| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Swayne:
I thank the Minister and all the members of the Committee. We debated the Bill extensively, and I extend my thanks to the Clerks, who were helpful during those proceedings.
26 Apr 2004 : Column 710
We voted against the Bill on Second Reading, since when it has got worse rather than better. We do not oppose the principle of the devolution of criminal justice, but it is premature to proceed when there is no Assembly or functioning Executive. The expedient of devolving the criminal justice system will be achieved by transferring the roles of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to the Lord Chancellor. We know that the Government have plans, which are unclear, for the Lord Chancellor's office, and to proceed with that double uncertainty strikes me as monstrous.
The Bill is a missed opportunity. It turns the unobjectionable principle of a judiciary that reflects the community into a threat to the principle of appointment on merit.
The Minister said that that was not so, but we believe that the Bill turns a legitimate expectation into a duty. That compromises the very important principle to which the Minister himself drew attention. When the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Lord Hutton, spoke during the Second Reading of the 2002 Act to which we have so often referred today, he said:
"It is clearly vital that a judge should be appointed on merit alone and that appointments should not be influenced by political considerations. That is all the more important in the highly charged political atmosphere of Northern Ireland. If judges are not appointed on merit the administration of justice will suffer, as will the public confidence in that administration."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 May 2002; Vol. 634, c. 969.]
As we explained earlier, the Bill will give rise to instances whereby affirmative action will step beyond the proper bounds and compromise that principle of appointment on merit.
The Bill compromises the principle of the independence of the judiciary by removing from the Lord Chief Justice his veto over the suspension or sacking of a judge. That veto was given to the Lord Chief Justice only 18 months ago in the 2002 Act. Now the Minister is taking it away—not on the basis of any experience of the system having bedded in and been found wanting, or of some new logic, but merely on the entirely spurious grounds that a judge can be removed only on the basis of the findings of a tribunal. That is already the case. It is a necessary condition, but it might not be a sufficient one.
Why was the veto given in the first place? The Minister has been silent on that—he has been unable to explain it. We believe that the provisions of the Bill are redolent of some special pleading to which we have not been privy during proceedings in Committee or on Report. The removal of the veto is an unwelcome addition to the Bill that would alone be sufficient grounds for me to ask my hon. Friends to oppose it.
The Minister said that the Bill does several desirable things, and he listed them. He is right. The prosecution's right of appeal against magistrates granting bail is desirable. The power of the transfer of prisoners for the maintenance of good order is necessary, too, although that is because of the entirely regrettable abandonment of the integrated regime at Maghaberry prison. Making driving while disqualified an arrestable offence is of course desirable.
But what else might the Bill have done against a whole range of antisocial behaviours? The Minister made the grotesque announcement that in the next few weeks we
26 Apr 2004 : Column 711
can expect him to bring in antisocial behaviour orders by statutory instrument—that is, on the "take it or leave it" basis of a two-and-a-half hour debate Upstairs. The complexity of the orders, the experience of trying to implement them on the mainland and the different circumstances in Northern Ireland cry out for primary legislation. The Bill was the ideal opportunity, but that chance has been missed. It has been rushed through—and for what? What is so urgent as to require that haste and that missed opportunity?
Although the Bill does some desirable things, it muddles others. In seeking to reinforce the seriousness of the offence of perverting the course of justice, it creates a statutory offence with a much lower penalty, which achieves an effect that is precisely the reverse of what was intended. It clouds the human rights advice that can inform the criminal justice system with nebulous concepts of infinite elasticity, which are not subject to our scrutiny and agreement, and it provides unwelcome intrusions into the proper role of the public prosecutor.
In summary, the Bill reeks of concessions to special pleading. It is without any powerful motor, yet it stands to compromise the independence of the judiciary and to undermine confidence in it. I urge all hon. Members to oppose it tonight.
8.45 pm
Mr. Mallon: It is my intention to vote with the Government on the Bill. I have voted with them on it throughout, for a number of reasons. I am dissatisfied with the issues that I identified earlier, on which there has not been the kind of approach that might have been of benefit further down the road. However, when we look at the context of the Bill, we see that it is the second in two years, and if we include the three policing Bills, it is the fifth broadly to relate to justice in as many years. One can only accept that advances have been made, that enormous steps have been taken and that improvement is distinctly possible.
Of course there will be differences of opinion. There will always be a debate about the role of the judiciary vis-à-vis the political process. That debate has been going on since both began and it will continue long after this Bill is history. It is part of the body politic and the act of devising the way in which we live together and make laws for ourselves, which we then hand over to others to implement on our behalf. That is what I call the privilege of those involved in the judiciary. It is also a privilege for those involved in the political process to grapple with the problems involved, as we have done on the Floor of the House and in Committee, on this Bill and on others relating to criminal justice.
However we measure it, this Bill represents a substantial advance, but I want to put it into a broader context. The essence of good justice is that it is available to people. In reality, as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) suggested earlier, there are parts of Northern Ireland in which justice is not available, and in which justice of this nature is not an option for people in the community. The justice that is available to them has not been legislated for; it is delivered by a baseball bat, a gun, a brick or whatever implement happens to be at hand at the time.
26 Apr 2004 : Column 712
The challenge for us is not just to draft legislation but to ensure that good law is available to the entire community, to afford it the protection of the law that we have been drafting tonight and to protect people from the barbarity of the approach that they have to live with and under. It is essential that we create a context in which these elements of legislation—however much we dispute their detail—are not just for the few lucky people who happen to live in certain areas where it will be available to them. It is the responsibility of the political process, not that of the judiciary or the police, to ensure that every single person in the north of Ireland has access to the justice in this legislation and to the protection that that affords each and every individual. Therein lie the difficulties and the problems that we face.
As politicians, we could—and, in any forum, we often do—get ourselves het up over some of the detail. We have our own pet theories as to who should have what power and how it should be exercised. Ultimately, however, we have to ensure that we do what we can to ensure that every single person in the north of Ireland can avail himself or herself of this law.
I stress this point, which I cannot stress often or strongly enough: in my constituency, I see people being treated in a way that is abhorrent and blood curdling but they cannot go to the police as the consequences would be even worse. To whom do they turn? What law protects those people in their own homes, townlands and villages? While it is good and right that the changes should be made in the criminal justice process, in policing and in the broad body of law, until we grapple with that question and unless we bring law to the doorstep of people who need it most, there will remain a touch of the academic about that.
I see these things on a weekly basis in my constituency. The awful thing is that there is nothing that I can do about them because when a paramilitary group has a stranglehold on a community, it determines how people approach the way they have been treated. Perhaps we should have a look at the responsibility not just of the judiciary, but of the political process. There is a remarkable responsibility on us to ensure that, when we draft law, we also make it available to the most vulnerable in our society.
8.52 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |