HC Deb 09 September 2003 vol 410 cc158-60
21. Mr. Paul Goodman (Wycombe)

What responses he has had to his consultation on the appointment of judges. [128464]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)

At this early stage of the consultation on the issue of creating a more independent judicial appointments process, a wide range of responses has already been received, including from members of the judiciary, magistrates, solicitors, barristers, academics and members of the public. Consultation closes on 7 November.

Mr. Goodman

Given that radical left-wing modernisation and the separation of powers are surely one and the same, will the Minister confirm that there will be no political veto over the appointment of judges—and if not, why not?

Mr. Leslie

The present arrangement has a Cabinet Minister intimately involved in the selection process of the judiciary. That system has produced a judiciary of very high standing and probity, but we feel that it is now an unsustainable anachronism and that we should have more open, transparently independent appointments processes. That is why we want an independent judicial appointments commission, and a number of options have been posited in the consultation paper, which I commend to the hon. Gentleman.

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire)

The Minister talks about a more open and transparent system. Is it not the case that, last year, although the Lord Chancellor's Department received 3,600 applications, carried out 1,800 interviews and made more than 750 appointments, a clear audit trail for that process is lacking? Would not such an audit trail help to produce a system that would lead to a more diverse and representative Bench in a rather shorter time than the 10 to 15 years that some commentators believe it will take at the moment?

Mr. Leslie

It is, of course, desirable to have a more diverse judiciary reflecting the broad nature of the population, but we have to have appointment on merit, and this is the best way to proceed. One of the proposals in the consultation document is for a judicial ombudsman to oversee the work of the independent judicial appointments commission, but we believe that the current Commissioner for Judicial Appointments already does a good job of auditing and ensuring that our appointments process is of a high standard.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)

The noble and learned Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, said recently: If the Executive can influence who is on the appointments commission and who the commission appoints that is interfering with the judiciary."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 September 2003; Vol. 652, c. 113.] To ensure that that does not happen, will the Minister ensure that the committee that appoints the commission will not be chaired by the permanent secretary to his Department? If the Secretary of State is to have any role in judicial appointments, should it not be confined to accepting a single name proffered by the commission or, if rejecting it, giving reasons for so doing?

Mr. Leslie

There is an important issue involved in ensuring that advice on appointments from the Crown is given by Ministers, so that Ministers can be held accountable to Parliament. The hon. Gentleman asks an important question, however. The issue of who appoints the appointers is brought out in the consultation document. There is also a proposal in that document for an appointments panel chaired by the permanent secretary of the Department, with a senior judge and another senior non-political figure. We await the responses to see what the reaction to that proposal might be, but I hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

Mr. William Cash (Stone)

The Minister will know that we affirm the absolute necessity of maintaining the independence of the judiciary as the safeguard of the freedom of the people, and of maintaining the freedom of the rule of law from political interference. How can the Government's proposed reforms achieve that? First, the ultimate appointment of judges will be made by the Secretary of State, who, on 14 July, said that he intended to act politically. Secondly, as has been said, the sifting committee will be chaired by his own permanent secretary. Thirdly, far from achieving a proper separation of powers, the proposals remove the constitutional authority of the Lord Chancellor in the Cabinet, thus enhancing the power of the Secretary of State and thereby that of the Prime Minister—as usual.

Mr. Leslie

The hon. Gentleman should pay a little more attention to the detail in the consultation document. He is wrong, for instance, in saying that we propose that the permanent secretary chair the sifting panel during the selection process. That is simply not correct. We want an independent judicial appointments commission that will undertake the day-to-day process of selection separately. Under the current arrangement, as with that operated by the last Administration, a political Lord Chancellor sitting in the Cabinet—a Minister—undertakes all aspects of the process. We believe that the time when that was justifiable is past, and we want a more independent system. I hope that the Conservative party will add its support for that.