Clause 22
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill
1:45 pm
Simon Hughes (Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs & Shadow Attorney General, Constitutional Affairs; North Southwark and Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)
There are three amendments in this group and I want to speak specifically to amendments Nos. 66 and 68. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk moved amendment No. 65. I anticipate that the Minister will say that that amendment does not materially change what is currently in 22 (4) (a), which also talks about justice. However, does she not agree that the amendment is slightly wider and therefore slightly better? Also, an important point in the amendment establishes that every part of the judiciary and the judicial process complies with the European convention on human rights, which states that people must have access to justice and a fair trial—either civil or criminal. The amendment is a link to amendment No. 67, which comes in the following group.
When we come to debate the next group, which is specifically about legal aid provisions, it is important to see the amendments as part of the debate about access to justice and compliance with the European convention. If the Minister can satisfy us that all aspects of the tribunal system have been checked and proof read for ECHR compliance, as every Bill is required to be, and that all the rules issued to the tribunals are satisfactory, then we will have to accept that for the time being. Does she not think that it would be better to have that sort of statement within the Bill? In that context, I want to ask the wider question. For those who know the workings of the civil and the High Courts relatively well, they will know that there are two books of rules that are used by all practitioners, including judges and lawyers. One is a large white book for the High Court and the other a smaller green book for the lower courts, which is known as the county court book. Many of the rules governing the courts are in those two books rather than in primary legislation. Why, in this case, was the judgment made to put slightly more of the detailed rules into primary legislation than Governments normally wish to do? Is there an exact comparison that has been done to make sure that we are doing here what we have already done in the High Court?
I’m always keen that we have Bills that are as short and as simple as possible. Matters that are entirely technical should be in secondary legislation—unless they are of significance—and in rules if they are of importance to practitioners but not to members of the public. I would be grateful to know what led the Minister to make the judgment that we need as much of the regulation of the process in primary legislation, of which clearly this is part.