Clause 4
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill
9:15 am
Henry Bellingham (Shadow Minister, Constitutional Affairs; North West Norfolk, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 2,in clause 4, page 3, line 6, leave out ‘judge’ and insert ‘legal member’.
The essence of the amendment concerns the use of the word “judge”. The Committee will recall that Sir Andrew Leggatt was at great pains to emphasise that tribunals exist for users, as the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey pointed out. Tribunals need to be accessible. Day in, day out, we meet people in our constituencies who have had experience of tribunals. In fact, many more of our constituents go to tribunals than go to court. The point of tribunals is that they should be unthreatening and consumer-friendly. There is a huge responsibility on the chairman of the tribunal to ensure that the conduct of its affairs is as informal as possible. That is why we are keen to ensure that everything about tribunals should be relaxed and consumer-friendly.
Does the Minister feel that the use of the word “judge” is appropriate in those circumstances? I can understand that there are plenty of chairs of tribunals who like calling themselves judges. The other day I met someone at a social event about whom everyone was muttering, “My goodness, he’s a judge”. It was all hugely exciting and good for his ego, but in fact he was chairing a tribunal. I submit that those chairs of tribunals of course do a superb job. I do not suggest for a moment that we should try to undermine their standing and credibility in any way. If it makes them feel better to tell their friends that they are judges, all well and good. However, should the users of tribunals, who are our constituents, feel that there is that extra layer of formality inherent in the use of the word “judge”? I would say probably not.
The other important point is that the Lord Chancellor has the power to appoint people with no legal qualifications whatever as legal members of tribunals. Those people may well become chairs of those tribunals. We do not necessarily object to that, but if people are appointed to tribunals as legal members, yet have no legal experience whatever, should they call themselves judges? I suggest to the Minister that that would not really be appropriate.
Earlier we discussed the importance of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the essence of which is the separation of powers so that judicial selection should be entirely free of the Executive. However,we find a member of the Executive—the Lord Chancellor—able to designate individuals as judges, in complete contravention of all the principles of that Act. How can a member of the Executive appoint a judge, when that plainly breaches the principle of the separation of powers to which the Government claim to be so attached?
If we are keen, as we are, to maintain an atmosphere of informality and want to make the tribunals as user-friendly as possible to our constituents, the Minister should accept the minor change proposed in the amendment, which would be in the interests of the tribunal system.