 House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Tribunals, Court and Enforcement |
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan
Sandall, Hannah Weston, Committee
Clerks
†
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 15 March 2007(Morning)[Mrs. Joan Humble in the Chair]Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill9
am
The
Chairman:
I remind the Committee that there is a
money resolution in connection with this Bill, copies of which are
available in the room. I should also like to remind hon. Members that
adequate notice shouldbe given of amendments. As a general
rule, I and my co-Chairman do not intend to call
starred amendments, including any starred amendments that are
introduced for an afternoon sitting of the Committee. Finally, hon.
Members may remove their jackets, as the sun is
shining.
That—
(1)
in addition to its first meeting on Thursday 15th March at 9.00 a.m.,
the Committee shall meet
on—
(a)
Thursday 15th March at 1.00
p.m.,
(b) Tuesday 20th
March at 10.45 a.m. and 4.00
p.m.,
(c) Thursday
22nd March at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m.,
and
(d) Tuesday 27th
March at 10.45 a.m. and 4.00
p.m.;
(2) the
proceedings shall be taken in the order shown below and shall (so far
as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00 p.m. on
Tuesday 27th March. Clauses 1 and 2; Schedule 1; Clauses 3 and 4;
Schedule 2; Clause 5; Schedule 3; Clauses 6 and 7; Schedule 4; Clauses
8 to 22; Schedule 5; Clauses 23 to 36; Schedule 6; Clauses 37 to 44;
Schedule 7; Clauses 45 to 47; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to
Part 1; Clause 48; Schedules 8 and 9; Clauses 49 and 50; Schedule 10;
Clauses 51 to 53; Schedule 11; Clauses 54 to 57; Schedules 12 and 13;
Clauses 58 to 81; Schedule 14; Clauses 82 to 85; new Clauses and new
Schedules relating to Part 3; Clause 86; Schedule 15; Clauses 87 to
100; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 4; Clause 101;
Schedule 16; Clauses 102 and 103; Schedules 17 to 20; Clauses 104 to
108; Schedule 21; Clauses 109 to 128; new Clauses and new Schedules
relating to Part 5; Clauses 129 to 133; new Clauses and new Schedules
relating to Part 6; Clause 134; Schedule 22; Clauses 135 to 141;
Schedule 23; Clauses 142 to 144; remaining proceedings on the
Bill.
Good morning,
Mrs. Humble. I welcome you to the Chair. I am looking
forward to renewing the close working relationship that you and I had
on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions not so long ago.
I am extremely pleased that the
Committee’s programme has been agreed through the usual channels
in an amiable way. I am grateful to those who took part in that
process. I expect that our proceedings will be pleasant, although I
hope not too long an experience. The last time that I served on a
Committee, we discussed the Company Law Reform Bill, which had 925
clauses and is the longest Bill that has ever been introduced to
Parliament. That Committee was also notable for a further reason: since
her child care provision failed, my hon. Friend the Member for
Burnley (Kitty Ussher) had to bring her one-year-old
daughter with her to all the sittings. So long were our deliberations
that the young girl learned to walk. Indeed, when needing a break, many
hon. Members were seen holding the baby’s arms and strutting
down the corridor with her. We cannot offer such nice distractions on
this Committee, so we shall have to make what positive steps we
can.
This is a good
Bill. It was well received in the House of Lords, and I pay tribute to
my colleague there, Baroness Ashton, whose open-minded, co-operative
approach I intend to emulate, since I am sure that the Bill can be
improved and that its rationales can be probed so that we understand it
better. It will transform the Tribunals Service of this country, which
plays such a vital role in relations between the individual and the
state, adjudicating independently. It will introduce other beneficial
changes to help the indebted who need help and who cannot pay, and
enforce debts against those who will not pay. Finally, it will assist
the museums and art galleries of the country to obtain loans of
cultural objects without
risk.
I look forward
very much to our deliberations. I welcome my hon. Friends and gentlemen
and ladies on the Opposition Benches to the Committee and look forward
to some co-operative, helpful and improving
work.
Mr.
Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): It is a
pleasure to serve for the first time under your chairmanship,
Mrs. Humble.
I certainly endorse what the
Minister said about the Bill. We support it in principle and we endorse
much of its detail. We wish to probe some matters, and there may even
be areas on which we shall push the hon. and learned Lady quite hard,
particularly when we reach parts 3 and 4, which deal with bailiffs and
powers of entry. In the main, we support the Bill. It has a lot of
detail, but if we move at a sensible place I am sure that we shall get
through it and give it proper scrutiny. I support the programme
motion.
Simon
Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): I, too,
welcome you to the Chair, Mrs. Humble. This is the first
time that I served with you in the Chair, and the first time I have
served on a Public Bill Committee as opposed to one of the myriad other
predecessor Committees on which—with some exceptions—I
have had the pleasure of serving. I share the view of the hon. Member
for North-West Norfolk that the controversial parts of the Bill come
later, in parts 3 and
4.
I should like to
raise one further matter, if I may.The Minister has tabled a
second motion about evidence, which she will no doubt move in a second.
The guidance notes sent to Members on Public Bill Committees
state:
“The
programme for oral evidence will be included in the programme motion
agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee and proposed by the Minister at
the first meeting of the Public Bill Committee. The motion is
debatable.”
I seek your
guidance, Mrs. Humble. I want to propose that we take oral
evidence from two organisations, so I assume that that request should
come under the next motion for discussion, although the leaflet
suggests that it might covered by the one we are considering. I shall
take your guidance.
The
Chairman:
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to move that
proposal, he needs to do so as an amendment to the programme motion. We
would need to have the text of any such proposal
now.
Simon
Hughes:
In that case, I shall write the proposal as I
speak. I want to submit a manuscript amendment asking that the
Committee hear evidence from National Association of Citizens Advice
Bureaux and from the Local Government Association. This relates to the
issues in parts 3 and 4—[Interruption.] I find it
surprising that some people are so reluctant to see members of our
local government family of friends. I have written the proposal, which
is not in the best script in the world, but it will
do.
Question put and
agreed
to.
Ordered,
That, subject to the discretion
of the Chairman, any written evidence received by the Committee shall
be reported to the House for publication.—[Vera
Baird.]
Written evidence to be reported to the HouseTRI 2 Paul
Nicholson
TRI 5
National Children’s Bureau/The Children’s Legal
Centre
TRI 6 Barry
Minney
TRI 7 The Royal
Institution of Chartered
Surveyors
TRI 8 Law
Society Scotland
TRI 9
Insolvency Practices
Council
TRI 10 Low
Income Tax Reform
Group
TRI 11 Institute
of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales
(ICAEW)
Clause 1Independence
of tribunal
judiciary
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Vera
Baird:
The purpose of the clause is manifest. It puts
beyond doubt the fact that the tribunal judiciary are independent of
the Executive. It does so by ensuring that the duty on the Lord
Chancellor and other Ministers of the Crown to uphold the continued
judicial independence of the judiciary, which is enshrined in section 3
of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, extends to all the tribunals for
which the Lord Chancellor is responsible. That includes the employment
tribunals in Scotland and criminal injuries compensation appeal panel
adjudicators appointed by Scottish Ministers under section 5 of the
Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995. The guarantee also covers
non-legal members of tribunals, as well as the legally qualified
ones.
It is right
that the Bill begins by making it clear that tribunals have the same
constitutional and legal guarantee of independence as the courts, and I
ask that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Simon
Hughes:
Are there any tribunals for which the Lord
Chancellor does not have responsibility and which therefore will not be
covered by the
clause?
Vera
Baird:
Yes, there are a number. The competition tribunal,
for example, will not be covered either by that provision or by the
Bill in any other way. All the tribunals that are dealt with by the
Bill have this guarantee of independence enshrined in the
clause.
Simon
Hughes:
If, at a later stage, the Minister were to be kind
enough to let us have a note detailing the other tribunals that are not
covered and to tell us whether they are protected by any similar
independence provision, it would be helpful. I do not intend to press
the matter further now.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 1
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 2Senior
President of
Tribunals
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Vera
Baird:
Taken together, this clause and schedule 1 create
the post of senior president of tribunals. They set out the procedure
for filling that post and provide for him to
represent the views of tribunal members—an important provision.
We indeed have a “him” designate at the moment, although
his post rather than his gender is designated and we hope to turn it
quickly into a reality. As I am sure everybody knows, Lord Justice
Carnwath is the senior president designate. The clause and schedule
closely follow Sir Andrew Leggatt’s recommendation that the
leadership of the tribunals system should
promote
“by leadership
and co-ordination, both consistency of decision-making and uniformity
of practice and
procedure”.
The
senior president will be a free-standing senior judicial official who
will oversee the tribunal judiciary, and his powers and duties are set
out in the Bill. Furthermore, not only is his office clearly
independent of the Executive, but in carrying out his functions, the
senior president will not be subject to the direction of the chief
justices responsible for the courts. Clause 2 places a duty on the
senior president to ensure that tribunals are accessible, that
proceedings are fair and are handled quickly and efficiently, that
members are expert and that innovative dispute resolution methods are
developed in respect of the type of cases that come before tribunals.
Those criteria are based on the long-standing principles underlying the
jurisdiction of tribunals which go back to the Franks report in the
1950s.
The White Paper
“Transforming Public Services: Complaints, Redress and
Tribunals” signalled that the senior president would
“provide a clear single voice able
to speak for the tribunal judiciary collectively.”
Paragraphs 13 and 14 to schedule 1 enable
the senior president to do just that—represent tribunal
members’ views to Parliament, to the Lord Chancellor and to
Ministers of the Crown generally, giving the tribunals a distinct,
unified voice for the first
time.
It is crucial to
ensure that the right person of the right calibre is appointed.
Schedule 1 provides two possible routes by which any vacancy for the
senior president position may be filled. The first will be when the
Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the Lord
President of the Court of Session and the Lord Chief Justice of
Northern Ireland all agree on the nomination of a lord or lady justice
of appeal, or a member of the inner house of Court of Session, as a
suitable candidate.
As
an alternative, the Lord Chancellor wouldask the Judicial
Appointments Commission to selecta candidate for
recommendation for appointment.The process for doing that
follows as closely as is appropriate the process under the
Constitutional Reform Act 2005 for appointing heads of
division.
The
successful candidate will be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen. To
underpin the independenceof the role, the senior president,
unless disabled by a permanent infirmity or incapacitated from
resigning, may be removed from office only by Her Majestyon an
address presented to her by both Houses of
Parliament.
Mr.
Bellingham:
We certainly support this part of the Bill.
The hon. and learned Lady made a point about the Judicial Appointments
Commission. We supported the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 because one
ofthe key principles behind it was the separation of
powers—that is, that the process of judicial selection should be
totally separate from the Executive. Obviously, taking the power away
from the Lord Chancellor and putting it into the hands of the
commission was an important part of that Act.
I have a question about the
clause. Obviously, the Lord Chancellor himself will appoint the person
tothe office of senior president. I take on board the
Minister’s point about the default position in respect of the
Judicial Appointments Commission, but may I ask how that ties in with
the 2005 Act?
I want
to make another quick point. We support the whole essence of trying to
bring the tribunals together into one consolidated organisation.
However, how will Parliament be involved in scrutinising how the new
process works? Obviously, we can question Ministers; the Select
Committee on Constitutional Affairs will call evidence at different
times in different inquiries. However, will the Minister comment
briefly on how Parliament will be able to scrutinise how the new
process will
work?
Simon
Hughes:
The initiative is welcome. Bluntly, the Tribunals
Service has long lacked both coherence and co-ordination, and somebody
should be seen to be leading it. As we all know from our communities
and constituencies, that is an important part of the process. The
Tribunals Service probably has more people going through its doors than
the courts, and certainly more than the non-criminal courts. Given that
some tribunals are territorial, and limited to either England and
Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, I assume
that the implication is that the president looks
after and speaks on behalf of all of them. Is it envisagedthat
someone will be chosen, who will come under the president, whose
particular role will be to speak for the Northern Ireland, Scotland or
England and Wales tribunals? In other words, if a particular issue
arisesin one of the jurisdictions within the UK, is there
someone within the process who will lead on
that?
9.15
am
Vera
Baird:
The appointment is not made by the Lord
Chancellor under either route; it is made, on his recommendation, by
Her Majesty the Queen. The purpose of outlining the first way forward
to the appointment of a senior president is that if an obvious
candidate emerges from the judiciary and consequently comes from that
independent source, it might be appropriate for the Lord Chancellor,
having been consulted, to sanction that appointment. In default of
absolute consensus among the judiciary—essentially a proposal
coming from the judiciary—it is appropriate that the appointment
should be made in the ordinary way by the Judicial Appointments
Commission.
If I have
understood the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk correctly, he is
asking how the Judicial Appointments Commission will be scrutinised by
Parliament. My understanding—I shall write to correct it if I am
not accurate—is that the commission will prepare an annual
report that will be presented to Parliament and debated.
To answer the territorial
question asked by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey,
the position is that it will be the senior president’s role to
make representations on behalf of the tribunals, and he will serve all
the jurisdictions. Therefore, he is the voice of the Tribunals
Service.
I hope that
that has dealt with the questions asked by Opposition Members, and that
the clause will stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Bellingham:
The question that I asked about parliamentary
scrutiny was not so much about the appointments process as about the
operations of the whole Tribunals Service, and what DCA Ministers will
be doing to keep Parliament informed of the new working
arrangements.
Vera
Baird:
The new working arrangements are pretty
inchoate at present. There will be extensive consultation as they
proceed. A detailed policy statement has been put into the Library. It
spells out our intentions regarding the next steps, and states that
there will be consultation at every stage. It seems to me to be correct
to say that there needs to be some formula by which working practices,
once they emerge, can be checked by Parliament to ensure that they are
functioning accurately. However, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman now
specifically how that will occur beyond a Member who is troubled
raising it in the ordinary way on the Floor of the House. Some
provision must be put in place, however, and that will be part of the
consultations that will
follow.
Mr.
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth, East) (Con): I should like to
go back to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for
North-West Norfolk. The
post was created on the recommendation of Sir Andrew Leggatt, who wanted
more unified leadership within the tribunals’ judiciary. My
concern is that if we are introducing major changes to the tribunals
system, the only people who will see them will be us as Members of
Parliament. How is there a connection between us being able to
scrutinise those changes to confirm that they have met the objectives
that have been sought and to make any adjustments that might be
required in six months or a year’s
time?
Vera
Baird:
I think that I now fully understand the
cause of concern that both the hon. Gentleman andthe hon.
Member for North-West Norfolk have raised. I think that I can reassure
them by referring toclause 39(3), which
states:
“The
Lord Chancellor must annually prepare and lay before each House of
Parliament a report as to the way in which he has discharged his
general duty in relation to the
tribunals”.
That will
facilitate scrutiny of the kind that is being referred
to.
Vera
Baird:
There is no reason why it should not, and it would
be wise, particularly in the early years of the tribunals, if it could,
because this will be an emerging structure and set of powers, so it
will be worth keeping it under close
scrutiny.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 2 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Schedule
1 agreed
to.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 16 March 2007 |