| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Court Fees
23. Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): If he will make a statement on the level of court fees. [121899]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): The Government inherited from the previous Government, and have continued to apply, the principle of full cost recovery, subject to an expanded system of exemption and remission, which the previous Government attempted to remove in its entirety for the Supreme Court and severely limit for family proceedings and the county court. This means that in the present year, £326 million of the £362 million that it costs to run our courts is expected to be recovered from fees.
Mr. Brady: I thank the Minister for his response. Is he not concerned that rising levels of court fees will deny access to justice to many people, and that the charges probably hit hardest those who are least able to pay and who most need the protection of our justice system? What will the Government do to put the situation right and ensure proper access to our legal system for all citizens?
Mr. Lock: The Government have expanded the area of remission and exemption for those who cannot afford to pay. That means that more people are able to access courts without having to pay fees. The truth is that it is lawyers' fees and costs, not court fees, that prevent people from getting access to justice.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye): May I tell my hon. Friend how welcome it is that some people can now obtain a waiver or remission of fees because of their modest means, and how helpful they find it? May I suggest that the notional fees that are waived should be added to the cost of a successful action, so that at least defendants do not benefit from their opponents' lack of funds?
Mr. Lock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful and constructive suggestion. He is right about the effect of exemptions and remissions. As for his interesting suggestion, I undertake to consider it carefully. I can see that it has some merit; I will write to him about it and put a copy of my answer in the Library.
Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon): I am told that there was a surplus of court costs over court fees for the year 1997-98. Will the Minister tell the House how much that surplus was, what happened to it and what he believes should have happened to it?
Mr. Lock: In the past financial year, income fell well below profile--by approximately £8 million. From recollection--I shall write to the hon. Gentleman if I am wrong--only once in the past five years has the amount of fees exceeded the amount anticipated, but that was not a surplus, because there is a system of remissions and exemptions. In the single case where a slight overestimate was made, it amounted, I think, to a few hundred thousand pounds, which, in the context of an overall cost of more than £300 million, is a small sum. The true position is that if the amount of fees recovered exceeds the cost of running the courts, we should reduce the fees.
Crown Courts
25. Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): What recent representations he has received regarding the closing of Crown courts in rural areas. [121901]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): There is no record of any such representations having been received within the past few years.
Mr. Ruffley: I am grateful for that reply. Is the Minister aware that as a result of the development of new Crown court facilities in Ipswich, Crown court users in Bury St. Edmunds have been informed that our Crown court may close and that there may be a consultation period? Does she understand that if justice in rural areas is to be delivered and dispensed locally, the Government must ensure that such Crown courts are not closed, and, more to the point, that proposals to close them are not made by her Department?
Jane Kennedy: I understand local concern, but the Court Service, in conjunction with the judiciary and the criminal justice organisations, has been studying ways to make the criminal trial process more efficient and effective. The Court Service has undertaken a major programme of work--the Crown court programme--and its overarching and straightforward objectives are: to reduce the economic cost of crime by reducing the unit costs of a Crown court case to the criminal justice system; to deal with cases throughout the system with appropriate speed by reducing the time taken from committal to sentence or other disposal; and, finally and most important, to meet the needs of victims, witnesses and jurors by improving their satisfaction levels.
Judicial Appointments Commission (Scotland)
27. Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): If the Lord Chancellor was consulted by the Scottish Executive over proposals to establish a judicial appointments commission in Scotland. [121904]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): The Lord Chancellor was aware of the proposals, now set out in a consultation paper issued by the Scottish Executive, to establish a judicial appointments commission in Scotland. This is a matter for which the Scottish Executive has devolved responsibility.
Mr. Prentice: So the Lord Chancellor was aware, but was not consulted. Will experience in Scotland lead the Lord Chancellor to think again about a long-established Labour policy--set aside two years ago--to move away from the secretive, widely criticised current system towards an open and transparent judicial appointments commission? Why cannot we have one?
Mr. Lock: My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor keeps judicial appointments procedures in England and Wales under continuous review. Over recent years, there have been many developments in procedures, and he is constantly seeking to improve them. That is why he asked Sir Leonard Peach, a former commissioner for
public appointments, to conduct independent scrutiny of the judicial appointments and Queen's counsel procedures. Sir Leonard reported that the appointments procedures were as good as any that he had seen in the public sector. One of his main recommendations was that there should be a commissioner for judicial appointments, and that has been accepted by the Lord Chancellor and is being carried forward.Immigration Adjudicators
28. Fiona Mactaggart (Slough): What discussions he has held with the Home Office about its policy in relation to recommendations by immigration adjudicators. [121905]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I have not discussed the policy in relation to the adjudicator's recommendations with the Home Secretary. As a matter of law, the Home Secretary has complete discretion whether or not to adopt an adjudicator's recommendation.
Fiona Mactaggart: Might I persuade my hon. Friend that it would be a good idea to have such a discussion? At present, many adjudicators make recommendations once they have made a finding of fact that a family can support and accommodate itself without recourse to public funds at the time of the adjudicators hearing, although that had not been the case at the time when the entry clearance officer made the initial decision. If the Home Office pursues its policy of not implementing recommendations in those circumstances, many of my constituents who are applying in Islamabad may have to wait more than a year before their cases can be reconsidered, even when all that is at issue is a matter of fact already confirmed by an immigration adjudicator.
Jane Kennedy: But as I understand it, the Home Secretary will act on an adjudicator's recommendation--although only where there are clear, compassionate circumstances that have not been considered and that would merit the exercise of his discretion. One essential element of the Government's reforms and, indeed, the expansion of the immigration and asylum system, is the one-stop appeal. That will give people a chance to raise at the first stage all their grounds for entering or remaining in the United Kingdom. It would thus be more sensible to reconsider any policy on recommendations by adjudicators--if that was needed--only when we have experience of the one-stop appeal process. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
The President of the Council was asked--
Appointments Commission
31. Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): How often the Appointments Commission has met; and if she will make a statement. [121909]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The Appointments Commission is an independent body, appointed on 4 May. I understand that it has not yet met, but that it will do so soon.
Mr. Prentice: Are we not getting ourselves in a terrible pickle over this Appointments Commission, which will be advised by a firm of chartered accountants as to the persons who are suitable for membership of the second Chamber? Will it be open to the Appointments Commission, under its terms of reference, to appoint people to the upper Chamber by random selection, in the way that juries are appointed? Is that a bizarre suggestion?
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire): Was not the hereditary principle the random selection to which the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) referred?
Is not the Government's Appointments Commission but a pale shadow of the independent statutory appointments commission that we really need, so as to remove the enormous patronage that remains in the hands of the Prime Minister? At present, he can decide how many peers there will be and the party balance between them. When will the Government respond to the Wakeham commission's proposals on that and on the rest of the report?
Mr. Tipping: Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Conservative party remains predominant in the upper Chamber, with 236 Members. I understand his reluctance to make changes quickly on House of Lords reform. We want to build on the Wakeham report. The independent Appointments Commission is an important first step. If we could arrive at a consensus on the way forward, I hope that we should quickly move to the Wakeham recommendations.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |