| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): That is good now, is it?
Mr. Grieve: I have always said that we share a view on the desirability of a judicial appointments commission. We can also share a view on the new role of the Lord Chancellor, provided that he remains in the other place as a lawyer, with the protections that that will give him correctly to discharge his functions as an exceptional Minister, serving the Government, but at the same time ensuring that the rule of law in this country is properly maintained.
Keith Vaz: I rise briefly to support the Government amendments and to register my astonishment at what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has just said. When the Government first produced the Constitutional Reform Bill, his predecessor, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who is not a lawyer, said that he would oppose it root and branch. However, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield now supports the Bill and has told this House for the first time that it contains good things. That conversion is marvellous, and I congratulate the Minister and the Lord Chancellor on their terrific job in convincing the Opposition of all the good things that the Bill contains.
Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is labouring under a delusion. In those debates, we made it clear that the judicial appointments commission to reinforce the independence of the judiciary was an element of the Bill that we wholly support and that we accepted that there were knock-on consequences for the Lord Chancellor's role. However, we also said—we still say it—that setting up a supreme court is a terrible waste of money.
Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is cherry-picking. When the proposals were announced, the Conservative Opposition said that the proposals were a shambles and that they would oppose them. To give them their credit, the Liberal Democrats said that they supported the principle behind the proposals, but the official Opposition said that they were against them. I am glad that the official Opposition now support the Bill.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) rose—
Keith Vaz:
I will not give way, because time is very short. Is it not sad that we are about to get this modernising Bill through both Houses of Parliament, but the Opposition are picking on that tiny little point,
16 Mar 2005 : Column 365
because they think that the next Lord Chancellor will be my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett)? What nonsense. There is nothing wrong with the post's current incumbent, who is doing a fantastic job, and long may he continue to do so.
Keith Vaz: Oh, all right then.
Chris Bryant: I did not realise that I was so persuasive. A further irony is that the Conservative party is in favour of an 80 per cent. elected second Chamber, but the argument that we have heard this afternoon is that we should protect the Lord Chancellor from any involvement in party politics, by making sure that he sits in the House of Lords.
Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is right, and he has made his point with his usual clarity.
Amendment (a) is reasonable, and it covers all the various points that a Prime Minister might take into consideration in appointing the Lord Chancellor. It makes it clear on the face of the Bill that the Prime Minister of the day will choose a person who has some or all of various types of experience. That person might be a practitioner, and subsection (3) defines a qualifying practitioner in great detail on the face of the Bill. In debates on the Bill, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and others have consistently asked for provisions to be put on the face of the Bill, because if it is important, it should be there—well, here it is.
I shall give way to any hon. Member who knows of another measure in which a member of the Cabinet's qualifications are defined in statute. That shows the uniqueness of the post and the fact that the Government have bent over backwards to meet the objections put forward by the Lords. They have listened carefully to the views of the House of Lords and of Conservative Members to make sure that those concerns are taken on board, so that we get a Bill that has been debated and carefully scrutinised by this House and of which we can be very proud.
Instead of supporting that approach, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield wants to pick away at every single sentence, dot and comma, because he wants to try to make sure that he gains something out of the whole process. Well, he has not.
The matter was discussed by the Select Committee, of which I am a member, under the great leadership of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I proposed to table an amendment, suggesting that a lawyer should hold the post. However, I was persuaded by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and others that we should consider the post as a whole. Paragraph 30 of the report defines the key roles that the Lord Chancellor will have. It goes on to say:
"The principal responsibility for judicial appointments will be with the Judicial Appointments Commission and for judicial discipline with the Lord Chief Justice."
It recognises that the role has changed out of all recognition even though we are keeping the name Lord Chancellor. The paragraph goes on to say that it may be an advantage for the holder of the post of Lord
16 Mar 2005 : Column 366
Chancellor to be a senior lawyer. Not that it should be, but it may be an advantage. Any Prime Minister making this appointment will bear in mind now the clauses that have been tabled. I congratulate those who have done the drafting, the Minister and others. Every consideration should be given: a "Minister of the Crown", a "member of either House", a "qualifying practitioner", a
and any other relevant experience.
Of course the Prime Minister will consider legal experience. However, if he chooses somebody who is not a lawyer, he will choose the best person for the job. That must be right, given the wide responsibilities that the Lord Chancellor has, having divested himself of all the detail that goes with the original post and handing it over to the Lord Chief Justice through the concordat.
I am pleased with the amendment. The Opposition should now draw stumps. They should recognise that what is proposed is the best way forward. They should enable the Bill to complete its passage through the House.
Mr. Grieve: The measure happens to be a House of Lords Bill. I suppose that we must recognise that the Government wished to carry a majority of the other place to their point of view. They have failed to do so on an important issue. The hon. Gentleman might agree that in those circumstances there would be a good reason to concur with the House of Lords and to get on with getting this legislation on the statute book with the protections and safeguards that it wishes to provide.
Keith Vaz: The amendment, which has been carefully drafted by my hon. Friend the Minister and others, deals with the points that the House of Lords has raised. It does not reject what the other place has said. The hon. Gentleman keeps saying, "Put it on the face of the Bill." Whenever I sit in my place, he jumps to the Opposition Dispatch Box and says, "Put it on the face of the Bill." It has been put on the face of the Bill for him so that he can read it at all times.
What really persuades me about the Bill and the amendment is that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) will support the Government in the Lobby. That gives me a great deal of heart. I know that at last we are on the right track.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) (LD): Unlike the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), I am not a lawyer, and I am not intending to stand again at the forthcoming general election, whenever it takes place. I am entirely objective and dispassionate because I could not possibly qualify in either House for the role in question.
I am reminded by the debate that took place in the other place last night that bishops used to hold this responsibility. I believe that commoners have also held the responsibility. There was Sir Thomas More.
Mr. Tyler:
The hon. Gentleman and I both think that he was Lord Chancellor, and certainly he was a commoner.
16 Mar 2005 : Column 367
An absurd discussion is taking place. The matter has been discussed at great length. I am not sure that the amendment in lieu takes us much of a step further. The real test is that the Lord Chancellor, whichever House he is in, has the confidence of the House. The real test is also whether he or she is capable of holding their own and capable of defending the Government in terms and Parliament in terms in the context of the defence of the rule of law.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East referred to the Select Committee report. I again pay tribute to that Committee, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), for producing a very useful report before our previous proceedings in this House. It says at paragraph 28:
"Although it may more be more likely that someone in the House of Lords as at present constituted has the seniority and lack of aspiration towards further office which we considered desirable, it is by no means certain, and there will be suitable candidates for the post in both Houses. There does not, therefore, seem to be a compelling argument for insisting that the Lord Chancellor must be a member of the Upper House."
7.45 pm
It is notable that no Conservative Members discussed or opposed that, so I wonder why it has suddenly become the critical issue for them at this stage.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |