| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.26 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): I congratulate the Minister on the accuracy with which she read out pretty well word for word the first seven paragraphs of what Lord Bach said when the order was debated in another place. Having said that, may I turn to some interesting points that arise from the order? Has the Minister considered the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the compliance cost assessments that were put to the House on that Act and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as they have to be submitted in relation to all Acts of Parliament? On further reflection, in the light of what Lord Bach said in another place and the Minister has repeated tonight, do those compliance cost assessments need to be corrected and does some kind of apology need to be given for perhaps an underestimate of the extra costs that those pieces of Government legislation would bring about?
The Minister is talking about some fairly major changes in the work load according to her own assessment. Even if only a quarter of the applications are allowed and proceed to the divisional court for determination, 1,000 to 2,000 additional applications will be made for leave to move in immigration cases after implementation of the Human Rights Act. That is a substantial increase. While it is recognised that the Government have to reflect on the consequences of their legislation, I should like to raise some further specific issues. I ask the Minister to comment on them in her reply.
In another place Lord Kingsland asked Lord Bach what saving in judicial time the Department expected as a result of the Woolf reforms--the reforms to the civil courts. Lord Bach said:
Will the Minister comment on the concerns expressed in a book entitled "The New Judiciary: The effects of expansion and activism"? The foreword is by Lord Justice Sedley, and the book was written by an academic at the
London school of economics--Kate Malleson. She writes about the development of judicial review over the past 30 to 40 years--something that has certainly led to a need for further judicial appointments. She states:
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon):
May I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on her appointment? It is the first chance that I have had to do so. She is probably aware that I have more than a passing interest in the judiciary. While maintaining standards, it is important that we do all that we can to ensure that the expansion of the bench that is proposed is more representative of the wider community--especially in improving ethnic and gender balance--that the judiciary is seen to be impartial and independent, and that public confidence in the judiciary, which has taken a real knocking, is restored.
That is especially important because one of the main reasons for the expansion given by my hon. Friend in her introduction is the expected increase in work as a consequence of the passing of human rights legislation. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) that the judiciary will increasingly be seen as having a political role when deciding cases on human rights, as well as, for example, those on devolution matters and on European law more generally.
On 18 November, research was published by the Nuffield Foundation which showed how out of touch people believed the judiciary to be. An article on the research stated that
I am sure that, at this late hour, it will come as a relief to the Parliamentary Secretary and other hon. Members that I do not propose to make detailed arguments against secret soundings, or for reform of court dress, or for a judicial appointments commission, or for a register of interests for judges. My principled arguments have been made on previous occasions.
However, I will say that the secret soundings system plumbs the depths of private prejudice. It permits the unfettered exercise of byzantine power by the inner cabals of the legal and judicial establishment, as that establishment continues to clone itself, ensuring that the bench remains the unrepresentative bastion of privilege that it has been for centuries.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):
Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the mark. Will he come back to the quite narrow confines of the number of judges to be appointed?
Mr. Dismore:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
When we are considering increasing the number of judges in the High Court, we must do something to address the appalling imbalance of race and gender, because at the moment only seven of 98--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. That is not what we are here to discuss this evening.
Mr. Dismore:
I take on board your constraints, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mrs. Dunwoody:
Is it not important that, of the new judges that are appointed, many are women and many are from ethnic groups that are not represented? Is it not important that the Department takes the responsibility for looking at the judges that we do have before it takes on even more?
Mr. Dismore:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is absolutely right. Of the 98 High Court judges, only seven are women and all are white. I regret to say that, of the additional appointments that have been
The Lord Chancellor is to be congratulated on setting up, during the summer, the review by Sir Len Peach of the judicial appointments procedures, building on some of the reforms already instituted, but I regret that he did not have the opportunity to consider the issue of secret soundings, especially bearing in mind the large number of organisations that have taken objection to, and withdrawn from, the secret soundings system.
"I am not in a position to be able to give any real estimate as to the number of Court of Appeal judges that may be required as a consequence of the extra work involved. However, I promise the noble Lord--
the shadow Lord Chancellor, Lord Kingsland--
"that I will take this back to the Department. I shall ensure that research is carried out and that a letter is sent to the noble Lord, a copy of which will be placed in the Library at the same time."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 November 1999; Vol. 606, c. 1389.]
That debate in another place took place almost a fortnight ago, yet when I checked in the Library half an hour before the Division I was told that no copy of any such letter had been placed in the Library. I am sure that the Minister will recognise that almost two weeks is rather a long time for a letter to be placed in the Library of the House--one on which Lord Bach gave a solemn undertaking. Will the Minister comment on that matter? Will she ensure that the sending of the letter is expedited, as it does not appear to have taken place?
"The publication of a guide to civil servants in 1987 and updated in 1995 entitled "The Judge over your shoulder" illustrates the extent to which judges have come to oversee the work of government in its broadest sense. This process of increasing judicial activism is about to enter a new phase with the passing of the Human Rights Act, incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. The exact effects of the change are still very much open to debate, but few doubt that one result, in the short term at least, will be to fuel the growth of judicial activism."
Does the Minister feel that, as a result of that increase in judicial activism, even the maximum number of judges she proposes will be insufficient? Kate Malleson continues:
"This expansion of judicial power is redefining the role of the judges in ways which are only just starting to emerge. As well as raising implications for the political system at a general level, the changes have particular consequences for the structure of the judiciary and the processes by which it operates. Some indication of the likely direction of these trends can be gleaned by reviewing the experience of the judiciaries of other countries since the developments in judicial activism in England and Wales are mirrored by strikingly similar changes world-wide."
If the consequences of the provisions in the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Immigration and Asylum Act cause the pressure outlined by the Minister this evening and by her noble Friend Lord Bach in another place, will that not lead to yet more of what the academic author described as "judicial activism"? Should we not be extremely concerned about that in this House, where we have always been conscious of the preservation of the separation of powers doctrine? When the Minister sums up this important debate, I hope that she will give us some answers on the consequences--perhaps not fully thought through--of the measures that the Government introduced in the previous Session, which have led to the need for extra judges. I hope that she will also comment on the dangers of greater judicial activism.
10.33 pm
"people saw judges as old, white and male, reflecting the values and biases of a privileged elite . . . Two out of three thought judges were out of touch with ordinary people's lives."
It was particularly worrying that, as the report stated of those who were subject to the survey:
"There were virtually no significant differences in the response to this question (whether judges are out of touch) depending on age, education, employment status, problem type, previous experience of legal advice, or involvement in legal proceedings."
At a press conference, Lord Woolf responded to the survey by simply blaming irresponsible media reporting of judges. However, that is not the answer. I believe that the problem is more deep-rooted. That research supports the argument that, when opportunities arise to increase the number of judges, steps must be taken to start dealing with the crisis of confidence in the judiciary.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |