| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
The Advocate-General was asked--
EU Directives
26. Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde): What recent requests she has received for her advice on devolved and reserved matters in relation to the European convention on human rights and European Union directives and regulations. [118151]
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): Both these issues raise a number of interesting and difficult problems that have been brought to my attention and about which I have given advice.
Dr. Godman: There is a great deal of confusion about convention obligations and European Union law. Has my hon. and learned Friend any plans to provide guidance to Members, Members of the Scottish Parliament, peers and journalists on the extension of the convention, its application to Scots law and the differences between convention obligations and obligations under EU law?
The Advocate-General: I am always delighted to assist any Member from any party who wishes to discuss such matters with me. It is my job to advise the Government, and it would not really be appropriate for me to send out advise to other parties.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): The hon. and learned Lady seems to operate in an extremely mysterious way. It is the one characteristic that she shares with the Almighty. She has been especially coy with the
House this afternoon, but as she has extended an invitation and as I am not a lawyer, may I see her and will she tell me what she really does do?
The Advocate-General: I would be delighted to give the hon. Gentleman a private appointment at any time to discuss these matters.
Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife): Will the hon. and learned Lady tell the House whether she has considered the provisions of European Union law in regard to its effect on contract for roll on/roll off ferries on the Clyde? In particular, does she understand the distinction between the terms of an advertisement and the terms of a contract when it is ultimately placed? Has she considered whether it is possible to create a contract that will allow the ferries to be built in the United Kingdom, that will meet the UK's military aspirations and at the same time will not be contradictory of our commitments under EU law?
The Advocate-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware that as a Law Officer I would not normally, and certainly not in this case, advise him of what advice I have given. I can say that I am aware in general terms of the types of distinction to which he refers.
Civil Service Pension Rights
27. Mr. Desmond Browne (Kilmarnock and Loudoun): What role she plays in relation to the proof of irregular marriages in the context of inherited civil service pension rights. [118152]
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): The responsible Minister for civil service pensions is my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office. However, I am able to advise that in general terms the solicitor to the Advocate-General for Scotland's office advises all the United Kingdom Departments, and that would include that Department.
Mr. Browne: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. I have provided notice of the Question as it relates to a constituent's case. Will she tell the House when my constituent, Mrs. Mavis MacDonald, can expect a reply to her request to inherit the pension rights of her deceased partner? Will it be before my correspondence file celebrates its second birthday?
The Advocate-General: I am well aware of the effort that my hon. Friend puts into constituency matters. I am much obliged to him for providing me with specific notice of the case to which he has referred. He will not wish me to discuss in public the details of the case, but I am more than happy to advise that documents are being considered and that the solicitors of my hon. Friend's constituent are being advised about the matter. If my hon. Friend wishes chapter and verse, I am more than happy to provide that to him in private.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): Would the Advocate-General advise me whether the normal rules of
common law marriages would apply in a case such as that raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne)? Would same-sex marriages be recognised for the purposes of inherited civil service pension rights?
The Advocate-General: The case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) does not, so far as I am aware, raise any same-sex issues. The normal rules on cohabitation and repute are under consideration, which is part of the background to the difficulties experienced in my hon. Friend's case. The hon. Lady will know that the law in Scotland on marriage by cohabitation and repute is not always easy to interpret, and it may take some time before the proper documents are sorted out.
LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
The Parliamentary Secretary was asked--
Gravesend Magistrates Court
31. Mr. Chris Pond (Gravesham): What representations he has received concerning the proposed closure of Gravesend magistrates court. [118157]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I have received 23 representations from Members, justices of the peace and other local interested parties, following Kent magistrates courts committee's determination to close Gravesend magistrates court.
Mr. Pond: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Virtually all the responses to consultation opposed closure of Gravesend magistrates court. Among those who responded, Kent police has estimated that it will face additional costs of around £30,000 a year, not including prisoner conveyance. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking Elizabeth Brice, the former chairwoman of Gravesham's magistrates bench, for her 32 years of service, following her decision to stand down as a result of the decision to close? Can my hon. Friend assure my constituents that she, unlike Kent magistrates courts committee, will give careful consideration to the views expressed by the local community?
Jane Kennedy: I am more than happy to associate myself with my hon. Friend's comments on the retirement of the former chairwoman of the Gravesham bench. Kent magistrates courts committee is responsible under statute for the efficient and effective running of the courts in its area. The Lord Chancellor's responsibility is limited to that of an appellate court in any dispute between the MCC and its paying authority over a proposed court closure. I shall pay careful attention to all the representations made during the appeal, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his vigorous representations, although it is too early to say how successful he has been.
Rural Magistrates Courts
32. Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): If he will make a statement on the future of rural magistrates courts. [118158]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave him on 25 January 2000 at column 180W.
Mr. Paterson: Shropshire's courts have been placed in an area coterminous with West Mercia police authority's area leading to real fears that the six petty session divisions in Shropshire may go the way of those in Hereford, where there is now only one. Going to court is traumatic enough, especially for elderly witnesses, without having to face extra costs and the difficulties of travelling long distances. Will the Minister guarantee that the Government have no covert policy to close magistrates courts in rural areas?
Jane Kennedy: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The Shropshire magistrates courts committee has no proposals for courthouse closures or for any internal reorganisation.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington): To what extent have the changes been driven by public expenditure?
Jane Kennedy: Changes to the boundaries of MCCs are not cost driven, but are designed to meet the improved efficiencies that will arise from the coterminous nature of the new committees in relation to police authorities and the probation services.
Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon): Last week it was announced that nine magistrates courts would close in Devon and Cornwall, which will deny many people justice. Does the Minister agree that possible small savings in her Department, which are far outweighed by additional costs for other departments including the police, social services and the probation service, will not lead to efficiency and will not save public money? Does she agree that she should produce guidance for MCCs on these matters, and that that guidance should be made available to the public?
Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman should draw breath for a moment and bear it in mind that any decisions on magistrates courts, their location and the services they provide are taken by local magistrates on magistrates courts committees, not by central Government. Such decisions are for local determination; any savings that might occur are for the local magistrates court committee to decide--as are the courts and their location. The central council of magistrates courts committees has produced a good practice guide for magistrates courts committees that are considering their accommodation. Both the Lord Chancellor's Department and Her Majesty's magistrates courts inspectorate endorse that guidance. There is no statutory duty to consult the public on, for example,
proposed courthouse closures, but magistrates courts committees are encouraged to consult more widely than required by statute; in fact, they all do.
Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside): Is my hon. Friend absolutely sure that magistrates courts committees listen to the views of the grass roots? There is some doubt about that in north Wales. Is it right that the chairman of the magistrates courts committee in north Wales should also be the chairman of the North Wales police authority?
Jane Kennedy: Again, those issues are for local determination. It is important that the House bear in mind the fact that proposals by magistrates courts committees generally reflect the aim and expectation that services and facilities offered to all court users are brought up to the standard that we expect and require in the 21st century. Often, older courthouses lack facilities that are in keeping with modern standards.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): Does the Minister not recognise that, however disingenuously she reads out her ministerial brief, saying "It's nothing to do with us or the Government that courthouses are closing", local people in our constituencies want to keep their courts open? It would be far better and far closer to the interests of the people served by those courts for rural courts to stay open, even though their facilities might not be of the highest standard. Undoubtedly, all those closures are happening under her Government's guidelines, which, as we are all aware, are Treasury driven. Whatever she says, there is no way of hiding the real truth from those who are suffering from such court closures.
Jane Kennedy: Whether or not I was disingenuous is for the House to decide--the hon. Gentleman is as gracious as ever. However, most of the magistrates courts that have closed so far have been courts that magistrates courts committees no longer felt able to justify--either because the replacement of substandard facilities was needed or because they might have been satellite courts. For example, they might have been sited in local council chambers that severely lacked the necessary facilities.
I repeat that I shall always support changes that lead to the provision of a better and more efficient service for court users.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |