| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.52 pm
Mr. Humfrey Malins (Woking): I declare an interest in that, over the years, I have sat as an acting metropolitan stipendiary magistrate and I now sit occasionally--I might like to sit rather more often--as a recorder of the Crown court.
I have a fair amount of notes in front of me on points that I intend to make--[Laughter.] I want, however, to start with an instinctive reaction to the Bill, which is of slight unease. I understand that it is fashionable to undervalue and downgrade lawyers. It is a sport taken up by many, but it has not yet been banned in this country, and it is gathering force. I am sometimes sad that the lawyer is so undervalued and I hope that the Bill will not contribute to that trend.
In parallel to that thought is the observation that, nowadays, when there is talk about the administration of justice, the courts and the law, one hears more and more comments such as, "It must be more efficient. We must have more productivity. How are we going to save money? How are we going to do things faster?" More and more of that kind of comment comes out as the 1990s develop, and less and less emphasis is placed on the integrity of the lawyer and on the importance of lawyers and the legal Departments. I have put that point badly, but I think that the Minister will understand what I am saying. I worry that too much emphasis is placed on the twin evils of productivity and efficiency.
What is the Bill about? It tells us that in future the permanent secretary need not be a lawyer. The Lord Chancellor has said that his Department needs as its official head the most able and experienced candidate available. Many of us cannot disagree with that comment. The Lord Chancellor goes on to say, however:
The Minister has said that the choice available to the Lord Chancellor is severely limited. How wide is the field? How limited is the choice? Is it too small? From how many people would the Lord Chancellor be able to choose if the previous criteria applied? Have previous appointments been unsatisfactory? What is prompting the change?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made a telling intervention in which he referred to the unique nature of the Lord Chancellor's Department. It is indeed unique. It is a Department with which I have had much contact over the past few years. To me and to people outside the Chamber, it is essentially different from the other great Departments of state. It is different in that I think of it not so much as part of the Government machine as a Department with real independence and independent thinking. It is an important safeguard in our democracy.
The permanent secretary of the Department must have close links with the top judiciary, with recorders, with stipendiary magistrates and with justices. Indeed, he probably has close links with the head of judicial appointments the Department. The head of judicial appointments is an important person who, I am sure, has close daily links with the permanent secretary. Is it not right that the permanent secretary has come from the same stable of lawyers? Is the Bill, by implication, an attack on lawyers and on the Government legal service? Will it be seen as a slap-down for the many distinguished people who should be considered for the post of permanent secretary because of their qualifications and their legal experience?
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire rightly referred to the parallel problem relating to the recent proposals for magistrates clerks. The Bill divides the functions of the magistrates clerk between the administrative functions and the functions of sitting as a clerk. The Minister will know--this is an important point not unconnected with the Bill--that as the years have gone by, magistrates clerks have felt deeply undervalued. The proposal to hive them off so that one is involved entirely in administration and the other in court sitting is a mistake. My right hon. and learned Friend was quite right on that point.
Mr. Ruffley:
Would my hon. Friend care to elaborate on the ridiculous agism involved in qualifying to be a magistrate? Is not the agism that is so apparent in the Bill also apparent in the structure of the magistrates court system? Does he share my experience of many constituents who wish to become magistrates being told that, due to their age, they cannot contribute to work on the Bench?
Mr. Malins:
My hon. Friend raises an important point. He is absolutely right. I was coming to the provision concerning the age limit of 60. It is as though that is a magic figure. Yes, the provision is an example of agism, which is reflected, in a sense, throughout the system. Many of us have encountered constituents who cannot become magistrates due to their age, although they would contribute immensely to the general well-being of the magistrates court system and the administration of justice. That is wrong. When will people realise that a few grey hairs can be quite important?
Mr. John M. Taylor:
Hear, hear.
Mr. Malins:
My hon. Friend says hear, hear; there are no grey hairs on him. For my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) it is another matter.
Mr. Taylor:
That is because some of us do not have any hair at all.
Mr. Malins:
To be serious, though, there is merit in the point. There is no difficulty in involving people over the age of 60 in the posts. Does any hon. Member think that, suddenly, at the age of 60, people lose their ability? Many distinguished lawyers have reached their peak not in their forties or fifties, but in their sixties or even later. Many examples are known to us of outstanding men and women who contributed greatly to the law when they were well over 60. I cannot see a justification for imposing a strict age limit of 60 bearing in mind the men and women who have served as permanent secretary over the past 100 years. Can the Minister tell us how many of them served with great distinction well beyond the age of 60?
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield):
Should not the Government and the Minister be considering whether to raise the upper age limit? We know that we have an aging population and, as time goes by, it will become increasingly difficult--unless people are prepared to work to a later age--for the working population to sustain those who are not working. The proposal is a retrograde step. I would much rather the Government said that they were raising the retirement age for all permanent secretaries.
Mr. Malins:
My hon. Friend is right to say that we have an aging population; people are living longer. Is not the fact that a growing proportion of the population will be in their sixties, seventies or, indeed, eighties an argument for enabling people to carry on, with just a degree of flexibility, rather than stopping them in their absolute prime at the age of 60? I for one cannot understand why the Bill is so inflexible.
I return to my general theme. It worries me that, as we move towards the close of the century, what I might describe as the independence of lawyers--the pure law--is being watered down. Instead, we are fed a diet of administrators, those who seek productivity in the magistrates court system and those who are urging it to be more efficient--whatever that means. How does one become more efficient? We should be concentrating on the administration of a good, fair and accessible criminal justice system.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
In considering the matter before us I looked at the proceedings of the Bill that became the Supreme Court Act 1981--the original Bill. It immediately caught my eye that the then Attorney-General, Sir Michael Havers, said:
Such a parliamentary observation--if I may indulge myself--leads to the question why the Bill before us was not introduced in the other place in the same way as the 1981 Bill. Perhaps the Minister will wish to comment on that. On the face of it, to me as a layman--I speak as one of the few non-lawyers to contribute to the debate, so I hope the House will forgive me any infelicities--the Bill would have been an ideal Bill to introduce in another place. Although I am sure that the House would want to scrutinise it properly--I cannot imagine why there would be any problem in our doing so--why was not the Bill introduced in another place? That is a matter for the Minister to return to.
The proceedings on the 1981 Bill are very interesting. It must be relevant for us to reflect on that Bill since the Government are seeking to amend it. The then right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West, the Opposition spokesman, said:
I gather that the Minister might ask us to consider other stages of the Bill's proceedings this very day. I would be reluctant to accept that, although I shall of course follow the lead of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). If he were satisfied that the Government were prepared to give due recognition to our legitimate and constructive points, we might allow the Bill to make rapid progress. I hope that there is no suggestion that there will be an attempt to ram the measure through the House without proper deliberation or due regard to the reasonable amendments that my right hon. and learned Friend wishes to move. We shall return to that point later.
The question that the Minister must answer on the point about qualifications was raised by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and, in a different way, by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). Are we being told that there is an
insufficient supply of suitable candidates under the existing regime? Is it suggested that somehow we cannot find a suitable permanent secretary for the Lord Chancellor's Department within the existing restrictions? However, I have not heard the Parliamentary Secretary suggest that.
"I and my predecessors have been well served by a distinguished line of Permanent Secretaries, who have ably managed the organisation".
I looked up the records and discovered that eight permanent secretaries have served in the Department over the past 110 years--one for as long as 29 years, which is not bad going. Is the Lord Chancellor right, however, to say that in future permanent secretaries need not be lawyers of 10 years' standing?
"with the exception of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), whom I welcome, the Opposition Benches are deserted."
For those who believe that the House of Commons has somehow declined over the years, here we are as living proof that that is not so. Whereas the Opposition Benches were deserted in 1981, my hon. Friends and I are living proof that the present Opposition are vigorous in their determination thoroughly to scrutinise what is before the House. Conversely, on this occasion, the Government Benches are all but deserted; in fact, I do not see one authentic Back Bencher on them.
"We all accept that there are certain tasks that should be carried out by those who are qualified by the nature of their training and experience . . . it would be unfortunate if, in our anxiety to avoid restrictive practices, we overlooked the qualifications and experience that are necessary for a particular job."--[Official Report, 6 May 1981; Vol. 4, c. 199-210.]
Those words are at the kernel of the argument before us.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |