---

Mr. Vaz: We do not want to hear about the hon. and learned Gentleman's private life.

Mr. Garnier: We shall turn to the Minister's private life in a moment, because that has some bearing on what we may yet discuss. What is inside the balloon is no more than Government hot air.

As a fourth argument against this aspect of the Bill, my noble and learned Friend Lord Kingsland suggested in the other place that

"the introduction of state defenders will certainly undermine the perception, and also perhaps the reality, of criminal justice."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 1999; Vol. 604, c. 418.]

21 Jul 1999 : Column 1211

Cogent speeches were made by Lord Kingsland and Lord Thomas of Gresford, to whom, no doubt, the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) will refer if he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They put forward arguments that wholly undermined what I am gracious enough to call the Government's arguments for the criminal defence service and in support of their resistance to the Lords proposal. Apart from being, to say the very least, tiresome, the Government's arguments in favour of resisting the Lords proposal are ill-considered.

One need only read the arguments not only of my noble Friend Lord Kingsland and Lord Thomas of Gresford, but of Lord Hutchinson, who said:

"Our democracy and our fundamental freedoms depend on the rule of law. The law is upheld first by an independent and uncorrupt judiciary. Secondly, it is upheld by advocates--barristers and solicitors--without whom the judges could not operate and from among whom the judges are drawn."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 1999; Vol. 604, c. 416.]

That draws me back to a very good point made by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) in earlier debates that without an independent advocacy profession there can be no independent minds from which to draw an independent judiciary.

I read with great care the Lord Chancellor's speech in Edinburgh on 5 July. I agree with pretty well everything he said in it. My only concern is that he has not learned the lessons that he is teaching us all and which he sets out in that speech, much of which followed the remark of the right hon. Member for Llanelli in the House some weeks ago, to which I referred. The establishment, even in part, as the Government propose, of a criminal defence service will lead to the damaging of the independent advocate and therefore to the damaging of the independent judiciary--two concepts which I and my party particularly revere.

It is perfectly possible for the Government to sneer. They frequently do; they do not have to listen to arguments because they have a huge majority. It is perfectly possible for them to pooh-pooh all that Opposition Members say and to try to persuade both the public and supporters in this House that all this is from a tired, middle-aged, white, middle-class barrister who is working out his frustrations at the Government for having been elected in May 1997. I am perfectly prepared to salute the Government's huge majority. What I deprecate is the way in which they use it like a scatter-gun to damage our constitution and our legal processes.

I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to agree with my noble Friend Lord Kingsland, Lord Thomas of Gresford and all the majority in the other House who, having thought about the matter and having listened to the issues and the way in which they were debated on 14 July, would assist me in resisting the Government's decision to strike down the House of Lords proposals.

Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli): I rise to speak briefly in support of the Lords proposal that the Parliamentary Secretary is seeking to oppose. As I understand it, it would remove from the Bill the provision that would enable this or any future Government to set up a criminal defence service.

I practise occasionally in the criminal courts, and declare an interest as an advocate. I am not asking for a ruling from the Chair, but I am not sure why I need to

21 Jul 1999 : Column 1212

declare an interest. I speak as a Member of Parliament with some expertise in legal matters, but as one who is concerned about the rule of law and this country's criminal justice system.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned those in the other House with a blatant vested interest. I do not know to whom he was referring. I hope that he was not referring to Baroness Kennedy, for instance, who has been mentioned. I hope that he was not referring to Lord Hutchinson, who, as Jeremy Hutchinson, was an extremely distinguished defence advocate in cases involving the state and always conducted himself with great artistry and sophistication--qualities which he displayed in the speeches in the other place, which are well worth reading. I hope that my hon. Friend was not referring to those people. I hope that he is not thinking that I represent a blatant vested interest as I make my few brief remarks.

4.45 pm

I spoke on Second Reading and I shall not repeat myself. My arguments have been made in the other place, and they have been made in this place by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier).

Perhaps I am an old romantic, and perhaps I am old-fashioned, but I believe that the defence of those accused of crimes by the state should not be in the hands of employees of the state. I understand that there will be a pilot scheme and that a mixed system will then be set up, but I believe that--Governments being Governments and bureaucracies being bureaucracies--the movement that is under way will continue until, eventually, the defence system is almost wholly state run.

Essentially, the criminal justice system is already dominated by the state. In effect, all crimes are crimes against the state. The prosecutor is the state and, with the development of the Crown Prosecution Service--to which I do not object, and which appears to be putting its house in order--prosecution advocates will increasingly be employees of the state. Judges, who are the salt of the earth, are, ultimately, employees of the state.

Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): Under the separation of powers doctrine, the role of the judiciary is entirely separate from that of the state. However, the difficulty that we perceive, which was mentioned by many hon. Members and by some Government supporters in the other place--including Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said--is that salaried state employees in a nationalised criminal defence service may be put under pressure to fit in with the system. Is not that a cause for concern? Is not the danger of such pressure wholly different from the separation of the role of the judiciary?

Mr. Davies: Well, perhaps. There was a lot in that short intervention. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will develop and pursue it.

I shall be more factual, perhaps, and simply say that judges are employed by the state. Recorders--I believe that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough is now a recorder or assistant recorder--are employed by

21 Jul 1999 : Column 1213

the state. Stipendiary magistrates are employed by the state. We still have juries, which are not employed by the state, but for how long? Who knows?

Mr. Garnier: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: I have obviously upset the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Garnier: The right hon. Gentleman has certainly not upset me. He is right--I am an assistant recorder, and I pay tribute to the good sense of the present Lord Chancellor in appointing me one. However, the distinction that one must draw between judges and other employees is that although assistant recorders, recorders and full-time judges are paid by the state, they are not, in the strict sense, employed by the state and they do not owe their first allegiance to the state. They owe their allegiance to the oath of office that they take.

Mr. Davies: That may be so, but, ultimately, they are the creatures of the state in the criminal justice system; they have to be.

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): A person brought before a Crown court inevitably perceives the judiciary as an arm and extension of the state.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman puts it very well. Juries, not being "employed", are independent of the state. Who knows how long we shall have juries? The Government are working at it--they are trying to reduce the function of juries. Justices of the peace and lay magistrates are still independent of the state. I do not know whether they will gradually be replaced, if the state can afford it, by stipendiaries. It is easier to have stipendiaries around than lay magistrates. However, they are certainly more expensive.

So, inevitably, we shall have a criminal justice system with a state dominance. The proposition now is that the defence of the accused as well is to be in the hands of the state. The defence advocate is to be a state employee. As I have said, I am old-fashioned and perhaps romantic, but I am not a blatant vested interest. Perhaps I am old-fashioned to believe that what I have described is not desirable. However, as I understand it, that is what my hon. Friend the Minister is proposing.

If we go down the road of state dominance, there will be repercussions and not only for the accused, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said. In future, an advocate could spend the whole of his or her professional life working for the state, for the state prosecution service for a time and then for the state defence service. Twenty or 30 years of that person's professional life would be spent working as an advocate in the criminal justice system for the state.

In the main, judges in the Crown courts, the criminal courts, are inevitably and rightly chosen from advocates who have experience of criminal cases.

---