Clause 7
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill
10:15 am
Vera Baird (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Redcar, Labour)
Clause 7 and schedule 4—the latterhas yet to be debated—set up the boundaries of jurisdiction between the first and upper tiers. Together, they impose a duty on the senior president to developa policy on the assignment of judges to chambersand to enable tribunal judges to sit across different jurisdictions. Once existing tribunals transfer in, a wide range of specialist jurisdictions will be brought together, and it would dilute expertise and damage the service if all judges and members were expected to deal with all kinds of case.
The Government want a structure, a grouping of jurisdictions, so that similar work can be dealt with appropriately by those who have the relevant experience to deal with it. I call them chambers, but I keep an open mind on that at the request of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk. At the moment, however, the term chambers commends itself to us. The division into chambers will, I guess, follow the current jurisdiction or boundaries, but it is intended to be more flexible. The Lord Chancellor and the senior president can create chambers by order.
Schedule 4 deals with the appointment of presidents by the Lord Chancellor. The presidents are intended to provide judicial leadership within their chambers and to guarantee levels of expertise, so that the chambers will be able to issue guidance on changes in law and practice as they relate to the functions allocated to their chambers. Deputy chambers presidents will take on functions that can be delegated when necessary. Some chambers presidents may be appointed directly; others might come from the senior judiciary. The Lord Chancellor has to consult the senior president at all times about such appointments, and if a senior judge is appointed, he will have to seek nomination from the relevant chief justice. If no appropriate candidatesfor tribunal presidents come forward, the Judicial Appointments Commission will suggest some.
No one will be able to preside at the same time over more than one chamber in either the first tier or the upper tribunal, but someone might preside over one chamber of the upper tribunal and a first tier tribunal at the same time. We want to use our experienced and skilled judiciary as flexibly as possible, and the senior president has responsibility for policy on the matter. To ensure the openness and transparency of the system, the senior president will have to publish that policy, saying how he proposes to assign judges and members. To ensure appropriate executive accountability to Parliament—something that troubles the hon. Gentleman, particularly because of the resource implications—the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor will be required before the senior president’s policy can be adopted.
Panel composition requirements will be set by order of the Lord Chancellor; that will be done jurisdiction by jurisdiction. The number and qualifications of members assigned to sit on particular appeals must take account of recourse implications, and scrutiny will be provided. The chamber structure will enable the system to adapt swiftly as circumstances change, while guaranteeing the experience and expertise that is so important to the user.
Clearly, much has yet to be fixed and determined through consultation, but clause 7 provides a good framework. I therefore move that it stands part ofthe Bill.