Draft Judicial Appointments (Amendment) Order 2013
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Afriyie, Adam (Windsor) (Con)
† Bebb, Guto (Aberconwy) (Con)
Blears, Hazel (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
† Bruce, Fiona (Congleton) (Con)
† Evennett, Mr David (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
Field, Mr Frank (Birkenhead) (Lab)
† Harris, Rebecca (Castle Point) (Con)
† Harris, Mr Tom (Glasgow South) (Lab)
† Hemming, John (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
† Hollingbery, George (Meon Valley) (Con)
McGovern, Jim (Dundee West) (Lab)
† Murphy, Paul (Torfaen) (Lab)
Paisley, Ian (North Antrim) (DUP)
† Slaughter, Mr Andy (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Stephenson, Andrew (Pendle) (Con)
† Turner, Karl (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
† Vara, Mr Shailesh (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice)
† Ward, Mr David (Bradford East) (LD)
Farrah Bhatti, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee
Thursday 21 November 2013
[Mr Dai Havard in the Chair]
Draft Judicial Appointments (Amendment) Order 2013
11.30 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Judicial Appointments (Amendment) Order 2013.
It is a pleasure, Mr Havard, to serve under your chairmanship this morning. The order is, in essence, part of the package of coroner reforms under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 that have come into effect this year. However, the order, which amends the Judicial Appointments Order 2008, will be made under section 51 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Doing so will make fellows of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives—CILEX—eligible for coroner appointments under the 2009 Act, which went live in July. The purpose of this draft order is twofold: to widen the pool of people who are eligible to apply for coroner roles; and to increase the range of roles for which CILEX fellows are eligible, and to include that of coroner.
It may be helpful if I set out the interplay between the legislative elements involved. Paragraph 3 of schedule 3 of the 2009 Act changed the eligibility requirements for coroners. It states that to be eligible for appointment as a coroner, someone must have satisfied the judicial appointment eligibility criteria for at least five years. Under sections 50 to 52 of the 2007 Act, that means holding a relevant legal qualification and gaining experience in law. In practice, a person currently holds a relevant qualification to be a coroner if he or she is a solicitor or barrister.
Section 51 of the 2007 Act empowers the Lord Chancellor to extend the list of relevant qualifications for the purpose of the judicial appointment eligibility condition in section 50. The Judicial Appointments Order 2008 did that by making CILEX fellows eligible for various judicial posts such as deputy district judge and judge of a first-tier tribunal. Those posts are set out in schedule 1 of the 2008 order. The draft order before us amends the 2008 order by adding coroners to the list of roles for which CILEX fellows are eligible, which means that CILEX fellows will have a relevant qualification to be a coroner.
It may be helpful to put the draft order into its policy context. The Judicial Appointments Commission has a statutory duty under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to encourage diversity in the range of persons available for selection for judicial office in courts and tribunals. The commission’s overarching objective is to widen the range of those applying for judicial appointment. The intention behind the 2008 order and sections 50 to 52 of the 2007 Act is to remove barriers to judicial appointments
and to increase judicial diversity. Coroners are not appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission—I will return to that—but it is desirable that the same principle of increasing diversity applies to such appointments.I confirm that we have sought views on this proposal. Between 1 March and 12 April, we consulted on our proposals for reform to the coroner system. That included seeking views on whether CILEX fellows should become eligible for appointment as coroners under the 2009 Act. The responses were mixed. Around one third of the 300 or so respondents to the consultation supported our proposal, one third did not, and one third expressed no view. Some respondents, especially coroners, were worried that extending eligibility for coronial appointment could lower standards. Other respondents, including CILEX, welcomed the proposal because of its potential to increase the diversity of coroners and competition for the role.
The responses having been considered, the Government’s response to the consultation, published on 4 July, contained a commitment to make the proposed change in relation to CILEX fellows later in 2013. Our response document addressed concerns about lowering standards by stressing that the change related solely to eligibility for coroner appointments. It made it clear that CILEX fellows applying for coroner posts would still be assessed alongside all other applicants—solicitors and barristers—and that appointments would be based purely on merit. Therefore, if a CILEX fellow applied and was not up to scratch, their application would not get very far.
It is important also to note that the Government are required to consult the Judicial Appointments Commission and the Lord Chief Justice on amendments to the 2008 order. I am happy to report that both have confirmed that they support our proposal; so does the chief coroner, with whom we continue to work closely on implementing changes to the coroner system.
I mentioned that I would say a little more on coroner appointments generally. Under the new system in the 2009 Act, there is now greater scrutiny and transparency of coroner appointments than ever before. Unlike under the system in the Coroners Act 1988, every vacancy must now be advertised, and every proposed appointment requires the consent of the Lord Chancellor and the chief coroner. Coroners can no longer appoint their own deputies. Although it is still early days for the new system, we hope that it will, like this order, facilitate greater diversity of appointments, as well as bring transparency and consistency to the process.
In summary, I am confident that the order, supported by the new appointment provisions under the 2009 Act, will better ensure that all coroner recruitment exercises are accessible and open, and that appointments will be made on merit. That can only be to the benefit of the bereaved people whom the new coroner system serves. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.
11.37 am
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab): It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Havard. I hope that we will not detain you or the Committee too long this morning—I think we can guarantee to finish this morning.
The Chair: I can guarantee that.
Mr Slaughter: Thirteen years ago—it does not seem as long as that—I chaired the appointment committee for the West London coroner, Alison Thompson. It was somewhat unusual at that stage for a woman to be appointed as a coroner, but what was more unusual, from memory—I hope that I am getting this right—was that Ms Thompson’s legal experience had been at the Hong Kong Bar. Reservations were expressed: was this someone who would be able to cope with the coronial system? I had no hesitation. Clearly, we were appointing someone who not only had great professional expertise, but showed the compassion and empathy that, at many inquests at which I appeared as counsel, I sometimes felt was wanting in the coroner service—I put it no more strongly than that.
I saw just a couple of months ago that Alison Thompson has retired—perhaps that is a signal to some of us—and been replaced by Chinyere Inyama, the East London coroner, who I am sure will do an equally excellent job. I mention that just in order to say that diversity, and increasing what has been, I fear, a rather small and restricted pool, is to be entirely welcomed.
I am a bit disappointed that the Minister says that there have been so many of what I would call antediluvian voices—we must not be rude about antediluvians, I have been told—opposing this extension. That is in part snobbery and in part out of date. The Minister correctly says that no one will be appointed through the CILEX route who is not up to the job. I think that that deals with the issue and we should move on from it.
I think that this is CILEX’s 50th year. I have met the president or past presidents. I went to its celebration in the summer. That organisation is highly professional and passionate about doing a professional job through its members and for the legal system generally. That should be encouraged and, where appropriate, posts should be opened up in that way. I therefore fully support the order.
I hope the Minister will acknowledge, as the noble Lord McNally did when the House of Lords considered the draft order, the other changes in the coroner service, such as greater transparency in the advertising of posts. Previously, coroners were appointed by local authorities through competitive interview, whereas deputy coroners were appointed by the coroner. All posts are now open to advertisement and interview. We have gone further than that with training, through shining a spotlight on coroners’ courts and by considering coroners’ rules and practices. Much of that came through the legislation introduced by the previous Government, particularly the post of chief coroner. Peter Thornton is an excellent chief coroner now that he has finally been appointed after what must be one of the longest probation periods in history. I do not mean to score points, but I hope the Government will concede that that was a sensible move and that the other place was right to reinstate the office of chief coroner.
Like many of our venerable institutions, the coroners’ service, which goes back to time immemorial, is venerated and respected, but it must be kept up to date. It is an important part of our legal system that, by definition,
deals with some of the most sensitive cases. Every case is a personal tragedy for a family, so I hope that that will be reflected both in the appointments and in the general management of the service.11.41 am
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): I support the draft order. I have more than 25 years’ practical experience of employing lawyers, solicitors, trainee solicitors, former barristers and a number of legal executives. In the practice of the law, those legal executives have stood side by side with solicitors. They do exactly the same job and have exactly the same experience. I therefore think that they have gained exactly the same right to apply for roles such as coroner.
Two of the legal executives whom I appointed entirely fit the criteria for expanding the diversity of opportunity. They were unable to go to university, so they were unable to qualify as lawyers. One of them spent the early years of his working life in the Army before working in a legal office, and over a number of years he qualified as a legal executive. The other was a single mother. They both brought an added dimension to their work that the profession might otherwise have lost, and they would bring an extra dimension were they to apply for the role of coroner.
11.43 am
Mr Vara: I welcome the comments made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton.
Yes, some people have opposing thoughts, but the important point, which has been emphasised today, is that the CILEX fellows are very professional and that the draft order will mean that the eligibility pool will be expanded. Ultimately, the appointments will be made on merit.
I put on record that legal executives are a thoroughly professional body of people. In my legal career in the distant past, I came across many legal executives to whom, frankly, many partners with the title of solicitor would go for advice. They are people who, for whatever reason, missed out on the qualifications for being a solicitor, but they are more than able to hold their own in any legal context. I am personally very pleased that we are opening up the field for legal executives to apply for the role of coroner, and I welcome all the comments that have been made today.
The draft order is a worthwhile amendment to the Judicial Appointments Order 2008. It is an amendment that will potentially increase the diversity of coronial appointments without lowering standards in any way. I am pleased that hon. Members agree that it is a positive measure.