Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

I have a couple of very brief questions about Clause 36. They also relate to Government new clause 23, which is a very similar provision relating to Northern Ireland. I therefore hope, Sir Michael, that it will not disturb our proceedings too greatly if we do not repeat these questions later.

First, why have the specific offices mentioned in the clause been chosen? Do any similar offices exist for which the Government have not felt it necessary to provide this protection?

Secondly, what is the position of the lay members of tribunals? Chairmen have salaried posts, but do lay members have the same protection? I was approached over the summer by a lay member of an employment tribunal who was extremely concerned that there appeared to be arbitrary changes in what he was expected to do as a tribunal member, the conditions under which he was expected to work and the remuneration that he could expect in terms of appropriate expenses. To what extent does the protection offered to what are quasi-judicial tribunal appointments extend to the lay members who sit alongside them? Lay members provide a very important resource to the country in helping to arbitrate sometimes extremely difficult issues.

I think that it partially answers the hon. Gentleman's question if I say that we are seeking to correct a legislative anomaly. Every hon. Member agrees with the principle that we should have an independent judiciary in this country, and that that independence should be robustly protected in all ways.

We have talked about the appointments process, in which we are trying to entrench that fundamental principle of independence. Another crucial aspect of judicial independence is salary protection for judicial office holders, and that is what Clause 36 is designed to advance. There is a legislative anomaly, and we are trying to remedy it by providing a statutory prohibition preventing the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor from determining reductions in the salaries of judicial office holders in tribunal services.

Mr. Heath asked why only these members of the judiciary are mentioned in the clause, and the answer is that most other judicial office holders are already protected in primary legislation from the Executive determining reductions in their salaries. That statutory salary protection is widely regarded as an important safeguard of judicial independence against Executive interference, but currently there are no equivalent provisions for tribunal judges. This change is designed to harmonise the statutory safeguards of judicial independence across the judiciary, and it was welcomed by the Joint Committee.

Lay members of tribunals will not have the same protection, precisely because of the principle of judicial independence. Lay members do valuable and crucial work, but none the less they are not part of the judiciary in quite the same way.

It might be worth informing the Committee that there are a relatively small number of judicial office holders who will still not receive salary protection in the way set out in clause 36. The judge advocate general and the deputy and assistant judge advocates general are not covered by primary legislation because they fall outside the mainstream judiciary.

I hope the Committee will feel able to support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.