§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1997.
Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Act 1997.
§ Sir Nicholas Lyell (North-East Bedfordshire)I listened with care to what the Parliamentary Secretary said in opening the case for the Bill, and we are anxious to give the Bill a fair wind, up to a point. He pointed out that the office of permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor is one of great importance. I entirely agree, and I am sure that he intended to say that it had been an office of great importance throughout the decades and, indeed, the centuries that it has existed.
§ Sir Nicholas LyellI am glad that the hon. Gentleman is nodding to that. He added that the Lord Chancellor's Department has grown greatly in recent years. It has taken on an active role and responsibility for the court services in a way that makes it a Department of State in a late-20th-century manner, which to a considerable extent in earlier years it was not.
That means, however, that the Department has two important functions. It has the important function of being the right-hand man or woman to the Lord Chancellor in his ancient office—and his office is almost unique to this country, and extremely important to our constitution. Montesquieu might be turning in his grave, but I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary and I would stand up firmly for our constitution. His office is unique in that it is there to protect the separation of powers, not to overturn it.
What is said against us by those from other countries is that, because we have a senior Minister—one of the four most senior Ministers in any Government—who is a member of the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary, we do not respect the separation of powers. We do. In our pyramidal form of constitution, the Lord Chancellor is answerable to Parliament—the highest court in the land—and therefore is answerable to every Member of this House and of the other place for the proper performance of his duties, which include the protection of the true separation of the powers of the judiciary. 411 We are willing and very ready to assist the passage of this Bill, subject to some modifications, because, with the added administrative functions of the Lord Chancellor, there will from time to time be a perfectly good case for the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor being other than a lawyer. It is highly desirable that, if he is to be somebody other than a lawyer, he should have had substantial departmental experience. The present law enables him to be permanent secretary and Clerk to the Crown in Chancery if he has had five years' experience in the Department.
I think that that should be long enough for the present Government. The Bill seeks to sweep that away, and to say, in effect, that somebody with no experience of the Department can become permanent secretary.
There are dangers in that, on which I will dwell shortly. The great importance of that ancient office means that the Lord Chancellor needs help in relation to his responsibility for the judiciary. One of his major roles is to appoint the judiciary. It is a role that Lord Chancellors of every political colour have carried out scrupulously over the centuries, with the assistance of their Department. It is immensely valuable to the Lord Chancellor in that responsibility and in his role as a link with the judicial process and the legal structure and legal establishment of our country that the permanent secretary should have long and profound experience of the legal profession.
A second aspect is the importance of the Government legal service. That service is 1,000 members strong. As the Attorney-General for five years, and Solicitor-General before that, I had the privilege of being responsible for that service, and I know that it consists of many people of high calibre. Some of them move within and across Departments.
There has been a trend in recent years for them to move more into the Lord Chancellor's Department than in the past. It is highly healthy that Government lawyers should move in and out of that Department and spend a period, from time to time, advising the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General or one of the great Departments of State—and spend time in an administrative role running, for example, the Court Service.
There are dangers here. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Lord Chancellor have introduced this Bill in good faith. This is not a party political matter, and I am not making party political points. I am making important constitutional points, because the Bill does not stand alone in the Government's legislation. We must look at it alongside the Bill introduced earlier this week to change the system of justices' clerks in magistrates courts. Following the Home Secretary's announcement, the role of the justices' clerk as the legal adviser to the magistrates is to be divorced from the role of the justices' clerk as the administrative controller of the magistrates court service.
I have anxieties about that move. I only hope—I say this not to stray from the Bill, but to illustrate my point—that the Government will think again about that Bill. In practice—it is at a much more lowly level—I hope that we shall continue to find justices' clerks who have sat week in, week out, year in, year out, in service in court also moving up the administrative ladder.
412 Likewise, I hope that the lawyers in the Government legal service will move from advice-giving and legal roles to an administrative role—I think that the Minister has some sympathy with my argument—so that the administrators will know what they are talking about. Then, when they help to organise the list—we must remember that listing of court cases is a judicial function, and must remain so—and assist in the judicial running of the service, they will know what they are talking about. They will have sat in court and seen how cases are operated.
We need that sort of cross-fertilisation in the Department—
§ Mr. ForthI hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will elaborate on his remarks. I was worried when I heard the Minister say that the Lord Chancellor's Department is just the same as any other Department of State and that we should therefore treat the permanent secretary in just the same way in terms of more open recruitment and so on.
But is not the Lord Chancellor's Department unique, in that it deals with important judicial matters? That cannot really be said of any other Department. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree, from, his experience, that the Lord Chancellor's Department cannot be lumped in with all the other Departments for this or any other purpose?
§ Sir Nicholas LyellI agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that the Minister would agree that the Lord Chancellor's Department is unique, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend, and by me earlier in my speech. The Lord Chancellor is a unique Minister. When he sits in Cabinet, he has a more independent role than any other member of the Government. He, together with the Attorney-General, has a role in ensuring respect within government for the rule of law.
In a free society, respect for the rule of law is as essential as, and historically much more deep-seated than, democracy itself. This country has believed in the rule of law and has operated it scrupulously from at least the end of the 17th century. We have built up a system of common and statute law by which all abide, and all Governments seek to abide.
If the Government are to abide by the rule of law, they must be well advised on the law. That is why I emphasise the importance of the Government legal service. It is not only that the Government should have 1,000 lawyers, but that they should have 1,000 lawyers who are respected, whose status is comparable with those of other members of the public service, and who can expect, if they have the necessary ability, to rise to the highest points in that service.
One of those highest pinnacles has, until this Bill, been reserved for lawyers who have usually spent a lifetime or a substantial part of a lifetime in law—sometimes in private practice, which has its own value, usually at the Bar, or as a solicitor. What message will go out to the Government legal service if this Bill is just passed on the nod, and the importance of the aspects I have mentioned is not recognised? The message will be that the Government is less interested in cherishing high-quality lawyers in its service.
If the Attorney-General were on the Treasury Bench for this debate, he might be tempted to intervene and say, "The Attorney-General—through the Treasury Solicitor 413 and Procurator-General—is the Minister responsible for the Government legal service, and he will look after that aspect of the matter." I am sure that the Attorney-General would attempt to look after the matter. He must, however, work hand in glove with the Lord Chancellor.
§ Mr. HoonThere is no suggestion in the Bill that lawyers will be prevented from applying for the position or prevented from being appointed. The right hon. Gentleman has a very distinguished legal background. Surely he is not suggesting that lawyers should be afraid of competition from those who are not lawyers?
§ Sir Nicholas LyellNo, I am not suggesting that. As I said, I am attempting to be helpful in the Bill's passage, but subject to modifications—to which I invite the Minister to give the closest attention.
A week ago, I gave Lord Irvine express notice of the point that I am about to make. Today, I tabled an amendment, which the House may consider. I owe an apology for the late tabling of that amendment. Despite some precedent to the contrary, I hope that the First Deputy Chairman will be able to accept my amendment. I will not, however, anticipate the matter one way or another.
The purpose of my amendment and the substance of the matter—which I shall invite the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with—is that, if the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor who is in post for a period of, usually, six or seven years, is not a lawyer, he should have a deputy secretary who is a lawyer. I should say that I have had the honour of knowing a number of permanent secretaries, although I cannot recall exactly how long the very distinguished current permanent secretary has been in post. There are senior members of the Lord Chancellor's Department who could perfectly well serve as deputy secretary.
A properly appointed deputy secretary in the Department—which is, as I said, unique—would, from an acknowledged and senior position, be available to assist the Lord Chancellor in maintaining his close relations with the judiciary. The Lord Chancellor himself will no doubt seek to maintain his daily relations with the judiciary extremely well, but a deputy secretary could assist with long-term relations with the more junior judiciary, with the Bar and in the operation of the current elaborate and very excellent legal framework, thereby providing feedback to the Lord Chancellor from the legal profession and on the operation of the courts. The vital duties of permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor in these aspects of his work will then be fulfilled thoroughly and carefully by someone who is competent to do so.
I look forward to debating my amendment. The Bill's passage might be assisted if the Parliamentary Secretary were able to give me a fair wind on it. I look forward to Ministers' considering constructively, and, I hope, accepting, either my amendment or one in similar terms. Doing so would facilitate knitting together in the 21st century the two great strains of the Lord Chancellor's Department, and thus avoid an ugly break—from a long-standing tradition in which only a lawyer could fill the position, to one in which no senior and specially demarcated office in the Lord Chancellor's Department is filled by a lawyer.
If the Bill is passed unamended, it will be possible that neither the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor nor his most senior assistants are lawyers. It would even 414 be possible for there to be no lawyers in the Lord Chancellor's Department—although I do not suggest for one moment that that is likely to happen. The House should nevertheless remember that, over the years, Governments of all complexions have thought it right that the Lord Chancellor's right-hand official should be a lawyer. I am simply saying that, if No. 1 is not a lawyer, then, for the time being, No. 2 in the Department should be a lawyer, so as to protect that position. I very much hope that that will be accepted.
I am also surprised that the Government have proved themselves susceptible to agism. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary is frowning. Perhaps he has not read the Bill, but he certainly read out a speech passages of which sought to justify the fact that it would no longer be possible for a permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor to be kept on beyond the age of 60. What on earth is the argument for making it impossible for the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor to be kept on beyond the age of 60?
Personally, I can see no reason why other members of the civil service should not be capable of being kept on beyond that age. To say that that is not in conformity with other Departments is precisely the kind of awful argument that we have all had to suffer since kindergarten—that, because one person does not have something, no one else can have it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to use that argument, although I strongly suspect that he is.
§ Mr. HoonI am going to use that argument, because it is important to have consistency across Whitehall. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well from his previous experience that all permanent secretaries, apart from the one that we are debating, retire at 60. Furthermore, I had always assumed that the distinguished profession of lawyer required adherence to precedent.
§ Sir Nicholas LyellIf that is the hon. Gentleman's best shot, as is being said behind me, I do not think that he has thought it through, because the Bill would alter precedent. We would be sympathetic to some modification of precedent, but we should not then instantly leap to a slavish adherence to precedent in the opposite direction. The hon. Gentleman, who is a barrister if I read his biography correctly, has lectured on law, even to the new world, and should be a little more open-minded.
While we are discussing matters ad hominem and discussing agism, my researches have also discovered that the hon. Gentleman and I have one thing very firmly in common—we share a birthday.
§ Sir Nicholas LyellIndeed, on 6 December. The hon. Gentleman is 15 years younger than I am, but the Lord Chancellor is only 18 months younger.
I anticipate that the Lord Chancellor, who will be 60 before the likely date of a general election—he will be 60 on 23 June 2000 if I read his biography correctly in one of the reference books—will be anxious to continue as Lord Chancellor at least for the term of this Parliament. 415 If "Two-term Tony", as I believe he is coming to be known, should have his way and win two terms, I suspect that there will be a "Don't Ditch Derry" move. The Lord Chancellor will hope to be Lord Chancellor in a future Labour Government, should one be elected by some mischance. He would then be soldiering on well over the age of 60.
§ Mr. ForthIs my right hon. and learned Friend surprised that the Minister did not dwell on that point, if only to justify the fact that he wishes to make an arbitrary rule, forcing the permanent secretary to retire prematurely and when at the peak of his powers—a rule that he has not even sought to justify—but that he is apparently quite satisfied for a Lord Chancellor to continue indefinitely after that arbitrary age limit?
Sir Nicholas Lye11My right hon. Friend once again puts his finger on an important point. If I can have the Parliamentary Secretary's attention, there is an equally important point to develop.
We are told that the Department will not be in conformity with any other. In other Departments, everyone is obliged to retire at 60, but one of the Lord Chancellor's primary functions is to deal with members of the judiciary, who do not retire until the age of 70.
Although it is unlikely that a permanent secretary would carry on until the age of 70, some flexibility is desirable to ensure a continuity of knowledge in the Lord Chancellor's right-hand adviser on a vital part of his role. To remove that possibility on the grounds of consistency is merely doctrinaire.
I would be the first to acquit the Lord Chancellor of any charges of those characteristics. I have not regarded him as one of the more dogmatic or doctrinaire members of the Government. I hope that he is not embarrassed that I put that to his credit. I hope that he will listen and reflect carefully on the two important points that I have mentioned, which I hope to develop later in our debates.
We should give the Bill a Second Reading only if the Minister gives us some indication of a fair wind and favourable consideration for my sensible amendments, which would in no way damage the ability of the Government to run the affairs of state effectively.
§ Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath)I follow the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) about agism. Many of us are concerned about the political correctness that is creeping into every aspect of the new Labour Government. Such political correctness is being severely questioned not just in the House, but throughout industry and in legal circles. It is wrong and contrary to common sense for a senior official—a permanent secretary—to be told that he has to retire at 60 when he will be dealing with crucial issues relating to the appointment of judges, who will sit to the age of 70.
The Lord Chancellor's Department is different and the legal profession and the legal system are different. They form a separate pillar of our constitution. We must be particularly aware of the special position of the law. We have already seen the new Labour Government playing 416 fast and loose with our constitution. They govern by press release and spin doctor, bypassing the House of Commons. That is a slippery slope to perdition.
I have great respect for the Minister and I have had a great liking for him for several years. He has been sent here to do the bidding of his master in another place, as he has to. If he spends a little time analysing what he is proposing, he may have severe doubts about it.
Considerable concerns were expressed about the proposal as recently as two days ago in The Guardian by no less a correspondent than Mr. Marcel Berlins, who was for many years the doyen of legal correspondents at The Times, which was when I first got to know him. We used to study together in the same library in the late 1970s. He now has a column in The Guardian, called "Writ Large". He says:
Slipping quietly through Parliament is an extraordinary Bill, whose sole purpose is to make one Permanent Secretary to a Government Department equal to all other Permanent Secretaries.I agree with Mr. Berlins' concerns. He continues:So the Lord Chancellor's Department has finally fallen to egalitarianism.However, these proposals are of much greater concern.
Mr. David Raney (Bury St. Edmunds)Will my hon. Friend continue with that article from The Guardian, which refers to the possible appointment of Mr. Ian Burns as the next permanent secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department? Will he explain how the proposal could have the ludicrous consequence of Mr. Burns being appointed at the age of 59 and having to retire at 60?
§ Mr. HawkinsMy hon. Friend is right to draw attention to some of the other concerns referred to in that article. I have no idea whether Mr. Berlins is right—perhaps the Minister will tell us when he winds up—but he says that the Bill has become known informally in the Lord Chancellor's Department as the Ian Burns Bill. I have no knowledge of Mr. Burns and I do not seek to comment in any way on the ability of a gentleman of whom I had never previously heard, but if Mr. Berlins is right—and I know him to be one of the best-informed newspaper legal correspondents—there could be ludicrous consequences.
In all aspects of public life, able people are being forced to retire when they can still perform many years of public service. That is happening purely because of doctrinaire policy. The Government are following the mistakes of many previous Labour Governments and imposing doctrinaire age limits contrary to common sense.
I share the great concerns raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire. It has been suggested in the past few days that the role of legally qualified clerk in magistrates courts is to be split from administration, which does not require them to be legally qualified. Several of us tried to raise our concerns at the time of that statement, although some of us were unable to do so. I hope that the Minister will reassure us about the feeling that the new Labour Government believe that lawyers should be excluded from positions of responsibility.
I detected a considerable anti-lawyer feeling among Labour Members in the previous Parliament when we were in government and they were in opposition. I know that the Minister does not share that feeling because he is 417 a former law lecturer and a qualified lawyer. I also know from his service on the legal committee of the European Parliament that he has always taken a serious and balanced view of legal issues. I urge him to examine the prejudices of some of his party colleagues, who seek to exclude lawyers.
The Minister has said that there is no reason to suppose that all future incumbents of the post will not be lawyers, but this may be the beginning of a slippery slope, with the Government seeking to prevent lawyers from holding the post. It is important that the holder of the post should be a lawyer. If not, at least my right hon. and learned Friend's amendment should be accepted in Committee to ensure that, if the post holder is not a lawyer, his deputy must be. I am sure that the Minister will concede that there are many specialist aspects of the job that require a lawyer.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire referred to the growth in the Government legal service, in which I have many friends, including some former members of my former chambers. He did not dwell on one of the most important innovations of the previous Conservative Government, which is relevant to today's debate—the creation of a Minister in the House of Commons to answer for the Lord Chancellor's Department. That post was held by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) in a distinguished manner for several years. It was also held by Mr. Jonathan Evans, the former Member for Brecon and Radnor. We all look forward to his return to the House at the earliest opportunity.
The post was an important innovation and the fact that we can have this debate today shows how wise the previous Government were to ensure that there was a Minister in this House who could be questioned. If we did not have such a Minister, legislation such as this Bill could have been slipped through on the blind side without proper parliamentary scrutiny. I am delighted that we have an opportunity to have this debate in which the Bill, the role of the Government legal service and the role of the officials at senior and junior level who serve in it can be analysed.
We must consider carefully whether it is right for the Bill to be passed in its present form—or at all. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire has said that he would be happy for it to go through if amendments were accepted. I believe it would have been much wiser for the Bill not to be introduced and for no age limit to be imposed. It would be better, as has been the case for many years, for the permanent secretary to be a lawyer. I am concerned that the Government have got the matter wrong, and I hope that they will reconsider it carefully.
§ Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon)We welcome the Bill because it will sweep away an anachronism and open up the post of permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor to a far wider field of candidates. I say that notwithstanding the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lye11), who enjoys an enviable reputation in this House and elsewhere.
We would like the Minister to address two points. First, I hope that the Government are committed to an independent and politically impartial civil service which 418 is free from party political favouritism. A new permanent secretary is likely to be appointed in or before April 1998. The previous Government made significant changes to the method of selecting senior civil servants. How will the new permanent secretary be selected?
Secondly, I have noted in Sir Peter Middleton's recent report that he states:
A single Government Department should be responsible for all aspects of civil justice".Do the Government intend to introduce proposals for a single Ministry to be responsible for and to co-ordinate the proper administration of justice, which is now conducted by various Departments of state?
§ Mr. Humfrey Malins (Woking)I declare an interest in that, over the years, I have sat as an acting metropolitan stipendiary magistrate and I now sit occasionally—I might like to sit rather more often—as a recorder of the Crown court.
I have a fair amount of notes in front of me on points that I intend to make—[Laughter.] I want, however, to start with an instinctive reaction to the Bill, which is of slight unease. I understand that it is fashionable to undervalue and downgrade lawyers. It is a sport taken up by many, but it has not yet been banned in this country, and it is gathering force. I am sometimes sad that the lawyer is so undervalued and I hope that the Bill will not contribute to that trend.
In parallel to that thought is the observation that, nowadays, when there is talk about the administration of justice, the courts and the law, one hears more and more comments such as, "It must be more efficient. We must have more productivity. How are we going to save money? How are we going to do things faster?" More and more of that kind of comment comes out as the 1990s develop, and less and less emphasis is placed on the integrity of the lawyer and on the importance of lawyers and the legal Departments. I have put that point badly, but I think that the Minister will understand what I am saying. I worry that too much emphasis is placed on the twin evils of productivity and efficiency.
What is the Bill about? It tells us that in future the permanent secretary need not be a lawyer. The Lord Chancellor has said that his Department needs as its official head the most able and experienced candidate available. Many of us cannot disagree with that comment. The Lord Chancellor goes on to say, however:
I and my predecessors have been well served by a distinguished line of Permanent Secretaries, who have ably managed the organisation".I looked up the records and discovered that eight permanent secretaries have served in the Department over the past 110 years—one for as long as 29 years, which is not bad going. Is the Lord Chancellor right, however, to say that in future permanent secretaries need not be lawyers of 10 years' standing?
The Minister has said that the choice available to the Lord Chancellor is severely limited. How wide is the field? How limited is the choice? Is it too small? From how many people would the Lord Chancellor be able to choose if the previous criteria applied? Have previous appointments been unsatisfactory? What is prompting the change? 419 My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made a telling intervention in which he referred to the unique nature of the Lord Chancellor's Department. It is indeed unique. It is a Department with which I have had much contact over the past few years. To me and to people outside the Chamber, it is essentially different from the other great Departments of state. It is different in that I think of it not so much as part of the Government machine as a Department with real independence and independent thinking. It is an important safeguard in our democracy.
The permanent secretary of the Department must have close links with the top judiciary, with recorders, with stipendiary magistrates and with justices. Indeed, he probably has close links with the head of judicial appointments the Department. The head of judicial appointments is an important person who, I am sure, has close daily links with the permanent secretary. Is it not right that the permanent secretary has come from the same stable of lawyers? Is the Bill, by implication, an attack on lawyers and on the Government legal service? Will it be seen as a slap-down for the many distinguished people who should be considered for the post of permanent secretary because of their qualifications and their legal experience?
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire rightly referred to the parallel problem relating to the recent proposals for magistrates clerks. The Bill divides the functions of the magistrates clerk between the administrative functions and the functions of sitting as a clerk. The Minister will know—this is an important point not unconnected with the Bill—that as the years have gone by, magistrates clerks have felt deeply undervalued. The proposal to hive them off so that one is involved entirely in administration and the other in court sitting is a mistake. My right hon. and learned Friend was quite right on that point.
§ Mr. RuffleyWould my hon. Friend care to elaborate on the ridiculous agism involved in qualifying to be a magistrate? Is not the agism that is so apparent in the Bill also apparent in the structure of the magistrates court system? Does he share my experience of many constituents who wish to become magistrates being told that, due to their age, they cannot contribute to work on the Bench?
§ Mr. MalinsMy hon. Friend raises an important point. He is absolutely right. I was coming to the provision concerning the age limit of 60. It is as though that is a magic figure. Yes, the provision is an example of agism, which is reflected, in a sense, throughout the system. Many of us have encountered constituents who cannot become magistrates due to their age, although they would contribute immensely to the general well-being of the magistrates court system and the administration of justice. That is wrong. When will people realise that a few grey hairs can be quite important?
§ Mr. MalinsMy hon. Friend says hear, hear; there are no grey hairs on him. For my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) it is another matter.
§ Mr. MalinsTo be serious, though, there is merit in the point. There is no difficulty in involving people over the age of 60 in the posts. Does any hon. Member think that, suddenly, at the age of 60, people lose their ability? Many distinguished lawyers have reached their peak not in their forties or fifties, but in their sixties or even later. Many examples are known to us of outstanding men and women who contributed greatly to the law when they were well over 60. I cannot see a justification for imposing a strict age limit of 60 bearing in mind the men and women who have served as permanent secretary over the past 100 years. Can the Minister tell us how many of them served with great distinction well beyond the age of 60?
§ Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)Should not the Government and the Minister be considering whether to raise the upper age limit? We know that we have an aging population and, as time goes by, it will become increasingly difficult—unless people are prepared to work to a later age—for the working population to sustain those who are not working. The proposal is a retrograde step. I would much rather the Government said that they were raising the retirement age for all permanent secretaries.
§ Mr. MalinsMy hon. Friend is right to say that we have an aging population; people are living longer. Is not the fact that a growing proportion of the population will be in their sixties, seventies or, indeed, eighties an argument for enabling people to carry on, with just a degree of flexibility, rather than stopping them in their absolute prime at the age of 60? I for one cannot understand why the Bill is so inflexible.
I return to my general theme. It worries me that, as we move towards the close of the century, what I might describe as the independence of lawyers—the pure law—is being watered down. Instead, we are fed a diet of administrators, those who seek productivity in the magistrates court system and those who are urging it to be more efficient—whatever that means. How does one become more efficient? We should be concentrating on the administration of a good, fair and accessible criminal justice system.
As I have already said, the reforms that are to be imposed on magistrates courts will make access to justice and the courts much more difficult for the ordinary person, who will find everything that much more remote. That argument spills over to the issue of the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor. Over the years, the post has been filled by a lawyer and I believe that that should continue always to be the case. People outside the House consider the Lord Chancellor's Department somewhat separate from other Departments: a unique and independent Department for which they have always had the utmost respect. If the Bill is passed unamended, there will be less respect for that Department. There is a real danger that some of its integrity, qualities and great 421 achievements will not be repeated. Indeed, there is a danger that those qualities and that integrity will disappear in the years ahead.
§ 5.4 pm
§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)In considering the matter before us I looked at the proceedings of the Bill that became the Supreme Court Act 1981—the original Bill. It immediately caught my eye that the then Attorney-General, Sir Michael Havers, said:
with the exception of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), whom I welcome, the Opposition Benches are deserted.For those who believe that the House of Commons has somehow declined over the years, here we are as living proof that that is not so. Whereas the Opposition Benches were deserted in 1981, my hon. Friends and I are living proof that the present Opposition are vigorous in their determination thoroughly to scrutinise what is before the House. Conversely, on this occasion, the Government Benches are all but deserted; in fact, I do not see one authentic Back Bencher on them.Such a parliamentary observation—if I may indulge myself—leads to the question why the Bill before us was not introduced in the other place in the same way as the 1981 Bill. Perhaps the Minister will wish to comment on that. On the face of it, to me as a layman—I speak as one of the few non-lawyers to contribute to the debate, so I hope the House will forgive me any infelicities—the Bill would have been an ideal Bill to introduce in another place. Although I am sure that the House would want to scrutinise it properly—I cannot imagine why there would be any problem in our doing so—why was not the Bill introduced in another place? That is a matter for the Minister to return to.
The proceedings on the 1981 Bill are very interesting. It must be relevant for us to reflect on that Bill since the Government are seeking to amend it. The then right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West, the Opposition spokesman, said:
We all accept that there are certain tasks that should be carried out by those who are qualified by the nature of their training and experience … it would be unfortunate if, in our anxiety to avoid restrictive practices, we overlooked the qualifications and experience that are necessary for a particular job."—[Official Report, 6 May 1981; Vol. 4, c. 199-210.]Those words are at the kernel of the argument before us.I gather that the Minister might ask us to consider other stages of the Bill's proceedings this very day. I would be reluctant to accept that, although I shall of course follow the lead of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). If he were satisfied that the Government were prepared to give due recognition to our legitimate and constructive points, we might allow the Bill to make rapid progress. I hope that there is no suggestion that there will be an attempt to ram the measure through the House without proper deliberation or due regard to the reasonable amendments that my right hon. and learned Friend wishes to move. We shall return to that point later.
The question that the Minister must answer on the point about qualifications was raised by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and, in a different way, by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). Are we being told that there is an 422 insufficient supply of suitable candidates under the existing regime? Is it suggested that somehow we cannot find a suitable permanent secretary for the Lord Chancellor's Department within the existing restrictions? However, I have not heard the Parliamentary Secretary suggest that.
The Bill seeks to overturn a satisfactory arrangement, but the Parliamentary Secretary has not told us why. It would be one thing if he had argued that there were not enough trained and experienced lawyers within the Department, but I do not believe that that is what he was arguing. The Bill has come out of the blue, seemingly for the sake of dogma, political correctness or some grotesque uniformity across Government. We need more on that point before some of us can be satisfied.
I shall not labour the point that the Lord Chancellor's Department cannot simply be lumped in with the other Departments of Government and treated the same, because many of my hon. Friends have already covered it. However, as a layman, I always thought that the Lord Chancellor's Department was special and separate, not least because—I am now treading on difficult territory—in much of its work it fulfils not just a quasi-judicial role but a judicial role. To that extent, the Department must be marked out as separate.
Mr. John M. TaylorMy right hon. Friend prefaced his remarks by saying, with false modesty, that he is not a lawyer. He is of course one of the Opposition's sharpest minds and best speakers. He singled out the Lord Chancellor's Department as having a special role, and I endorse that point. The Lord Chancellor is the President of the Supreme Court and the most senior judge in England. That distinguishes his Department from others.
§ Mr. ForthI hope that my hon. Friend will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that he can elaborate on his inside knowledge of the Lord Chancellor's Department. We will want to take his words into account when we decide how to vote on the Bill.
§ Mr. RuffleyClearly, some offices of state require a specialist knowledge for the discharge of their functions. For example, the Home Secretary requires a knowledge of the law and we have seen a long succession of Home Secretaries who have been lawyers of one type or another. That is because solicitors and barristers understand the nature of the work of a Home Secretary. Is not what is true of the Home Office also true of the Lord Chancellor's Department?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I regularly remind the House that interventions should be brief. That rule is particularly apposite in the case of hon. Members who are seeking to catch my eye. I am sure that they would not wish to run the risk of repeating themselves.
§ Mr. ForthMy hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) is right. Do we want to lump the Lord Chancellor's Department in with the department for youth, sport and ballet dancing, or whatever it is called these days? There is no need for restrictions on appointments in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but we are all agreed—unless the Parliamentary Secretary dissents—that the Lord Chancellor's Department has special characteristics that justify the 423 restrictions originally placed on the qualifications of the permanent secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary has given no reasons for departing from those restrictions and the hon. Gentleman must satisfy us on that point before the Bill goes much further.
My main point, which I cannot state strongly enough, is about agism. I have long felt that it is pernicious, unnecessary and unfair for arbitrary and mandatory rules to be placed on retirement age. That is even more true of the insupportable mandatory retirement age of 60 for the civil service. I have had the honour and the privilege of working closely with senior civil servants, which has been one of the greatest and most pleasing experiences of my life. I was always shocked and disappointed when, at the age of 60, civil servants at the peak of their powers were forced into arbitrary retirement by a rule that was devised long ago in completely different circumstances.
Now we have the Parliamentary Secretary saying, with almost a straight face, that he will remove the welcome latitude that has hitherto been available to the Lord Chancellor's Department for the sake of blind uniformity with the wrong-headed rules applied to the rest of the civil service. This should be an opportunity to follow the good example of the Lord Chancellor's Department and change the rules for the rest of the civil service. We should abolish arbitrary, uniform and mandatory retirement ages, certainly for the civil service and preferably for everyone else. As a small first step, we should retain the existing flexibility in the Lord Chancellor's Department, and use it as a basis for changing the rules for the rest of the civil service.
For those reasons, we need more convincing reasons than we have heard so far to persuade us that the Bill is worth supporting. Because I am in a generous mood today, I am prepared to go along with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire, who made a perhaps over-generous offer to the Parliamentary Secretary. I will be guided by my right hon. and learned Friend, who has wide experience of such matters, but I hope that the Bill, however small a measure it may seem, will not be railroaded through the House today as if it were of little or no account. I hope that the Opposition's comments will convince the House that the Bill deserves thorough attention and a co-operative and flexible approach from the Government before it goes any further.
§ Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)When I first found out that the Bill was being brought before the House, my concern was that we had had no notice. I appreciate the need for urgency, which was mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, but the Bill involves a substantial change to an important appointment which has been notified in only one press notice from the Lord Chancellor's Department dated 29 October 1997—the same day that the Bill was published. My inquiries into the Bill's background, beyond what is covered by the press release from the Department, show that no consultation has taken place with any of the legal bodies, such as the Law Society, or with the union for senior civil servants. In effect, the Bill has no history, and no ministerial statement preceded it. Those facts raise concerns about the motives behind the Bill.
424 This afternoon, it has become clear that the reasons behind the Bill stem from the need of the Lord Chancellor's Department to find a replacement for the present permanent secretary, who intends to retire. That is not a good reason to change an established practice.
I shall now turn to the history of the role that the permanent secretary has played. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) noted, apparently no one was present on the Labour Benches when the Supreme Court Act 1981 was discussed by the House. If the then Opposition had bothered to be present, they would have learnt that the post of permanent secretary was treated together with judicial posts under the Act. I quote from the Supreme Court Act 1981.
A person shall not be qualified for appointment to any office in the Supreme Court listed in column I of any Part of Schedule 2 unless he is a person of any description specified in relation to that office in column 2 of that Part.At the top of the column, we have the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor and Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, and there is a requirement that the permanent secretary should have a 10-year general qualification in the law. It will be noted that that is similar to all the other major offices which are there listed, including the Official Solicitor, the Queen's Coroner and Attorney and Master of the Crown Office and Registrar of Criminal Appeals, the Registrar of Civil Appeals and the district judge of the principal registry of the family division. I take that back—he needs only five years' qualification within the relevant profession. A substantial number of persons and offices are listed which require a lesser period of legal general qualification.I am mindful of everything that the Minister has said, but a detailed explanation is required as to why an accepted practice which was not opposed by Labour in 1981—indeed, no Labour Member was present when it was accepted—is to be arbitrarily overturned. The measure as not been introduced in the House of Lords, as one might have expected—if only because the political and legal head of the Department concerned is the Lord Chancellor. One might say that it is the Lord Chancellor's cookie and we should have liked to hear his explanations at the outset.
The Minister has said that he wishes all the Bill's stages taken in the House to be taken in one go. Subsequently, it will go to the Lords for formal rubber stamping. I do not share that view and I would like to explain why. First, I wish to refer to the nature of the office. A great deal has been said by my hon. Friends on the subject, but it bears repeating. [Laughter.] One of the reasons why it bears repeating is that, effectively, we are having a dialogue with the Minister only. It is a pernicious development when it is assumed that a Bill can be rubber-stamped by this House without a proper debate.
§ Sir Nicholas LyellThose Labour Members who are laughing will need some points repeated, because they were not in the Chamber when they were originally made. They only came into the Chamber after my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) pointed out that not a soul was on the Government Back Benches except one hon. Lady substituting as a Parliamentary Private Secretary. I think she was not present in a Back-Bench role—perhaps she 425 will rise to speak and prove me wrong. All the others laughing so happily have not been listening to the debate, and my hon. Friend's remarks will be new to them.
§ Mr. GrieveI agree entirely, and that is why this is a proper subject for a full debate.
I have sympathy with the difficulty which the Minister says the Department faces. From 1885—when a permanent secretary was first appointed—until today, the scope of the Lord Chancellor's Department has changed beyond all recognition. It is an important Department of State and, in addition, a major spending Department. I am mindful of that, and of the fact that it has spawned a substantial bureaucracy. The Department has many employees and has an exceptionally important function in reconciling the administration of justice with the conduct of the Government, in a way that is peculiar to this country. The Department is particularly important to the way in which we conduct our business in this country.
I realise that there are potential difficulties in finding administrators who may be able to deal with the scope of the administrative operation of the Department. But one must reflect that, as the Department has grown in past years, there has not been much difficulty in recruiting permanent secretaries of the highest calibre to discharge their office, as the Minister has acknowledged. What has not been fully explored is the role of the permanent secretary in his quasi-judicial function. That is why he is listed along with all the other quasi-judicial functions in the 1981 Act.
The permanent secretary is the most important adviser to the Lord Chancellor on a number of matters, including appointments and the way in which the judiciary might better be able to function. It is of the utmost importance that, in carrying out this role, he should be able to advise the Lord Chancellor fully on a range of matters and to have good connections and contacts with all parts of the legal profession.
In my experience, previous permanent secretaries have involved themselves in the professional life of the Bar or the Law Society. I am well aware from my early days at the Bar that—either in office or retirement—a number of permanent secretaries took the closest possible interest in the way in which the profession operated, which clearly enabled them to have an enormous amount of input into the problems of the administration of justice in this country. It is proposed in the Bill that, in future, that involvement will not be a requirement. I am anxious that, in those circumstances, the Lord Chancellor will not receive the best advice for the discharge of his judicial functions.
Comments have been made to the effect that the legal profession is wishing to feather its own nest and keep its monopolies. But if I can give an analogy, it would be thought odd if the job of principal medical adviser to the Government went to someone who was not a doctor, on the basis that his functions were mainly administrative and that he could receive input from others. In such circumstances, he might just as well be an administrator as someone grounded in medical science. If that were the case, there would be an outcry and public disquiet on the subject.
Similarly, it is important that the Lord Chancellor is seen to be receiving from the permanent secretary—or someone occupying a position close to the permanent 426 secretary—the relevant legal and professional advice to enable the Lord Chancellor to discharge his burdensome duties. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) suggested that this could properly be done by an amendment which simply stated that, if the permanent secretary was not legally qualified and did not fulfil the criteria set out in the 1981 Act, his deputy would be acceptable.
I am bound to say that that is sensible and ought to commend itself to the Minister. If it does not, I will have serious reservations. There has been no consultation. The professional bodies concerned have not been asked for their views, and it has been suggested that this matter is so straightforward that it requires only a rubber stamp.
§ Mr. HawkinsMy hon. Friend refers to the lack of consultation, which tends to support the concern expressed in The Guardian—to which I have referred—that there is a distinct whiff of this matter being pushed through on the blind side by the Government in the hope that no one will notice. A suggestion for the Government's motivation was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) in an intervention. Is there not some truth in what he said?
§ Mr. Grieve; I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree. I have no comment as to the capacity or otherwise of any individual to fulfil the responsibilities of the office. I would not wish to do so. I reiterate, however, that simply to introduce such legislation because of a one-off difficulty without considering the totality of the picture is a mistake.
Before concluding, I must say one or two words about the agism. I do not want to go into it in great detail, as I have already intervened on the matter and do not intend to repeat myself. I would say, however, that, if one accepts that the nature of judicial and quasi-judicial offices is somewhat different from that of the other offices fulfilled in the civil service, and if one differentiates them from that service—which I believe the Government would be at pains to do—one immediately confronts the fact that the retirement ages are entirely different. That was for a good reason because it was considered that experience was of such importance in such offices that it overcame the need for the normal retirement age.
I have expressed the view that, as time goes by in the next decade, we will be confronted increasingly with the fact that we are forcing people to retire too early. That in itself is an argument why the present proposal is not a good one. Even if I were not dealing with that wider issue, however, I would still be concerned as to why it should be thought that the retirement age of the permanent secretary, who fulfils a completely individual role, should be tied to that of the rest of the civil service.
Everything that emphasises the somewhat different nature of the Lord Chancellor's Department from that of other offices of government is an important reinforcement of the independence of its role. I hope that the Minister will take on board the points that have been made. I shall certainly defer to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire wants to do at the conclusion of the Second Reading debate.
I can only express a certain amount of disquiet, and the hope that in future there should at least be a few weeks for adequate consultation and reflection. A feature of this 427 Government and the way in which they introduce legislation is that within 48 hours or a few days of its coming before the House it is back to be debated. That really is not good enough. We should be supplied with an opportunity for reflection and not simply hi-jacked and expected to say, "Well, it isn't very important. We can let it through." All legislation is important and the Bill is particularly so.
§ Mr. John M. Taylor (Solihull)I have ever suffered from the debilitating weakness of being able to see both sides of an argument, something that never troubled the last Prime Minister but two. On the one hand, in dealing with judges and the Bar, not least silks and the Law Society, one is dealing, dare I say, with a client group that can occasionally show a slight tendency to believe that no one but one of its own understands its business. On the other hand, it can in theory at least be a distortion to career progress in the Lord Chancellor's Department for senior civil servants in the Department to know that some of them could become permanent secretary and some, by statute no less, could never do so.
The question of a Department of State having a client group can incidentally, in certain circumstances, lead to false expectations on the part of that group. On seeing one of its own in place in a Ministry, the client group can half believe that he or she will represent it in government. To the contrary, he or she is most likely to be the bringer of denial on behalf of the Department to his or her fellow professionals in the client group. I experienced that as a solicitor and junior Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department—I was the first person to hold that office—and, indeed, as a member of the Law Society. To some extent, I think that I was a disappointment to my client group.
One wonders how far one might extend the provision. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) referred to a senior medical post—overtly medical in qualification—being occupied by someone who did not possess that qualification. What would happen to a Ministry of Defence whose permanent secretary was a retired general? Would it work? What about a large landowning, proprietor farmer as permanent secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a senior policeman at the Home Office, a diplomat at the Foreign Office—perhaps that happens, as there is a read-across between the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office and the diplomatic service—a consultant at health and an airline pilot at transport? The better view is that such appointments are not always happy.
That brings me to an analogy drawn from an exchange of correspondence that I had with the British Legion, which urged on me with highly responsible reason and argument that there should be a Minister for veterans. I was doubtful if such an appointment would bring them the advantages that they worthily desired, because such a Minister would inevitably represent the Government to them, not them to the Government.
At this point, I will not digress on what I consider to be the anomalous position of the Attorney-General, who is a very senior member of the Government and also head of the Bar [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I am tempted, but not that tempted. The House will be interested, as always, in an historical insight.
428 In the 1590s—400 years ago—the House of Commons debated the role of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for four solid days, coming to the conclusion–1 have this faithfully—that the Clerk of the Crown is our own particular officer. You may think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is a sort of mystery in all that. On the other hand, you may think that that is not a very heroic piece of definition. Four hundred years later, we still do not seem to have the measure of this man. That may not be entirely surprising, since he has been around since at least 1331 as Clerk of the Crown in Chancery certainly. I think Parliament may be a little frightened of him. He has the endurance of a Hapsburg and also has important duties relating to writs of summons to Members of this honourable House.
Finally, I agree with all that has been said about age discrimination, and I cannot understand why the measure was not introduced in the House of Lords. I feel that the Lord Chancellor's Department is particularly interesting. The office of Lord Chancellor has endured for about 1,360 years—it is almost as old as the monarchy and certainly far older than Parliament.
In an earlier time, not least in the time of the Tudors, the Lord High Chancellor of England was easily the most powerful man in the country. He usually combined his judicial duties with one of the two archbishoprics and was chief executive as no Prime Minister these days is. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House will be familiar with the great 18th-century nostrum. Searching for reasons to explain why England was stable, the great jurists of the day, such as Montesquieu and others, came to the conclusion that England was stable because it separated the three fundamental functions of the state—the judicial, the executive and the legislative. It was a very elegant conclusion.
§ Mr. HawkinsDoes my hon. Friend agree that one of the dangers of the proposal, introduced by the Minister with so little scrutiny, is that it may be part of the slippery slope to merging those three pillars of state? That accords with much that we used to hear from Labour Members in opposition—the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) often used to argue this—about lay people with no legal qualifications becoming not only magistrates but judges.
§ Mr. TaylorYes, one might as well have a vote on an aircraft to choose which passenger should be the pilot.
The 18th-century conclusion that England was stable because of the separation of powers was one that the examiners seemed to want to arrive at irrespective of the evidence. There was precious little separation of powers then, and to this day the Lord Chancellor has in his person the presidency of the Supreme Court, the speakership of the House of Lords, the helm of an important Department of State and a very senior place in the Cabinet.
The nostrums of 200 years ago were completely mistaken, but they had a mightily important consequence: the form and framework of the constitution of the United States of America, a country that is extremely difficult to govern because it has separation of powers and the Government cannot control spending.
I had the enormous, humble privilege of serving in the Lord Chancellor's Department, where I acquired deep respect for the civil servants, and not least the permanent 429 secretary, from whom I had immensely capable help and warm and friendly assistance throughout my three and a half years there. They remain some of the happiest days of my life and if, by some fluke, there are any present who are connected with the Department, I mind not at all that they should know.
I end as I began: I can see both sides of the argument, but I think that I shall follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) into the Lobby. How many times we shall go into the Lobby I am not sure. How much progress we shall make on the Bill is not known to me. As an Opposition Back Bencher, I do not control the timetable, so I shall merely take my opportunity, summoned as ever by bells, to register my vote in what will probably be several Divisions, before we can all go home, very much later tonight.
§ Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds)The Minister was surely right to say that the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department was an important post, but he was surely wrong to give the impression that the change in the Bill was merely technical. It is a change in an important matter of principle.
Part of the logic behind the Bill is set out in what Conservative Members consider to be an inadequate press release. The reason for the change is couched in the language of managerialism. I know how popular managerialism is on the Government Benches, but I fail to understand how the Government can ask us to support the change, when the reason given is that the limitation that they want to get rid of
is no longer appropriate to what over the years has become a major Department of State with a large budget and staff and a wide range of responsibilities.From the words in the press release, one might believe that the job described was counting paper clips or dealing with stationery orders or staff matters. That is part of the permanent secretary's job, but it is not the whole of it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) ably pointed out, the permanent secretary has quasi-judicial functions. We have heard precious little about that from the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), quoting Mr. Marcel Berlins, explained the other, partial logic behind the Bill: the levelling down and egalitarianism with which we are so familiar from the Government. It does not serve the interests of justice or the proper and efficient running of the Department.
Whatever the logic—I use the word loosely in connection with the Labour party—it is perfectly clear that the Minister has not done his homework. The many excellent speeches by Conservative Members have exposed the many flaws in his argument. The Minister is laughing, but he must answer some important questions. Why has the First Division Association, according to the Library, not been consulted in any way? That is a disgraceful way to treat senior public servants. The Government talk about listening, caring, compassion and giving, but they are not giving much time and attention to the senior civil servants who work for them.
§ Mr. MalinsMy hon. Friend refers to consultation. Has there been any consultation with the judiciary, 430 the presiding judges at the various Crown court centres, the Bar Council, the Law Society or any of the other leading bodies that might be interested in the Bill?
§ Mr. RuffleyMy hon. Friend makes a good point, and we need answers from the Minister.
§ Mr. HawkinsOn the lack of consultation with the First Division Association, it should be noted that the former head of the FDA in the previous Parliament, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, is now a Minister in another place. One wonders what she thinks of her ministerial colleagues failing to consult her former trade union.
§ Mr. RuffleyMy hon. Friend makes a good point. Perhaps Baroness Symons would like to make her views known, assuming that the Minister without Portfolio will let her. I understand from the Library that the Law Society was also not consulted. We are entitled to ask that there should be consultation on legislation with parties that have a legitimate interest.
There is another problem that the Minister has not dealt with: the disincentive to able lawyers in the civil service who want to stay there. We have heard nothing from the Minister about recruitment and retention; I hope that he will address that. It is difficult enough as it is to recruit top-rank lawyers to serve the Government, because there is a great discrepancy between the pay that a top lawyer can expect in the Government's legal service and in the City.
When I worked in the City as a solicitor, it was not uncommon for first-rate legal brains to become partners of law firms and earn more than £200,000. Labour Members may think that that is obscene, but since their conversion to market principles they should at least acknowledge that we get what we pay for. If that is the going rate for first-rate lawyers in the City, we know that we will have a problem in getting the best in the Government legal service. That problem will become worse if the Bill is enacted, because many able young lawyers in the Government legal service will feel that they have lost the right to obtain the top job in the Lord Chancellor's Department. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath said, the Bill is anti-lawyer.
The Attorney-General has just taken his seat. The Government are doing so badly that they have had to bring in the big guns.
What work has the Minister done, with his officials, to see what effect the Bill will have on the recruitment and retention of first-rate legal ability in the Government legal service? If he has not done such work, will he undertake to do it today and report to the House accordingly?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) put his finger on the main issue when he said that the permanent secretary has a job like no other in the Lord Chancellor's Department. Legal specialism in such a Department is important. I have seen how civil servants' lack of legal ability can damage the quality of legislation. I have played a part in government for a lot longer than the Minister. I was a special adviser at the Home Office. I was shocked to see how policy failures emanated from the failure of senior Home Office civil servants, dealing with legal matters, to grasp legal concepts. That led to policy failures with which Ministers had to grapple. 431 For example, problems were caused by unit fines under criminal justice legislation, and legal definitions in the new age travellers legislation were not thought through. A good permanent secretary should have a handle on such subjects. At the end of the day, he is responsible for the quality of legislation that is put in draft for Ministers' approval. There are many clear examples of where a failure of legal understanding on the part of senior civil servants damages the quality of a Department's output.
When we consider all the evidence, we must conclude that the Bill has not been thought through, and many questions remain. The Opposition would prefer the Bill to be dropped, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lye11), being a generous man, has put forward a sensible amendment which addresses most of our concerns. If the Government have any sense, they will accept the amendment and ensure that we have what we all want—a proper functioning Lord Chancellor's Department. I thank my hon. Friends for their interventions and I urge support for my right hon. and learned Friend.
§ Mr. HoonThe debate has been characterised by what can only be described as a gaggle of lawyers articulating some concern for other lawyers' vested interest in securing particular positions. That was described as vigorous opposition. Perhaps the Government should be grateful, because if that is vigorous opposition, they may not have much to worry about. If Opposition Members have to spend such a disproportionate amount of time on this modest measure, they may not have time for other matters, so at least I am assisting the Government's programme by occupying hon. Members who might have been usefully employed elsewhere.
§ Mr. GrieveHas not the debate revealed the Government's lack of scrutiny of the measure?
§ Mr. HoonOn the contrary: it has revealed Opposition Members' failure to do their homework. The single point that has been repeated throughout the debate is that the Bill removes the important qualification that the permanent secretary should be legally qualified.
§ Sir Nicholas LyellIn which year did that requirement first appear?
§ Mr. HoonThe requirement has been in place for a considerable time. However, if it is so vital that the permanent secretary should be legally qualified, why did the previous Conservative Government, in which the right hon. and learned Member held such a distinguished position, change the rules to allow, for the first time, the office to be occupied by someone who was not a lawyer? Conservative Members have referred many times to the importance of that position being occupied by a lawyer, but it was their Government who changed that. That is why it is remarkable that Conservative Members have not done their homework as thoroughly as they might have before spending so much time on this issue.
I shall deal briefly with the more sensible points that have been made during the debate, but there were not too many. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) 432 achieved the ultimate in hyperbole when he said that the Government were playing fast and loose with the constitution and that that was the road to perdition. Clearly, the road to perdition for a lawyer is taking away the opportunity to compete freely with others in order to secure a position, because that is what we are debating today.
It is remarkable that lawyers should spend so much time, presumably without any extra payment, arguing that cause. Looking at the distinguished qualifications that have been on display today, I am surprised and disappointed that they were not earning a much better living otherwise than in the Chamber.
However, one or two sensible points have to be addressed. In particular, there was the suggestion that the deputy to the permanent secretary should be a lawyer. That is simply not practical, not least because it bears no relation to the way in which the Lord Chancellor's Department, or any other Department, is organised. It may seem a long time since the Government were elected in May, because we have had such success in achieving our manifesto commitments, but Opposition Members who have had some experience of government have clearly forgotten how their Departments were organised. At least three former Ministers are sitting on the Opposition Benches, and they should remember that hardly a Department has a deputy permanent secretary. These changes have been under way for a considerable time.
I can assure the House that knowledge and experience of the legal and judicial culture are bound to be desirable qualities for someone in this position. All things being equal, it may be attractive to have a candidate who possesses such qualifications. In any event, the successful candidate will either have to possess those qualities or show a capacity to acquire them.
Furthermore, apart from the fact that the Department's legal adviser works directly to the permanent secretary, the senior management of the Department is always likely to include people who possess those qualities and who can support the permanent secretary or the Lord Chancellor.
This remarkable effort by the lawyers on the Opposition Benches to preserve the qualification of lawyer for this position is a farrago of nonsense.
Mr. MalinThe Minister would not have said that the current choice is severely limited unless he had something with which to back up his statement. How wide is the field? What is the choice currently available?
§ Mr. HoonI referred to senior civil servants. Very few senior civil servants currently possess the requisite qualifications. Some lawyers have those qualifications, and anyone who has worked in the Department for the requisite period is similarly qualified—the hon. Gentleman overlooked that aspect, but I shall pass over that. As Conservative Members have emphasised often enough during the debate, someone with suitable seniority and experience will necessarily have had long experience of government. We would look to a very senior figure when considering an appointment to this position. Very few senior figures in Whitehall at present are suitably qualified.
§ Sir Nicholas LyellI listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He said that very few people in government service have the requisite qualifications.
§ Sir Nicholas LyellHe said that very few people in the Lord Chancellor's Department—
§ Sir Nicholas LyellThe hon. Gentleman keeps shaking his head and saying that he did not say that. I wrote down, "very few who have the requisite qualifications": those were his ipsissima verba. I am sure that he will explain them, and when he does so, will he say briefly what the requisite qualifications for this post are and where he expects to find them?
§ Mr. HoonFew senior civil servants with the requisite experience are qualified under the existing statutory rules. That is the problem which the Department faces in securing the appointment of someone who has the various qualifications that Conservative Members have set out.
Conservative Members are caught by their own logic. If their logic is that it is vital to appoint someone who is so senior and experienced that he could hold such a responsible position in the Lord Chancellor's Department, they must recognise that it is important for the Department, when seeking such a figure, to be able to attract candidates from the widest possible field and not be limited to people who have either a legal qualification or the requisite five years' experience in the Department. Those are the two qualifications that the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about.
§ Sir Nicholas LyellIt is not good enough. The hon. Gentleman has just referred to two qualifications that candidates may not have, but he has not listed any of the qualifications that are required. He will certainly have done his homework, so he should be able to spin off at least five qualifications that he has in mind.
§ Mr. HoonThis modest, technical change to the rules is important, because it will allow us to appoint the permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department from among people with suitable qualifications and background who are presently eligible to be considered for the post of permanent secretary in any other Department. We should be able to choose someone with the requisite qualifications for leadership and management of a large public or private sector organisation. They should be familiar with, and ideally have direct experience of, the processes of government, and have proven experience of strategic policy development and implementation.
The Bill removes the requirement of a legal qualification. I do not believe that it is necessary to have such a qualification. The previous Government established that in their legislation. It is remarkable that the House has been detained for so long by Conservative Members putting up bogus arguments. They voted for such a measure during the previous Parliament.
§ Mr. GrieveI want to understand fully the hon. Gentleman's position. The 1990 amendment to the 434 original Act provides that, as an alternative to a lawyer, someone who has been in the Lord Chancellor's Department for five years can be considered. The present measure will allow a senior civil servant who has not worked in the Lord Chancellor's Department and is not a lawyer to be appointed. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the 1990 amendment was introduced so as to be mindful of the need for the appointee to be familiar with the way in which the Lord Chancellor's Department operated if the person concerned was not a lawyer? Will the hon. Gentleman deal with that issue?
§ Mr. HoonI distinctly heard the sound of ground changing: that was not the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks. Having been reminded of the issues we are dealing with, he is now shifting his argument significantly. If he will forgive me, as he could not get it right the first time, I shall not pay any attention to his second, C-minus effort.
I have answered all the serious questions save one. The matter of retirement age much concerned Conservative Members. The current provisions will allow the permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department to retire on the same basis as any other permanent secretary in any other Department. The permanent secretary will have the same opportunity as any other to continue after 60 in appropriate circumstances. There is that flexibility; former Ministers and any Conservative Members who have had experience of government know that full well. They are trying to put up a smokescreen: it is a charade.
§ Sir Nicholas LyellThe hon. Gentleman said that former Ministers know full well that there is flexibility to allow people to continue after 60. I confess to less than complete knowledge of that. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us in two sentences what the rules are and how long any permanent secretary can continue?
§ Mr. HoonThe rules are flexible and can be agreed with the person concerned in the light of the circumstances to which Conservatives Members referred. If someone in that position still fulfils a valuable role in the Department, that person can, by agreement, be allowed to stay on after 60. All this modest proposal will do is put the Lord Chancellor's Department on the same footing as any other Department.
§ Mr. ForthOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. It has been suggested that the Minister may seek to deal with further stages of the Bill today. It would help us if we knew before he resumes his seat, and before you ask the House for its view on Second Reading, how the Minister proposes to deal with this matter procedurally, and whether he is prepared to accept the reasonable amendments that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) seeks to make to the Bill. I hope that you agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that would help the House.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the Chair. It is a point of information to the Minister.
§ Mr. HoonI dealt with the right hon. Gentleman's reflections on the vigorous opposition that he claimed the 435 official Opposition were now providing, although perhaps he was absent. I said that I was surprised that this debate amounted to vigorous opposition. If there had been vigorous opposition, the right hon. Gentleman would have noticed that the Order Paper showed that the measure was to go through all its stages. That has been available for the past week for Conservative Members to consider. Unfortunately, the vigour of their opposition does not appear to have manifested itself until rather late this afternoon.
§ Mr. HoonNo, I will not give way.
Indeed, the vigour of Conservative Members' opposition manifested itself so late in the day that amendments were submitted only at the eleventh hour.
§ Sir Nicholas LyellThe hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is not good enough. He has acknowledged in the House today that I alerted the Lord Chancellor last week to the suggestion that there should be a deputy secretary. That is the subject which we seek to debate today, and that is the matter on which we seek a careful and considered answer. I have tabled a manuscript amendment, which I hope will be selected for debate. It would be very helpful if the Minister would calmly and courteously answer the questions put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and me about his attitude to a proper debate on this important issue.
§ Mr. HoonI was not in any way casting any doubt on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's integrity; I was simply reflecting on the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that he was somehow a representative of some new, vigorous Opposition. Had he been as vigorous as he claimed, he might well have been able to check how long the proposal had been on the Order Paper—and, indeed, why his colleagues in the Opposition Whips Office had not sought to suggest, for example, in the light of today's debate, that the matter should be referred to a Committee.
The Government received no representations whatever suggesting that that was what the Opposition wanted. In fact, until this afternoon's filibuster began, we had assumed—
§ Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that, if a filibuster had been taking place, you would have ruled the speeches out of order? It is not right for a Minister Crown to describe speeches made by hon. Members as a filibuster, because that is not allowed in the Chamber.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)The Chair has not heard anything so far that has been out of order. My advice to the House is that there should be a little less provocation on both sides.
§ Mr. HoonI was simply entering into the spirit of things, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise if any Conservative Members have been offended by the robust nature of my remarks.
§ Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 5.
437| Division No. 84] | [6.12 pm |
| AYES | |
| Ainger, Nick | Gardiner, Barry |
| Allan, Richard | Goggins, Paul |
| Allen, Graham | Grogan, John |
| Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) | Hain, Peter |
| Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) | Hall, Patrick (Bedford) |
| Armstrong, Ms Hilary | Harvey, Nick |
| Atherton, Ms Candy | Heal, Mrs Sylvia |
| Atkins, Charlotte | Healey, John |
| Austin, John | Heath, David (Somerton & Frome) |
| Ballard, Mrs Jackie | Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) |
| Banks, Tony | Hepburn, Stephen |
| Barnes, Harry | Heppell, John |
| Battle, John | Hill, Keith |
| Bayley, Hugh | Hinchliffe, David |
| Beard, Nigel | Hoey, Kate |
| Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret | Hoon, Geoffrey |
| Bell, Marlin (Tatton) | Hope, Phil |
| Betts, Clive | Hopkins, Kelvin |
| Blears, Ms Hazel | Howarth, George (Knowsley N) |
| Blizzard, Bob | Hutton, John |
| Bradshaw, Ben | Iddon, Dr Brian |
| Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E) | Illsley, Eric |
| Buck, Ms Karen | Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) |
| Burden, Richard | Jenkins, Brian |
| Burgon, Colin | Johnson, Miss Melanie |
| Burnett, John | (Welwyn Hatfield) |
| Burstow, Paul | Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark) |
| Byers, Stephen | Jones, Helen (Warrington N) |
| Cable, Dr Vincent | Jones, Ms Jennifer |
| Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) | (Wolverh'ton SW) |
| Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) |
| Caplin, Ivor | Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) |
| Casale, Roger | Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) |
| Chaytor, David | Keeble, Ms Sally |
| Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) | Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) |
| Clwyd, Ann | Keetch, Paul |
| Coaker, Vernon | Kelly, Ms Ruth |
| Coffey, Ms Ann | Khabra, Piara S |
| Coleman, Iain | Kilfoyle, Peter |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton N) | King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green) |
| Cooper, Yvette | Kingham, Ms Tess |
| Corbett, Robin | Kumar, Dr Ashok |
| Corston, Ms Jean | Ladyman, Dr Stephen |
| Cotter, Brian | Lawrence, Ms Jackie |
| Cranston, Ross | Laxton, Bob |
| Crausby, David | Lepper, David |
| Cryer, John (Hornchurch) | Levitt, Tom |
| Cummings, John | Liddell, Mrs Helen |
| Darling, Rt Hon Alistair | Linton, Martin |
| Darvill, Keith | Livingstone, Ken |
| Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) | Livsey, Richard |
| Dawson, Hilton | Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C) |
| Dean, Mrs Janet | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Dismore, Andrew | McDonagh, Siobhain |
| Dobson, Rt Hon Frank | McIsaac, Shona |
| Doran, Frank | McKenna, Mrs Rosemary |
| Drew, David | Mackinlay, Andrew |
| Drown, Ms Julia | Mactaggart, Fiona |
| Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) | McWalter, Tony |
| Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) | Mallaber, Judy |
| Edwards, Huw | Marek, Dr John |
| Ennis, Jeff | Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) |
| Etherington, Bill | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
| Fitzpatrick, Jim | Marshall-Andrews, Robert |
| Flynn, Paul | Merron, Gillian |
| Follett, Barbara | Michael, Alun |
| Foster, Michael J (Worcester) | Milburn, Alan |
| Gapes, Mike | Mitchell, Austin |
| Moore, Michael | Shipley, Ms Debra |
| Moran, Ms Margaret | Short, Rt Hon Clare |
| Morley, Elliot | Singh, Marsha |
| Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon) | Smith, Jacqui (Redditch) |
| Mountford, Kali | Smith, John (Glamorgan) |
| Mudie, George | Soley, Clive |
| Mullin, Chris | Spellar, John |
| Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) | Stewart, Ian (Eccles) |
| Naysmith, Dr Doug | Stinchcombe, Paul |
| Norris, Dan | Stoate, Dr Howard |
| O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) | Stuart, Ms Gisela |
| O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) | Stunell, Andrew |
| O'Hara, Eddie | Sutcliffe, Gerry |
| Olner, Bill | Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann |
| Palmer, Dr Nick | (Dewsbury) |
| Perham, Ms Linda | Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W) |
| Pickthall, Colin | Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W) |
| Pike, Peter L | Todd, Mark |
| Plaskitt, James | Tonge, Dr Jenny |
| Pollard, Kerry | Touhig, Don |
| Pond, Chris | Turner, Desmond (Kemptown) |
| Pope, Greg | Twigg, Derek (Halton) |
| Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) | Twigg, Stephen (Enfield) |
| Prosser, Gwyn | Vis, Dr Rudi |
| Rammell, Bill | Watts, David |
| Rapson, Syd | White, Brian |
| Rendel, David | Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen) |
| Roche, Mrs Barbara | Winnick, David |
| Rooney, Terry | Wood, Mike |
| Russell, Bob (Colchester) | Woolas, Phil |
| Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) | Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock) |
| Ryan, Ms Joan | Wyatt, Derek |
| Salter, Martin | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Sedgemore, Brian | Jane Kennedy and |
| Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert | Mr. Kevin Hughes. |
| NOES | |
| Colvin, Michael | Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton) |
| Grieve, Dominic | |
| Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Johnson Smith, | Mr. Eric Forth and |
| Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Mr. Nick Hawkins. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
§ That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Janet Anderson.]
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee.—[Janet Anderson.]
§ Sir Nicholas LyellI shall be brief. Hon. Members who were not here for the earlier debate will be interested to know what this one is about. It is about the fact that the Government are seeking to get their business through the House in a day. I have made it perfectly clear that we are not seeking to prevent that: the official Opposition did not vote against Second Reading. We seek a sensible debate on two points, the first and most fundamental of which I gave the Lord Chancellor notice of a week ago. The Minister acknowledges that. I have tabled a manuscript amendment and hope that I can persuade you to call it, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
§ Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a bit confused about 438 whether we are in Committee or debating whether to go into Committee. I do not know whether other hon. Members would own up to the same confusion. Could the matter be clarified?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerIf the hon. Gentleman were in the House paying attention to our proceedings he would know. The occupant of the Chair should not be required to inform him of the position. A motion has been moved about immediate committal. That is the Question that is before us.
§ Sir Nicholas LyellHon. Members may feel that they are being kept longer than they expected. We wish to have a serious debate on two questions. The first basic question in the Bill is whether the House should agree that the Lord Chancellor's permanent secretary should not necessarily be a lawyer, not necessarily even a person with a legal qualification, who has grown up with the work of the Department and who has been there for at least five years. While we would be prepared to give that a fair wind, we would be prepared to do so only if the important continuity of knowledge from the Lord Chancellor's Department to the Lord Chancellor about his judicial functions and all functions connected with them and in relation to the practical administration of the courts were protected.
That could be done by ensuring that when the Lord Chancellor's permanent secretary is not a lawyer or someone with five years' experience, there would be a deputy secretary in the Department to fulfil the necessary functions. He would be a lawyer of 10 years' standing; and there must be scores, if not hundreds, of such people with developing seniority in the Government legal service. That would mean that the Lord Chancellor would have a senior person who carries the respect accorded to someone who holds a notified post to whom he could turn on these important aspects of his duties. That would help to ensure that "can-doism", which I am sure would never take over in the Lord Chancellor's Department, is balanced by a respect for law and legality. That is the serious debate we seek.
It is sometimes difficult for a manuscript amendment to be called. I am sure that the point has been grasped by the 220 hon. Members who are here. I hope that the Minister will give me a fair wind by saying that the Government will support a debate on my amendment if the House goes into Committee. Of course, that does not bind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should be grateful for a helpful answer to that from the Minister, and then we can decide whether we should support our continuing to scrutinise the Bill in Committee tonight.
§ Mr. ForthThe House is debating whether this matter should immediately be considered in Committee, and anyone who was in the Chamber during the Second Reading debate—which virtually no Labour Member attended—would realise immediately that the problem that confronts the House is the Minister's persistent refusal to give proper answers to the questions asked by Opposition Members during the debate.
The motion must be viewed in the light of what went before. Surely we cannot expect automatically to agree a 439 deviation from the normal procedures of the House without taking some account of what happened previously; that would be entirely unreasonable. That, I suggest, is why procedures allow for the short debate on which we are now embarking, in which I suspect several of my hon. Friends wish to participate, because we must now consider, as a House, whether we are ready to consider the matter in Committee now, as opposed to at a future date.
The difficulty is not confined to the poor quality of the Minister's response. It also revolves around what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) said earlier about the difficulties that may or may not arise from the ability of the Committee—were it to sit—to consider amendments. I say that specifically because my right hon. and learned Friend has been over-generous to the Government and to the Minister. I am sorry to say that, but I think that he has. He has made them an offer that I could just about go along with, were it to be agreed to.
I would prefer that we be allowed to reflect on what was said on Second Reading—on the points so eloquently made by Opposition Members and on the Minister's bumbling and rather arrogant replies. We should reflect on those and consider, in the light of the Second Reading debate, which has just finished, whether we want to amend the Bill. We should consider whether to take the package generously offered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire or, as I would prefer, to seek to move separate amendments, dealing separately with the key points that emerged from the debate.
Those key points were, first, the proposed lifting of the restriction on the recruitment of a permanent secretary and, secondly, the point skated over by the Minister as though it were of no consequence—the age limit on the service of a permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department.
Those matters may or may not go together. I am starting to think, reflecting—as I have had only a few moments to do—on the Second Reading debate, that those matters can and should be dealt with separately. However, were the Minister to be prepared to be reasonable to the line taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire, my colleagues might be prepared to go along with him. It would not be proper, however, in the light of the debate that has taken place, for matters such as that to be rushed into.
The Minister made the procedure sound like a minor technicality. He tried to spoof the House as if to say, "Why are Conservative Members here? Why are they taking part in the debate? How have they the nerve to come to the Chamber to raise these points and waste my time?" I believe that I sum him up not unfairly.
That will not do. The Minister may be relatively new in government, but he must learn that the Government are accountable to the House of Commons and that that accountability expresses itself in debate, in the mature consideration of points and in the consideration of amendments that are tabled now, rather peremptorily, on the Floor in Committee, or in Committee upstairs.
§ Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath)Does my right hon. Friend agree that among the points that the Minister signally failed to answer was the point about the fact that the Bill was not introduced in another place? As several of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, we would expect that to be the procedure in the case of legislation that directly reflects on the position of the Lord Chancellor. That is another matter that needs reflection while the House is considering whether it is prepared to have the Bill pushed through without proper debate, all in one day.
§ Mr. ForthMy hon. Friend is right, and he reminds me that that was yet another argument that received, as far as I recall, no response from the Minister. I should have thought that, as a courtesy to the House, he might have explained why he and his colleagues in the Government had decided to table discussion of the Bill on a Thursday evening, to slip it through—probably while no one was noticing—and then to dust it off and send it to the other place.
That is not the way that we should deal with these things. This is a serious matter—a matter of substance. We recognise that. The number of my colleagues who have attended the debate, the thought that they have given to the Bill and the thoughtful speeches that they have made are ample evidence of that.
The matter that we are now considering—which we should not rush, either—in the light of what has been dealt with so far today, in the light of the debate on Second Reading, which some hon. Members now in the Chamber have just sat through, is whether it is reasonable and proper, in parliamentary terms, in scrutiny terms, in legislative terms, for us to rush into Committee without a chance for reflection. Should we do so without a chance, if I even dare suggest it, for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire to have discussions with the Minister, to discover whether something might be worked out?
I sensed that there was some common ground, in spite of the Minister's bluster. I sensed that the reasonableness of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire might have provided the basis of an agreement; but can we do that on the hoof? I doubt it. I doubt that we shall get a quality of outcome from this matter if there is an attempt to rush the Bill through.
These are serious and weighty matters, which the House must consider, and I hope that due consideration can be given. As you have gathered, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I remain to be convinced that we are ready for the matter to be dealt with now, as opposed to at a reasonable future date. Unless I am much more convinced than I have been by the Minister, that would remain my view. I hope that he will reflect on that and realise that we are—I probably speak for all of my colleagues—in a mood to be helpful on this if only he will help us. That is all I am asking. It is not an unreasonable request.
The Minister must learn that even the present Government must understand that there is give and take in this process. We are prepared to give rather a lot, but we should like some latitude from the Government on this matter, perhaps starting now.
§ Mr. MalinsMy right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is right; the Minister gave no help on Second Reading. He was utterly dismissive of many of our arguments. Specifically, we repeatedly asked what the nature of the consultation was and whether presiding judges were consulted. Were the Crown court circuit judges, the Bar Council or the Law Society consulted? Who was consulted? We received no answer.
Throughout the debate, no Member was on the Labour Benches, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston), whose contribution we might have welcomed, as he has a distinguished career in the law. Perhaps he had been told to keep his mouth shut and not to say a word. As it was, questions such as those that I would have expected a man of his intelligence to ask were asked by Conservative Members, and not one received a proper answer. That is why I share the sentiments expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.
§ Mr. HoonWe are debating whether this matter should proceed immediately into Committee. We have heard a great deal of lyrical objection, especially from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who I think will become celebrated, as a result of his contribution to the Second Reading debate, as the author of the phrase, the debate that we have had today indicates that we have a vigorous Opposition. Unfortunately, the vigorous Opposition on that occasion only amounted to the five Members who passed through the No Lobby, so the official Opposition managed to get fewer Members through the No Lobby than the number who spoke on Second Reading. Perhaps Conservative Members were so exhausted by the process of the Second Reading debate that they could not summon the vigour to walk through the No Lobby.
It is important for the House to realise that the official Opposition have had notice of our intention to deal with this matter for some seven days. During those seven days not a single representation was made from any Opposition Member, through the usual channels or in other ways, indicating any objection to this matter being dealt with through all its stages today. I urge the House to accept the motion.
§ Sir Nicholas LyellWith the leave of the House. That is not good enough.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot speak for a second time in this debate.
§ Sir Nicholas LyellOn a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary made no attempt to respond to the key issue in the debate
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order. He cannot make a second speech on that basis.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Resolved,
442§ That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee.
-
c442
- SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair 20 words