|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
31. Mr. Colin Challen (Morley and Rothwell): What steps he proposes to take to obtain equal representation of all areas in Leeds following the merger of the existing petty sessional areas into one area. 
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): The distribution of magistrates in the area will remain the same after the amalgamation. Magistrates in the existing petty sessional areas will serve on the amalgamated bench with effect from 1 January 2002.
On the wider question, the Lord Chancellor requires that each bench should broadly reflect the community that it serves, in terms of gender, ethnic origin, geographical spread, occupation and political affiliation. The Leeds advisory committee will continue to strive to achieve a balanced bench following amalgamation of the petty sessional areas. However, when recruiting new magistrates, the pre-eminent requirement is that a candidate must be personally suitable for appointment, possessing the six key qualities required in a magistrate.
Mr. Challen: I welcome the response, so far as it goes. I also welcome the words of the Lord Chancellor, who wrote in this week's edition of The House Magazine about the importance of community representation on magistrates benches. In Morley, 91 per cent. of those serving on the bench are local, but we are to be subsumed into the Leeds bench, on which only 66 per cent. of people who serve are local. So we need a determined attempt to secure more resources, recruit locally, and ensure that
Mr. Wills: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I pay tribute to his hard work on behalf of the magistracy in his constituency. I have been conscious of that since I took this job and since he was elected. I assure him that we share his view of the importance of local justice and of local people being involved in the lay magistracy. The Lord Chancellor has gone to much trouble to involve local people and ensure that groups in our communities that are not adequately represented on the bench at the moment are so represented in future.
It may be of interest to my hon. Friend to know about the hard work that has gone into trying to get more people from ethnic minorities involved in the lay magistracy. The Lord Chancellor has enlisted the help of Operation Black Vote, for example, to run a scheme involving job shadowing, education and training in order to encourage people from ethnic minorities to apply for appointments. The scheme has been run in seven pilot areas. People who will shadow magistrates have been identified in Bristol and Birmingham. Recruitment of participants and magistrates is
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. The Government are concerned to ensure that the range of remedies available to survivors of domestic violence provides sufficient support and protection. I am therefore pleased to be able to announce that we will be conducting a short research project fully to assess the implications and benefits of introducing third party orders, as provided under section 60 of the Family Law Act 1996. We will work closely with stakeholders and interest groups to ensure that the project addresses the diverse needs of all who need to use the court system.
Margaret Moran: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. When she is taking evidence for the research, which will be most welcome, will she look into work undertaken in New South Wales, in Australia, where third party orders are used, police prosecute on behalf of victims of domestic violence, satisfaction levels are over 77 per cent. and the safety of victims has been vastly enhanced? Will she take that on board so that we can quickly enact section 60 of the Family Law Act to provide greater protection for victims of domestic violence?
Ms Winterton: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has carried out as chairman of the all-party group on domestic violence. I know that she recently made an extremely useful visit to Australia, and I look forward to receiving her assessment of how the third party scheme works there.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I recognise the wish of many Members for sitting hours and a parliamentary calendar that are more predictable and allow them better to balance their commitments to Parliament with those to their constituencies and families. The Modernisation Committee will address these matters in this Session. I announced the dates of the next recess in our first week back, and I will make every effort to announce parliamentary recesses as early as possible to allow Members to plan their time more effectively.
Caroline Flint: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that timetabling of business is a good way to ensure better scrutiny of the legislation that we take through the House, and that the Opposition could make good use of that process? Is he not shocked, as I was, to hear that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is advising his masters not only to have their MPs do one day a week, but to pass legislation unscrutinised to the House of Lords?
Mr. Cook: I would not wish to suggest that anything that the right hon. Gentleman proposed would necessarily shock me, but I was startled to see that he had suggested to his Leader that the Conservatives be organised on a one-day-a-week rota. I have no objection to their organising themselves as they wish, but I hope that they will not then object if we try to achieve reasonable hours for those on the Government side who come to Parliament four days a week.
Mr. Mullin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it cannot be right in a democracy for the Government to be awarded a holiday from scrutiny for nearly three months every summer? Has not the time come to consider September sittings?
Mr. Cook: The issue of September sittings will have to be part of any overall review of the parliamentary calendar. The Modernisation Committee in the last Parliament suggested that September should be used for Committee weeks for Select Committees to sit. So far, relatively few have taken the opportunity of that invitation. My hon. Friend may wish to discuss that with the members of his Select Committee.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that instead of talking about timetables and changes to the timing of business, a more effective way for the House to perform
Mr. Cook: I understand the case that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes. There is provision in Standing Orders for that to happen, and I hope that in the case of one or two Bills that will come before us in this Parliament, that practice will be invoked. I hope that we can move to a situation in which more Bills are published in draft long before they reach Standing Committee. That would give an opportunity for the Select Committees and the public to comment. To achieve that, we need a rolling programme of legislation, rather than one crammed into a tight Session that provides half a year for legislation.
Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire): Does not the right hon. Gentleman have a dilemma, however, in that the word "reform" means different things to different people? To the Opposition and the country at large, it means changing our procedures to be more effective in our scrutiny of legislation, whereas to some hon. Members on the Government side, it is a euphemism for fewer votes, less work and early nights. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that in any package of reform that he agrees to bring before the House, his overriding aim will be to improve the scrutiny of the Executive by the Chamber, not merely to court popularity with Members on his own side who do not like working after 5pm?
Mr. Cook: That is remarkable effrontery on the part of Front-Bench Members who are scheming to send imperfectly scrutinised Bills from this place and urging their leader to call them here for one day a week. For the record, there was no overall reduction in the hours that we sat during the past Parliament, and no one seeks such a reduction. However, it may make sense for us and for the scrutiny of legislation to ensure that those hours conform to the working practices of the world outside. We would possibly get more respect from our constituents if they saw us living in this century rather than two centuries ago.
Mr. Harry Barnes (NorthEast Derbyshire): Would not our commitment to our constituents be greater if we were full-time Members of Parliament and some of us were not involved in other activities, and if we reduced the 13-week summer break when we are Members without a Parliament and cannot use the avenues available to question the Executive? I hope that those points will be seriously considered when we modernise our procedures.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is a sterling example of a full-time Member of Parliament. Iand, I hope, otherstake to heart his observation that those who are not necessarily as full time as he should be careful about casting stones at others.
I do not believe that there is any appetite in the House or among our constituents for us to spend less time in Parliament, but there is a case for ensuring that the time when Parliament sits is more evenly spread. I am willing to consider that if we can reach a consensus.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments, which underline the fact that the Modernisation Committee has managed to proceed in a way that is not party political but acknowledges our common commitment to making a success of Parliament. I hope that the debate on modernisation will not proceed on the basis of antithesis between Government and Parliament. It remains my guiding principle that good scrutiny makes for good government. We need an effective Opposition and effective scrutiny in Parliament to achieve that.