|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Gillian Merron): The three PPP agreements were signed by April 2003. Since then, the Department has agreed £9.5 billion grant for London Underground up to 2009-10.
Sadly, my constituency does not lie on the London Underground system. Perhaps my hon. Friend could do something about that. The Piccadilly line runs close by, however, and there have been real problems on that line because of a lack of investment over many years that has led to delays and difficulties for
passengers. What reassurance can my hon. Friend give to the House that the PPP will lead to the investment needed to improve the service for my constituents?
Gillian Merron: I understand my hon. Friends concerns for his constituents, including the fact that there is no underground station in his constituency. However, the Piccadilly line is now performing at a level above the contract specifications and, importantly for my hon. Friends constituents, it is due for a major upgrade in 2014, when new signals and trains will reduce average journey times by a fifth and increase passenger capacity by 25 per cent.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con): Will the Minister outline how much of the £9.5 billion will be spent on the District line, which is the only tube line serving my constituents? To my knowledge, there is no substantial investment planned for it until 2013.
Gillian Merron: I shall be happy to write to the hon. Lady about that. I can tell her, however, that refurbished trains are now being provided for the District line, that new trains will be delivered between 2013 and 2015, and that a new signalling system will be in place by March 2018. I hope that she will welcome those improvements.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend cast a leery eye over the value for money of these private finance initiatives? The underground is a very old system and it needs a lot of cash. The Government are providing the cash, but are we quite sure that the passengers are getting the benefit?
Gillian Merron: I look to London Underground and its PPP partners to work together to address any areas of poor performance. We know that there have been a number of successes, but we are also aware that performance needs to be improved, and I can assure my hon. Friend that I am extremely mindful of that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Bridget Prentice): My Department does not collect data on the age and gender composition of juries for monitoring purposes. Random selection from the electoral register should mean that the composition of juries is broadly representative of the general population.
I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does she, however, share my concern that many younger people might be being disadvantaged in this respect, perhaps by virtue of the fact that they move more frequently or are not on the electoral register?
What is her Department doing in general terms to increase the awareness and involvement of young people in the jury system, perhaps in relation to citizenship awareness in schools and other projects of that nature?
Bridget Prentice: My hon. Friend makes an important point in marrying the random selection of juries and registration on the electoral registera subject that is close to my heart. He will know that my Department has done a great deal of work to encourage electoral registration, as has the Electoral Commission. However, young people are more likely to move more frequently than others. When the Department publishes its report on diversity in the jury system in England and Wales shortly, I hope that we can examine that aspect of the report in more detail.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): May I reassure the Minister that, in the almost 15 years that I have been a Member of Parliament representing a Lancashire constituency, I have not received one letter of complaint from anyone who felt that they were being denied the opportunity to serve on a jury? Will she give the House an assurance that the random nature of jury selection will remain, and that it will not be artificially skewed one way or another?
Bridget Prentice: I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that the random nature of jury selection will remain. As he will know, we have now extended the jury pool, which means that Members of Parliament should also now have the opportunity to serve on juries.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab): My hon. Friend will be aware that this is about getting the right balance, whether in regard to gender or age. Will she also ensure that that same balance is struck in regard to the selection of magistrates?
Bridget Prentice: My hon. Friend makes an important point. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, whose policy area covers magistrates, is aware of the diversity needed in the magistrates court, as is the Magistrates Association, of which I have been a member for some time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Vera Baird): The hon. Gentleman asks about responses to the Carter review published in July 2006. We had 1,595 responses from solicitors and 469 from barristers, as well as much input from the various meetings that I had around the country, which were mostly attended by practitioners.
Quite a few legal aid practitioners in my constituency have written to me saying that they are worried about the Governments proposals, which they
have called cost-cutting and damaging. Those are experienced people who have been doing such work for a long time. Is the Minister saying that their assessment of the likely effect of the proposals is wrong, or is she suggesting that they are merely protecting their fee income?
Vera Baird: Clearly, the legal aid fund is not underfunded; it is the best funded in the world by a significant margin. When we move, as we will in October 2007, to fixed fees for crimewhich perhaps the hon. Gentleman is talking aboutwe would expect efficiencies to be driven so that, ultimately, solicitors will be more profitably able than now to do their business and to serve more people. There will be challenges between then and now, and I understand that those will be seriously problematic for some solicitors. I hope that we can support them to overcome those, as there is a good future for those who can do so.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): As we are discussing fee income, I should perhaps mention that I am a solicitor. If at all possible, will my hon. and learned Friend consider the question of experts fees? I have tabled some questions on the issue, and legal aid expenditure on experts fees has increased far more quickly than expenditure on solicitors and barristers fees over the past five years. Will she get a detailed breakdown of that expenditure, and take steps to restrict such expenditure?
Mr. Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): Will the Minister consider the evidence that the Constitutional Affairs Committee is hearing week by week, from not just barristers and solicitors but judges and others, including representations from the president of the family division, about the likely impact on the availability of family law practitioners? Is she ready to make alterations to the timing and content of the proposals in the light of some of that evidence?
Vera Baird: I am, of course, taking note of the evidence, and looking forward to an opportunity to deal with it, either personally or through the Lord Chancellor, in due course. We do, of course, listen carefully to what the president of the family division says. He is talking about deferring, but there is urgency none the less to introduce such fees. It was notable that Lord Justice Thomas was strongly in favour of our proposals, so perhaps a balanced approach was taken.
Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): Has my hon. and learned Friend specifically considered whether advice deserts might emerge following the introduction of scale fees and contracts in relation to family law? Is she reviewing that possibility as a result of the change in practice this autumn?
No, I would not expect the emergence of any advice desert; I would prefer to call them historically bare-ish patches, which are now being pretty well watered with Legal Services Commission
money and are basking in the mild sunshine of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, with green shoots coming through, if not bushes and trees. But enough of that metaphor. We are re-consulting on the levels of family fees, and I hope and expect that we will publish that re-consultation soon. I hope that that will ensure that family practitioners benefit from the efficiencies that all the Carter reforms will drive, and that the service given to the public will be improved.
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): The expression parallel universes comes to mind. Is the Minister aware that in a recent survey 99 per cent. of civil legal aid solicitors said that fixed fees would make their work unviable, while a staggering 82 per cent. of family lawyers said that they might withdraw completely from legal aid work? Surely that is why dozens of charities ranging from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Mind to Shelter and the Refugee Council have warned that the plans will leave vulnerable people unrepresented. When it comes to protecting such people and standing up for them, who should we listen to, Ministers who appear ever more complacent or world-class charities which spend all their lives helping the vulnerable?
The opportunities that the proposals offer the not-for-profit and for-profit sectors are extremely significant. I entirely accept that the transition is not easy for all people to see their way through, but I am sure that when it comes it will be advantageous and more vulnerable people will be better advised than they are now.
Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): The effect of the Carter proposals is that there will be fewer suppliers. Whether there are patches or deserts, the fact remains that there will be less access to justice. The Law Society and the Bar Council have made representations, and hundreds of Members of Parliament have signed an early-day motion opposing this measure. Will the Minister listen to what is being said by all concerned, and delay implementation of these ridiculous reforms?
Vera Baird: I am not sure what ridiculous reforms are being referred to, but if there are any ridiculous reforms to be deferred I will defer ridiculous reforms. What I do not accept is that fewer firms will mean less supply. On the contrary, if that is the outcome in some areas it will be because the volume of fixed-fees cases means that more people are being better represented. Fewer supplies do not necessarily mean poorer supply, although the effects will vary from area to area. As I have said repeatedly, we will consult locally in order to reach the right conclusion for the local market andthis is overwhelmingly importantfor local people.
Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD):
The Minister will know that since the Government announced their response to the Carter reforms and since the two debates in Westminster Hall in which the Minister spokeafter which her words were scrutinised very carefullythere has been no less concern among both the voluntary sector and the
professionals that the new reforms will reduce access to justice in rural and urban Britain alike. Given the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the fact that a Select Committee is examining the evidence now, will the Minister at least do the public and their representatives the courtesy of saying that she will not implement anything until the Select Committee has reported and the House has had a chance to debate its report?
Vera Baird: It is not the case that there is no less concern than there was. Universallyand that includes the early-day motion that the hon. Gentleman signedthe changes that we have made since Carter have been welcomed. The early-day motion welcomes the changes, and they are good in pace-of-change terms. We have waited to make cuts, and we are not making cuts that were expected to be made very soon under the Carter proposals. I do not know when the Constitutional Affairs Committee will report, but the first fixed fees come into force in October 2007 and I imagine that it will report before that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Bridget Prentice): I have received nine letters about the issue in the last six months. The matter has been raised with me by students and young people on an informal basis during engagements and visits that I have undertaken during that time.
Jo Swinson: In the Scottish parliamentary elections in May, 130,000 people in Scotland will be old enough to marry, to join the Army and even to become company directors, but will be deemed too young to be given a vote on who should govern them. When will the Minister recommend action to correct that injustice and give Scotlands young people a voice at the ballot box?
Bridget Prentice: This issue divides us in a cross-party sense. I have a good deal of sympathy with the hon. Ladys argument for voting rights at 16, but I know that many Members feel very differently about it.
This morning I was at Greenford high school in Ealing discussing this very topic with students on their citizens jury. They were divided 50:50 on it. I think that before we could implement such a measure we would need more than a 50 per cent. enthusiasm rate from the people to whom we would be extending the franchise.
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab):
My hon. Friend says that she is sympathetic, but what has happened to the old-fashioned virtue of leadership? Why does she not put forward a radical idea for once and say, We will legislateas the Isle of Man did in advance of its general election, at which people voted at 16 years of age? The last time I flew over the Isle of
Man it was still there; it had not sunk, and it has a better democracy than we have. We should be ashamed of ourselves.
Bridget Prentice: I am interested to hear my hon. Friend, who I always think of as one of the fathers of democracy in this House, suggest that the Isle of Mans democracy is better than ours. I am disappointed that he takes that view. However, we have to listen to all views, and I have conducted surveys in my constituencyI spoke about the young people I met this morningand I have to say to my hon. Friend that young people are not as enthusiastic as he or I might be about this subject. We must have further discussions with them before we move forward. My hon. Friend talks about leadership, and in that context we should also talk about the fragility of democracy and the importance of democracy in this country. One way to ensure that we continue to have a proper debate is by ensuring that the democracy of the country is upheld.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): There is not much point in lowering the voting age unless we can convince young people who have already reached the age of 18 to vote. Why does the Minister think that there is massive apathy among young people? Is it because young people believe that the main political parties are driven by focus groups and spin, rather than principle?
Bridget Prentice: I speak to young people throughout the countryand to others about the views of young peopleand the idea that young people are apathetic about politics is nonsense. They take a keen interest in many of the important political issues of the day. They might not, however, like some of what they see on television with regard to how the political process works, and I have sympathy with them on that. Members of this House must work very hard in engaging with young people on the issues that are important to them and in finding ways in which they can express their opinions and get them heard. In my constituency, the London borough of Lewisham has an elected young mayor who has a budget from the council which is used to involve young people between the ages of 11 and 17 in the electoral process. We might want to extend that example to elsewhere in the country.
Mr. Jim Devine (Livingston) (Lab): Some 15 months ago, my local radio station carried out an opinion poll on this issue, and more than 90 per cent. of those who responded were in favour of reducing the voting age. Would doing that not make a major contribution not only to citizenship, but to Britishness?
Bridget Prentice: It is important that we have a debate on this matter. Having talked to young people around the country, I can say that they are particularly keen on the citizenship classes that now take place in schools thanks to this Government, and they feel that that is one of the ways in which they can develop their own political ideas. There are a variety of ways in which we can continue to involve young people in the political process both locally and nationally, but I am sure that the debate on whether we reduce the voting age to 16 will continue for some time to come.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|