| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Lord Chancellor
28. Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): How many times the Lord Chancellor has sat in a judicial capacity in the last 12 months. [109641]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): The Lord Chancellor has sat in a judicial capacity four times in the past 12 months.
Mr. Prentice: That is four times too many. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister will not agree that it is
simply indefensible for the Lord Chancellor to sit as a judge while he is a member of both the legislature and the Executive. Does she share my disappointment that the report of the royal commission on the House of Lords recommended that the status quo be retained? That is a complete anachronism. Will not the Government be forced by the European Court of Human Rights in the Guernsey case to revisit the matter, and to make it clear that a Minister cannot serve as a judge at the same time?
Jane Kennedy: I could not disagree with my hon. Friend more profoundly, although he makes his point forcibly, as he has done for some time. The decision in the case to which he referred--the case of McGonnell--is confined to the special position of the Bailiff of Guernsey and his role in that case. In addition, if the Lord Chancellor were not a judge, he could not have the necessary close relationship with the senior judiciary. The relationship between the Executive and the judiciary could therefore deteriorate, with damaging consequences and consequential risks to the judiciary's independence.
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere): I declare an interest as a member of the Bar.
Does the Lord Chancellor ever preside over cases that are heard by a jury? If not, could the Parliamentary Secretary make sure that he has the opportunity to do so? That would enable him to see the good sense of the jury system in operation, and the lengths to which our constituents go when they serve on juries. It would also allow the Lord Chancellor to see that there is no substitute for the fairness of the jury system. Could he then knock some sense into the head of the Home Secretary?
Jane Kennedy:
Lord Chancellors in the past sat judicially for most of their working day, but that practice ceased after the second world war. Although Lord Chancellors since then have not sat as judges to the same extent, there are no particular restrictions on the cases for which they may choose to sit. However, the Lord Chancellor would never sit on any case that involved legislation in whose passage through the House he had been directly involved, nor in any case in which the Executive's interests were directly engaged.
29. Mr. David Kidney (Stafford):
What assessment he has made of the progress made by the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors in dealing with complaints against solicitors. [109642]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy):
There are fewer outstanding cases, and the last month has also seen an improvement in the turnaround of complaints. However, there are still areas of serious concern, particularly in relation to the quality of adjudication of complaints. My colleague as Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock), will be visiting the OSS on 20 March to discuss these concerns. In the meantime, we will continue closely to monitor the progress made at the OSS.
Mr. Kidney:
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that it is the responsibility of every solicitor to take seriously complaints about poor legal services? Will she ensure that every solicitor understands the message that if complaints are not dealt with responsibly by the profession, the Lord Chancellor will have to use his reserve powers provided in the Access to Justice Act 1999 and impose a statutory system for dealing with complaints?
Jane Kennedy:
My hon. Friend is right. We have those reserve powers. However, we believe that it would be better if the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors met the targets that we have set. We wish to give the OSS every opportunity to meet those targets. We must bear in mind that anxieties about the quality of casework, real though they are, must be balanced against the practical difficulties experienced by the OSS in turning things around, especially while new staff are being recruited and trained.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset):
The hon. Lady may know that Mr. Tony Walden-Biles, one of the leading lights in the organisation Complaints Against Solicitors-action for Independent Adjudication--CASIA--is one of my constituents. I have on a number of occasions taken him to see two Conservative Ministers and now three lots of Labour Ministers. They all promised that as the supervision of solicitors was not really going according to plan and that as it was a last chance, the Government would probably start to impose supervision of solicitors from outside. Why do Ministers constantly say at the Dispatch Box that they are still not happy with the OSS while doing nothing about it? When my constituents have a serious complaint about solicitors, they are not satisfied with simply having their bills reduced and having a maximum compensation limit of £1,000.
Jane Kennedy:
It is not true that no action is being taken. It was precisely because we had concerns about the operations of the OSS that the reserve powers are provided in the 1999 Act. However, as I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), we wish the OSS to make every effort to meet the targets that have been set in improving its service to those who complain about the service that they have received from solicitors. We are determined that improvements be made, and we have powers in reserve to use, should it prove necessary.
31. Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate):
How the Council of Circuit Judges' views are taken into account in respect of proposed changes in the work of the courts. [109644]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy):
The Council of Circuit Judges, as I have said, is, like other interested groups, consulted on proposed changes to the operation of the Crown and county courts. Their views are taken into account with the other responses that are received, and they receive the same careful consideration as those of other consultees. Consultation is carried out in various
Mr. Blunt:
Why does the hon. Lady believe that there is such concern among circuit judges that their views are not being taken into account?
Jane Kennedy:
The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have made a series of representations on this subject. Such a concern has not previously been expressed to me. We will take on board the comments that have been made--we take them seriously, as they purport to be representative of circuit judges. I will make every effort to reassure circuit judges on the serious way in which their concerns are taken on board by the Department.
32. Fiona Mactaggart (Slough):
If he will publish a referrals handbook for the community legal service which includes details of all national advisory services. [109648]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy):
The community legal service partnerships will create local referral networks which will be supported by regional directories. The directories, to be published at the start of April 2000, will list details of local information and advice providers, and will also include details of relevant national organisations and telephone helplines.
Fiona Mactaggart:
I am very aware of that because we have an excellent community legal service partnership growing in Slough. Our concern is that to get effective referrals, we need a national database of advice centres. We do not want to have to invent our own. We were hoping that the Lord Chancellor's Department would provide a national one that we and those in other areas could plug into so that we can get a better community legal service.
Jane Kennedy:
I, too, have that ambition for the community legal service. The directory will be available on the service's website, which is being designed and built so that it is accessible to the majority of the community. The website directory will be updated daily.
Ministerial Statements
35. Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye): How many times Ministers have come to the House to deliver statements since May 1997. [109652]
40. Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South):
On how many occasions Ministers have made statements to the House since May 1997. [109659]
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett):
As of Monday 21 February, 24 times.
Mr. Foster:
I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which shows, impressively, how this Government are committed to parliamentary democracy. Does my right hon. Friend have comparative statistics on the number of occasions on which we had such statements from the Conservatives when they were in government, so that we can see who are the true friends of democracy?
Mrs. Beckett:
My hon. Friend is entirely right. Obviously, those statistics were for this Session, but they compare favourably with the record of the Conservative party in the equivalent period in the 1992-97 Parliament--105 statements were made under this Government compared with 96 under the Conservative Government in a comparable period. Similarly, in the previous Session, 80 statements were made compared with 77 in a comparable period. That overall picture is also reflected in the statistics for individual Ministers.
Mr. Cunningham:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has an impressive record for appearances when compared with his predecessor, who in 1993-94 made only seven appearances, while our right hon. Friend in 1998-99 made 12, which is more than twice the number?
Mrs. Beckett:
My hon. Friend is correct, and that record is not a flash in the pan. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made statements on no less than 25 occasions compared with 19 by his predecessor in a similar two-year period. That exact picture is reflected in their dealings with questions, where again my right hon. Friend has answered more than his predecessor.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire):
Will the Leader of the House assure the House that, when Ministers make statements which refer to reports in which hon. Members have been mentioned, the Government will make every effort to ensure that those hon. Members see the report before the statement is made, so that they can comment properly?
Mrs. Beckett:
Of course, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Colleagues usually endeavour to do that, although there may be occasions when there is a difficulty. In general, we hope and expect that that would be the norm. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case and concern in mind, I should be grateful if he would draw it to my attention.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire):
Surely, the real question is not how many statements have been made to the House, but how often they have conveyed new information. Will the right hon. Lady put in the Library a list of those statements that have not been trailed either by a press leak from No. 10 or on the "Today" programme in the morning? Is it not deplorable that we all have a clear idea of what we are to be told in the statement that is to be made in about 12 minutes' time, when in fact that information should be given new, fresh-minted to the House?
Mrs. Beckett:
First, although the hon. Gentleman says that it is not a question of how many statements have been made or questions answered, because the facts do not suit the Opposition's case, the Opposition normally claim that this Government are in the House less and that that is a sign of our disrespect for Parliament. Clearly, neither of those contentions stands.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |