FORMAL MINUTES
TUESDAY 3 FEBRUARY 2004
Members present:
Mr A J Beith, in the Chair
| Peter Bottomley | Mr Jim Cunningham
|
| Mr James Clappison | Andrew Rosindell
|
| Ross Cranston | Mr Clive Soley
|
| Mrs Ann Cryer | Keith Vaz |
The Committee deliberated.
Draft Report [Judicial appointments and a Supreme Court (court
of final appeal)], proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the Chairman's
draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 50 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 51 read, as follows:
The details of the proposals are crucial. There is
a great difference between presenting to the Prime Minster a single
name and presenting two or more names. The procedure for refusal
of a single name would be very different from allowing the Government
to choose from a range of names. This is particularly true in
the case of the new court, where at best very few qualified candidates
would fall to be considered and where appointments are infrequent.
The independence of the judiciary could be compromised if the
head of the Government of the day could exercise more than a direct
(and rarely used) veto of a particular candidate. Such a veto
would need to be explained in terms that were acceptable to the
other members of the new court and to the appointments commission.
The Law Lords said:
"An Appointments Commission, if established,
should recommend one appointee to the Secretary of State for Constitutional
Affairs. The Secretary of State should be authorised to invite
the Commission to reconsider its recommendation, giving reasons.
If so invited, the Appointments Commission should reconsider its
recommendation and then recommend an appointee (whether the same
appointee or another) to the Secretary of State. The Secretary
of State would then advise the Prime Minister of that recommendation,
and the Prime Minister would advise The Queen accordingly. The
Secretary of State would be bound to accept the Commission's recommendation
(either initially or after reconsideration) and the Prime Minister
would be bound to advise The Queen in accordance with the Secretary
of State's advice."
This approach was also advocated by other witnesses.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the beginning
of the paragraph to the first word "the" in line 9.—(Ross
Cranston.)
Question put, that the amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 4 | Noes, 3
|
| |
| Ross Cranston | Peter Bottomley
|
| Mrs Ann Cryer | Mr James Clappison
|
| Mr Jim Cunningham | Mr Clive Soley
|
| Keith Vaz | |
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraphs 52 to 66 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 67 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 68 to 145 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 146 read, as follows:
We accept that the judiciary as a whole will be improved
by the recruitment of judges from a wider section of society.
The problem relates to individual appointments, rather than how
the judiciary as a whole should be composed. Any committed approach
to increasing diversity will involve very much more than a new
method of scrutinising appointments. As Mr Oba Nsugbe QC said:
"… you have got to get there much earlier,
to people coming out of college, coming out of Bar school, coming
out of law school. This means workshops, it means lecturing, it
means mentoring and it means supporting those people who have
got through the system so that they can play an important role
in encouraging other people much, much earlier. I was fortunate.
I was in a set of Chambers where we had plenty of information
and there was a track record of appointments. There were lots
of recorders and circuit judges ….. so I got information
pretty much after three or four years. I think the other issue
….. is …… access to work because if you do not
get access to the quality work and you are not tested where it
really matters, with responsibility, you will not get appointed…"
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the beginning
of the paragraph to the first word "The" in line 2.—(
Mr James Clappison.)
Question put, That the amendment be made, put and
negatived.
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 147 to 184 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 185 read, as follows:
We note the argument in favour of a lay chair of
the Commission. There is a strong symbolic benefit in having a
non-judicial figure as Chair.
Amendment proposed, to leave out lines 1 and 2 and
insert the words, " Notwithstanding the arguments in favour
of a lay Chair we believe that the Commission should be chaired
by a judge".—(Keith Vaz.)
Question put, that the amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 6 | Noes, 1
|
| |
| Mr James Clappison | Peter Bottomley
|
| Ross Cranston | |
| Mrs Ann Cryer | |
| Mr Jim Cunningham | |
| Mr Clive Soley | |
| Keith Vaz | |
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraph 187 to 193 read and agreed to.
Conclusions and recommendations read, amended and
agreed to.
Summary read, amended and agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report,
as amended, be the First Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chairman
do make the Report to the House.
Ordered, That the provisions
of Standing Order No. 134 (Select committees (reports)) be applied
to the Report.
Several papers were ordered to be appended to the
Minutes of Evidence.
Ordered, That the Appendices
to the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee be reported
to the House.
[Adjourned till Tuesday 10 February
at 9.00am
| 
