HL Deb 14 July 1999 vol 604 cc454-5

(".—(1) A person who applies to the Lord Chancellor to be recommended for appointment as Queen's Counsel in England and Wales shall pay a fee to the Lord Chancellor.

(2) The amount of the fee shall be specified by order made by the Lord Chancellor; and in determining that amount the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the expenses incurred by him in considering such applications.

(3) An order under subsection (2) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(4) This section does not affect section 9 of the Great Seal (Offices) Act 1874 (under which fees are charged in respect of the grant of Letters Patent under the Great Seal for appointment as Queen's Counsel).").

The Lord Chancellor

; My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 79. With your Lordships' leave I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 126 and 128.

These amendments will enable me to charge fees to recoup the cost of administering the annual competition for the rank of Queen's Counsel. Currently the only power to charge a fee in relation to Queen's Counsel relates to the Crown Office and its costs. These costs, which in 1999 were about £10,000 are limited to the actual grant of Letters Patent to successful applicants.

However, the majority of the work and costs of this competition relates to the processing of applications prior to the grant of the rank of Queen's Counsel to successful candidates. Most of those applications are unsuccessful. During the competition for 1998–99 out of 553 applications only 69 were successful.

The majority of the work and costs of this competition relate to the work involved in considering applications in advance of the award of practising Queen's Counsel to successful candidates and of subsequently providing feedback to those unsuccessful candidates who request it. Indeed, most of these applications are unsuccessful.

Handling all these applications, many of which are from applicants who have applied on previous occasions, and will apply again, perhaps successfully, perhaps not, and giving feedback to those unsuccessful applicants who ask for feedback is a time consuming and costly process. The cost to my department last year was around £185,000.

This constitutes a public subsidy for a system of promotion in a profession which perhaps is not distinguished for its need for subsidy from the public purse. We therefore consider the introduction of an application fee for the rank of Queen's Counsel highly desirable.

Amendments Nos. 126 and 128 amend Clause 86 of the Bill to allow the new clause to take effect on Royal Assent. The annual competition for Queen's Counsel starts in September. We are now in July and the new clause could not apply to this year's competition unless it comes into effect immediately.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 79.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Lord Goodhart

My Lords, I speak entirely for myself and in no way for my party. I have long taken the view that the whole process of appointment of Queen's Counsel should be abandoned. But that is not what we are discussing. So long as the process exists it seems to me entirely reasonable that those who apply should be made to pay the costs of application. After all, those who apply may not all be fat cats but at least they are likely to be pretty plump kittens. It seems to me, therefore, entirely justifiable to ask them to pay.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

My Lords, speaking entirely for myself, I do not consider that the procedure should be abandoned, but I believe that it needs to be reformed. However, I have no objection to charges being made, but I hope that we get good value for money.

On Question, Motion agreed to.