Clause 4 - Appointment to most senior judicial offices

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 3:45 pm on 31 January 2002.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Peter Pike Mr Peter Pike Labour, Burnley

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 95, in page 3, leave out lines 20 to 22.

No. 10, in page 3, leave out lines 23 to 27.

No. 96, in page 3, line 24, leave out

'First Minister and deputy First Minister' and insert 'Lord Chancellor'.

No. 97, in line 26, leave out 'they' and insert ', the Lord Chancellor'.

No. 98, in page 3, line 26, leave out 'their' and insert 'his'.

No. 11, in line 27, after 'him', insert

'subject to the approval of the Assembly.'.

No. 12, in page 3, leave out lines 28 to 33.

No. 99, in page 3, line 28, leave out from 'the' to 'determine' in line 30 and insert 'Lord Chancellor shall'.

No. 121, in page 3, line 30, leave out 'they are' and insert 'he is'.

No. 122, in page 3, line 31, leave out '(3)(a) they are' and insert '(3) he is'.

No. 123, in page 3, line 32, leave out 'their' and insert 'his'.

No. 124, in page 3, line 32, leave out 'they are' and insert 'he is'.

No. 125, in page 3, line 33, leave out 'they' and insert 'he'.

No. 126, in page 3, line 35, leave out from second 'the' to 'appoint' in line 36 and insert 'Lord Chancellor'.

Photo of Sylvia Hermon Sylvia Hermon Shadow Spokesperson (Women), Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry), Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

Hon. Members will be pleased to know that I intend to be brief. All the amendments that I have tabled to clause 4 relate to the appointment of what are referred to in its title as the most senior judicial offices. Those are the most senior judicial offices in Northern Ireland. First, let us consider the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Justices of Appeal. The procedure under the clause is that the Prime Minister, before making a recommendation to Her Majesty, must consult the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. [Interruption.] I hear the Minister sigh.

Photo of Sylvia Hermon Sylvia Hermon Shadow Spokesperson (Women), Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry), Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

A sentence in paragraph 6.104 of the review of the criminal justice system addresses the point and struck me as of fundamental importance. It states:

''In the Northern Ireland context it is important to keep any hint of political input out of the appointments process''.

It therefore strikes me as absolutely at variance with that sentence for two MLAs to be given such enormous powers over such senior appointments. Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 would therefore replace the roles of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister with that of the Lord Chancellor. Amendments Nos. 96 to 98 are paving amendments, as are amendments Nos. 121 to 125.

I do not have a specific axe to grind about High Court judges but, as I made clear on Tuesday, I regret that they are not treated in the same manner as the most senior judicial offices. New section 12A of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, which is proposed in the clause, states that in appointing a High Court judge the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—two politicians, two MLAs—must act jointly. The words ''acting jointly'' cause me considerable concern, as they mean that each has a veto on such an appointment.

At the end of our debates on Tuesday, I specifically intervened on the Minister to ask what would happen if the First Minister and Deputy First Minister could not agree on an appointment. The Minister replied:

''Our stock answer would be that we are not planning for failure''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 29 January 2002; c. 68.]

That does not address the nature of the problem.

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

The hon. Lady will be aware that there is a disadvantage in reading the stark words. Those who were not here when I said that will not know that I went on to give her a full answer that was not the stock answer. Perhaps I have lost my ability to be ironic, but that is what I was trying to be.

Photo of Sylvia Hermon Sylvia Hermon Shadow Spokesperson (Women), Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry), Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

I apologise if I misrepresented the Minister. Those were his words, and he went on to identify what would happen under devolution.

On rereading the Belfast agreement—the Good Friday agreement, which was the foundation for the review—I was intrigued by the fact that although it does not ask time and again for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to act jointly, that has been provided for in subsequent legislation, especially the Bill.

Photo of Mr Seamus Mallon Mr Seamus Mallon Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh

I am interested in what the hon. Lady says. In what part of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is the requirement to act jointly not included, in terms of functions? In what subsequent legislation that involves the functions of the First and Deputy First Ministers does that not apply?

Photo of Sylvia Hermon Sylvia Hermon Shadow Spokesperson (Women), Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry), Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

I have to cast my mind back to the Belfast agreement. My recollection is that on key questions the First and Deputy First Ministers were to act jointly, and that could be added to through the

Assembly. However, I undertake to clarify my recollection of the Belfast agreement, rather than the subsequent legislation.

Photo of Mr Seamus Mallon Mr Seamus Mallon Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh

I shall be interested in the hon. Lady's findings. There are 18 references to the functions of the First and Deputy First Ministers in the Bill, all of which are accompanied by ''acting jointly''. I contend that when she re-examines the previous legislation, she will find that it is exactly the same in that respect.

Photo of Sylvia Hermon Sylvia Hermon Shadow Spokesperson (Women), Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry), Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for developing the argument. If there are 18 provisions in the Bill under which the First and Deputy First Ministers must act jointly before an appointment occurs or something else happens, what will happen in the event of those two politicians failing to agree on, for example, the appointment of a High Court judge? We are considering seven appointments to key positions in the small jurisdiction of Northern Ireland. I simply wish to have the combined role of the First and Deputy First Ministers replaced by that of the Lord Chancellor. It is eminently sensible not to have one politician vetoing the appointment of a High Court judge, and that is what I want the Minister to address. It is not helpful to say time and again that they must act jointly.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

Since I aspire to the Minister's post, perhaps I can try to answer the hon. Lady's question. I think that it is addressed by Government amendment No. 70. If the First and Deputy First Ministers fail to come to a conclusion, they must make the appointment—[Interruption.] I see that the Minister is shaking his head. I must have read that wrongly. I shall leave that issue and deal with the amendments that are tabled in my name, which relate to clauses 4 and 5.

These amendments are not a significant matter of principle, but I invite the Government to choose between amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12. Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 would strike out new section 12 (4) and (5) of the 1978 Act so as to remove the duty on the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to determine the procedure, as yet unknown, that they are to adopt for the consultation process. The appointment will be made by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, so it is far too prescriptive for hon. Members of this House to place a duty on the Prime Minister to consult and then to tell the Judicial Appointments Commission to advise the consultees of the Prime Minister on the procedure to adopt. It is over the top. I am sure that the Government's intention is for that to be a real part of the process, and for it to be as transparent as possible. I assume that that is why it appears in the Bill. The process should achieve transparency by being agreed by the Assembly.

That is the purpose of amendment No. 11, which would make the process subject to the approval of the Assembly, thereby bringing within the ambit of the Assembly the decision on how the process of consultation between the First Minister, Deputy First Minister and the Judicial Appointments Commission on the most important judicial appointments in Northern Ireland should take place. That does not

involve the Assembly in the consultation process, but it is legitimate for it, as the devolved authority in Northern Ireland, to have a say in the procedure, if that procedure is to be laid down in the Bill. I would be happy for the procedure not to be included in the Bill because I believe that that is too prescriptive, but if it is included, the Assembly should have some role in establishing it.

Photo of Mr Seamus Mallon Mr Seamus Mallon Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh 4:00, 31 January 2002

I shall make two points, and I shall start by dealing with the point made by the hon. Member for Reigate. Obviously, if and when devolution of these powers takes place, it will become a matter for Assembly input. One would expect that the Department of Justice, as it would then be, would have the same sort of scrutinising committee that other Departments have. That does not fully answer the question posed by the hon. Gentleman, in the sense that the functions of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are not liable to scrutiny under the Bill. There is an office that deals with the roles of First Minister and Deputy First Minister, which is working well. However, I believe that there is the capacity to ensure that the Assembly is properly acquainted with these matters.

We should not forget that the power vested in the First Minister and Deputy First Minister by the Bill and other legislation is not vested in them as persons but as representatives of the political parties that have been endorsed by the Assembly on a cross-community basis. I sometimes get the impression that people think that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have absolute rights to do anything at any time. That is far from the truth because there are many constraints on them.

Photo of Sylvia Hermon Sylvia Hermon Shadow Spokesperson (Women), Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry), Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

Paragraph 6.104 of the review states:

''In the Northern Ireland context it is important to keep any hint of political input out of the appointments process.''

Will the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh address that point?

Photo of Mr Seamus Mallon Mr Seamus Mallon Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh

I happen to have a less naive view of what is political--I suppose that comes with age. There is somehow a notion that when people don the gown and the wig they cease to be political. The implication of the h Lady's amendment is that the Lord Chancellor would be less political than the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. I do not believe that. I do not believe that anyone in this Room thinks that there is such a thing as an apolitical person, in that almost everything revolves around political beliefs.

Photo of Edward Garnier Edward Garnier Conservative, Harborough

I know what the hon. Gentleman means by the word ''political'', which I think he is using with a small ''p''. All of us, whether or not we are interested in politics, are infected by that adjective to some extent, but to be fair to the Lord Chancellor—I rarely am—his appointments of the judiciary since he came to office in 1997 have been scrupulous. I do not say that only because he made me a part-time judge. His appointments to the High Court, the Court of

Appeal and the House of Lords—and, I dare say, to the county and district courts—have been scrupulous. Neither the present Lord Chancellor nor any of his predecessors have allowed party politics to enter into the appointment process. I am reasonably sure that, were the Lord Chancellor to be given the role that the hon. Lady wants him to have in Northern Ireland, he would behave in exactly the same way. I may wish to develop other points later.

Photo of Mr Seamus Mallon Mr Seamus Mallon Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh

By and large, I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. The First and Deputy First Ministers have been equally scrupulous in making appointments during the past three and a half years, since the founding of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I have no doubt that that will continue. I am uncomfortable with the notion that if people from Northern Ireland, especially elected politicians, were to make appointments, there would be some devious plot behind their decisions—perhaps sectarian, or at least some scheme that does not exist elsewhere. That is wrong, and we should avoid such notions. I know that the hon. Lady was not implying that, but the imperatives that are built into the system are such that the scrupulousness that has been identified would be retained. I shall give an example.

Prior to the prorogation of the Northern Ireland Parliament, all our Attorney-Generals had been ex-members or serving members of the Ulster Unionist party who were elected to the Northern Ireland Parliament. I knew a number of them, and I would never suggest that they, when they became Attorney-General, acted in a less that scrupulous fashion. I do not altogether share the view that the Northern Irish people, through their representatives, cannot act in a fair way and cannot rise above the sectarianism that we suffer.

Photo of Sylvia Hermon Sylvia Hermon Shadow Spokesperson (Women), Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry), Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

I have full confidence in the excellent team that we have in the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. I would not want my remarks to be interpreted as critical of them.

In the Scottish legal system—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—recommendations for judicial appointments are made by the First Minister, and him alone. I am genuinely concerned that at some time in future, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, acting jointly—those are the words that concern me—may not agree on an appointment. Ours is such a small jurisdiction that we cannot afford to be without even one member of the High Court. It has only seven judges. I suggest that the Lord Chancellor could fill the gap.

Photo of Mr Seamus Mallon Mr Seamus Mallon Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh

I thank the hon. Lady. She is, in effect, suggesting a rewriting of the Good Friday agreement. The reality is that the joint running of Northern Ireland by the Unionist and nationalist communities is at the heart of the agreement. I make no bones about it. We should not be surprised that that fact is reflected in every piece of Northern Ireland legislation, including the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, the Bill—almost—and whatever future legislation crops up. Yes, it would be easier—God knows, it would be easier, I know that—

if we did not need there to be agreement between the First and Deputy First Ministers. Without it, however, there would be no Assembly, no Administration and no hope that responsibility for appointing judges would ever return to the devolved Administration in the north of Ireland. That is the price that we must pay, and everything has a price.

Let me expand a little on the practicalities. It is not as if there is an unlimited number of people from among whom choices could be made, but choices are made every day of the week on other matters. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister make decisions about the budget, and decisions are made about the implementation bodies in the context of north-south business. Hon. Members will remember what a hot potato that was, although I say ''was'' because the arrangements are now working. I have no doubt that there will be moments of difficultly when the Bill is enacted, but I also have no doubt that they will be overcome through agreement and compromise, which is the only way in which the process can work. Compromise is not a pleasant word in Northern Ireland, but that is what is needed. Office holders and everyone involved in the Northern Ireland Assembly must recognise that the system will not work at any level unless there is a capacity for compromise. It would be much easier if that were not the case, but then the present arrangements would not exist.

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

Let me say at the outset that I shook my head at an inappropriate time earlier and perhaps put the hon. Member for Reigate off giving an accurate response to the question raised by the hon. Member for North Down about recommendations for appointments to the High Court and the tiers below it and to tribunals. I did so because I was considering the Lady's points about appointments above that level, to which the answer would be different because the First Minister and Deputy First Minister do not enjoy the same powers.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

I am most grateful to the Minister for making that clear. I am sure that the Government Whip heard that explanation and will withdraw the barracking that he gave me. I hope that he will also inform the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) of it when she returns, which might encourage her to sing a little more quietly in future.

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

The hon. Gentleman is unduly sensitive this afternoon, and I do not remember any such barracking. He referred to himself yesterday as a hapless English gentleman, so what can one expect? It was his bad luck.

The amendments are interesting because, apart from anything else, they have given us an opportunity to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh. My hon. Friend has experience of the dilemmas that we may be posing for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and of how those can be worked through.

The amendments would turn over to the Lord Chancellor the role that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister play in appointing senior judges. We discussed their role in the process extensively on

Tuesday, and I shall deal specifically with the points that exercise the hon. Member for North Down. In the devolved scenario, we must give the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Belfast the same trust that we presently extend to the Lord Chancellor in Westminster. As we heard from one of his appointees, that trust is being exercised scrupulously fairly.

The hon. Lady prefaced her remarks by a reference to paragraph 6.104 of the review. She is entitled to do that, and it is helpful for her to remind us of the underlying principle. The principle in that paragraph applies in the context of appointments to the commission. The hon. Lady will have read the review and will understand that the review's recommendations on the role of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in senior judicial appointments, to which the bulk of her amendments relate, is covered in the earlier paragraph 6.96.

The review sets out explicitly the role of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in relation to senior judicial appointments, and its recommendations are reflected in the Bill. It also sets out their role in relation to the appointment of High Court judges and other tiers of the judiciary, down to tribunals. That is also set out in the Bill. The Bill's provisions are designed to reflect the recommendations of the review. The review sets out the principle of the involvement of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, but gives them ex officio roles. The Committee should accept that the one does not contradict the other.

The hon. Member for North Down specifically asked what would happen in relation to appointments from the High Court down were the First Minister and Deputy First Minister not to agree. The Bill's provisions are a reflection of the recommendations of the review in paragraph 6.106. They are clarified by the amendments that the hon. Member for Reigate sought to pray in aid, until he thought that I was saying he was wrong.

It is the Government's intention and hope that the sort of exercise that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh talked about will be possible and that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will be able to accept a recommendation from the Judicial Appointments Commission. However, if they are unable to, the matter will be referred back to the Judicial Appointments Commission and they are required to accept the commission's further recommendation.

The stalemate-busting provision sought by the hon. Member for North Down does exist. The stalemate that she anticipates, in which positions are left unfilled, will not occur. She will not find the answers to her concerns in the Bill. The Bill's provisions merely imply that that is the case. However, if the Committee agrees to amendments that I will put before it shortly, it will be made explicit in the Bill. The hon. Member for North Down is right to ask the question and the hon. Member for Reigate is correct to say that the Committee will shortly consider amendments that deal with it.

The hon. Lady's amendments in relation to the First and Deputy First Ministers' role in the process for the appointment of the most senior judiciary are designed to replace them with the Lord Chancellor. We should not overstate the roles of the First and Deputy First Minister. They are important, but not decisive. In relation to the most senior judges, their role is to be consulted on the recommendations to be made by the Prime Minister. The First Minister in Scotland already plays a key and seminal role in senior judicial appointments there, so the Bill's provisions are a reflection in Northern Ireland circumstances of a position that already exists in Scotland.

I have already dealt with the hon. Lady's concerns in relation to the Bill's provisions on the lower tiers of appointment, judicial and otherwise. I trust that she will feel able to withdraw her amendments, having heard my remarks and accepting that I will move the amendments that are tabled in my name later.

Amendment No. 11 proposes that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister clear the procedures for making senior judicial appointments with the Assembly. The hon. Member for Reigate will know that, in my view, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister hold their roles ex officio, not for political reasons. In Westminster terms, it would be unusual for an ex officio position to require the level of scrutiny suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I see no reason to subject a devolved institution to that level of scrutiny if it would not be an acceptable level of scrutiny in the context of Westminster. There is sufficient co-operation with the independent organisation, in the form of the Judicial Appointments Commission, in the drafting of the procedures to ensure appropriate scrutiny. It would be inappropriate to make that process subject to the scrutiny of the Assembly.

Amendment No. 95 would remove the duty to consult the Lord Chief Justice in making senior judicial appointments. My attitude is simple; the Lord Chief Justice is bound to have a valuable and important insight into the candidates who come forward for such appointments. I cannot think of any circumstances in which his opinion would not be sought or in which he would not be consulted about senior judicial appointments, given that he is the most senior judge. In the interests of transparency and openness, we should have that in the Bill and state that it is part of the process, rather than simply taking soundings, which is apparently what happens at the moment. That is why I resist that amendment.

If the hon. Members for North Down and for Reigate are satisfied with that explanation, they may not press their amendments to a Division. My officials inform me, incidentally, that the First Minister in Scotland has a more significant role than the one played by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland. However, perhaps we should discuss that on another day.

Photo of Sylvia Hermon Sylvia Hermon Shadow Spokesperson (Women), Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry), Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs) 4:15, 31 January 2002

Many points come to mind. In regard to the Minister's last point about Scotland, I am concerned that in that case one individual has been given more responsibility.

My chief concern is with the words ''acting jointly.'' The Minister kindly drew our attention to the fact that, under proposed new section 12(3), the Prime Minister may make recommendations only after consultation with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. However, if he casts his eye at subsection (5), he will note that in that procedure, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are again ''acting jointly.'' Before considering subsection (3)(a), we should consider the wording of subsection (5) and the words ''acting jointly.''

I do not want to put wind into the sails of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell), who I am pleased to see is with us this afternoon. However, in reality, if his party is more successful in the next election, we could end up with a First Minister and Deputy First Minister who had views that were entirely different and polarised. If we are to put judicial appointments into the office of two MLAs who are compelled by the legislation consistently to act jointly, that must be dealt with, and the Minister must face that reality. I propose to remedy that block in a hugely important responsibility by writing in the reference to the Lord Chancellor.

Finally, I took careful note that the Minister said that the clause was designed to reflect the provisions of the review. With the greatest respect, the review has to be compatible with the original Belfast agreement, or Good Friday agreement. That made it perfectly clear that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland was to remain within that of the United Kingdom unless and until the majority of people voted otherwise. It strikes me as a constitutional principle that the Lord Chancellor's involvement in the most senior judicial appointments in Northern Ireland confirms that constitutional link with the rest of the Kingdom. I am not persuaded by the Minister's arguments to withdraw the amendment.

Photo of Andrew Turner Andrew Turner Conservative, Isle of Wight

I have listened with great care to the debate and I am strongly persuaded by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Down. The Government's thinking on the Bill seems to be wishful thinking. I do not blame them—in many cases, this is related to the implementation of the Belfast agreement—for hoping for the best, working for the best and hoping that others will work for the best. However, the point made clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for North Down is that we cannot rely on that happening indefinitely. The only circumstances in which the clause, unamended, will work will be those in which the First and Deputy First Ministers are willing to work together. We hope that that will continue to be the case. However, neither the Government nor my hon. Friends nor the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh can guarantee that the First and Deputy First Ministers will be willing to work together indefinitely to ensure the implementation of any provision.

By opposing the amendment, the Government are implicitly assuming that there is an alternative scenario in which the First and Deputy First Ministers do not work together. We cannot see a situation in Northern Ireland in which vacancies in the judiciary cannot be filled. There is only one alternative, although the Minister might tell me that I am wrong and that there are plenty. It is that where the First and Deputy First Ministers are from parties that hold more divergent views than do the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and my hon. Friend the Member for North Down, the Government accept that these elements of the Bill cannot be implemented and have an alternative course of action up their sleeve.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion, and for showing sufficient independence of mind to put it forward; I do not agree with him. I agree with the Minister's arguments in this case. Oddly, this is one part of the legislation relating to Northern Ireland that can survive the First and Deputy First Ministers' being in fundamental disagreement. That is because under the procedure prescribed by Government amendment No. 70, they are—as the Minister said—not central to the process; they are non-essential but important consultees.

Strangely enough, the essential point that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight makes is right. For the Belfast agreement to succeed, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister need to be disciplined and work together. If they refuse to do so, the whole thing will come to a spectacular and grinding halt. That would have consequences for vast parts of the devolved Government and the devolution of justice to Northern Ireland.

If, after the 2003 elections, there is a Sinn Fein Deputy First Minister and a First Minister who represents the same party as the hon. Member for East Londonderry, there may be a problem. They may work together, but we do not know and, as my hon. Friend said, the evidence suggests that it is not entirely likely.

Photo of Sylvia Hermon Sylvia Hermon Shadow Spokesperson (Women), Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry), Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs) 4:30, 31 January 2002

I ask the hon. Gentleman to check that Government amendment No. 70 relates to the list of judicial offices in schedule 1. I am concerned about other senior officers of the High Court under clause 4. There is a distinction.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

My understanding of the position is, and if the Minister nods I shall mention that and so put it on record—

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

I hope that this time I shall not be misled. So far as the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justices of Appeal are concerned, the appointments are made by Her Majesty on the advice of the Prime Minister, who is under a duty to consult in the Bill. Although Her Majesty appoints judges of the High Court, the hon. Member for North Down will note that clause 5(2) states:

''Only a person selected by the Commission may be appointed, or recommended for appointment, to a listed judicial office''.

A High Court judge is a listed judicial office. If the Committee accepts Government amendment No. 70, it means that when the Deputy First Minister and First Minister cannot agree and so do not respond to the process initiated by the commission, the appointment will go ahead in the absence of any advice from them.

That deals with the amendment tabled by the hon. Lady, so I regret to say that I am unable to support her. So far as amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 are concerned, I have listened to the Minister and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, and am still of the mind that new section 12(4) and (5) is unnecessary. However, I do not intend to press the amendment now, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. You were about to introduce clause 5, and the time is now 4.33 pm. You will be aware that, under our programme, the knife will fall—perhaps the right term is ''be inserted''—in 27 minutes' time, by which stage we will have been expected to reach the end of clause 22 and the new clauses relating to part 1. It is plain that we cannot do so and do justice to part 1 of the Bill. There are several important issues yet to be discussed.

So far, the Committee has worked exceptionally hard. I am grateful to the Minister for his care in replying, and it would be an enormous shame and a disservice to the people of Northern Ireland if we were not able to give the Bill proper consideration in Committee.

I want the Government to respond to my point, which is that the Programming Sub-Committee urgently needs to meet so that we can sort the matter out before 5 o'clock, give the Bill the consideration that it deserves and meet the strictures of the House to finish on 14 February.

Photo of Mr Peter Pike Mr Peter Pike Labour, Burnley

I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. There has been one change to the original timetable, which moved the ''knife'' from 11.25 am to 5 pm. I cannot express a view on the merits of the case. If the Government were minded to consider a motion for a short suspension before 5 o'clock, I could accept it, but otherwise I must adhere to the agreed timetable.

Photo of Edward Garnier Edward Garnier Conservative, Harborough

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. Does the Government's timetable, under which we operate, allow you the flexibility to call clauses meant for discussion between now and 5 o'clock out of numerical order?

Photo of Mr Peter Pike Mr Peter Pike Labour, Burnley

I have no flexibility whatever on that. I have to abide by the motion agreed at the first sitting and the revised motion agreed this morning. I have no power to vary that. I have tried to suggest that it is not for me to express a view on the subject. If the Government were to propose an amendment to the programme motion, I would be prepared to suspend the Committee for a short time to allow it to be

discussed. However, unless there were any prospect of making progress on that, it would merely waste the Committee's time.

Mr. Garnier rose—

Photo of Mr Peter Pike Mr Peter Pike Labour, Burnley

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is rising to make another point of order, because we are eroding the time available.

Photo of Edward Garnier Edward Garnier Conservative, Harborough

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. I can quite see that we are eroding the time. Is it within your powers to take groups of clauses in numerical order in blocks, so that we can more efficiently use the time between now and 5 o'clock?

Photo of Mr Peter Pike Mr Peter Pike Labour, Burnley

I have to go through the selection list as it is. We can move as speedily as we want. I can call amendments only as they have been selected. If people choose not to move groups of amendments and we move quicker because there are more important matters to debate in the time remaining, that is acceptable. That is in the hands of the Committee, not the Chairman.Clause 5 Appointment to listed judicial offices