§ 2.44 p.m.
§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government
Whether they believe that the office of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will command the same degree of public respect as that of Lord Chancellor; and, if so, what grounds they have for so believing.
§ The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)My Lords, the office of Lord Chancellor combines ministerial and judicial functions and the role of the Speaker of this House. The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs performs ministerial functions, will not be head of the judiciary, and will not be Speaker of this House. The offices will therefore be different. The office of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will be entitled to, and will receive, respect.
§ Lord Peyton of YeovilMy Lords, I see awfully little to be grateful for in that. Now that the noble and learned Lord gives the impression of being less insistent on the notion that a promise that has become inconvenient in performance can be regarded as time-expired, has he given any thought to some of the other measures that he has brought forward, particularly the abolition of the office that he now holds, the Lord Chancellorship? Is he not a little concerned that when he finds himself as a mere Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, he will be very much a sitting bird for the Home Secretary to pick off at leisure?
§ Lord Falconer of ThorotonMy Lords, I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, back—I hope with a new hip that works better than the last one. The new arrangements that we propose; namely, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs performing the ministerial functions and the Lord Chief Justice being the head of the judiciary, as a combination, will provide the sort of protection that is appropriate today.
§ Lord HenleyMy Lords, as the noble and learned Lord will be sitting on the committee that will be examining his abolition, can he confirm that he will not be able to give evidence to that committee, and that other Ministers—including the Prime Minister—can give evidence to that committee about the origins of the desire to abolish his post?
§ Lord Falconer of ThorotonMy Lords, I very much hope that I can give evidence, and I very much hope that the committee will agree that I do give evidence.
§ Lord GoodhartMy Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the respect for either of these offices depends on the willingness of the Prime Minister of the day to appoint to that office a person who is worthy of holding it? Does he also agree that if a future Prime Minister were to appoint an individual unworthy of that respect, the grandeur and antiquity of the title of the office would not, and should not, guarantee respect for that person?
§ Lord Falconer of ThorotonMy Lords, it is a very important office, and of course it must be held by someone who is worthy of it. The fact that it is an important office does not mean that we cannot, after proper scrutiny, take steps to improve the discharge of the functions presently performed by the Lord Chancellor.
§ Lord WaddingtonMy Lords, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor do his best to ensure that the deliberations of the Select Committee on the Constitutional Reform Bill do not end in a cosy lawyers' carve-up? Should not the object of the exercise be to ensure that we finish with a structure that is not just acceptable to judges and lawyers, but commands the confidence of the people because it does not involve the scrapping of well tried systems and the abolition of well respected offices?
§ Lord Falconer of ThorotonMy Lords, I feel that I can answer this question as one lawyer to another. I am sure that the important thing is to avoid any sense that there is a cosy carve up between lawyers, because that would not have the confidence of the people. I entirely agree with almost all that the noble Lord said. I do not agree with the proposition that we cannot provide a system. Indeed, I believe that we can provide a better system than the one that presently exists, if we make the necessary changes that we propose in the Constitutional Reform Bill.
§ Lord Renton of Mount HarryMy Lords, did the noble and learned Lord have the opportunity to listen to "Breakfast with Frost" on Sunday, in which Peter Hain, the Leader of the House of Commons, in answer to a question from David Frost about House of Lords reform said:
I think instead of just looking at composition we will also seek to curtail the powers of the Lords … we need to bring down the period that it can frustrate the will of the Commons, from a year to under a year"?Does the Lord Chancellor agree with that?
§ Lord Falconer of ThorotonMy Lords, sadly, I missed "Breakfast with Frost" last Sunday. The relationship between the House of Lords and the House of Commons is right at the heart of any issue relating to Lords reform. I would not wish to say at this stage what the right course is, hut, plainly, the issue should be examined.
§ Lord AcknerMy Lords, does not the fact that it was only after the former Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, had withdrawn his name from the list of speakers who were to attack Clause 14 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill answer the question?
§ Lord Falconer of ThorotonMy Lords, there was an issue with Clause 14 relating to the judicial review ouster. Many people, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, raised issues about that. The Government listened and withdrew the judicial review ouster.
§ Lord SelsdonMy Lords, if and when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor commits hara-kiri, 696 who will stand between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York in order of precedence in this country?
§ Lord Falconer of ThorotonMy Lords, I do not know. They may stand next to each other.
§ The Countess of MarMy Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that respect should be earned, whether it is for an office or for an individual?
§ Lord Falconer of ThorotonMy Lords, I do.