| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Judicial Reform
27. Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): What the Lord Chancellor's plans are for reform of the English judiciary; and if he will make a statement. [128473]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Government intend to establish an independent judicial appointments commission in order to create a more open and transparent method of appointing judges. We also intend to create a new supreme court for the United Kingdom to separate the highest appeal court from the legislature. Consultation on those proposals closes on 7 November.
Mr. Ruffley: Will the Minister confirm that in appointing judges the judicial appointments commission will not operate a quota system—either formally or informally—for certain groups?
Mr. Leslie: Yes, that is absolutely our intention. We want not quotas, but appointments on merit.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): On occasions, which are bound to arise, when it proves impossible for the future judicial appointments commission to reach consensus on proposed candidates for appointment, does the Minister envisage that there will be scope for votes?
Mr. Leslie: I presume that it will be for the new independent judicial appointments commission—we have tentatively suggested that it should comprise about 15 members: five from the judiciary, five from the legal profession and five from the non-legal sector—to undertake its own deliberations in the manner that it sees fit. We shall have to see whether that level of detail—providing for equal division—needs to be brought out in the response to the consultation. I am immensely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for focusing on that specific point.
Supreme Court
28. Mr. George Osborne (Tatton): What the estimated cost is of establishing and maintaining a supreme court. [128474]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): As the consultation document on the creation of a supreme court makes clear, we are currently considering options on the accommodation and infrastructure requirements for the new court. Whatever option is chosen, it will have to deliver value for money.
Mr. Osborne : I am disappointed that the Minister could not provide an answer. Surely he should have some idea of how much something will cost before proposing it to Parliament.
Mr. Leslie: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to the Opposition Whips Office—an immensely important post for him given his quick rise. The new supreme court will need to be housed outside the Palace of Westminster and we shall consult the present Law Lords, among others, on the requirements for accommodation. We do not want the supreme court to be an extravagant institution, but neither should it be done on the cheap. It should be fit for the purposes envisaged for the highest court in the land.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire): Will the new system be more expensive?
Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman should have heard the answer that I gave. I do not believe that we should have an extravagant system for the supreme court, nor one put together on the cheap. We want to ensure that the supreme court will be fit for its purposes, so we shall consult those who will work in it and who understand how the highest court in the land will operate on the necessary costs of administration and infrastructure.
Judiciary (Political Independence)
29. Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire): What recent representations he has received on the protection of the political independence of the judiciary. [128475]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): We currently have judges of complete independence, probity and the very highest ability. The Government believe that they must continue to be independent, of both the Executive and the legislature. Proposals for an independent judicial appointments commission and a new supreme court have been published. Responses to the consultation documents that were published in July are still being received, as the consultation period finishes on 7 November.
Mr. Luff : Does the Minister understand that those of us with experience of other so-called independent appointments commissions, such as those in the NHS—
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Or the Whips Office.
Mr. Luff: Or the Whips Office, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) suggests. We have seen that the results have been completely distorted by the criteria laid down by Ministers. The commissions cannot be truly independent. I urge the Minister to reflect again on whether the proposals will genuinely enhance the independence of the judiciary.
Mr. Leslie: I understand the warnings from the hon. Gentleman, but surely the House will support moves towards a more independent, transparent, open and accessible appointments system for the judiciary. I believe that that is possible, and so far I have not heard anyone oppose it.
LEADER OF THE HOUSE
The Leader of the House was asked—
Select Committee Chairmen (Pay Review)
32. Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): When he expects to respond to the Senior Salaries Pay Review Body's report on the remuneration of House of Commons Select Committee Chairmen. [128478]
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): When I laid the SSRB's report on pay for Select Committee Chairmen in the House of Commons before the House on 17 July, I stated that I intended to discuss the matter widely and to reflect on hon. Members' views before deciding on the terms of a motion to be put before the House in the autumn. Subject to the demands of parliamentary business, and to the completion of the examination by the Committee on Standards and Privileges of the issue of Chairmen's outside interests, I hope that we will find time for a debate as soon as possible after the conference recess, and certainly before the end of the Session. It will then be for the House to decide on its response to the SSRB's report.
Sir Nicholas Winterton : I thank the Leader of the House for that response. Does he accept that the payment of Select Committee Chairmen must not be seen as an extension of patronage? With that in mind, will he consider looking again at how Select Committee Chairmen are appointed, and ensuring that such appointments are made by a committee divorced from the Executive and the Whips Offices? In that way, Back-Bench Members can take control of the process and the remuneration will offer a way to an alternative career structure for Members of this House.
Mr. Hain: I very much agree that there should be a properly remunerated parallel career structure. If I may quibble, however, I would not necessarily use the term "alternative". People can move between the two occupations, as we have seen recently. But proper remuneration is important, and that will be a matter for the House.
On the question of patronage, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who was an excellent Chairman of the Health Committee in a previous Parliament. He gave a very good example of how to defy patronage. [Interruption.] Opposition Members mention my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is indeed an excellent Select Committee Chairman. In a sense, she has found her place by defying any laws of patronage. I do not think that patronage is the real issue. The issue considered by the SSRB was whether remuneration was proper, and in what form it should be implemented.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): Does the Leader of the House recall that the Select Committee on Modernisation's recommendation incorporated direct reference to greater independence and effectiveness in Select Committees, so that Chairmen genuinely earned their salaries? In those circumstances, does he think it proper for a Secretary of State for Defence to lean on the
Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to try and secure a particular type of questioning in the recent inquiry? Does that improve the Committee's independence? Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it extraordinary that the evidence placed before that Committee was so lacking in comprehensive coverage of the issue, given what has been exposed by the Hutton inquiry?
Mr. Hain: Those matters are, of course, for the Hutton inquiry, but the hon. Gentleman should not demean the role of Select Committees, which play, in investigating and in holding the Executive to account, a vital part that the Government welcome and encourage.
Laptop Computers
34. Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde): What plans he has to make further recommendations to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on the use of laptop computers in Standing Committees of the House. [128481]
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Select Committee on Information. He is also a member of the Speaker's advisory panel.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has made no recommendations to the Modernisation Committee on the use of laptop computers in Standing Committees. He is aware that some Members would like their use to be permitted, but the Chairmen's Panel has concerns about the matter.
Mr. Jack : While I thank the Minister for his kind words and his answer, does he not think that it would be timely for the Modernisation Committee to consider the situation now? Use of laptops is permitted in Select Committees, and a recent report has shown their advantages. However, that facility is not afforded to Members undertaking the detailed work of Standing Committees. Does the Minister not think that the time is right to consider that point, perhaps in concert with the Information Committee?
Mr. Woolas: At present, that is a matter for individual Select Committees, although I share the view that there may well be advantages to the use of laptops as new technologies develop. The House may be interested to know that there are proposals for Members to have access to PDAs, which I understand to be personal digital assistants. The mind boggles about what the sketch writers will make of that, but new technology has an element of inevitability about it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |