| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am not normally one for prescriptive Acts and Bills but this is a judicial Bill and it will have to be interpreted regularly. There is much merit in what the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, proposes, in terms of clarification. The provision appears in a schedule to the Bill and is not in the Bill itself. I presume that the intention is that it should be guidance to whoever interprets the legislation when it is enacted, as I hope it will be. This is a tidying up and clarifying amendment.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have already had the benefit of a helpful discussion on these amendments in Committee. They seek to remove any discretion from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the case of dismissing lay or judicial members of the Judicial Appointments Commission.
I welcome the opportunity again to express the Government's thinking in this area. With regard to judicial members, the Bill provides that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister may remove a member on the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice.
With regard to lay members, the Bill provides for dismissal in certain cases. Our policy in these cases is quite clear. We would expect the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to act. We believe that it is important to put a certain degree of trust in the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and not tie their hands by compelling them to dismiss a member automatically. With regard to lay members, a number of the reasons for dismissal are matters that could differ in their seriousness. For instance, if a lay member had been convicted of a serious offence, no doubt everyone would agree that he or she should no longer be a member of the commission. However, if he had been convicted of a minor driving offence, for example, it is fairly clear that that person should not be removed from the commission. One needs to leave the First Minister and Deputy First Minister some discretion in such matters.
I hope that that explanation will assist noble Lords and that it provides the reasons why we believe that the discretion should remain where it is. I hope that the
noble Lord will withdraw the amendment. I pray in aid all that I said at greater length on this matter in Committee.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass moved Amendment No. 12:
- Page 75, line 33, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13. Both amendments relate to the appointment of committees and sub-committees within the commission.
I have examined the list of duties that the commission is likely to have. It appears, I believe, in Schedule 1. A commission of 13 perhaps needs committees but I am at a loss to understand why it would need sub-committees.
I hope that the Government appreciate and will accept the common sense of the amendment. It seeks to ensure that, having set the current standard for membership of the commission—I do not believe that that standard is stringent enough—it would be wrong to have committees or sub-committees on which people would be eligible to sit although they would not meet the standard that is required to be a member of the commission as a whole.
Amendment No. 13 proposes that the commission may not delegate any of its functions in paragraph 11(1),
In terms of delegating functions, the commission should not further jeopardise the judicial process. It could delegate responsibilities that require judicial know-how to a sub-committee although no member of that sub-committee had in-depth knowledge of the judicial process or of what is required.
Both of the amendments are simple. I genuinely believe that they would improve the Bill, although we have to take into consideration the fact that some dubious individuals may be permitted to be members of the commission. Having said that, I hope that the Government will agree to the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, these amendments were discussed extensively in Committee. As noble Lords will know, the Bill provides that the
On the face of it, Amendment No. 12 goes considerably further. It requires that the committees of the Judicial Appointments Commission have the same membership criteria as the full commission. However, in practice the only persons who would be prevented from membership of committees would seem to be retired judges, barristers or solicitors. I know that a number of comments have been made in this House about lawyers generally but I do not think that that is one which would merit their continued exclusion. I am not sure why such lengths are being gone to to achieve that. Given that we have already sought to achieve an appropriate relationship between the full commission and its committees, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.
Amendment No. 13 prevents the commission from delegating any of its functions unless approved by a majority of the judicial members of the commission. Other amendments tabled earlier by noble Lords sought to increase the judicial membership of the commission. With this amendment, noble Lords perhaps show a similar wariness in regard to the role to be played by the lay members.
We should remember the nature and extent of the appointments that are likely to be made. If one considers the appointments made in the year 2000-01, the Lord Chancellor was responsible for making a total of 40 appointments in 2000 and 90 in 2001. To date for the year 2002 we have had about 52 appointments. The appointments commission will have to involve itself in a broad range of appointments from tribunal, county court judge, magistrate, justices of the peace, lay panellists, and so on. It is important for it to be able to do its work through committees. As noble Lords know, in the main it has been left to the commission to decide its working practices under its chairman the Lord Chief Justice who, I should imagine, will be a jealous chairman in terms of his practices and procedures.
As I have said on a number of occasions, the review went into some detail in striking the right balance between lay and judicial members of the commission and was clear about the benefit that lay people could bring to the appointment process. Those benefits apply across all the functions of the commission. We are not convinced that lay members should play a lesser role in deciding what functions the commission
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister. I despair increasingly about making this legislation the kind of Bill that I believe that Northern Ireland deserves. However, I shall not waste the time of the House. I have made my point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Appointment to most senior judicial offices]:
Lord Rogan moved Amendment No. 15:
As has been mentioned several times in debate, there is real and genuine concern in Northern Ireland with respect to the politicisation of the judicial appointments process. Recommendations by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—they are politicians—to a Prime Minister seems excessive and unnecessary. Let us consider what advice the First Minister and Deputy First Minister could provide to the Prime Minister on appointing the Lord Chief Justice or justices of appeal other than a perceived political opinion or religious background. Given the numerous legal challenges to decisions already made in the light of the agreement, the inclusion of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the process of selection poses obvious problems in the future. In paragraph 6.104 the review states:
Devolution does not necessitate devolution of the judicial appointments process. Indeed, one does not follow the other. Devolution relates to the legislature. It relates to the executive and to government. When we speak of the judiciary, it is a separate branch of the state. Again, I refer to subsection (5). The First Minister and Deputy First Minister must act jointly in making a recommendation. That provides the MLAs concerned with the power of veto over the process of appointment with respect to any potential appointee. I submit that the Belfast agreement did not dictate that all decisions which had to be made by the First
Clause 5 makes provision for the appointment of listed judicial officers by virtue of the Judicial Appointments Commission making recommendations to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Schedule 3 relates to the transfer of functions in respect of those appointments from the Lord Chancellor to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. As has been stated, it is not something that must take place as part of the process of devolution, or of the devolution of criminal justice functions. Judicial appointment functions are and should remain separate. Further to that is the consequence of the perceived politicisation of the appointments process. I beg to move.
"( ) Committees or sub-committees may not include persons who would not be eligible to be members of the Commission."
"unless approved by the majority of judicial members of the Commission".
By and large, I have explained why members of committees or sub-committees should at least measure up to the standards that apply to the commission as a whole.
Page 3, line 22, leave out "First Minister and deputy First Minister" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 16 to 34. Clause 4 is concerned with the appointment of the most senior judicial officers including a judge of the High Court, an issue which we debated earlier at length. The amendments seek to remove the role of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister from the appointments procedure either as consultees or persons making recommendations.
"In the Northern Ireland context it is important to keep any hint of political input out of the appointments process".
The Bill attempts to do the exact opposite.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page