| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Courthouse (Colchester)
25. Bob Russell (Colchester): If he will make a statement on progress with proposals for a new courthouse in Colchester. [121038]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): It is anticipated that a new courthouse in Colchester will be ready for use during 2007. Work is now in progress on the outline business case for the public-private partnership contract.
Bob Russell : The Minister will be aware from the detailed briefing that we have been banging on about that matter for four or five years. We have had delay, dither, delay and dither. We have been promised that the private finance initiative will deliver a new courthouse speedily. Will he confirm that another year was wasted because his Department, whatever it was called in those days, spent a year trying to resolve whether Grays Thurrock court should close? That has caused delay across Essex.
Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is about courthouses in the entirety of Essex. There has been a debate about whether Grays Thurrock court should close but a new, fit-for-the-purpose courthouse in Colchester is on the way by 2007. I think that the people of Colchester will thank the Government for giving them that by 2007.
Scotland Office
26. Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): What the status is of the Scotland Office within the Department for Constitutional Affairs; and if he will make a statement. [121039]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): Staff in the Scotland Office retain their separate identity within the Department for Constitutional Affairs. They are accountable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for their decisions and actions on policy matters in the normal way.
Mr. Salmond: In that case, where has the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), gone? She went precisely at the moment when she could have explained to the House whether the Department still exists, as claimed by the Leader of the House, or whether it is an empty shell, as is patently obvious to everyone else. Lord Hope of Craighead has suggested that a Blairite constitutional court could contravene the treaty of Union. Do the Government have a policy on that? Are they going to restore the final court of appeal for civil matters to Scotland, as is already the case for criminal matters? What is the Government's policy on those Scottish matters and where is the Under-Secretary of State?
Mr. Leslie: I seem to recall that, about half an hour ago, the Under-Secretary of State was answering Scottish questions. Indeed, she continues to work with the Secretary of State for Scotland on Scottish policy matters. She has just answered those questions and will continue to do so in the normal way. She is responsible and accountable in that respect.
In terms of the supreme court, some of those questions will obviously be at the centre of the consultation paper that will be published on 14 July. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's comments in that respect.
Mr. Salmond: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on a motion for the Adjournment.
House of Lords Reform
27. Mr. Clive Soley (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush): When the Government will respond to the Second Report from the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform. [121040]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): We aim to reply to the second report of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform shortly.
Mr. Soley : Following the very welcome changes to the constitution that the Government have made recently, I hope that my hon. Friend will ensure that we can debate the Joint Committee's report, because there is a real opportunity for both Houses to move forward on constitutional change. While I am not looking for
further debates on Putney heath à la 400 years ago, there are significant changes to be made and the House of Lords could start by electing their own Speaker, instead of having its Speaker appointed by the Government. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would not like the Government to appoint you in this House and we should not accept it in the second Chamber either.
Mr. Leslie: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Conservative party seems keen to defend the appointment of the speakership of the House of Lords by the Prime Minister, which is a rather curious policy to advocate and to put in its future manifesto. I have read the Joint Committee's second report. As I say, we will respond in due course. Some important issues are raised in that but the Joint Committee recognised, not least in respect of the votes in this House on 4 February, that there has not been a massive amount of clarity: hon. Members declined to back any option, whether fully appointed, fully elected or a mixture of the two.
Mr. David Cameron (Witney): Can the Minister explain why the Government have failed to deliver on an elected House of Lords, which was in their manifesto, but have managed to abolish the office of the Lord Chancellor, which was not in their manifesto? Do they just make it up as they go along?
Mr. Leslie: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is advocating the return of the hereditary peerage to the second Chamber. He may not have noticed, but this Government have got rid of the bulk of hereditary peers from the second Chamber. That was a radical step forward and we will continue radically to reform the constitution in the manner set out in the reshuffle.
Mr. Chris Bryant (Rhondda): Now that the Government are very wisely taking the Law Lords out of the House of Lords, could they advance one further step and remove the bishops as well, even if the bishops have in recent days been trying to make themselves a little more representative of the general public?
Mr. Leslie: I cannot say that we have published specific plans in that respect as yet. We will respond to the second report of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform, but the creation of a supreme court and an independent judicial appointments commission gives us a number of great opportunities to look at some of these issues in the round.
Judicial Appointments
28. Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings): What the Lord Chancellor's functions are in respect of the appointment of judges. [121041]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The responsibility of the Lord Chancellor in advising Her Majesty and the Prime Minister on senior judicial appointments, and in making other judicial
appointments himself, will continue in exactly the same way as before, until a new independent judicial appointments commission is created by legislation.
Mr. Hayes : Given that there seems to be little evidence—or little evidence that the Government have produced, at least—to suggest problems with the existing system, and given that there is no evidence whatsoever of consultation before the changes were announced, what were the terms of reference that guided the changes, and how long will the transition take in respect of the transitional post occupied by this reluctant post-holder? Is it not true that this is about not the separation of powers, but the concentration of power in the hands of the Prime Minister and a few of his acolytes? This is not so much serious constitutional reform as a soap opera: not "Neighbours" and not even "Friends", but "flatmates".
Mr. Leslie: That was a very well rehearsed question, but we believe that it is important to take the judiciary selection process out of the hands of politicians. We are going to consult widely on the details, and a document will be published on 14 July. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that he wishes to retain the current system—[Interruption.] He appears not to be saying either way, but if that is his wish he is perfectly free to write in to the consultation.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Leader of the House was asked—
Programming
37. Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): To ask the Leader of the House if he will make a statement on progress with the arrangements for programming of Bills. [121027]
The Leader of the House of Commons (Peter Hain): The Government believe that the arrangements for the programming of Bills are broadly satisfactory. It is in the interests of both sides of the House to agree a sensible programme for consideration of Bills.
Sir Nicholas Winterton : On behalf of the whole House, I ask the new Leader of the House—I wish him well in his new responsibilities—whether it is right that a programme motion that is decided by the Government without consultation or debate should take place immediately after the vote on Second Reading of a Bill. Although I believe it right that the Government should decide the out-date from Standing Committee, does he not agree that it would be better for the whole House, and for its integrity and reputation, if such matters were discussed under the independent Chairman of the Standing Committee by the Programming Sub-Committee of that Committee? That way, all matters could be discussed and the Opposition parties could have a real input into what they wish to debate in Committee.
Peter Hain: May I first acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's long and admirable record on these matters, especially in his role as Chairman of the Procedure Committee? I should like to discuss those matters with him, and I recognise the points that he makes. Programming is obviously vital—no one in the House seriously challenges that view. [Interruption.] Apparently, the shadow Leader of the House does, but then he has not been willing to engage the Opposition co-operatively in discussions on establishing programmes that are acceptable to all sides. However, I shall look into the issue that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) raises.
John Cryer (Hornchurch): I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post, but does he recognise that there have been problems with, and shortcomings in, the programming of Bills? For instance, certain key clauses in the Licensing Bill, which had its Third Reading in the House of Commons only a few days ago, were not debated and therefore not voted on. We must deal with such shortcomings; otherwise, they will become increasingly glaring.
Peter Hain: Obviously, as the process develops and becomes more refined by agreement of the House, those issues will have to be examined.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): We welcome the fact that the Leader of the House is prepared to think afresh about these issues, and I encourage him to be radical in examining ways in which the business of the House can be managed more intelligently. Will he give the House a cast-iron guarantee that, if he produces radical proposals, he will not on this occasion be mugged, gagged and forced to recant by the heavies from No. 10 and No. 11 Downing street? If the Liberal Democrat proposals for improving the income tax regime are still to the Leader of the House's taste, will he also examine our proposals for improving the business of the House?
Peter Hain: Being mugged by the hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, be a taxing experience. As to his question, it is for the Modernisation Committee to examine, but I will obviously want to take part in that discussion.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |