§ 33. Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford)If he will make a statement on the role of the Lord Chancellor in maintaining communication between the Government and the judiciary. [91631]
§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz)It has long been recognised that the office of the Lord Chancellor is both a link between the Government and the judges, and a bulwark of judicial independence. The Lord Chancellor, as the responsible Minister, is accountable to Parliament, as the judges could not be, for the overall efficiency of the administration of justice. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor recently restated this in a speech to the third worldwide common law judiciary conference at Edinburgh on 5 July. I have put a copy of his speech in the Library.
§ Mr. St. AubynIn the first Session of this Parliament, the Lord Chancellor described himself as the Prime Minister's Cardinal Wolsey. He now says that he is the buffer between the Executive and the judiciary. Evidently he cannot perform both roles. If he cannot decide which role he is supposed to be performing, perhaps he should abolish his own position along with that of the other buffers in another place whose role he is abolishing on the grounds that they have no suitable function in the modern democratic age.
§ Mr. VazI think that the phrase ascribed to the Lord Chancellor came not from him but from Miss Frances Gibb, a journalist with The Times. The office of Lord Chancellor carries great authority within the Government. It upholds judicial independence and can mediate between the Executive and the judiciary when necessary. The Lord Chancellor can perform that function because of his seniority in the Cabinet, because he is head of the judiciary and because he is so widely respected in the profession.
§ Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon)Will the Minister say whether, in the Lord Chancellor's communications with the judiciary, the subject of a 117 judicial appointments commission has been raised? What was the reaction of the judiciary to such a commission and how did it feel it should be constituted?
§ Mr. VazI am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot disclose the conversations or correspondence between the Lord Chancellor and the judiciary, as these are matters of confidence. The Lord Chancellor, as he told the Select Committee on Home Affairs last year, has not ruled out a judicial appointments commission. It is not a priority at present, and he will make his mind up in due course.
§ Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath)The Minister, in referring in his initial answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) to the Lord Chancellor's role as that of a bulwark, showed some sensitivity about the phrase which he ascribed to the distinguished legal correspondent of The Times. Whether bulwark or buffer, does not the Lord Chancellor recognise that perhaps his description of himself in his speech to that conference might be greeted by hollow laughter by many members of the legal profession who remember that the Lord Chancellor is perhaps the Prime Minister's oldest crony? Perhaps many members of the legal profession who traditionally have supported the Government party might nevertheless be concerned that this Lord Chancellor does not regard himself as the defender of the legal profession, but is very much in the Prime Minister's pocket.
§ Mr. VazThat is utter nonsense. The Lord Chancellor conducts the various duties of his high office with enormous dignity and integrity. The hon. Gentleman ought to know better.