| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Citizens Advice Bureaux
23. Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): What assessment he has made of the work of citizens advice bureaux in relation to legal advice provided to members of the public. [153652]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): The citizens advice bureaux and other not-for-profit agencies have an important role to play in the community legal service and in increasing access to legal and advice services for people experiencing social welfare problems. During 2003–04, the Legal Services Commission contracted with 239 CABs. The contracts were valued at more than £25 million.
Huw Irranca-Davies : The Minister will join me in applauding the work of the citizens advice bureaux throughout the UK, not least the offices in Maesteg and Bridgend, which reach out to all parts of Ogmore. However, may I draw his attention, with some concern, to a report published last week that suggested that parts of Wales were an advice desert, with people having to
travel up to 50 miles to reach advice from a lawyer? Does he agree that the long arm of the lawyers should stretch a little further?
Mr. Lammy: I commend the work of the CABs in Bridgend. At this very moment, the LSC is involved in a contract bidding round with solicitors and CABs that want to provide legal aid services in Wales, and it believes that, as of April, some of the gaps that have been identified will be closed. I visited Wales a few months ago and looked at the telephone advice service that Shelter was providing on social welfare and housing issues. We have to look increasingly at other ways of providing advice, particularly in rural areas, and telephone advice will be one of those methods.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Beckenham) (Con): Many CABs provide excellent services throughout the country, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that the inept local government settlement is making local authorities look closely at the donations that they make to charities, which will also affect the CABs? Is he concerned that some of those services might have to be withdrawn?
Mr. Lammy: The citizens advice bureaux receive more than £116 million of public funding every year. That is more than they have ever received before, and on this side of the House, where we support the Attlee Government's establishment of legal aid, we shall of course continue to support citizens advice bureaux.
Judicial Appointments Commission
24. Vera Baird (Redcar) (Lab): What the system for monitoring and appraisal of judges will be after the introduction of the judicial appointments commission. [153653]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The judiciary is responsible for its own system of monitoring and appraisal, in line with the principles of judicial independence. However, in cases in which conduct or discipline may be an issue because of incapacity or misbehaviour, the Secretary of State and the Lord Chief Justice will work together, supported by a complaints secretariat.
Vera Baird: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He must be aware that there is no effective system for monitoring and appraisal of judges. For example, he may know of recent publicity about 25 or so criminal judges who are appealed four or five times as often as their colleagues and frequently criticised by the Court of Appeal, but nothing is done to improve their performance. Does he agree that it is essential to ensure that judges are not only independent, but competent and that a proper system must be introduced to guarantee that by, I suggest, the judicial appointments commission?
Mr. Leslie: I do not think that the judicial appointments commission would be the right body to be involved in post-appointment issues related to complaints and discipline, as there could be a conflict of interest. It is important that the judiciary has a
monitoring and appraisal system, and my hon. and learned Friend raises a fair point. It would not be right for the political process to be involved in the day-to-day reporting of appeals and so forth because that would effectively represent a level of political interference. The judiciary and judges are, of course, not only accountable through the appeal process: they make their decisions in public, they give their reasons and their decisions can be open to appeal so that mistakes can be corrected. I know that the judges will listen to her point about the judiciary having a good monitoring and appraisal system.
Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con): May I invite the Minister to study page 53 of this week's Gay Times? Perhaps he cannot normally reach the top shelf to see it. It says:
- "The second gay judge is appointed",
Mr. Leslie: It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman seems to think that if we want merit as the sole criterion for appointment, it is somehow incompatible with achieving diversity. I see no incompatibility whatever in making sure that the judiciary is better reflective of our wider society and seeing that merit is the sole criterion. If he thinks that people who are not currently represented among the judiciary cannot be meritorious candidates, he needs to reconsider his perspective.
Courts (East Anglia)
25. Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): When he next expects to meet representatives of the local magistracy to discuss the modernisation of courts in East Anglia. [153654]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): There are no plans to meet representatives of the local magistracy in East Anglia to discuss the modernisation of courts in East Anglia. That could be arranged, however, if it would prove useful.
Mr. Bellingham : I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply, as it may well be useful. Does he agree that justice needs to be kept as local as possible to have maximum impact? Does he also agree that young offenders in East Anglia are much more likely to be deterred if they are tried in their local town by local
people? Will he therefore concentrate on modernising existing courts and not close any more magistrates courts anywhere in East Anglia?
Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman asked the very same question in September and on three occasions previously. On that occasion, I replied:
- "It is right and proper that magistrates live locally, but it is clear that we cannot have courts in every town."—[Official Report, 9 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 163.]
House of Lords
26. Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con): What estimate he has made of the level of support for a wholly elected House of Lords. [153655]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): When Parliament voted on the composition of the second Chamber last year, both Houses rejected the "wholly elected" option, in the Commons by 289 votes to 272 and in the Lords by 329 to 106. Because no consensus was reached, the Government are drawing up proposals enabling us to make progress where we can, including a proposal for the removal of the remaining hereditary peers.
Bob Spink : Last week the Prime Minister wanted no democratically elected element at all. What is his view this week?
Mr. Leslie: If the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will be able to ask the Prime Minister at Question Time, but this is the Government's view: we want a further debate after consideration of the Bill, because we do not want the door to be closed to composition considerations. It is important for us to look to the future and at other options, such as indirect elections. The key issue is the need to reconcile Commons primacy with the need for more legitimacy in our second, revising Chamber. If we can achieve consensus on that, perhaps further reform will be possible.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab): I do not know whether the Minister, like me, is a Billy Bragg fan, but is he among the growing number of people who feel that his secondary mandate proposal, whereby the House of Lords would be comprised proportionally and indirectly according to the share of the vote at general elections, is the answer to the question of Lords reform? Would not that system combine election and appointment with the advantages of both, reassert the primacy of this House and, crucially, give people more of an incentive to vote?
Mr. Leslie: I know that my hon. Friend is a vocal advocate of the secondary mandate, which is indeed worthy of consideration. We need to ensure that this House is seen clearly as the democratic chamber—that it
is plain that we are accountable, and this is where the buck stops when it comes to decisions and responsibility in our constitution. But if we can find a way of improving the legitimacy of our revising chamber by other means, suggestions to that effect will merit further consideration.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con): Does the Minister agree that we have far too many elected politicians in this country already? They are elected at European level, to this place, at regional level and at metropolitan, county, district and parish level. If he or any of his hon. Friends are really saying that we need more elected politicians—if that is the answer to the question—many of our constituents will want to have a very good look at what the question is.
Mr. Leslie: That is a strange argument. Presumably in that case the hon. Gentleman would prefer hereditary peers to be retained in the revising chamber. But if he does not want that, he will obviously support our Bill when it is presented to Parliament.
I believe that we have a duty to consider seriously what the composition of the second Chamber should be, but given that there was no consensus last February we must make progress where we can, and remove the hereditaries from the second Chamber.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |