999 and the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000.
Mr. Clappison: Although the hon. and learned Lady of course considers such matters in an entirely independent way, given the fact that, so far, she has not considered any Bills to be outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament and given the political composition of that Parliament, does she agree that one would not have to be a tremendous cynic to think it unlikely that any future Bills will be challenged in that way and that there is very little point to what she is doing?
The Advocate-General: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's cynicism. He will remember that, in my position as Advocate-General, I have legal functions to exercise. As an advocate, I have been exercising legal functions for many years and I intend to continue using my independent legal judgment when I act as Advocate-General. We shall wait and see what happens when Bills are introduced.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady's comments and they are not very illuminating. She mentions her other roles. She will be aware that she has a constitutional right to intervene in cases which might have a constitutional dimension north and south of the border. Why, for instance, did she not intervene in the cases of Starrs v. Procurator Fiscal and Clancy v. Caird, which have direct constitutional relevance to the United Kingdom because they concern the rights of temporary sheriffs to sit, which could have a knock-on effect south of the border? Did she not see it as part of her role to take a part in that, in view of its profound constitutional implications?
The Advocate-General: The legal advice that I give as Advocate-General is confidential. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a great respect for precedent in the House and for legal precedent, so I quote from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) the former Attorney-General in the previous Conservative Administration, who said, on 7 November 1996:
- "By convention, the fact of whether the Law Officers have advised on a given issue is not disclosed, nor is the substance of any advice which may have been given."--[Official Report, 7 November 1996; Vol. 284, c. 610W.]
European Convention on Human Rights
23. Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): What representations she has received on the application of the European convention on human rights to the conditions in which trials in third countries take place. [109633]
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): I have received no such representations.
Mr. Dalyell: Assuming that the trial at Zeist ever gets under way, do Ministers think that it should be televised?
The Advocate-General: That is a matter entirely for the Scottish Executive, and in particular, the Lord Advocate in his role as independent prosecutor and the decisions that he makes in relation to that. The matter is also before the courts and is sub judice.
LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
The Parliamentary Secretary was asked--
Circuit Judges
26. Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): What systems there are for assessing the views of circuit judges on proposals to change the operation of Crown courts. [109637]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): Whenever changes to the operation of the Crown courts are proposed, the views of the judiciary are sought through consultation, including the views of the Council of Circuit Judges.
Mr. Grieve: I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that the Council of Circuit Judges has an important role to play in trying to ensure the smooth running of the court system and trying to minimise costs. Why then is it that the impression that one derives is that the council considers that on issues such as court layout, new court building and information technology, their representations to the Lord Chancellor's Department appear to be disregarded? Is it simply because the council is meant to be a mere focus group sounding board to be disregarded at will, or is it because the Government do not like the suggestions that it makes?
Jane Kennedy: I cannot be held responsible for any impressions that the hon. Gentleman may form. The views of the Council of Circuit Judges, which is the body that represents the circuit bench, are taken very seriously. It is consulted by the Lord Chancellor and the Court Service on all proposed policy and operational changes relating to the courts.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): I declare an interest as a practising lawyer. When the various proposals for the change in the operation of the Crown courts are considered by the Lord Chancellor's Department, will the Department take into account the change in format and procedure that will arise directly from the incorporation of the European convention on human rights on 2 October and ensure that the judges sitting in the Crown courts have been well tutored in the complex nature of the proposals and the various precedents and other cases that have been decided in the European courts, which will of course affect the running of our courts?
Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and great efforts are being made to ensure that the judiciary and those responsible for administering the Court Service are well briefed on the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998. Important as that legislation is in establishing the rights of individuals in this country, it does have major implications for all public agencies, including the Court Service.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): The Parliamentary Secretary must sometimes be embarrassed to defend the actions and attitudes of the Lord Chancellor. I wish to follow up the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). Does she accept that it is a matter of profound concern if the Lord Chancellor gives the impression that he goes through the motions of receiving delegations from the judiciary, but that the judiciary feels that its views are simply being ignored and that all that is happening is a face-saving exercise? Increasingly, as one talks to people at all levels of the legal profession, the impression left by the Lord Chancellor is that he is contemptuous and dismissive of any representations that are made to him.
Jane Kennedy: It is difficult to respond to generalised complaints such as those made by the hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). All I can say is that, for example, in the consultation on the transforming the Crown court project, more than 62 judges responded individually and six circuits responded collectively. Those responses will be
considered along with the conclusions of various groups that have been organised to discuss that project, including the judicial focus group, the think tank and the case management working group. The recommendations of those groups and the individuals who responded will be brought together and a way forward approved by the trials issues group, the senior presiding judge and the Court Service. The views of the judiciary are sought in a range of ways, and those views are taken very seriously indeed by the Lord Chancellor.County Courts
27. Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): If he will make a statement on the closure of county courts in England. [109640]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I provided to a similar question from him on 12 January. The Court Service is committed to ensuring that it achieves value for money from its assets and properties and provides good services to its customers. It constantly reviews its estates in the light of work load trends, the state of the available facilities and local county court users' needs.
Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. She is aware that I have raised this subject from time to time. In her written answer to me of 25 January, she listed a number of county courts that are proposed for closure. I was pleased that the courts at Altrincham, Leigh and Tameside were not on that list. Can I take it from that that the Government have seen sense and decided not to proceed with the planned closure of those county courts? Do the Government now understand the vital service that those courts perform for the community?
Jane Kennedy: A preliminary court-user survey has been conducted in the Manchester area, which includes the Altrincham, Leigh and Tameside county courts. Such surveys play a very important role in informing the decisions of the Court Service, and they are often a precursor to seeking the Lord Chancellor's approval for formal consultation on possible closures. However, at present there are no plans to take the matter forward.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): Will my hon. Friend the Minister remain her normal, totally impartial self and simply ensure that under no circumstances will Crewe lose its county court?
Jane Kennedy: I shall take my hon. Friend's comments on board.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |