| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.38 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): I shall confine myself to two remarks.
First, it is plain to me that the increase in numbers from 98 to 106 is inadequate to meet the demand that we shall shortly see. There are two reasons for that increase in demand. One is the advanced increase of litigation that will flow from the incorporation of the European convention into municipal law. I favour the incorporation of that convention into municipal law, but it will increase the amount of domestic litigation very substantially, and, as it will go to the High Court, it will require a substantial increase in the number of High Court judges.
Secondly, I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). What was said in the Scottish courts as regards the validity of the appointment of temporary sheriffs has a very powerful implication for the status of judges in England and Wales, because deputy High Court judges have exactly the same status as deputy sheriffs, and if we are going to discover that deputy High Court judges do not have the character of independence required by the convention, we shall find that there is an enormous shortfall in the number of judges required in the High Court bench. For that reason also, we shall find that the increase from 98 to 106 is quite inadequate.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
Following the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), I firmly place myself in order by
I should be candid with the House and state that Jim Keegan, the lawyer who brought the test case in the High Court, is a close personal friend of mine, and I ought to say that my daughter worked for four years in his law firm in a junior capacity.
The important point is that there has been chaos in the Linlithgow sheriff court as a result of that ruling--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman goes any further, I must remind him that we are talking specifically about an increase in the number of judges in England and Wales.
Mr. Dalyell:
The Minister said, and I think that she will confirm it, that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor was considering the very matter of the effect of the ruling in the Scottish court, so, if I am considered to be out of order, I think that I am entitled to ask what on earth a Lord Chancellor is doing reviewing a decision in the Scottish court? What exactly are the terms of the Lord Chancellor's review, and why is he involved? I must confess that I am slightly surprised that he is involved, and I was surprised by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary's statement--I neither praise nor criticise it. However, in the devolved world that we now inhabit, it seems a matter for explanation that an English Lord Chancellor should be reviewing that particular matter.
I shall be succinct. The full impact of the ruling, which outlawed the use of temporary sheriffs, was felt on Wednesday 17 November, in the Linlithgow sheriff court, when--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House. He is now straying well wide of the increase in the number of judges in England and Wales, which is what we are here specifically to discuss.
Mr. Dalyell:
I am obedient to the Chair, as always, so I shall simply say that I imagine that the whole issue of the procurator fiscal and her dilemma in the Scottish courts will be considered by the English Lord Chancellor. I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to explain exactly what are the Lord Chancellor's terms of reference in the matter. I am fascinated.
Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon):
I do not think that the order will cause massive ructions in the House tonight, but it raises important issues. As many have said, the order will increase the number of High Court judges from 98 to 106.
The Human Rights Act 1998 will impose further duties and burdens on the judiciary, as will the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and the Woolf reforms. It is important that the courts are prepared for those additional pressures.
I want to address a few points that arise from the order. Several right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the case of Starrs v. the procurator fiscal for Linlithgow, which was reported in The Times on 17 November 1999. By an odd coincidence, the lead judgment was given by Lord Reed, who I gather was formerly a junior to my right
hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). The judgment is important, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it has persuasive authority in England and Wales.
The case held that, under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, an individual charged with a crime is entitled to a hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. It held further that a judge who had no security of tenure and whose appointment was subject to annual renewal was not independent within the meaning of article 6. It was, therefore, unlawful for the Crown in Scotland to prosecute an individual before such a judge. The case is therefore persuasive in England and Wales.
The Minister has already told the House that, rightly, the Lord Chancellor is considering the judgment. Will she give some idea of when he is likely to come up with proposals arising from such consideration? Do the Government propose to make any changes to the process of appointment of assistant recorders and deputy judges in England and Wales as a result of this important decision? Will the decision mean that Ministers will have to come back to Parliament again in the near future further to increase the number of High Court judges in England and Wales? Does the Minister believe that the increase will lead to additional pressures in the Court of Appeal? Do the Government believe that additional judges should be appointed to that court?
We want justice that is open to all. It must be scrupulously impartial and fair. It must also be swift. We support the order.
Mr. Dalyell:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My curiosity overcomes me. Why, in a highly pertinent, relevant and important speech, can the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) get away with commenting on what happens in my constituency, but I am shut up? By what reasoning did that happen?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
It is because the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) related his remarks much more directly to the case in England and Wales, which is before the House.
Jane Kennedy:
To be sure that I am in order, I seek the leave of the House to respond to the debate--although I am not entirely sure that it is necessary.
This is an important debate, and I am grateful for the points that have been raised. I shall start by responding to those made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who was the first to ask me about the impact of the Scottish decision. The issue impacts on the English and Welsh jurisdiction, but there is no fixed number of deputy High Court judges. Any qualified person can be appointed temporarily by the Lord Chancellor. Therefore, the figure that he asked me for cannot be simply given.
Jane Kennedy:
I hope that I shall have that answer before I finish my speech. If I cannot get it, I shall write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
I shall address the issue of temporary sheriffs and the Scottish decision before quickly dealing with points raised by various hon. Members. If I misled my hon. Friend the
Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I apologise to him. Of course the Lord Chancellor is not reviewing the decision of the Scottish court. He has no power to do so. However, he is considering its effects on English part-time judges--deputy district judges. In that sense, the decision will have an effect. I am not in a position to answer the question put to me by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) about exactly when the Lord Chancellor will respond to such consideration, although it is urgent.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) raised three issues with me. I shall respond to them with as much charm as I am able--perhaps to make up for his lack of it. [Interruption.] It has been four and a half years since I have been free to rise to my feet to speak in the House, so I might be a little rocky.
When the hon. Gentleman asked me about the implications of the compliance cost assessment, I had at first absolutely no idea what he was referring to. I believe that he is means the compliance cost assessment for each Bill. At this stage, I am unable to answer his detailed question and I could not answer on behalf of the Departments who took through the Bills to which he referred.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the information requested by the shadow Lord Chancellor in the other place. Lord Bach has written to Lord Kingsland and the letter was sent on 17 November. I undertake to ensure that a copy of the letter is placed in the Library, as promised.
On the issue of judicial review, it is true that there has been an enormous increase in its use. The Human Rights Act will, by its very nature, generate more use of judicial review: as people become more aware of their rights and seek to exercise them, we expect an exponential growth in the use of judicial review. In the short term, there will be more such cases, but, as the system gets used to the operation of the Act, we expect the flow to steady as public authorities become used to considering human rights issues as they conduct their business.
10.43 pm
10.46 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |