| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Magistrates' Courts
Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they consider that the arrangements for consultation work satisfactorily, when changes involving benches of magistrates, their areas,
- responsibilities and court houses, are being examined; and whether they have received representations on these matters.[HL5230]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: For changes to the organisation of magistrates' courts that require the Lord Chancellor's approval or decision, the arrangements for consultation presently in place are considered satisfactory.
The Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (JPA) requires magistrates' courts committees (MCCs) to consult before making any decisions for reorganisation controlled by statute. There is accompanying guidance which sets out the court users that MCCs may wish to consult.
Magistrates' courts committees use local knowledge to determine the scope of their consultation. However, MCCs are encouraged to consult more widely than statute requires. For example, on proposals for courthouse closures, the JPA requires MCCs to consult their paying authoirty. In practice, MCCs usually also consult magistrates, staff, MPs and professional court users. The Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees issued a good practice guide in December 2000 for MCCs to consider when determining courthouse closures, and this asks MCCs to consult widely. The guide is endorsed by LCD.
I have not recieved any representations on these matters
Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether the Avon and Somerset Magistrates' Courts administration acted properly in proposing major changes affecting local justice in advance of the government's response to the Auld report and without consulting all affected and interested parties.[HL5231]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: On 10 July 2002 the Avon and Somerset MCC decided to defer any decisions concerning the long-term accommodation strategy at the court buildings at Minehead, Wells and Frome until the publication of the criminal justice White Paper in order for them to engage in dialogue with a wide-ranging number of stakeholders including local authorities, the Countryside Agency and other criminal justice agencies so that alternative options for maintaining a court service in the areas affected could be further explored.
Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they consider that subsuming the local management of magistrates' courts into a national executive agency would lead to a serious reduction in local justice.[HL5396]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Government said in the White Paper Justice for All (CM 5563) that they intend to legislate to integrate the management of the courts. The White Paper set out a clear intent to set up
local management boards and to ensure that decisions are taken when possible at the local level. But they will need to operate within a framework of national standards.The new administration we are proposing will, we hope, be a benefit to local justice and local accountability. This will not prevent local justice being delivered locally, and it will not take away from the important role magistrates play in the community. These changes will not affect magistrates independence or their daily work. Indeed, local magistrates' benches are being retained.
Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they will give an assurance that magistrates' courts committees, managed by local people, will not be dispensed with in favour of locally unaccountable and centralised management arrangements.[HL5397]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Government said in the White Paper Justice for All (CM 5563) that they intend to legislate to integrate the management of the courts delivering decentralised management and local accountability within a single courts organisation.
The new arrangements will increase local accountability. At present, engagement with the local community is voluntary for both the magistrates' courts and the court service. There is no requirement for court users, the local community, or local authorities to be consulted about many key management decisions. In the new agency, however, managers of courts will be accountable to new local management boards which will include representatives drawn, for example, from the judiciary, the magistracy, local court users groups, victims support groups, local authorities and the local community.
Immigration and Asylum Appeals: Personal Delivery of Determinations
Lord Tomlinson asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they will make an announcement about the personal delivery of appeal determinations to asylum seekers. [HL5538]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Under the Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2001, the Home Secretary has been responsible since 7 January 2002 for the delivery of asylum appeal determinations to appellants who have no further rights of appeal within the Immigration Appellate Authorities (IAA). While the majority of these determinations have been served by post, some determinations have been deemed suitable for delivery in person either by a home visit or at a reporting centre.
A pilot scheme to test the effectiveness of personal delivery procedures commenced on 7 January in the areas covered by Croydon, East Midlands and Leeds Local Enforcement Units and more recently Eaton House (Heathrow). The primary focus of the pilot
scheme has been to establish that the correct procedures are in place to ensure that determinations are delivered promptly and that asyluum seekers have access to their legal representatives and to the courts.The Home Office has set targets for 48 hours for posting determinations and six weeks for those being served personally. This allows the Home Office, where appropriate, to serve the determinaton at a time when the appellant attends a reporting centre, in line with any reporting conditions, or by home visit. Where the Home Office is unable to deliver the determination in person within six weeks, it is posted to the appellant.
The first evaluation of this pilot has now been completed and the results are as follows. Between 7 January and 31 May 2002 the average time taken to deliver a determination in person (including those delivered at reporting centres when a person attends for their regular appointment) has been 19 days. A copy of the determination has been forwarded to the appellant's representative within a maximum of two and a half hours of personal delivery. For those appellants who were removed by 31 May, the average time between delivery of the determination and removal has been 13 days and the minimum time was one day.
Failed asylum seekers who have been taken into detention or removed have been informed of their right to contact a legal representative and given reasonable opportunity to do so. Those wishing to apply for judicial review have had three working days in which to submit an application and a day in which to obtain the High Court reference number. During this time removal directions have been suspended.
Two such applications for judicial review were made between 7 January and 31 May. There have been no applications for a review (under rule 16 or 19 of the Immigration and Asylum (Procedure) Rules) by the chief adjudicator or president of the tribunal respectively.
As of 31 May 2002, of the 76 determinations deemed suitable for personal delivery, 34 were succesfully delivered in person and 24 people have been removed from the country.
The Home Office is now considering expanding the scheme in the light of the evaluation results.
QinetiQ
Lord Gregson asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What progress has been made on the public/private partnership for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.[HL5471]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): On 1 July 2001, the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency was successfully divided into QinetiQ plc, currently a wholly government-owned company, and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, which remains part of the Ministry of Defence.
On 6 March 2002, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Moonie) announced in another place that we had decided to sell a substantial stake in QinetiQ to a strategic partner who would help to develop the company in preparation for a future flotation on the stockmarket. Our decision followed a detailed analysis of market conditions, which led us to conclude that this approach offered best value for the taxpayer, and would meet our objectives for a successful public/private partnership.
Immediately following this announcement we initiated an open competition and carried out a pre-qualification process to identify potential partners. Almost 40 expressions of interest were received, and at the end of April 2002 12 organisations were selected to receive an information memorandum describing the company. Following the evaluation in late May 2002, of indicative offers from bidders, several companies were then provided with access to more detailed information on QinetiQ and invited to submit final binding bids. In order to maximise competition we do not propose to reveal how many companies were selected to participate in this stage, or their identities.
We have received a number of responses within the past few days from the shortlisted bidders, and these are now being comprehensively evaluated by officials and specialist advisors. The results of the selection process are not yet available but we remain on track to identify the preferred bidder within the next few weeks, and complete the initial sale later this year.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page