| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.42 pm
Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): The Minister was surely right to say that the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department was an important post, but he was surely wrong to give the impression that the change in the Bill was merely technical. It is a change in an important matter of principle.
Part of the logic behind the Bill is set out in what Conservative Members consider to be an inadequate press release. The reason for the change is couched in the language of managerialism. I know how popular managerialism is on the Government Benches, but I fail to understand how the Government can ask us to support the change, when the reason given is that the limitation that they want to get rid of
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), quoting Mr. Marcel Berlins, explained the other, partial logic behind the Bill: the levelling down and egalitarianism with which we are so familiar from the Government. It does not serve the interests of justice or the proper and efficient running of the Department.
Whatever the logic--I use the word loosely in connection with the Labour party--it is perfectly clear that the Minister has not done his homework. The many excellent speeches by Conservative Members have exposed the many flaws in his argument. The Minister is laughing, but he must answer some important questions. Why has the First Division Association, according to the Library, not been consulted in any way? That is a disgraceful way to treat senior public servants. The Government talk about listening, caring, compassion and giving, but they are not giving much time and attention to the senior civil servants who work for them.
Mr. Malins:
My hon. Friend refers to consultation. Has there been any consultation with the judiciary,
Mr. Ruffley:
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and we need answers from the Minister.
Mr. Hawkins:
On the lack of consultation with the First Division Association, it should be noted that the former head of the FDA in the previous Parliament, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, is now a Minister in another place. One wonders what she thinks of her ministerial colleagues failing to consult her former trade union.
Mr. Ruffley:
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Perhaps Baroness Symons would like to make her views known, assuming that the Minister without Portfolio will let her. I understand from the Library that the Law Society was also not consulted. We are entitled to ask that there should be consultation on legislation with parties that have a legitimate interest.
There is another problem that the Minister has not dealt with: the disincentive to able lawyers in the civil service who want to stay there. We have heard nothing from the Minister about recruitment and retention; I hope that he will address that. It is difficult enough as it is to recruit top-rank lawyers to serve the Government, because there is a great discrepancy between the pay that a top lawyer can expect in the Government's legal service and in the City.
When I worked in the City as a solicitor, it was not uncommon for first-rate legal brains to become partners of law firms and earn more than £200,000. Labour Members may think that that is obscene, but since their conversion to market principles they should at least acknowledge that we get what we pay for. If that is the going rate for first-rate lawyers in the City, we know that we will have a problem in getting the best in the Government legal service. That problem will become worse if the Bill is enacted, because many able young lawyers in the Government legal service will feel that they have lost the right to obtain the top job in the Lord Chancellor's Department. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath said, the Bill is anti-lawyer.
The Attorney-General has just taken his seat. The Government are doing so badly that they have had to bring in the big guns.
What work has the Minister done, with his officials, to see what effect the Bill will have on the recruitment and retention of first-rate legal ability in the Government legal service? If he has not done such work, will he undertake to do it today and report to the House accordingly?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) put his finger on the main issue when he said that the permanent secretary has a job like no other in the Lord Chancellor's Department. Legal specialism in such a Department is important. I have seen how civil servants' lack of legal ability can damage the quality of legislation. I have played a part in government for a lot longer than the Minister. I was a special adviser at the Home Office. I was shocked to see how policy failures emanated from the failure of senior Home Office civil servants, dealing with legal matters, to grasp legal concepts. That led to policy failures with which Ministers had to grapple.
For example, problems were caused by unit fines under criminal justice legislation, and legal definitions in the new age travellers legislation were not thought through. A good permanent secretary should have a handle on such subjects. At the end of the day, he is responsible for the quality of legislation that is put in draft for Ministers' approval. There are many clear examples of where a failure of legal understanding on the part of senior civil servants damages the quality of a Department's output.
Mr. Hoon:
The debate has been characterised by what can only be described as a gaggle of lawyers articulating some concern for other lawyers' vested interest in securing particular positions. That was described as vigorous opposition. Perhaps the Government should be grateful, because if that is vigorous opposition, they may not have much to worry about. If Opposition Members have to spend such a disproportionate amount of time on this modest measure, they may not have time for other matters, so at least I am assisting the Government's programme by occupying hon. Members who might have been usefully employed elsewhere.
Mr. Grieve:
Has not the debate revealed the Government's lack of scrutiny of the measure?
Mr. Hoon:
On the contrary: it has revealed Opposition Members' failure to do their homework. The single point that has been repeated throughout the debate is that the Bill removes the important qualification that the permanent secretary should be legally qualified.
Sir Nicholas Lyell:
In which year did that requirement first appear?
Mr. Hoon:
The requirement has been in place for a considerable time. However, if it is so vital that the permanent secretary should be legally qualified, why did the previous Conservative Government, in which the right hon. and learned Member held such a distinguished position, change the rules to allow, for the first time, the office to be occupied by someone who was not a lawyer? Conservative Members have referred many times to the importance of that position being occupied by a lawyer, but it was their Government who changed that. That is why it is remarkable that Conservative Members have not done their homework as thoroughly as they might have before spending so much time on this issue.
I shall deal briefly with the more sensible points that have been made during the debate, but there were not too many. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins)
achieved the ultimate in hyperbole when he said that the Government were playing fast and loose with the constitution and that that was the road to perdition. Clearly, the road to perdition for a lawyer is taking away the opportunity to compete freely with others in order to secure a position, because that is what we are debating today.
It is remarkable that lawyers should spend so much time, presumably without any extra payment, arguing that cause. Looking at the distinguished qualifications that have been on display today, I am surprised and disappointed that they were not earning a much better living otherwise than in the Chamber.
However, one or two sensible points have to be addressed. In particular, there was the suggestion that the deputy to the permanent secretary should be a lawyer. That is simply not practical, not least because it bears no relation to the way in which the Lord Chancellor's Department, or any other Department, is organised. It may seem a long time since the Government were elected in May, because we have had such success in achieving our manifesto commitments, but Opposition Members who have had some experience of government have clearly forgotten how their Departments were organised. At least three former Ministers are sitting on the Opposition Benches, and they should remember that hardly a Department has a deputy permanent secretary. These changes have been under way for a considerable time.
I can assure the House that knowledge and experience of the legal and judicial culture are bound to be desirable qualities for someone in this position. All things being equal, it may be attractive to have a candidate who possesses such qualifications. In any event, the successful candidate will either have to possess those qualities or show a capacity to acquire them.
"is no longer appropriate to what over the years has become a major Department of State with a large budget and staff and a wide range of responsibilities."
From the words in the press release, one might believe that the job described was counting paper clips or dealing with stationery orders or staff matters. That is part of the permanent secretary's job, but it is not the whole of it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) ably pointed out, the permanent secretary has quasi-judicial functions. We have heard precious little about that from the Government.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |