| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6 pm
Mr. Swayne : I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 25, leave out clause 5.
The amendment would preserve the status quo, which requires the Lord Chief Justice's agreement to be sought and obtained before the sacking or suspension of any judge, as set out in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. In the other place, clause 5 proved to be the most controversial clause. It was removed, but it was reinstated in Committee in this House.
The removal of a judge in England and Wales requires a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Strangely, the Northern Ireland Act 2000 gives no role whatever to the elected Assembly, and places the key decision in the hands of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. In order to provide a proper check and safeguard for that novel constitutional model, the 2002 Act requires the Lord Chief Justice's agreement, which is, in effect, a veto over the process. That provision strikes me as eminently sensible, given our paramount concern for the independence of the judiciary. Now, only two years later, the Minister requests the removal of that veto. His request is based on neither a powerful argument that we got it wrong in 2002 nor experience gained from the system's bedding in. In Committee, he simply said that it is, in his view, "inconceivable" that the veto will ever be used, and that we should therefore take it away.
The Minister's request prompts two questions. First, if it is inconceivable that the veto will ever be exercised, why table a new clause in Committee to remove it? In Committee, the Minister responded to that question by stating that he favours tidiness in the law, that the veto is unlikely to be used, that it is redundant and that it should therefore be removed. Secondly, if the veto is inconceivable and wholly redundant, why was it given to the Lord Chief Justice only two years ago in the 2002 Act? The Minister replied that he did not know why because he did not serve on the Standing Committee for the 2002 Act.
The Minister's performance in Committee was so unconvincing that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) speculated that clause 5 might be based on special pleading:
26 Apr 2004 : Column 672
"I want to put a specific and important question to the Minister: were any representations made to the Government on this change, and if so by whom? Where has this come from?"
"I will have to get back to the right hon. Gentleman."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25 March 2004; c. 61.]
I do not know whether special information was imparted.
Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The Minister promised to get back to me, and he treated that promise with the same seriousness that he treated his promise to give us the details of arrangements that we debated in Committee. In other words, he has not kept the promise—at least, not so far—and I would be surprised if he were to say anything more coherent than his previous contributions.
Mr. Swayne: The matter is remarkably suspicious. Their lordships removed this key clause, which the Government think so important that they brought it back and forced it through Standing Committee. There has been complete silence on the rationale for clause 5, which prompts this obvious question: what are the Government trying to hide?
The procedure is novel, and I am prepared to admit that such a situation would be rare—it may never happen, and one hopes that it will not. It is admittedly unlikely that the Lord Chief Justice would seek to veto a decision largely based on the work of a commission set up by him, but we are not clairvoyant and cannot read what may or may not happen to that novel constitutional procedure in future. A veto was given to the Lord Chief Justice in the 2002 Act, and if its sudden removal is not based on an argument or experience, the Minister owes us a powerful explanation, which we have certainly not had.
Lembit Öpik: As the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) rightly said, clause 5 was removed in the House of Lords. The Government have not made an adequate case for changing the procedure, and clause 5 means that the involvement of the Lord Chief Justice in suspending or removing judges in Northern Ireland will be different from the involvement of the Lord Chief Justice in similar circumstances in England and Wales. Why change the system in one place, but not in another?
More profoundly, if the Minister is so determined to change a provision that was implemented two years ago, why did he not consult all the parties of Northern Ireland to find out what they think? I hope that he can reassure us that there has not been yet another unilateral deal with one side or another. I am sure that the Government are not foolish enough to pursue that path, which has almost always created the most enormous friction and frustrations in the peace process. As the hon. Member for New Forest, West rightly said, the 2002 Act is not yet in force, and we simply do not know whether the arrangements are effective.
In supporting the hon. Member for New Forest, West, I have two questions. First, what is the rationale for repealing an untried provision that was introduced since the general election and within the term of the current Administration? Secondly, if the Government believe that there is no need for the Lord Chief Justice to have such a veto, how do they explain the powerful rationale advanced for it when it was originally introduced? I am
26 Apr 2004 : Column 673
concerned, because if the Minister cannot give us a sound, logical explanation for the Government's approach, it unquestionably reduces our confidence in the changes that he makes.
He must understand that friction and tension will be generated if he proposes for no good reason that the arrangements in Northern Ireland diverge from those in the rest of United Kingdom. I hope that he can reassure us. Certainly, if he provides a powerful rationale for the change with some evidence, albeit circumstantial, I will not oppose it.
Lembit Öpik: Indeed—we must be steady.
Should the Minister fail to provide that rationale and the amendment is pressed to a vote, we will have no alternative other than to do the sensible thing by supporting it.
Mr. Hunter: My hon. Friends and I support the amendment and accept and endorse the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik). We believe that it was right that the Lords reinstated the status quo and gave the Lord Chief Justice the power of veto and we share the hon. Gentleman's incredulity that the Government have not explained why they are making this change. It is essential as a safeguard for the whole system that the Lord Chief Justice should have this reserve power to use in the most exceptional circumstances. We strongly support the amendment—to the point of a Division, if needs be.
Mr. Garnier: We are getting used to this Government changing their mind from time to time. If the Prime Minister can alter over a Sunday lunchtime his view on the necessity of a referendum on the European constitution, we should not criticise too heavily this promising Minister for having changed his mind about the Lord Chief Justice's required agreement to the removal or suspension of a judicial officer. But it strikes me as odd, in the light of the debates on the 2002 Act that took place in Standing Committee. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), who has been transmogrified into the Immigration Minister—he has emigrated from Northern Ireland to an English Department, and good luck to him, as he is a Scottish Member—left behind a perfectly understandable piece of legislation in the 2002 Act, which allows the Lord Chief Justice a lock on the removal of judges. I seem to remember that the Government advanced a perfectly good case for the Lord Chief Justice having that reserve power, and I am not sure that anybody thought it sensible to remove it.
We are now required to accept that the Lord Chief Justice should merely be consulted. The Government have become famous for their ability to consult any number of people while not listening to them. I suspect that, if a judge proved inconvenient to the Northern Ireland Administration, whether under direct rule or devolved rule—in a political climate that perhaps we would not welcome at the moment, but which may come about—the Government would prefer it, politically, if the Lord Chief Justice were merely nodded to rather
26 Apr 2004 : Column 674
than having his views listened to. The Minister has a lot of explaining to do. If he can explain as well as he can promise, he will make a huge stride in adjusting the legal constitution of not only the United Kingdom, but Northern Ireland.
The amendment is not just a minor debating point but deals with a matter of acute seriousness. The removal of judges by a First Minister and Deputy First Minister is a matter of some political significance and should not be done lightly. Merely to consult the Lord Chief Justice, which does not import agreement or consent, is an insufficient safeguard to protect the integrity and independence of the judiciary. That is a simple point that was forcefully put by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). I hope that the Minister will be able to explain this volte-face, U-turn and change of view, which is a complete reversal of the policy that, barely 18 months ago, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun was happy to endorse and which we were prepared to accept on the Floor of the House and in Standing Committee.
6.15 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |