| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): I welcome the early sight of the proposals and, as the Minister knows, I welcome the overall thrust of the Government's plans for judicial reform. I am, however, highly critical of the peremptory way in which they have been introduced and the desultory consultation to date. In that context, I welcome the armed truce between the Lord Chancellor and the senior judiciary, not least the Lord Chief Justice—albeit at a price. May I gently tell the Minister that that should have been the starting point in the genesis of the legislation, not a point reached shortly before the Bill is to be published?
On judicial independence, how does the Minister view elevating protection for the concept in statute to ensure that it is not subject to later attack by primary or, indeed, secondary legislation? Will he confirm that secondary legislation will be disqualified under the terms of the proposals? Will he clarify the role of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs? The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) mentioned the collective responsibility of the Cabinet and the interchangeable role of Secretaries of State. It is essential to have a clear statutory basis for the particular position of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. How does the Minister expect to achieve that through the Bill? Will the staff of the Supreme Court and the Judicial Appointments Commission fall outside the remit of the civil service? Will they be civil servants—will they be seconded from the Minister's Department—or will they be entirely independent?
I welcome the Minister's retreat on the composition of the appointing committee for judicial appointments and, indeed, the appointment of Dame Rennie Fritchie, who I think will make an excellent chair. However, I question the continuing role of the Secretary of State in
judicial discipline. Why should the Secretary of State have any role in the new format for judicial discipline other than the final point of recommendation to the Queen for the removal of a judge? The Minister mentioned the rules of court. Can he confirm that the only Secretary of State involved in the consideration of those rules will be the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs—no other Secretary of State, and certainly not the Secretary of State for the Home Department?There are several question marks about the proposed legislation. The Government have not thought through their proposals: they have not thought about the Scottish dimension or the location of the Supreme Court; and there are many other unanswered questions. When does the Minister expect to bring forward and publish a Bill? When he does so, will he have completed not just the present consultations and discussions with the senior judiciary but those required with the Scottish judiciary and the Scottish Executive and with the many other people who take a real and genuine interest in the proposals?
Mr. Leslie: May I first thank the hon. Gentleman for at least recognising that there is benefit from having a clear partnership between the Lord Chief Justice and the Secretary of State? We believed that it was important to draw that agreement to the attention of Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman asked several detailed questions about the statutory duty, which we envisage as applying not just to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, specifically to uphold judicial independence, but to the whole of the Government, including the civil service, to respect and maintain such independence. Enshrining that in a more formal manner is a step forward, and I believe that most hon. Members will welcome it. It will apply to secondary legislation, which also amounts to proposals by Ministers, but I know that that particular duty will be debated further, as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) highlighted earlier.
We believe that it is important to have a separate general duty on the wider Government. We have debated the general interchangeability of the Secretary of State as a generic term, but we also feel that there should be a particular responsibility on this particular Secretary of State. That was regarded as one of the better elements of the current system, which we believe can be brought forward to the new one.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the staffing of the Judicial Appointments Commission and the Supreme Court. We have not announced our final policy conclusions on the Supreme Court today, but we are aware of the need to resource and supply finance for the staffing and running of those bodies. Parliament will want to hold the person accountable for that expenditure. We are working with the judiciary and others to establish what might be the best form of accountability. It might be provided through the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, but there might well be other mechanisms.
Discipline and conduct arrangements for the judiciary are clearly sensitive issues. We must ensure that we respect independence, but also secure public accountability, on behalf of our constituents, when it
comes to any misbehaviour or malpractice in a court. That will be the joint responsibility of the Secretary of State and the Lord Chief Justice, because of the need for accountability. There will be concurrent agreement between the judiciary and the Government at almost every stage in respect of discipline.Rules of court are very important. We expect them normally to be the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. I am not aware of any specific provision preventing the involvement of other Secretaries of State, but I will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
I have no date for the announcement of legislation, but I hope that that will be done shortly.
Mr. Clive Soley (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush) (Lab): I welcome the statement as another logical step in the process of constitutional reform—not least because since long before I entered the House I have found it difficult to explain or justify the fact that an active member of a political party can also be the head of the judiciary in Britain. The fact that during my lifetime that person has generally been a member of the Conservative party may explain some of the opposition that we are hearing today.
Because the detail is so important, may I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that he and his colleagues in the House of Lords are receptive to any changes that are needed? The devil is often in the detail when it comes to legislation of this kind.
Mr. Leslie: That is certainly true, and it will be a significant piece of legislation when we produce it. We have placed a number of documents in the Libraries of both Houses today to ensure that there is widespread awareness of the current proposals, and we will welcome comments on the responses we have received so far and the conclusions we have reached.
My hon. Friend has a reforming instinct, and I too feel that it is wrong for a politician to be at the heart of the judiciary. This is an important reform, which will put the judiciary on an independent and much stronger footing.
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con): Has the Minister estimated the cost of the new commission? Will there also be a new commission in Northern Ireland, and how much will it cost? Will there be a new ombudsman's office, and how much will that cost? Who will determine the budgets? Will they be determined by the commission itself, because it is independent, or by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Mr. Leslie: Parliament will determine the amount of the resources that it votes for these purposes: that is where the ultimate responsibility lies. Of course there will be additional resource requirements for a brand new Judicial Appointments Commission, which we expect to be about £2 million or £3 million. I consider that a price well worth paying for a much more transparent process of judicial appointment, rather than a cloaked or behind-the-scenes arrangement—albeit one that has worked well to date. It is important for us to make progress, and other matters referred to in the statement
need not give rise to excessive costs. They will be covered by existing resources, as planned. There will be resource implications, however, and we will keep the House informed of them.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) (Lab): The Minister will forgive me if I did not pick this up at the time, but the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked about the position of the Scottish judiciary. What, indeed, is the position of Lord Hope of Craighead and others?
Is the Minister entirely comfortable with the idea of some paragon who is not a lawyer or a judge being chairman of an appointments commission? I must say that, as a layman, I would not have the impertinence to make judgments on the merits of lawyers. Surely that must be done by a lawyer. Who the heck is he, or am I, to make such a judgment?
Mr. Leslie: Far be it from me to say to the Father of the House that he is not capable of performing any of those functions—I believe that he probably would be if he were to turn his mind to it. I do not think that it is an impertinence to have lay involvement in the appointment of the judiciary. It is important to broaden out the appointments process, open the doors and involve the public in it as much as possible so that we have more clarity and transparency and so that it is not something that is distant from the rest of the world. We should reconnect the judiciary with the public, so such lay involvement is important. My hon. Friend should not be so bashful in underestimating the ability of lay members.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |