| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Judicial Reform
22. Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North): What consultation processes involving hon. Members he plans for his proposals for (a) a Supreme Court, (b) an independent judicial appointments commission and (c) the future of the rank of Queen's Counsel. [128465]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The three consultation papers are available to all Members in the Vote Office, and views are of course most welcome as part of the consultation process. We will also endeavour to work closely with the departmental Select Committee, and make all responses available to it at the end of the consultation.
Mr. Allen: I commend my hon. Friend for presenting three proposals that appeared in past Labour party manifestos. That is a high strike rate, which I hope my hon. Friend will continue.
What involvement will there be with Parliament itself during the consultation, and in particular with the new Constitutional Affairs Select Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)? Would it not be a good idea to involve Members of Parliament, and also to involve members of the public by putting the process online so that everyone could discuss it rather than one or two insiders?
Mr. Leslie: The noises off from the shadow Leader of the House, revolting against the concept of online consultation, clearly reflect his enthusiasm for that particular element of modernisation.
I understand my hon. Friend's point. It is important for all sections of society to be involved as much as possible—not least hon. Members, who are never backward in coming forward with their views.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): Should not one of the first ways of involving Members through the Select Committee be to take careful note of what the Committee said about the experience in Scotland of setting up a judicial appointments commission? Is it not clear that that body's manifest independence from both
the parent Department and the political process has been very important in ensuring its acceptance by the judiciary and others? Is it not also important to resolve the difficulty mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), which still exists in the Scottish system, of ensuring that the fact that ultimately appointments are made on the advice of Ministers does not enable Ministers to become involved in a process that is supposed to be independent?
Mr. Leslie: The right hon. Gentleman makes some interesting points. Like the Chairman of the departmental Select Committee, I think it vital that we have a dialogue with the Committee as the proposals evolve. I also agree that it is important to investigate the method of appointment in great detail. According to one model, appointments would go straight from the commission to the Crown; according to another, the single recommendation would go to Ministers and then, formally, to the Crown, which would preserve ministerial accountability to Parliament. That is another important issue with which I know the Committee will be concerned.
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith): Notwithstanding the virtues of the Scottish independent system for appointing judges, will my hon. Friend note that in many people's opinion the appointments made by the independent commission have resulted in the appointment of more or less the same type of people as before, although perhaps they are slightly more conservative with a small "c" than their predecessors. Will my hon. Friend draw lessons from that experience when considering the introduction of an appointment system for England and Wales—and, indeed, for the supreme court?
Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend is right: a much more diverse judiciary is certainly desirable. We must preserve appointment on merit, but I do not believe that the two are incompatible. If we have a new judicial appointments commission drawn from a wider spectrum of society, it is more likely that candidates will be appointed from a larger pool, and I hope that that will happen.
Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West): The point that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) was trying to make is that if we move to a commission-based system, we will be less likely to see some of the bold, good appointments that have been made in the past two or three decades. If the Minister is going to take the Select Committee system seriously, could he try to give the Committee a clear answer as to whether the Prime Minister consulted either the previous Lord Chancellor or the current one before announcing the proposed changes to the appointment of judges?
Mr. Leslie: There are of course always full consultations between all Cabinet members before policy announcements are made, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should think otherwise. I disagree with his view that a commission is somehow less likely to appoint bold, more interesting people to the judiciary. There is no evidence for that, and as we
develop policy we want to ensure that we have the capability to introduce a diverse range of potential candidates, but also those of the highest possible calibre.Judicial Appointments
23. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East): How many judicial appointments the Lord Chancellor has made since 15 June. [128467]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): Since the Lord Chancellor was appointed on 12 June, he has made or recommended 435 appointments.
Keith Vaz : May I, through the Minister, congratulate the Lord Chancellor on his assiduousness in appointing so many people, under a system that the Minister has today accepted is flawed? Given the evidence that the Lord Chancellor gave to the Select Committee, in which he said that he wanted to see a new breed of person appointed to the Bench, could the Minister tell the House how many of those 400-odd appointments accurately reflect the Lord Chancellor's views?
Mr. Leslie: Each of the appointments made is of the highest calibre. I would say not that the current appointments system is flawed, but that there are anachronistic elements, in so far as the system manifestly involves politicians. I believe that we should move away from that state of affairs. There are a large number of appointments, but it is certainly true that different types of people have been appointed, most of whom are magistrates. When the annual report on judicial appointments is published, it will include more detail about the nature of the people appointed.
Court Closures (East Anglia)
24. Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk): What recent representations he has received from magistrates courts in East Anglia about proposed court closures. [128468]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): There are currently no plans for any court closures in East Anglia, and we have received no representations on this issue.
Mr. Bellingham : Surely for justice to be seen to be done, it is highly desirable that most defendants be tried by magistrates as near as possible to the scene of the crime. Furthermore, the majority of members of the lay magistracy joined only because they wanted to sit in courts in their local towns. So why are the Government still giving the go-ahead to the closure of small magistrates courts in small towns—including some in Norfolk—that has taken place during the past six years? Do they not believe in the lay magistracy, and why are they undermining the morale of lay magistrates?
Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman has asked this question on three occasions in the past year and he is about to get the same reply. It is right and proper that magistrates live locally, but it is clear that we cannot have courts in every town. This Government closed six courts this year and seven last year; in the last year of the their Administration, the Conservatives closed 21.
House of Lords Reform
26. Mr. Clive Soley (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush): If he will make a further statement on reform of the House of Lords. [128471]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Government published their response to the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform on 16 July. We are considering a variety of the issues raised, and we intend to consult on the role of the appointments commission in the near future.
Mr. Soley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he do everything possible to ensure that the Joint Committee can continue its work? That is necessary in part because there are many, relatively straightforward reforms that we can carry out—not least of which is dealing with Members of the House of Lords who can still peg their seats and legislate, despite having criminal convictions. But more importantly in the long run, reform of the House of Lords has to be agreed between and within the two Houses, and the only way to deliver that is through the Joint Committee's continuing its work, and working by consent within that procedure.
Mr. Leslie: Of course my hon. Friend is right, and the Government are more than content to see the Joint Committee continue its work of examining the issues and recommendations. We are grateful for the work of drafting and producing the second report, to which the Government responded earlier in the year. It was a useful summary of the debate and, as I said in my earlier answer, we now want to consult on the role of the judicial appointments commission for those appointed to the House of Lords. We hope to make further announcements in the near future.
Mr. Chris Bryant (Rhondda): My hon. Friend will know of rumours in the national newspapers suggesting that the Government are going to introduce a de minimis Bill, which would effectively bring about a wholly appointed second Chamber. The Government's response to the Joint Committee's paper seemed to be pushing in the same direction. I am sure that my hon. Friend is well aware that that option received the fewest votes in this Chamber, so will he ensure that it is not the option that the Government bring forward?
Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend has far too great a stature to comment on rumours surfacing in national newspapers. I shall not do so, and my hon. Friend will have to wait to see what proposals we introduce. We have a new Department and a new ministerial team, and
we are keen to move forward. We do not believe that the status quo is desirable, but I repeat that my hon. Friend will have to wait and see what proposals we introduce.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |