| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Fabricant: I do not want to delay the House, but what will be the arrangement for those who pay by direct debit?
Janet Anderson: I imagine that it will still be possible for them to purchase part-licences, but we shall have to
look at the detail. That is one reason for trying to approach the issue in a measured and responsible way, so that we can ensure that pensioners are able to avail themselves of the concessionary scheme in the simplest way possible.I assure the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) that the scheme is purely for over-75s. Like the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, whose proposed amendment was subsequently withdrawn, he said that it should be possible to apply directly to the Department of Social Security. We decided that such a system would duplicate bureaucracy and administration, and therefore the cost. We thought that it was much simpler to have a unit at one end--at the BBC--that would have the necessary information, rather than having two units.
The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) raised a number of points that have already been covered. We did not envisage that one of the likely consequences of the legislation would be to persuade his ageing mother to move in with him, but I am very pleased that she will benefit from the concession and I hope that he will constantly remind her that it was given to her by a Labour Government.
We have dealt with most of the issues and we shall look at the rest in Committee. I am sorry that the right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) took so long on this Bill and the earlier Bill that the House considered, delaying us until this late hour. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border mentioned the way in which criminal records were dealt with at the Home Office. A system that is regarded as proportional for information such as criminal records is not proportional for a national insurance number. We are talking about different kinds of information. I think that most hon. Members accept that the Bill is essential to ensure that pensioners get the concession.
I do not intend to delay the House much longer. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) raised several issues that we can deal with in Committee. I have confirmed the cost and administration implications. I thank the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for his measured and thoughtful response. I hope that he will be able to ensure that Conservative Members facilitate the passage of the Bill. Around 3 million pensioners will benefit from the concession, which was fiercely resisted by the Conservatives when they were in government. We want to ensure that those pensioners benefit as quickly as possible. I look forward to co-operation from all hon. Members to facilitate that. I commend the Bill to the House.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
Banana Imports
- That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13048/99, a draft Council Regulation amending Council Regulation (EEC) No. 404/93 on the common organisation of the market in bananas; and supports the Government's objective of achieving a revised EU banana regime which will not be challenged in the World Trade Organisation and which will reflect EU commitments to Caribbean and African countries, particularly the UK's traditional suppliers in the Caribbean.--[Mr. Pope.]
WELSH AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
- That Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd West) be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee, and Mr. John Smith be added to the Committee.--[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
PETITION
Policing (South Cumbria)
12.59 am
Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale): This petition, which has been signed by more than 3,800 of my constituents, represents strong feeling across south Cumbria about the level of police resourcing in our area and, in particular, about the fate of Milnthorpe police station.
- To the House of Commons
The petition of residents of South Lakeland
Declares that there is growing concern in south Cumbria about recent reductions in the policing of our area, shown by the closure of police stations and the reduction of the number of police officers.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons encourage the Home Secretary to implement immediately the inclusion of a sparsity element in the funding formula for Home Office support for police forces and urge him to ensure genuinely equal access to policing in all parts of our country.
And the petitioners remain etc.
Magistrates Courts
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Pope.]
1 am
Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon): It is 1 o'clock in the morning, and I am grateful to the hon. Members who are still present, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Lewes (Mr. Baker), for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed). Throughout the country, especially in country towns and rural areas, there is great concern about the future of our magistrates courts. That is especially so in Devon and Cornwall. If my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he wishes to emphasise the disquiet that is felt in our part of the south-west.
I speak tonight to highlight the problems of funding for magistrates courts. I have had meetings and correspondence over the past few months with the Minister on that point, especially as it affects the two counties. First, the Government's policy is to insist on 3 per cent. per annum savings from magistrates courts budgets. I have taken that point up in writing with the Minister and she tells me that 3 per cent. is an efficiency savings initiative. I have been informed by her that an efficiency target of a minimum of 3 per cent. was set out for the Lord Chancellor's Department and magistrates courts in the comprehensive spending review in 1998, which covers three years, from 1999-2000 to 2001-02.
At a meeting on 2 March 2000 in the Minister's office, I was accompanied by several hon. Members and some magistrates. The Minister made it clear to the meeting that the cuts being imposed on Devon and Cornwall were not cost driven.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. I would like him to acknowledge that at no point did I accept his definition of the efficiency targets as being cuts.
Mr. Burnett: That is exactly what the Minister did say, but they are, in effect, cuts and I shall say exactly why they are. Many magistrates courts committees believe that they have to cut their budgets by 3 per cent. a year for at least three years. That is the impression that the Minister, or her Department, has given magistrates courts committees in Devon and Cornwall, and elsewhere. Those cuts are even greater when one considers that no allowance will be made for inflation. If inflation is 2 per cent. a year, that means that the cuts will be 5 per cent. per annum.
If that is the policy, it is utterly irresponsible of the Government to impose it.
Jane Kennedy indicated dissent.
Mr. Burnett: Well, I look forward to hearing the Minister's views and I hope that she can contradict the impression, which all magistrates courts seem to have, of the need to make cuts of 3 per cent. per annum. After all--in a move that makes the policy even more paradoxical--the Government have sanctioned pay
increases for the staff of magistrates courts of 3 per cent. per annum. How can cuts of 5 per cent. per annum for three years be reconciled with increases in staff costs of 3 per cent. per annum? I hope that the Minister will address that specific point in her response to the debate.There is complete confusion. Magistrates courts committees believe that they must cut expenditure by at least 3 per cent. per year. However, not only have staff costs risen by 3 per cent. per year, but the work of magistrates courts is set to increase substantially, thanks to the incorporation in our law of the European convention on human rights, and thanks to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
In a letter to me dated 16 March, the Minister did not define efficiency savings. I hope that she will do so when she responds this evening. She wrote:
- Improving efficiency does not mean cuts in funding. It is about ensuring that the money that is available provides value for money.
If that is so, why is this year's budget for the Devon and Cornwall magistrates courts committee to be cut? Where is the increased expenditure being applied? I am also anxious to know exactly what an efficiency saving is, how it is measured and who measures it.
My final point about funding and the pressures imposed on the Government to close courts is one that I have raised with the Minister in the past. It has much to do with the Lord Chancellor's liaising with other Government Departments--joined-up Government, in other words.
At the meeting on 2 March, I asked the Minister a question that I reiterated in my letter of 7 March. I asked what cost-benefit analysis is done when efficiency savings give rise to court closures. In Devon and Cornwall, it is proposed to close 13 courts. What will the effect of those closures be on the budgets of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, magistrates, the probation service, the Legal Aid Board, and the other users of the courts? Small savings by the Lord Chancellor's Department will be far outweighed by significant increases in the budgets of other central Government Departments, and in those of local government departments.
In her letter of 16 March, the Minister stated that that information was not collected centrally--an outrageous reply. It is like a company director who has dismissed half the sales force without consulting anyone then being surprised at a dramatic fall in sales. Central Government provide 80 per cent. of the costs of magistrates courts. They should not cut the budgets of those courts, unilaterally and arbitrarily, without a clear knowledge of the impact that those cuts will have. Costs for other central Government Departments and agencies, and for local government departments, will be significantly increased. Central Government should make a proper cost benefit study or impact assessment and should give sensible guidance on the matter to magistrates courts committees.
Finally, I must stress that the Government should understand the particular difficulties faced by sparsely populated counties such as Devon and Cornwall.
Courts are located many miles from each other, roads are poor and public transport is scarce or non-existent. Such rural counties are a special case.This country has a lay magistracy of which we can all be proud, and efficient courts. The Minister must not be party to measures that will undermine a crucial part of our rural infrastructure.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |