Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-109)
RT HON
LORD FALCONER
OF THOROTON,
MP, AND SIR
HAYDEN PHILLIPS
GCB
30 JUNE 2003
Q100 Mr Clappison: I know you cannot
comment on individual cases, but I have certainly had a lot of
comments to me as a Member of Parliament about one particular
case recently in which the judge himself felt moved to comment
about the costs which had been run up and the number of lawyers
involved in the case and the nature of the case itself. I am referring
here to the case of the Lithuanian asylum seeker who brought an
action about the quality of the accommodation which they were
offered. The sums of money which have been reported in the press
as being involved in that case in terms of Legal Aid have been
very large sums indeed. Do you have any comment that you can make
generally about cases like that where judges themselves feel moved
to comment about the quantity of costs which are involved and
the nature of the case involved?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In
the immigration and asylum area, as an area of law that has rapidly
expanded over the last few years. It is plain from comments made
by judges in particular cases that the expenditure on that area
could be much better targeted. It is a very important area, people
do need proper representation, but we need to be sure that the
money that is being spent there is well targeted on ensuring that
the representation is effective and also not something where the
same point comes up again and again, maybe put in a different
way in relation to the same people. It is plain that work needs
to be on that issue.
Q101 Peter Bottomley: While you hold
judicial responsibilities can you make it plain to the Court Service
and to others that local newspapers have a right to know the listings
in courts and that public coverage and media coverage of what
goes on in our courts, subject to the obvious reporting restrictions
or children's cases, is part of our open judicial system?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Putting
aside the special cases which we all know about, yes, plainly
courts must co-operate in making it clear what cases are coming
on and when because if they do not then the principle of open
justice gets, in effect, subverted.
Q102 Peter Bottomley: Before turning
to ecclesiastical matters, I need to declare that I am married
to a lay canon of Guildford Cathedral, I was for six years a trustee
of Christian Aid and I have had lots of other church links as
well as 50 years as a sinner in Westminster Abbey. Can I ask how
you plan to deal with the responsibilities of the holder of your
office in relation to the 500 livings or thereabouts to which
you have the advowson?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The
Lord Chancellor has a number of significant roles in relation
to ecclesiastical matters, the 500 livings: he is an ex officio
church commissioner, he has a special place in relation to the
passing of ecclesiastical law, he appoints people who sit in consistory
courts, so he has a particular function which in very many cases
is because he is somebody who is independent of the Church. I
do not know what the best way to deal with those particular roles
that he performs is, but we need to work out a solution in consultation
with everybody but particularly the Church. We intend, as we made
clear last week, to come forward in September with a detailed
consultation paper about the other roles of the Lord Chancellor
apart from those in relation to the judicial system and the court
system. The ecclesiastical aspects of it are important and need
to be dealt with properly and fully and in a way that gives people
confidence that those roles are properly dealt with.
Q103 Peter Bottomley: Can I suggest
to you that when that happens there should not be a rush to abolish
Royal peculiars.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Royal
peculiars were raised by me this morning by the Dean of Westminster
and they will obviously need to be considered very carefully as
well.
Q104 Keith Vaz: On the subject of
immigration appeals, Lord Chancellor, you are aware of the letter
that Baroness Scotland sent to the adjudicators just before the
reshuffle. Basically she wrote to everybody involved in immigration
appeals asking for their views on whether the IAT should be abolished.
Do you have any views on that?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This
is the issue about whether there should be a single tier in effect.
There is much to be said for reducing the complication of the
process as long as there is proper judicial scrutiny given to
each individual case.
Q105 Keith Vaz: But part of the problem,
and the Committee is obviously investigating immigration appeals,
is because of the Home Office backlog. Are you going to seek to
try and reinvigorate the relationship between the three departments
to make sure there is a better flow of cases?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes,
we do need to have a very close working relationship in relation
to those issues and a relationship that really works in getting
the cases through the system because one of the problems obviously
is that the system is not perceived to be working that well.
Q106 Keith Vaz: Underlining the points
made by my colleagues about the delay, last Friday my office tried
20 different firms of solicitors to find a solicitor who was going
to do immigration Legal Aid work and eventually we found somebody
to represent a constituent. Will you undertake in the next year,
despite your very heavy commitments, to visit a busy Legal Aid
practice to see for yourself and hear for yourself what the practitioners
are going through?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Of
course, and I hope I will be able to visit more than one during
that period. I can certainly give the undertaking you seek.
Q107 Peter Bottomley: Many of us
will have enjoyed the mild apathy which some believed followed
the Lord Chancellor being brought in on judicial appointments
to try to give that some independence. Obviously there is a debate
and there are changes in progress to the responsibilities of the
whole of the Lord Chancellor's office. The title itself has a
great deal of history. Is abolishing the title something where
there is a prejudiced and closed mind or do you think Government
and the House of Lords might be willing to see whether the title
should be used as the Privy Seal's title of Lord President of
the Council in some way which might provide some continuity and
recognise tradition as well as change?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In
the debates that there has been in the Lords since the 12 June
about the speakership there have been views expressed by a number
of peers, Baroness Williams of Crosby is one, saying keep the
title of Lord Chancellor perhaps as the title of the role of the
person who sits in the Speaker's chair. I think the critical thing
to do is to make sure that the current role of the Lord Chancellor
is fundamentally changed. I wonder whether, having done that,
it would then be possible to keep the role of Lord Chancellor
without there being confusion. In other words, if you completely
change the role of the Lord Chancellor I would expect the most
sensible thing to do then is to abolish the role of Lord Chancellor,
but as Gareth Williams said in the House of Lords, nothing is
ruled out. Clarity suggests that one does that particularly if
one is changing the role, but Gareth made it clear that nothing
was ruled out and obviously that is the position of the Government.
Q108 Chairman: There have been a
few changes in the role of Lord Chancellor in the course of its
many centuries of existence.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes,
but evolving it from its current role to becoming the title of
the Speaker of the House of Lords, which is Baroness Williams'
suggestion, is nothing like what has happened before to it and
it is not an evolutionary process, it is giving somebody a title
they have never had before.
Q109 Chairman: On that diversionary
note I think we will end our session. I apologise that we had
to interrupt it. Thank you very much indeed.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Thank
you very much.
| 
