HL Deb 26 February 2003 vol 645 cc239-41

3.1 p.m.

Lord Smith of Clifton

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the criticism by the Home Secretary of Mr Justice Collins's ruling regarding the policy of denying social security benefits to asylum seekers who fail to claim asylum as soon as possible after they arrive breaches the constitutional relationship between the executive and the judiciary in the United Kingdom.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, no. We live in a pluralist democracy. Therefore, the Home Secretary was perfectly entitled to give his view about the judgment of Mr Justice Collins and to appeal that decision. I understand that the appeal will be heard by the Court of Appeal next Monday. Equally, I stress as emphatically as I can that the Government have an absolute commitment to the rule of law and to the maintenance of the essential independence of the judiciary.

Lord Smith of Clifton

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. I noted that, yesterday, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, accepted the judgment on the Gurkhas' pension case. This time round, the somewhat intemperate outburst by the Home Secretary was disproportionate. In confirming that the Government are committed to the rule of law, does the Minister agree that it is the prime duty of the Lord Chancellor to uphold the independence of the judiciary? So far, he has remained silent. Should he not immediately have admonished his Cabinet colleague for an excess of language?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, time without number to my certain knowledge, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has endorsed the principle that I enunciated a moment or two ago. He has done it in this Chamber and in public lectures and speeches. The noble Lord speaks of an "intemperate" response. What the Home Secretary said in one of his newspaper articles was this: I respect the role of our judges to interpret the law. But there has to he a balance between interpreting the law and completely rewriting a law that has been debated and voted for in our democratic Parliament". That seems to me a classic statement of constitutional principle with which we can all agree.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, if the Government pass laws such as the Human Rights Act, they are asking for judicial interpretation. What the Home Secretary did in commenting in that way was to complain about what the judges were doing—or that is how it appeared to most people who read the article. Surely, if the Government pass such laws they should live up to the consequences of their action.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, that is exactly what the Home Secretary is doing. He is abiding by the rule of law if he is seeking the view of the Court of Appeal, which will sit as rapidly as next Monday. It is always useful to read and inwardly digest what Mr Blunkett has said. Perhaps I may give a further citation—from Rachel Sylvester's interview published in the Daily Telegraph. Mr. Blunkett said: I understand the role of the judiciary in seeking to reflect the interests of individuals against the state … I merely ask that alongside of that there should be a recognition of the role of government in establishing public policy". What on earth is wrong with that?

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

My Lords, one does not usually associate the Daily Mail with a detailed analysis of case law. But, as the noble and learned Lord will know, last Thursday and again last Friday six or seven cases of Mr Justice Collins were analysed in detail in the Daily Mail. I realise that it is not his department, but is the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House able to assure the House that no one in Whitehall had any hand in briefing the Daily Mail against Mr Justice Collins on either of those days?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I have not the slightest idea. I think that, on reflection, the noble Lord will understand that I could not possibly answer a question of that sort relating to everyone in Whitehall. Sometimes, some newspapers adversely criticise judges. That has been a commonplace for many years. At the moment, the higher judiciary in this country is, in my opinion, with great respect, of the highest quality that we have ever enjoyed. Judges have to be robust—they ought to be. I think that, occasionally, our colleagues and friends in the press should bear in mind what a pearl an independent judiciary of high quality is in a civil community.

Lord Waddington

My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that I for one have some sympathy with Mr Blunkett voicing his exasperation on this occasion, although my sympathy is somewhat mitigated by the knowledge that he was a member of the Government who took such great pride in the passage of the Human Rights Act. While not suggesting that the decision in the present case would have been any different had there been no Human Rights Act, is it not obvious that as a result of the passage of the Act there will be more cases where people express the view that the courts are in some way interfering with decisions taken by Parliament? Does he accept that, because of that, the passage of the Act makes it more likely that there will be strains over the years in the relationship between the courts on the one hand and Parliament and the executive on the other, and that this is a matter to which we have to pay great attention?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord has previous convictions as a Home Secretary, which is why he is sympathetic to the present incumbent. There has always been a creative, constructive tension between the judiciary and Parliament. There is nothing wrong with that in a free society. I am sure that all your Lordships have looked at the judgment of Mr Justice Collins in great depth, but in case one or two of your Lordships have not had the immediate opportunity to do so, Section 55 of the Act was not found incompatible with the Human Rights Act. The judgment simply says that on six occasions inadequate procedures were followed. This case will go to the Court of Appeal on Monday. The passage of the Human Rights Act was the greatest achievement of this or any recent government.

Lord Thomas of Gresford

My Lords—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I think it is the turn of the Cross Benches—Lord Ackner.

Lord Ackner

My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that the Home Secretary was in serious breach of the sub judice rule in initiating an appeal and concurrently criticising the judge of first instance who gave the decision? If the noble and learned Lord wants to see the authority for that, he will find it on pages 66 and 67 of the Companion, at paragraphs 4.56 and 4.57.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I do not accept the proposition at all. What the Home Secretary said was that he did not accept the consequences of the judgment and was therefore about to appeal. Because of the present arrangements overseen by the Lord Chancellor, the appeal will be heard as early as next Monday. I think people are getting a little overheated.

Lord Thomas of Gresford

My Lords—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, we are into the 33rd minute.

Noble Lords

Next Question!