| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Lembit Öpik: There may be another, less crisis-laden explanation. Liberal Democrats are, on the whole, seeking to codify some aspects of the structures of government and the law, which in our view have been left somewhat ad hoc. I do not want to put words into Lord Goodhart's mouth, but I think he would say that as it is strategically right to make that change, and as we have the opportunity to do it now, Liberal Democrats would be loth to pass up that opportunity, because we do not know when we will get another chance.
Mr. Trimble: I do not get the impression that the noble Lord's approach was as laid back as that, because he emphasised the urgent need to get the commission in position. As I said, I was interested in the fact that he conceded that things had been all right under the two previous Lord Chancellors. Whatever criticisms we might make of those two people, they knew what it was to behave in a judicial manner, and they acted with complete probity over judicial appointments. I shall eschew the temptation to adopt or repeat the personal observations recently made by the Lord Chief Justice about the present incumbent, because he now tells us that those should not be treated too seriously.
Mr. Trimble: "Cheerful" was the word, I think, but I presume that the hon. Gentleman has some superior knowledge of the gentleman in question, and I am quite happy to defer to him in that respect.
As we have already heard, the Bill says that merit is to be the sole basis for appointment. This is where concern about ideas of balance, representation and reflectiveness arises, because of the tension that exists. It is because I saw that tension reflected in the comment made by the
hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that I mentioned earlier that I am returning to that subject. The merit principle must operate purely on an individual basis, when there is a vacancy, with regard to that particular vacancy. It should be—indeed it is, and has been for some time—enshrined in legislation.I am not so sure what happened in the 1990s, but I recall that in the 1980s, when we had measures to ensure that appointments were made purely on merit, it seemed rather strange that with High Court appointments, the merit principle always seemed to produce first a Catholic, then a Protestant, then another Catholic, then another Protestant. It was a remarkable coincidence that the merit principle produced alternate Catholics and Protestants, and never a Jew—but thereby hangs another tale. I hope that the merit principle will be properly vindicated in practice, and that it will not be merely the subject of lip service. However, I fear that notions of representativeness, group approaches and implicit quotas will mean that the merit principle will not be fully observed in practice.
Mr. Mallon: May I pose again the question that I put to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds)? I do not have the same insight into the other place as the right hon. Gentleman, nor the same access to legal tittle-tattle. However, he consistently distinguishes between the non-political appointments system that exists at present, and the potential political element in appointments under the proposed system. Is he saying that senior appointments made under the present system are not essentially political in nature? I do not believe that it is possible to make any appointment that does not have a political configuration—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I think I am bound to remind the hon. Gentleman that he is making an intervention, not a second speech.
Mr. Trimble: The point made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh is not unexpected, as it is consistent with his earlier comments about the concept of merit. That is something about which we can argue, but I am concerned that he approaches the concept of merit in a way that allows a host of other factors to be taken into consideration. He pointed out an apparent contradiction in my argument, but I repeat that I prefer the present arrangements to the proposed appointments commission, as political considerations are less likely to be an influence under the present system. As I said, however, I am remarkably impressed by the evident coincidence that attaches to appointments in Northern Ireland.
I can say no more, as I am not privy to much judicial or legal tittle-tattle these days. Perhaps a person with greater to access to such tittle-tattle would be able to say more about these matters, but I hasten to point out that I do not have that access.
I have already set out the dangers of the proposed judicial appointments commission. They worry me because the proposal reduces the opportunity for someone to see the matter in the round, as the Lord Chancellor does at present.
Problems will arise in future if the Government's proposals for the legal system are carried through. I hope that they will not succeed in abolishing the post of
Lord Chancellor, but if they do we will have problems when it comes to making appointments. The post of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs is different from that of Lord Chancellor, and the nature of the people likely to occupy that post will also be different. That is a huge problem, with its own dangers. The debate has been largely good-humoured, but I am seriously disturbed at the Government's approach to these important matters. They display an appalling amateurishness and lack of understanding of the structures with which they are dealing. I am really worried about the vandalism being wreaked on our political, judicial and legal systems by the way in which the Government are proceeding.
David Burnside: Can my right hon. Friend explain for the education of a non-lawyer how, if and when the appointments were made—which I hope will not be for a long, long time, if ever—they would be more or less political if made according to the commission proposals than if they were made by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister: positions held in the Executive following the Belfast agreement by my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)?
Mr. Trimble: The conclusion of the points that I was making is that I should be opposed to vesting in a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister the functions in the measure. Part of the reason why I came to that conclusion arose from reflections on the way that the structure will—perhaps not intentionally but inadvertently—implicitly bring many political considerations into play. If, as is likely, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister were from different political parties with fundamentally different political objectives, it is difficult to see how those appointments could be anything other than the result of an overtly political or quasi-political negotiation. That is a serious problem for the future.
I do not know how long it will be before the institutions in Northern Ireland are up and running again; it may be some time, but I suspect that they will be and that those structures will function at some point in the future and that there will be huge difficulties in their operation. I say that as someone who is still broadly in favour of the devolution of policing and criminal justice matters—in the right circumstances, which we do not have at present. However, I am concerned that the structures that we are building into the system and the structure of the judicial appointments commission will produce too great a political influence.
That is the core of our reason for supporting the reasoned amendment. I shall not go through the clauses in detail, nor shall I discuss the provisions towards which we take a more welcoming view. My speech was not intended to be of such length, but that is how it developed. I hope that the Government will give us the opportunity in Committee to have a broad debate on these matters and to include other provisions that cannot come under the long title. I hope, too, that, through what will happen elsewhere, we shall have the opportunity thoroughly to examine the concepts that
underlie the Bill and that they can be thought about again and radically changed, and that the Bill—or Act, as it may be by then—will be brought into line with them.5.13 pm
Mr. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House not only for the fact that was I darting in and out of the Chamber earlier, but because I may have to dart out again before the conclusion of the debate. Very much in the style of employment in the 21st century and the precepts of new Labour, I am multi-tasking between this place, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs and the Tobacco Workers Alliance, just along the Corridor.
I am acutely aware of the fact that no words instil a greater sense of dread and foreboding in the House than those contained in the sentence, "I shall be brief". I shall in fact be brief, although in the context of this debate, I realise that we have moved on somewhat from the days of Timothy Michael Healy and Joseph Biggar, who felt that anything less than five hours was a mere clearing of the throat and anything less than 15 hours did not deserve a sidebar in the Freeman's Journal, but—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind amidst his busy duties that it is a courtesy to the House to sit for the whole of the speech after his own, which may of course last any number of hours.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |