| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Local Government Finance
- That the Local Government Finance Special Grant Report (No. 128) on Dealing with Disadvantage Grant, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th October, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
Dentists
- That the draft Dental Auxiliaries (Amendment) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 15th October, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
BROADCASTING
- That Mr James Gray be discharged from the Broadcasting Committee and Gregory Barker be added.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
- That, on Thursday 20th November, there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
PETITIONS
Palestine Solidarity Campaign
7.1 pm
Hugh Bayley (City of York): Having just returned from the International Development Committee's visit to Palestine and Israel, I am acutely aware not only of the desperate plight of the Palestinian people, but of the fact that there is no monopoly of right or wrong on either side and that both sides must stop the violence before a peace settlement can be found.
Tonight, I present to the House the petition of the York group of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. The group opposes the Israeli Government's use of military
action against Palestinian civilians, notes that 2,500 Palestinians have been killed since September 2000, and calls for the indictment of the Prime Minister of Israel.The petition, which is signed by Monica Wusteman of York and 575 supporters of the York Palestine Solidarity Campaign, states:
- The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons take steps to ensure that there is an end to the British government's arms trade with Israel and that trade sanctions are imposed until Israel ends its illegal occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and abides by international law and UN resolutions including the removal of illegal settlements, and implementation of the right to return of Palestinian refugees.
Television Services
7.2 pm
Mr. Peter Duncan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale): I take great pleasure in presenting to the House a petition of several hundred of my constituents who expressed concern about the limited availability of analogue television services in my constituency and the failure to expand the availability of digital television services.
- The petition of residents of Dumfries and Galloway declares that access to the licence fee funded Freeview service is virtually non-existent in the region, and that terrestrial television transmission provides a restricted choice of channels.
The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to take the necessary action to ensure that DTV Service upgrades transmitters throughout the region in order to facilitate reception of all available terrestrial channels and digital services on Freeview.
Western Circuit
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
7.3 pm
Jim Knight (South Dorset): I am very pleased to have secured this debate, although the situation has moved on considerably since I applied for it, as I shall explain as my speech unfolds.
The debate is about access to justice, particularly for my constituents in Dorset. In the foreword to the access to justice White Paper, Lord Irvine of Lairg, the then Lord Chancellor, said:
- "The justice system should serve everyone, regardless of their means. People should be able to find effective solutions to their legal problems. Justice must not be restricted to the very wealthy, who can well afford high legal fees, or the very poor, who may qualify for legal aid."
I was pleased that, earlier this year, I was able to meet the Minister's predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), to discuss my concerns about the reorganisation of magistrates courts in Dorset. We discussed the effects on our rural county of closing little-used courts in towns such as Wareham. If that proposal goes ahead, my constituents in Swanage will have to travel to Poole or Bournemouth to access magistrates. For defendants without private transport, that means an hour-long bus journey to either place that costs £5.75 for a return fare. It is not relevant to re-rehearse that discussion now, but it serves to show that when we discuss access to justice, geography and rurality is relevant. People in a town such as Swanage, which is poorly served by a whole range of services, incur significant cost in time and fares to access our courts.
However, I welcome the progress that the Government have made in this area. Ministers have recognised that our justice system needs to be reformed. Currently, the House of Lords is delaying the Criminal Justice Bill, which will, for example, rebalance the criminal justice system in favour of the victim, witnesses and the community to reduce crime and bring more offenders to justice. The Courts Bill makes provisions that will allow the Government to replace magistrates courts committees and the court service with a single executive agency responsible for the administration of all courts below the House of Lords. It ends the current division between the 42 magistrates courts committees and the court service. Again, I have no desire to re-rehearse the debates on the Courts Bill, which has been through its stages in the House, but some aspects were debated on Report that merit closer examination in this debate. I am pleased to see the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) in the Chamber, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome raised at column 413 the issue of proposed changes to the western circuit.
At this point I must apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I mistakenly gave the name of the circuit as the Wessex circuit when I applied for this debate. Such is my enthusiasm for regionalism that I got carried away in using the old regional titles for something as established and historic as the western circuit. The circuit has been in existence in roughly its present form since the King's Justices first went out on assize in medieval times. Its three main centres have always been Winchester, Bristol and Exeter. Indeed, Winchester, as we all know, was the original capital of Wessex.
On Report of the Courts Bill, to which I referred earlier, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome discussed the letter sent to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole by his honour Judge John Beashel. I also received a similar letter from the judge, in which he raised concerns about the proposals to remove Winchester from the western circuit and to place it in the south-eastern circuit. He argued that the current arrangements work well and that without Winchester the circuit would not have sufficient business to sustain a viable high-quality circuit. The justification for the change would be to achieve coterminosity with the Government regions, which in almost all other respects place Hampshire in the south-east and the rest of the western circuit in the south-west.
As I have said, I am an avowed advocate of regional government. I am pleased that the Government are now starting to delegate more responsibility to regional and local level and I am keen to see those regional decisions made accountable through regional government. I was concerned, however, that it appeared to practitioners, from the Lord Chief Justice downwards, that this was a proposed reorganisation driven more by bureaucratic convenience than by improvement. We need to demonstrate clearly the gains if we are to proceed. Government policy is that the regional boundaries used by Departments should follow those of the nine English Government offices of the regions and Wales, except in exceptional circumstances. Regional offices will be joining up government at regional level, including strong involvement in spending reviews. I appreciate that the Government did not want courts to be left behind in this process.
First and foremost, however, we need to ensure that local justice works for the witnesses, the victims and the local people. Proposals for re-alignment under the Courts Bill make sense and fit well with Government plans for regional government. However, the delivery of an effective justice system serving the needs of local people must not be compromised merely to achieve administrative efficiency. That is why I was so delighted to receive a letter from the Minister by fax last Thursday that made a decision on the future of Hampshire in the new unified courts administration. Remarkably, the letter was written on the very day that I secured this debate. I pay great tribute to the Minister for responding with such lightning speed to the mere suggestion of the debate. The debate was announced on Thursday morning and the fax had arrived in my office by 1.30 pm. I applaud the Minister not only for his agility, but for listening to representations that have been made on the issue.
- "We have focussed on what produces the best justice system for the public in the two regions."
- "We acknowledge that making a change at this stage would raise a number of potentially difficult issues for the Judiciary and the Bar, which could impact on the administration of justice for the public. In addition we have received representations from partner criminal justice agencies locally to the effect that from their perspective change would not bring significant benefit."
- "We have decided not to realign Hampshire and the Isle of Wight at this time."
That must not be the end of the story because two issues remain. First, the decision will be reviewed in 2006–07 and, secondly, and most importantly for my constituents, there is a question of whether we can do better in terms of access for justice for serious crimes in Dorset.
- "We have decided that in order to provide a better service for court users in Dorset that, subject to the views of the Senior Judiciary, Bournemouth Crown Court should become a first tier centre."
I have already told you, Madam Deputy Speaker, about the time and cost to my constituents of getting to Bournemouth by public transport. Getting to Winchester court is yet another challenge. Naturally, there is no direct bus or train service from Swanage to Winchester, so one has to get the bus to Bournemouth and a non-connecting train to Winchester, which takes more than an hour and costs almost £12 return. The cost of accessing justice for my Swanage constituents who use the Winchester court is therefore almost £17, and four hours of their time is taken each day that they attend. Will the Minister give some detail on the pledge to bring justice closer to the good people of Dorset by hearing serious crimes in Bournemouth?
When can we expect certainty on the announcement? The Minister said that it is subject to the senior judiciary. If they view the proposal as part of a longer-term strategy to allow the western circuit to be sustainable without Winchester, they might resist it. I encourage the Minister to resist them, if that is the case. The enhancement of the Bournemouth court will increase the capacity of the courts throughout the south of England and improve access. It should therefore mean that cases would be heard more quickly and justice would speed up in what is currently a very busy part of the courts system. In order to achieve that, we would need to ensure that more professionals work on the circuit in time. I would be interested to find out what steps the Minister and the Department are taking to achieve that so that the extra capacity can genuinely be capitalised upon.
A series of other questions follow from this exciting proposal. Assuming that the Minister goes ahead with this proposal, how soon does he think that we can
proceed? Are there physical constraints relating to the court buildings in Bournemouth? What sort of development would be required, and how would such development relate to the reorganisation of the magistrates courts in Dorset? I appreciate that he might not be able to answer all those questions now, although I shall be delighted if he can, but I know that he and his officials will be listening carefully, so I would be happy to receive answers in due course.The other key question is about the review in 2006–07 to which the Minister referred in his statement. What work will the Department for Constitutional Affairs undertake to prepare for such a review? If no work were done, what would have changed in the next few years? Would it not be sensible to ensure that the south-east could cope with the addition of a busy court such as Winchester and, in turn, that the addition of Bournemouth would provide sufficient work to sustain a new western circuit without Hampshire because the Minister would then have a genuine choice? I am aware that a similar anomaly will exist between Cheshire and north Wales. Will the Minister encourage change to allow coterminosity with the government regions or will the Department remain neutral?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |