1 Introduction
1. This the first Annual Report of the Constitutional
Affairs Committee since we were set up—as the Committee
on the Lord Chancellor's Department—in January last year.
In it we review the work which we have undertaken since our establishment
and look forward to some of the matters we expect to examine over
the course of the coming year. It has been prepared in accordance
with the now established practice of Select Committees reporting
annually on the objectives and tasks devised by the Liaison Committee,
which in turn arose from a resolution of the House of 14 May 2002.
2. The establishment of a dedicated Committee to
scrutinise the work of this Department could hardly have been
more timely. Notwithstanding the work done by the Home Affairs
Committee in examining the work of the Lord Chancellor's Department
in recent times, it was becoming increasingly clear that a Committee
which had to examine the whole of the remit of the Home Office
was unable to do justice to the gradually expanding role of the
LCD. From the start we faced a very significant task in introducing
proper scrutiny of this now very significant Department.
3. Our work in our first year was heavily affected
by the unexpected announcement in June of the plans for abolition
of the post of Lord Chancellor and his replacement by a Secretary
of State, the establishment of a Judicial Appointments Commission
and the replacement of the Appellate Committee of the House of
Lords with a Supreme Court. The issue had arisen at one of our
earliest evidence sessions when we heard Professor Erik Jurgens,
Rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights
of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. He had
been preparing a report on the office of Lord Chancellor. Shortly
afterwards, we took evidence from the then Lord Chancellor, Lord
Irvine of Lairg, on a range of issues connected with the constitutional
role of the Lord Chancellor. His announcement at that session
of the publication of a White Paper on judicial appointments prompted
us to arrange a visit to Scotland, which had already established
a Judicial Appointments Board. The visit took place very shortly
after the Prime Minister's announcement of the change in the role
and name of the Department; our Report Judicial Appointments:
lessons from the Scottish experience[1]
was one of the earliest contributions to the debate which has
taken place since then on the Government's proposals. We took
evidence from Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the former Lord Chancellor,
in September and following conclusion of the consultation period
on the Government's proposals for a Judicial Appointments Commission
and a new Supreme Court we heard evidence from a wide range of
interested parties. We produced a report in time to inform the
House's consideration of the Constitutional Reform Bill.
4. Those issues have not distracted us from the remainder
of the work done by the Department. We examined the Courts Bill
as it passed through Parliament;[2]
we produced a very important and influential report on the Children
and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, which provides
a vital service to the courts, children and their families in
the family court system[3]
and which led to the resignation of the Chairman and most members
of the Board, followed by the appointment of a new board; we considered
both the Department's Spring Supplementary Estimate[4]
and its Annual Report for 2002-03;[5]
we heard evidence from the Chairman and Chief Executive of the
Legal Services Commission, which is responsible for the allocation
of nearly £2bn worth of legal aid expenditure annually;[6]
we began an inquiry into the immigration and asylum appeal system;[7]
and we scrutinised very closely the Government's proposals for
publicly funded legal aid and advice work in the immigration field.[8]
Relations with the Department
5. Although relations with the Department since our
establishment have been generally good, it is clearly taking the
Department some time to get used to the requirements placed upon
it by Select Committee scrutiny. On one occasion we encountered
serious difficulty: that was during our inquiry into the Government's
proposals for changes to publicly funded immigration and asylum
legal aid work. The failure to ensure that a vital memorandum
reached us before the Friday before the Tuesday morning on which
we were to consider our final report caused us severe difficulties
in meeting our timescale. This timescale had been agreed with
the Lord Chancellor in order to foster greater cooperation with
the Department and to assist the Department by allowing it adequate
time to consider our Report, and the memorandum had been promised
repeatedly over the course of the three weeks or so of this brief
inquiry. On another occasion (in early 2004) the Committee was
given last minute notice of a major statement by the Lord Chancellor[9]
which impacted on a draft Report which we were considering. Ministers
and officials must be fully aware of, and responsive to, the needs
of Select Committees if they are to perform their role effectively.
It is vital for Select Committees to have adequate notice of statements
and to receive papers which have been requested in good time.
6. At the end of 2003, we were contacted by Ms Judy
Weleminsky, a witness who claimed that she had been punished as
a result of having sent us a memorandum which was used in our
Report on CAFCASS. She was suspended by the Lord Chancellor
(as a prelude to dismissal) on the grounds of misconduct which
were set out in an accompanying paper which had been prepared
by Mr David Crawley, Head of the Scotland Office, on the basis
of a dossier of evidence left by Mr Anthony Hewson, the outgoing
Chairman of CAFCASS. The paper set out a number of grounds for
disciplining her, which included the fact that she had given evidence
to the Committee. The Chairman wrote to the Lord Chancellor asking
for an explanation. The Lord Chancellor replied that the fact
of giving evidence to the Committee was not relied on as a basis
for deciding to discipline Ms Weleminsky but acknowledged that
he should have made this clear to her.
7. Having considered the Lord Chancellor's reply,
we concluded that the matter the process of dealing with the complaints
against Ms Weleminsky, starting with the dossier prepared by Mr
Hewson, continuing with the review of the matter by Mr Crawley
and ending with the letter from the Lord Chancellor to Ms Weleminsky
and the supporting document might be regarded as a prima facie
breach of privilege. Accordingly we recommended that the House
refer this matter to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
On 15 January, after a short debate on the matter, the House agreed
to do so.
1 Second Report of Session 2002-03, HC 902 Back
2
First Report of Session 2002-03, HC 526-I and II Back
3
Third Report of Session 2002-03, HC 614-I and II Back
4
Oral and written evidence of Session 2002-03, HC 611-i Back
5
Oral and written evidence of Session 2002-03, HC 973-i Back
6
Legal Services Commission Annual Report 2002-03, Section 1 Back
7
Which led to the Second Report of Session 2003-04, HC 211-I and
II Back
8
Fourth Report of Session 2002-03, HC 1171-I and II Back
9
HC Deb, 26 January 2004, col 21 Back
| 
