APPENDIX 3: CALL FOR EVIDENCE
The House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution,
chaired by Lord Lang of Monkton, is beginning an inquiry
into the office of Lord Chancellor. The committee invites
interested organisations and individuals to submit written evidence
to the inquiry.
Written evidence is sought by 29 August 2014. Public
hearings are expected to be held in July and early October 2014.
The committee aims to report to the House in autumn 2014. The
report will receive a response from the Government and is expected
to be debated in the House of Lords.
The office of Lord Chancellor has existed in
some form since the 11th century, if not before.[218]
Reforms announced in 2003 and legislated for in the Constitutional
Reform Act (CRA) 2005 changed the role significantly, so that
the Lord Chancellor is no longer the head of the judiciary
nor the presiding officer of the House of Lords. However, the
Lord Chancellor retains a role in judicial appointments and
has statutory duties to uphold judicial independence and the rule
of law.
Since the creation of the Ministry of Justice in
2007 Lord Chancellors have also been Secretaries of State
for Justice. In 2008 the Constitution Committee concluded that
the two roles should continue to be combined and that "Lord Chancellors
in the future, with their responsibilities for the rule of law
and the judiciary, should continue to have the authority necessary
to fulfil their duties".[219]
Six years later, and approaching ten years on from the CRA, the
new inquiry revisits the office of Lord Chancellor. The committee
seeks clarity on what the current role is, whether changes to
it are needed and what criteria (if any) should apply when appointing
future holders of the office.
First, the committee will explore what the role and
responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor are, as distinct
from those of the Secretary of State for Justice. With the establishment
of the Judicial Appointments Commission and the Judicial Appointments
and Conduct Ombudsman, and with the Lord Chief Justice now
the head of the judiciary, we are interested in the extent to
which real powers are still wielded by the Lord Chancellor.
The committee is interested in the combined roles of Lord Chancellor
and Secretary of State for Justice and the advantages and disadvantages
of that combination. It has recently been described as creating
an inherent conflict in some policy areas,[220]
but can also be viewed as adding weight to the position.
The committee will consider the criteria for appointment
as Lord Chancellor. Comments are invited on the effectiveness
of the current criteria (in section 2 of the CRA). Two criteria
that were emphasised following the changes to the office were
that the Lord Chancellor should be a lawyer and should be
towards the end of his or her political career, although neither
is specified in the CRA.
Finally, the committee will explore whether further
reforms to the office are desirable, including whether it is still
necessary to have a Lord Chancellor. It may be that the extant
functions could be divided between other posts. Or it may be that
the office remains a vital part of the relationship between the
executive, Parliament and the judiciary.
The committee would welcome written submissions on
any aspect of this topic, and particularly on the following questions:
The office of Lord Chancellor
(1) What are the current functions of the Lord Chancellor,
as distinct from those of the Secretary of State for Justice?
(2) To what extent are those functions genuine
powers, and to what extent are they nominal powers?
(3) How in practice does the Lord Chancellor
uphold the rule of law and judicial independence?
The combination of the office with Secretary of State
for Justice
(4) Are the offices of Lord Chancellor and
Secretary of State for Justice best performed by the same person?
(5) Can judicial independence and the rule of
law be defended in Cabinet by a minister responsible for wider
departmental policies and budgets, which may point to different
priorities? Is an independent voice required?
Criteria for appointment as Lord Chancellor
(6) How effective have the criteria for appointment
as Lord Chancellor in section 2 of the Constitutional Reform
Act 2005 been? What does it mean for an appointee to be "qualified
by experience"?
(7) Should there be statutory criteria for the
appointment?
(8) What are the advantages and disadvantages
of the office of Lord Chancellor being held by a lawyer?
(9) Should the Lord Chancellor be someone
who when appointed does not seek further ministerial advancement?
Should he or she be a member of the House of Lords?
The future of the office
(10) Should there be a Lord Chancellor?
If so, what should be his or her functions? If not, who should
perform those functions?
You need not address all the questions. The committee
would welcome other relevant views of which you think the committee
should be aware.
This inquiry will focus on the office itself rather
than current or former office-holders. Submissions are invited
on the constitutional aspects of the office; personal comments
should be avoided.
218 Nicholas Underhill, The Lord Chancellor
(1978) Back
219
Constitution Committee, Relations between the executive, the
judiciary and Parliament: Follow-up Report (11th Report, Session
2007-08, HL Paper 177), paragraph 17 Back
220
Notably judicial review: see Joint Committee on Human Rights,
The implications for access to justice of the Government's
proposals to reform judicial review (13th Report, Session
2013-14, HL Paper 174, HC 868), paragraph 23 Back
| 
