What recent discussions the Lord Chancellor has had with the Lord Chief Justice concerning judges making public statements on proposed law reforms.

The Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice frequently have discussions on a range of subjects.

Is the Minister worried that in his first public interview the Lord Chief Justice expressed concern that a politician—there is no mistaking who he was gunning for—should try to browbeat the judiciary? Will the Minister confirm that it is the constitutional right of any judge to express concern about new legislation—for example, the proposal to lock up people without charge for up to six months? Is it not sad that the Government's lasting legacy will be the Iraq war and repressive legislation?

I have had the opportunity to look at the full transcript of what the Lord Chief Justice said. It was a measured and informative contribution, which he made at his inaugural press conference. Out of some 20 questions from the press, about 17 were essentially the same question—whether he would have a huge row with the Government. Over and over again, the Lord Chief Justice said that he had his role to play and the Government and Parliament had their roles. That is what we will be getting on with.

This week the Prime Minister said that the criminal justice system was too complicated and laborious—comments with which many residents in the Kettering Constituency would agree. What proposals will the Minister introduce to speed up and simplify the criminal justice system?

We would all agree that the criminal justice system is too complicated and laborious. We are taking a range of measures in co-operation with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, and working with Victim Support and the witness service, to make sure that the criminal justice system is effective and provides a fair trial and a just outcome, but does not take too long going about it and does not become too bureaucratic.

Does the right hon. and learned Lady agree that the retired Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, provided an inestimable service to the country by pointing out deficiencies in legislation? Does she agree with her noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in evidence that he gave this morning, as I understand it, to the Select Committee, that the Kilmuir rules are effectively no more and that members of the judiciary are entitled to make comment? Does she also agree that they have a duty to inform Parliament when the Executive introduce proposals that could be construed as unlawful—a role that ought to be played by the Attorney-General, but is not?

The way that the hon. Gentleman puts that is not right. I agree, of course, with his comments about the Lord Chief Justice. There is a great deal of practical working between the judiciary and the Government. For example, I quote the work of Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, who, when president of the family Division, made many helpful contributions to the development of policy in relation to family proceedings, care proceedings involving children and domestic violence. Sir Igor Judge sits on the National Criminal Justice Board, together with criminal justice Ministers, the police and prosecutors. They work sensibly together. It is for the Government to propose legislation to the House, for the House to decide in its wisdom what to pass into legislation, and for judges, with the assistance of the Human Rights Act 1998 introduced by the Government, to make a decision on a case-by-case basis.

With regard to judges' discretion, given that this week the Prime Minister complained that 50 per cent. of defendants get off, in what percentage of cases do the Government want not guilty verdicts?

We do not want a situation in which a defendant is charged and brought to court but the case cannot proceed because the victim has not turned up as a result of intimidation, or because a witness has not turned up because the case has been adjourned a couple of times. We need to reduce the number of so-called ineffective trials so that justice is done in every case—on behalf of the victim as well as the defendant. It is not about a particular percentage of cases. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that in many cases the procedures let justice down and the outcome is a wrong one.