| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Forth: Is my right hon. and learned Friend surprised that the Minister did not dwell on that point, if only to justify the fact that he wishes to make an arbitrary rule, forcing the permanent secretary to retire prematurely and when at the peak of his powers--a rule that he has not even sought to justify--but that he is apparently quite satisfied for a Lord Chancellor to continue indefinitely after that arbitrary age limit?
Sir Nicholas Lyell: My right hon. Friend once again puts his finger on an important point. If I can have the Parliamentary Secretary's attention, there is an equally important point to develop.
We are told that the Department will not be in conformity with any other. In other Departments, everyone is obliged to retire at 60, but one of the Lord Chancellor's primary functions is to deal with members of the judiciary, who do not retire until the age of 70.
Although it is unlikely that a permanent secretary would carry on until the age of 70, some flexibility is desirable to ensure a continuity of knowledge in the Lord Chancellor's right-hand adviser on a vital part of his role. To remove that possibility on the grounds of consistency is merely doctrinaire.
I would be the first to acquit the Lord Chancellor of any charges of those characteristics. I have not regarded him as one of the more dogmatic or doctrinaire members of the Government. I hope that he is not embarrassed that I put that to his credit. I hope that he will listen and reflect carefully on the two important points that I have mentioned, which I hope to develop later in our debates.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath):
I follow the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) about agism. Many of us are concerned about the political correctness that is creeping into every aspect of the new Labour Government. Such political correctness is being severely questioned not just in the House, but throughout industry and in legal circles. It is wrong and contrary to common sense for a senior official--a permanent secretary--to be told that he has to retire at 60 when he will be dealing with crucial issues relating to the appointment of judges, who will sit to the age of 70.
The Lord Chancellor's Department is different and the legal profession and the legal system are different. They form a separate pillar of our constitution. We must be particularly aware of the special position of the law. We have already seen the new Labour Government playing
fast and loose with our constitution. They govern by press release and spin doctor, bypassing the House of Commons. That is a slippery slope to perdition.
I have great respect for the Minister and I have had a great liking for him for several years. He has been sent here to do the bidding of his master in another place, as he has to. If he spends a little time analysing what he is proposing, he may have severe doubts about it.
Considerable concerns were expressed about the proposal as recently as two days ago in The Guardian by no less a correspondent than Mr. Marcel Berlins, who was for many years the doyen of legal correspondents at The Times, which was when I first got to know him. We used to study together in the same library in the late 1970s. He now has a column in The Guardian, called "Writ Large". He says:
Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds):
Will my hon. Friend continue with that article from The Guardian, which refers to the possible appointment of Mr. Ian Burns as the next permanent secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department? Will he explain how the proposal could have the ludicrous consequence of Mr. Burns being appointed at the age of 59 and having to retire at 60?
Mr. Hawkins:
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to some of the other concerns referred to in that article. I have no idea whether Mr. Berlins is right--perhaps the Minister will tell us when he winds up--but he says that the Bill has become known informally in the Lord Chancellor's Department as the Ian Burns Bill. I have no knowledge of Mr. Burns and I do not seek to comment in any way on the ability of a gentleman of whom I had never previously heard, but if Mr. Berlins is right--and I know him to be one of the best-informed newspaper legal correspondents--there could be ludicrous consequences.
In all aspects of public life, able people are being forced to retire when they can still perform many years of public service. That is happening purely because of doctrinaire policy. The Government are following the mistakes of many previous Labour Governments and imposing doctrinaire age limits contrary to common sense.
I share the great concerns raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire. It has been suggested in the past few days that the role of legally qualified clerk in magistrates courts is to be split from administration, which does not require them to be legally qualified. Several of us tried to raise our concerns at the time of that statement, although some of us were unable to do so. I hope that the Minister will reassure us about the feeling that the new Labour Government believe that lawyers should be excluded from positions of responsibility.
I detected a considerable anti-lawyer feeling among Labour Members in the previous Parliament when we were in government and they were in opposition. I know that the Minister does not share that feeling because he is
a former law lecturer and a qualified lawyer. I also know from his service on the legal committee of the European Parliament that he has always taken a serious and balanced view of legal issues. I urge him to examine the prejudices of some of his party colleagues, who seek to exclude lawyers.
The Minister has said that there is no reason to suppose that all future incumbents of the post will not be lawyers, but this may be the beginning of a slippery slope, with the Government seeking to prevent lawyers from holding the post. It is important that the holder of the post should be a lawyer. If not, at least my right hon. and learned Friend's amendment should be accepted in Committee to ensure that, if the post holder is not a lawyer, his deputy must be. I am sure that the Minister will concede that there are many specialist aspects of the job that require a lawyer.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire referred to the growth in the Government legal service, in which I have many friends, including some former members of my former chambers. He did not dwell on one of the most important innovations of the previous Conservative Government, which is relevant to today's debate--the creation of a Minister in the House of Commons to answer for the Lord Chancellor's Department. That post was held by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) in a distinguished manner for several years. It was also held by Mr. Jonathan Evans, the former Member for Brecon and Radnor. We all look forward to his return to the House at the earliest opportunity.
The post was an important innovation and the fact that we can have this debate today shows how wise the previous Government were to ensure that there was a Minister in this House who could be questioned. If we did not have such a Minister, legislation such as this Bill could have been slipped through on the blind side without proper parliamentary scrutiny. I am delighted that we have an opportunity to have this debate in which the Bill, the role of the Government legal service and the role of the officials at senior and junior level who serve in it can be analysed.
Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon):
We welcome the Bill because it will sweep away an anachronism and open up the post of permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor to a far wider field of candidates. I say that notwithstanding the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), who enjoys an enviable reputation in this House and elsewhere.
We would like the Minister to address two points. First, I hope that the Government are committed to an independent and politically impartial civil service which
is free from party political favouritism. A new permanent secretary is likely to be appointed in or before April 1998. The previous Government made significant changes to the method of selecting senior civil servants. How will the new permanent secretary be selected?
Secondly, I have noted in Sir Peter Middleton's recent report that he states:
"Slipping quietly through Parliament is an extraordinary Bill, whose sole purpose is to make one Permanent Secretary to a Government Department equal to all other Permanent Secretaries."
I agree with Mr. Berlins' concerns. He continues:
"So the Lord Chancellor's Department has finally fallen to egalitarianism."
However, these proposals are of much greater concern.
"A single Government Department should be responsible for all aspects of civil justice".
Do the Government intend to introduce proposals for a single Ministry to be responsible for and to co-ordinate the proper administration of justice, which is now conducted by various Departments of state?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |