---

Mr. Grieve: I want to pick up a point that arose earlier. The Minister suggested dismissively that because in 1990 there had been an alteration to the previous requirement that the permanent secretary be a lawyer, the arguments being advanced by Opposition Members about the likely changes that the present proposals would make to whether the permanent secretary was a lawyer were irrelevant.

Mr. Hoon: Bogus.

Mr. Grieve: The Minister is excelling himself in the courtesy he extends to Conservative Members. The matter clearly requires even more prolonged discussion.

An alteration was made in 1990. I should be interested to hear what position Labour Members took on it. It was possible, in certain circumstances, to enable a civil servant who had experience of the Department, but who might not be legally qualified, to become a permanent secretary. I do not disagree with that for one moment, because, as I told the Minister on Second Reading, I accept that the

6 Nov 1997 : Column 450

Department had a complex role and that its administrative role had grown considerably. I said that I had some sympathy for the underlying problems that might have led to the Bill being introduced.

Far from seeking to rubbish the Bill, I appreciate that there may be sound reasons for it. I should like the Minister to present them to us, but I am at a loss to understand why the Government are attempting to rush it through the House without consultation.

The permanent secretary shoulders a great burden of responsibility. It is all very well our being told that the legal adviser will always be there, but he is there to advise on legal matters. The Minister knows, or should know, given his qualification as a barrister, that, although the legal profession may have its detractors, one of its strengths is that, within a relatively small compass, there is a large pool of talent comprising solicitors and barristers who are capable of going on to hold high judicial office. It is one of the principal roles of the permanent secretary to identify them, to maintain good links with the judiciary and the relevant professional bodies and to advise the Lord Chancellor about them. I infer--I am sure that the Minister will confirm this--that the legal adviser has absolutely no role whatsoever in that. Therefore, our arguments are relevant.

It is not acceptable to introduce the Bill simply because it is administratively convenient. The previous arrangements spelled out in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, as amended, state, significantly, that the first consideration is whether a person is legally qualified and that the secondary is to ascertain whether a person, if not legally qualified, has at least five years' service in the Department. I have examined the statute carefully.

Any changes should not be rushed. I am concerned about the absence of consultation, but I am perhaps even more concerned that such a Bill should be rushed through simply because it happens to be administratively convenient in November 1997. I ask the Minister to bear in mind the points that I have outlined and to treat Opposition Members with the courtesy that I hope we have extended to him.

Mr. Hoon: I have been asked to consider the arguments carefully. I hope that hon. Members agree that I set out carefully at the beginning of Second Reading why it was necessary for the Government to introduce the Bill at this stage. If there were any doubts about the need to change the present restrictions, the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) put them very well. He said that the position of permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department was an important political, mainstream Government role. He outlined the responsibility that anyone who holds such a position should have.

Opposition Members have confirmed me in my view that it is vital that the Lord Chancellor's Department should have the same opportunity to select a permanent secretary as is available to other major Departments of State. In making that selection, the Lord Chancellor's Department should not be constrained by rules that have long since lost their function. In my careful presentation at the beginning of Second Reading, I rehearsed the history of the matter. I am sorry that Opposition Members did not listen with sufficient care and attention as I pointed out that the problem surrounding the question of legal advice has long since passed into history. I hope

6 Nov 1997 : Column 451

that that deals satisfactorily with the issue raised by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell).

7.15 pm

The right hon. and learned Member also referred to the retirement age. Once again, the Bill is designed to bring the position of permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department into line with that of every other permanent secretary. It will be possible for the permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department to stay on by arrangement beyond the age of 60, with the agreement and co-operation of the head of the civil service. That is exactly the position of every permanent secretary.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Minister clarify what difference the Bill is making? How is the Bill changing the situation?

Mr. Hoon: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, the formal retirement age is to change, but he was anxious that we should recognise the skills and qualities of someone who might attain the age of 60 but who still has a considerable contribution to make to the country. I am clarifying for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the position of the permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department and, indeed, that of any other permanent secretary. In the circumstances that we are debating, it will be possible, by arrangement, for a person to continue in post.

The hon. Member for Bolton, West and Torridge--

Mr. Burnett: Torridge and West Devon.

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman made two points. First, the Government remain committed to an independent civil service. The selection process will be the same as for other permanent secretaries. Secondly, we shall consider the Middleton recommendation for a single Ministry of justice. We are already considering Sir Peter Middleton's recommendations, but I have to say that the Government have no present plans to implement the particular recommendation to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

I was greatly entertained by the arguments of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), but I should perhaps not rise to the bait. He was more moderate in Committee than on Second Reading. The constitution seems likely to survive the shock that the modest change introduced by the Bill might cause it. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's willingness to watch the Government every step of the way. I assure him that in this Parliament he will have plenty of watching to do as we ensure that the promises made to the electorate in the Government's manifesto, on which Labour was elected overwhelmingly--including to the Blackpool seat that he formerly occupied--are carried out.

I cannot avoid dealing with the argument put forward by the hon. Members for Surrey Heath and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that we are rushing the Bill through on the blind side. They both know full well that

6 Nov 1997 : Column 452

it was thoroughly advertised--as is all business in the House--on the previous Thursday. Only very recently have the Conservatives decided to prolong the debate. The proposal is modest and I commend clause 1 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.--[Mr. Pope.]

7.21 pm

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I shall be brief, because my points are easily understood. I regret that the Minister, who, I believe, has a degree from Harvard, has answered only one of my questions and has not sought to respond to the detailed points that I put to him about the role of a deputy secretary in the Department.

I am grateful to the Minister for answering about the ability of a permanent secretary in any Department to continue in office after the age of 60 if the public interest requires it. To some extent, his helpful answer has allayed my concern. However, he must know that he has not addressed my detailed and formidable arguments about why there should be someone in the Department with a particular responsibility and the opportunity to have the ear of the Lord Chancellor to deal with the many non-administrative matters that are profoundly important to that unique office, should the Lord Chancellor require it or should a senior person realise that he needs it and that it is his duty to give it.

I very much hope that that point will be pursued further in another place and that the Government will reflect more closely on my detailed arguments before the Bill reaches another place. I hope that they look sympathetically, albeit not in this House, on amendments such as those that I have suggested.

7.23 pm

Mr. Forth: The debate has covered substance and style. It is right that the substance of the Bill should be considered. I say that it should be, but that requires the participation not just of the Opposition, carrying out their duty to scrutinise proposals, but of the Government, personified in this case by the Minister. I regret that he has failed to satisfy us on the key issues that we have raised time and again. He has given scant regard to our arguments of substance about the nature of the position of permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department, the role of that individual and the qualifications required. He has failed to persuade us that the matter is as simple as he has argued, however brief, peremptory and superficial those arguments were.

The Minister has not deal at all with the mandatory age of retirement of the permanent secretary. That may appear to be a subsidiary detail, but its importance ranges beyond the measure before us, because it sends out a signal. We are being asked to approve the idea of a mandatory civil service retirement age of 60. I am not satisfied with

6 Nov 1997 : Column 453

that. In the one Department that has some flexibility, we are doing away with it and imposing a mandatory retirement age. That is a gratuitously unnecessary proposal which the Minister has made no attempt to justify. It is important that our objections should be firmly on the record. I hope that we shall return to the matter at an appropriate time.

The debate has also been about style. If the Minister had listened carefully to our arguments, put in good faith, and had attempted more comprehensively and courteously to reply, he might have made rather more rapid progress. I say that in as friendly a way as I can. He may wish to reflect on that. However, that is water under the bridge, and need not be dwelt on unduly.

The Minister has laboured the point several times that we should all have known about the Bill. He has told us that there were understandings and that he is mystified as to why so much fuss has been made. I am a humble out-of-touch Opposition Back Bencher. I am not privy to conversations that may take place in dark corners and secret locations. I read the Order Paper in good faith. Today's Order Paper says:

"Supreme Court (Offices) Bill: Second Reading


Remaining stages may also be taken."

I take the word "may" at face value. The Order Paper does not say that deals have been done and understandings have been reached, so we should not look at the matter too closely and get away early; it says that the remaining stages may be taken. To me, that means that, if there has been satisfactory consideration on Second Reading, if there are no points of substance dividing the Opposition and the Government and if those who have taken the trouble to attend the debate and listen to the Minister are satisfied, it would be proper for the matter to be dealt with rather more rapidly than most other measures.

None of those conditions has been fulfilled. It was not only proper, but a duty, for the Opposition to seek more elucidation from the Minister. The fact that we have failed is a matter of great regret, but we shall make a note for the future. Perhaps as well as reading the Order Paper I should make inquiries of those in the know to find out whether I shall be required simply to nod something through or whether I am expected to discharge my responsibilities as a Member of Parliament by scrutinising the Government's proposals. Those matters are all to be resolved.

I hope that there is ample evidence on the record from the points made by Conservative Members that we are distinctly unhappy about the measure--its substance and the way in which it was brought to the House. We have tried not to be unduly obstructive--and, I think, succeeded. The Minister will be allowed to take his Bill forward.

I hope that those in another place will read the report of this debate. They may well conclude that the Bill deserves more scrutiny and answers to the questions that were not answered in this House. Given that it is the Lord Chancellor's business, they may well take that opportunity. I hope that they do.

---