Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-106)
RT HON
LORD PHILLIPS
OF WORTH
MATRAVERS AND
RT HON
LORD JUSTICE
THOMAS
22 MAY 2007
Q100 Jeremy Wright: Is it not apparent
from the fact that the Lord Chancellor has made it clear that
he does not want to permit any consideration of ring-fencing,
that he, at least, anticipates that this will be a regular problem
and that there will be the need to transfer money away from the
Courts Service budget when something goes wrong elsewhere in his
portfolio?
Lord Justice Thomas: As I understand
his view, it is his view that he would consider that he must decide
into which of the various operations within his control the money
should go. It is our position that as a body of people whose duty
it is to administer justice for the benefit of the public and
who quite often may have to take decisions that really are between
the citizen and the state, our budget should not be subject to
that kind of political pressure.
Q101 Bob Neill: Does it not follow
from that, Lord Justice Thomas, that we have to question now whether
it is appropriate for the Courts Service to be a departmental
executive agency?
Lord Justice Thomas: That is our
point. We think that that is what is at the root of the problem.
As you see, that is one of the express things that the Lord Chancellor
said he could not look at. We believe it is going to be looked
at, or it is being looked at in Scotland, the likelihood is that
it is going to be looked at in Northern Ireland, it has been looked
at in other countries of the world and we believe that one of
the many options is far better than the executive agency status.
Q102 Bob Neill: I appreciate you
are saying: look at it rather than come to a settled view. Do
you have a view as to the role of the judiciary within that executive
agency?
Lord Justice Thomas: We would
see, as has happened successfully—and the best example I
can give is either the Republic of Ireland, Denmark or the Netherlands,
but other countries serve equally well—that actually administration
is best done by administrators but you have a good working relationship,
a strategic steer from the judiciary who is interested, and to
have an administration that is independent and supports them.
The last thing any of us want to do is spend our time doing administration,
but we would like to be able to say those who administer the system
have their primary loyalty to us.
Bob Neill: That is the point I wanted
to get out.
Q103 Chairman: How significant is
it that the Lord Chief Justice and the judges can be expected
to sit in judgment over the decisions of the Lord Chancellor or
his ministers more often than previously because of the subjects
that now fall within the department and the extent to which they
give rise to cases and appeals?
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers:
This creates a practical problem. I am in weekly, if not daily,
communication with the Lord Chancellor. I have, up until recently,
also been in regular communication with the Home Secretary. It
happened on one occasion that I was actually sitting myself on
an appeal to which he was party, and while that was going on I
said, "Look, I am sorry, it would not be appropriate for
me to meet you", although we would have been discussing something
quite different. This is going to happen more often now that the
Lord Chancellor is responsible for prisons and offender management,
because in that position he is going to be subject to more judicial
reviews. I do not think this is an insuperable problem, it is
a problem we have to work out how to deal with, but it would probably
mean that, if I was sitting on an appeal to which he was party,
then I could not myself meet with him or enter into discussions
with him while that appeal was pending; one of my other judges
would have to do that.
Q104 Jeremy Wright: Would it be a
problem if the person holding the office of Secretary of State
for Justice, or Lord Chancellor, or both, was either a member
of Parliament or somebody who was not a lawyer and, if so, how
big a problem?
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers:
You mean a member of the Commons.
Q105 Jeremy Wright: Yes, a member
of the House of Commons?
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers:
I do not think that of itself would create a problem. I have never
thought that it was essential that the minister holding that office
should be a lawyer; the calibre of the individual, I think, is
much more important. Obviously, there are advantages if you have
somebody with a legal background who comes to the office already
understanding how courts work and imbued with the respect for
the rule of law, which is so important.
Q106 Chairman: Just to provide some
context and some background, can you say anything to us about
what the Designated Civil Judge for the London group of county
courts, Judge Paul Collins, said when he said that London county
courts were on the verge of collapse? Is that an illustration
that there is already an under-funding problem which is going
to generate the sorts of pressures we were talking about?
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers:
His court has a hideous problem. It is partly because it is in
the middle of London where the competition for trained staff is
intense. There are people who are able to pay very much more than
staff earn in the Courts Service. So what happens is you get a
young recruit; you train him or her up. As soon as he or she has
got the skills, an offer is made by a firm of city solicitors,
or what have you, 30% more than the person is being paid and off
they go. So, there is a continuous turnover. It is almost impossible
to get a really good body of experienced staff.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
We have the Lord Chancellor and the Permanent Secretary coming
to see us shortly. We are very grateful to you for your frank
and forthright evidence.
| 
