| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as regards Queen's Counsel, there will be consultation for as long as it takes to come to the right conclusion. The effect of the announcements made last Thursday was that the role of Lord Chancellor would eventually be abolished to ensure that there would be a properly independent judiciary. It is wrong that a government Minister can sit as a judge.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, while it is plainly welcome that there will be consultation on the subject of Queen's Counsel, does the noble and learned Lord agree that if it is not the Government's job to appoint judges—as now appears to be accepted—it is certainly not the Government's job to choose Queen's Counsel? Is he willing to say that any further appointments that may be made to the rank of Queen's Counsel should not be made by him or by any other member of the Government?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, one of the issues to be consulted upon is precisely that. As I said in answer to the Question of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, we have an open mind on that issue. It would be wrong for me to predetermine the result.
Lord Renton: My Lords, having become a Queen's Counsel nearly 50 years ago—the only one senior to me is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, who is 101 and, alas, cannot walk—perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord whether he agrees that, for years and years, the present system of appointing Queen's Counsel has worked well. It has enabled High
Court and other judges to be chosen more easily than if we did not have the system working, and working so well?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the process has worked well. My noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg introduced significant improvements in the way it works and it is widely regarded as a fair and transparent process. However, there are issues of principle as to whether it is right that the Government should determine whether or not someone should be promoted from one rank of the profession to another.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord therefore accept that the silk system is a necessary and valuable mark of quality which helps to identify outstanding advocates at the Bar? Can he confirm that it is not the principle that requires reassessment but merely the method by which appointments are made?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, both the principle and the method need to be assessed. Is it right that once given such status it should stay with you for the rest of your life? Is it right that it should be done by the Government? Is it right as far as the market is concerned—that is, the people who use the services of barristers—that it should be done in this way? We need to consult widely on all these issues and to obtain properly informed views.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, in answer to one question, the noble and learned Lord said that it would be wrong for a politician, such as the Lord Chancellor, to be the head of the judiciary and to sit as a judge, which reason justified the abolition of the office. However, the restriction on the Lord Chancellor being the head of the judiciary or sitting as a judge could have been removed, leaving the Lord Chancellor to carry out all his other multifarious duties. His activity, which I fully agree should not have been continued, could have been stopped, leaving him in the position of running a very important and useful department. Why was it not done in that way?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I said that it would be wrong for a government Minister to sit as a judge. This is a question about Queen's Counsel, not about the announcements made at the end of last week.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I express my personal delight at seeing my noble and learned friend where he is. However, does he recognise that, although it may be highly desirable to take a long-term view of the process of appointing Queen's Counsel, it is utterly unsatisfactory to put the present system into suspense before anything has been invented to replace it? Does he recognise that members of the Bar have career plans in relation to the time at which they decide to apply for silk? Some decided not to apply this year. Does my noble and learned friend recognise that it would be
entirely unfair to deprive them, without any warning or replacement, of the opportunity to apply at the customary time next year?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the position is that we think it right to suspend the competition. If the conclusion reached at the end of the process of consultation is that the system for applying for silk should continue, then the 2004 competition will be reinstated at a later date. If it is concluded that it should not continue, the position would be that it would have been right not to have had it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend Lord Carlisle, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that, of course, there would be consultation about the future of QCs for as long as it takes to get the right answer. Was that a Freudian slip, or will the Government continue to consult until they get what they consider to be the right answer?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it was not a Freudian slip. When I said "the right answer", I meant the right answer in terms of what is best in the public interest.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord concedes that the present system of appointment is working well, will he say why consideration has now to be given to its abrogation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, even though the system is well run, is transparent, and I believe that the best people are appointed to the rank of Queen's Counsel, there are issues of principle as to whether or not it is right that the Government should be able to promote someone within his or her own profession and whether that is the right way to deal with promotion within a profession.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend assure us that the Law Society will also be consulted? In the last list of QCs, only one solicitor was appointed.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, of course I give that assurance.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, what is the authority for the new moral code relating to who should be appointed? From where do the principles come? Will the noble and learned Lord give us a definition of them, rather than simply saying that they are wrong in principle? What are the principles?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it may be said that the Government's role in promoting someone in a profession from one rank to another would give the executive too much control over that profession. The criteria on which QCs are currently appointed are published.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will remind his colleagues that if they
continue indefinitely with the paint-stripping process to which they seem addicted, they may themselves ultimately appear dull and drab.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is certainly not our intention. In relation to all the changes that have been proposed, we seek to ensure that the results reached are in the public interest.
Fireworks Bill
3.6 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Deceased Fathers) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.7 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Third Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
- 1. APPLICATION OF THE ROTATION RULE TO THE NEW DOMESTIC COMMITTEES
- The committee has considered what form of rotation rule should apply to the new domestic committees appointed at the start of this Session. We recommend as follows:
- House Committee
- A five-Session rotation rule should apply to Members other than those who are exempt.
- Administration and works committee, information committee, refreshment committee and works of art committee
- The normal three-Session rotation rule should apply to Members other than those who are exempt. Chairmen should be exempt for up to four Sessions from appointment. In order to avoid a sudden exodus of Members at the end of three Sessions, the Committee of Selection should apply the rules so as to count service on the relevant predecessor sub-committee of the Offices Committee, except where that would lead to disproportionate turnover.
- The Joint Committee on Human Rights comprises six Members from each House. At present the quorum is three from each House, or two when evidence is being taken. The Chairman of the Joint Committee has written to the Chairman of Committees and the Leader of the House of Commons asking that the membership from each House be increased to seven, or the quorum be reduced to two from each House for all meetings, or preferably both.
- We recommend that the Committee's quorum should be reduced to two Members from each House. At this stage we do not recommend any increase in the membership of the Committee.
- The committee has considered a proposal for recording in the Minutes of Proceedings the deaths of Members of the House, whether or not they are the subject of obituary tributes.
- We recommend that such a record should be introduced with effect from the coming summer recess. The Minute entry would, in common with other notifications to the House which are not announced in the Chamber, record that the Lord Chancellor had acquainted the House that the member concerned had died.
- In its First Report of this Session the Liaison Committee recommended that, with effect from the next Session of Parliament, a Select Committee should be established to consider the merits of statutory instruments. The Liaison Committee agreed that this committee should be invited to agree the orders of reference of the committee.
- We propose the following orders of reference for the new committee:
- "There shall be a Select Committee consisting of nine Lords, to consider every instrument which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House of Parliament, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament; being—
- (i) a statutory instrument, or a draft of a statutory instrument;
- (ii) a scheme, or an amendment of a scheme, or a draft thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument; or
- (iii) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative or negative resolution;
- but excluding any Order in Council or draft Order in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 2000 and any remedial order or draft remedial order under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998 and any draft order proposed to be made under Section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, or any subordinate provisions order made or proposed to be made under that Act;
- with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds—
- (a) that it is politically or legally important or gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House;
- (b) that it is inappropriate in view of the changed circumstances since the passage of the parent Act;
- (c) that it inappropriately implements EU legislation;
- (d) that it imperfectly achieves its policy objectives."
- We propose that these terms of reference should be reviewed after the new committee has been in existence for one Session.
- The committee considered a memorandum by the chairman of the European Union Committee putting forward proposals for improving the House's arrangements for securing time for debates on Select Committee reports.
- Several of the proposals made - for example, in relation to the use of Fridays and "spare Wednesdays", and the linking of European policy issues to party debates on Wednesdays—are matters for the usual channels and the parties rather than for this committee, and the committee invited those concerned to consider the proposals further.
- The committee will give further consideration to the procedural steps which would be needed to allow some reports to be debated in the Moses Room in a manner similar to the Grand Committee procedure for Bills.
- The Committee considered a proposal that an Archbishop sitting as a Peer should be referred to as "the noble and most reverend Lord" instead of "the noble and right reverend Lord" as at present.
- The only Peer in this category is Lord Eames. He is referred to as "most reverend" outside the House of Lords. The present practice of the House is therefore anomalous and we recommend the proposed change to the House.
- Retired Archbishops will, in accordance with practice outside the House, continue to be referred to as "right reverend".
- The Committee considered a letter from Lord Carter calling attention to the proceedings on his Starred Question on 4 June and inviting the committee to review the arrangement whereby the House sits at 11 a.m. on Thursdays but adjourns between 1.30 and 3 p.m. The committee will examine this matter further at its next meeting and proposes to seek the views of Members of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page