Schedule 1

Part of Legal Services Bill [Lords] – in a Public Bill Committee at 4:45 pm on 12 June 2007.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Simon Hughes Simon Hughes Shadow Attorney General, Party Chair, Liberal Democrats 4:45, 12 June 2007

Once upon a time there was a Lord Chancellor who was one of the most powerful people in the country. We have had some famous Lord  Chancellors—people like Thomas More. Many people have heard of him even though they may not remember that he was a Lord Chancellor, and he came to a sorry end not far from here, as I remember. The Lord Chancellor had three jobs: he was Speaker of the House of Lords; he was a member of the Government once Governments were formed in the way that we know, having previously been the right-hand adviser to the monarch; and he was the senior judge.

The Lord Chancellor appeared in the House of Lords in his full attire, he wore a wig and he was a sort of Lord high everything else, but, to their credit, when the Labour Government came to office in 1997 they realised that that was constitutional nonsense. They realised that it was important to separate the functions of Parliament, Government and judiciary. At least, that was what they said that they realised. They introduced legislation in the House of Lords, and it was controversial: to change the role of the Lord Chancellor. The Liberal Democrats supported it in both Houses. There were great debates about what the name should be, and whether the title of Lord Chancellor should stay.

The outcome, as we all know, was that we still have a Lord Chancellor. However, although the role has a link with its historic antiquity, it is the official name—the constitutional name—for the Secretary of State for Justice, a Government Minister appointed by the Prime Minister of the day as a supporter of the Government, sitting in the Cabinet and looking after a Department with increased status and power, which is important. That is the Department in which the Minister here serves as one of the Lord Chancellor’s junior Ministers.

We have given another person the job of the Speaker of the House of Lords, and that House now elects its Speaker. The Lords Speaker in office is the first person to hold that post. It was made clear in the legislation a couple of years ago that the senior judge would no longer be the Lord Chancellor but would be the Lord Chief Justice. That was part of the important constitutional division of powers referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley that tried to deal with one historic anomaly.

This week has seen elections in France for the AssemblÃ(c)e Nationale. France has a clear separation between the powers of the Government and those of the Parliament. If an MP is appointed Prime Minister, he or she stops being an MP. I think that that is a bad idea, but it is what happens. The President is elected separately and Cabinet members have to give up being members of the AssemblÃ(c)e Nationale for as long as they are Cabinet members. We do not have that, but we have a fusion instead. We have government in Parliament, but it is important that we have a separate and independent judiciary. I put my first proposition to the Minister in a question. I think that she is seeking in her amendment to take away one of the safeguards in the Lords amendment: to provide that in the appointment process for the authority that will regulate the legal profession the appointees are absolutely and clearly unconnected with Government.

I have no doubt that when the Justice Minister of the day appoints people to the Legal Services Board the Ministry will take advice, place adverts and receive  applications, and that people will be suggested and will apply, and will be appointed from that list. I have no doubt that the proper checks and balances, and the Nolan principles will apply, but we have had 10 years of Labour Government and the great British public have not decided that there is less nepotism or less placing of politicians’ friends. The public are suspicious. The Prime Minister came to office with great intentions of being whiter than white, but is leaving office, sadly for him—I do not rejoice in this because we all suffer—with the reputation of having often put his own people in jobs and used his own people to do his dirty work. Even the House of Lords, which had an independent commission, is not yet perceived as being entirely independent. There is a real crisis of confidence, and we must ensure that the judiciary is not only seen to be independent, but is respected for its independence.

I remember intervening in a debate when some of the other proposals were going through Parliament to ask whether Ministry of Justice Ministers would make a promise—a self-denying ordinance—that from the moment they took over in the new Ministry at the beginning of May none of them, including the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), would ever again criticise judges. It is completely unacceptable that independent judges are slagged off by Ministers. They may be slagged off by The Sun and other papers, but to be slagged off by Ministers is completely unacceptable.

The profession is still too male, too old and too white. Judicial diversity is fundamental, and we must do more to achieve that. Only one Lord of Appeal in Ordinary is a woman, and there has been little change. None the less, judges generally have a good reputation, despite some of the attacks that they have suffered from the press, which should be free to attack them because that is what our free press is for.

I hope that the Minister realises that the Government amendment risks making it look as if the legal profession—it does not have the best reputation in the world, for reasons that we have often discussed—will have its regulators appointed by the Minister in charge of the legal profession, who is a politician.

My next point is that it is now entirely possible and, if the rumours are believed, very likely that the incoming Prime Minister will appoint the new Secretary of State for Justice from the House of Commons. I would welcome that, and have argued for that for a long time. The Secretary of State for Justice should be accountable to the elected Members of Parliament, not unelected people, but we must wait and see what happens in the next few weeks. If that happens, it will look even more as if the appointment is political. It is currently made by the Secretary of State for Justice, which is a political appointment, and who is still called the Lord Chancellor and sits in the House of Lords wearing a wig and breeches, although less often than he used to. The reality is that he is not perceived as being quite as party political as Ministers in the House of Commons. When we have a Secretary of State for Justice in the Commons they will be perceived as being party political.

What are the options? I reflected earlier on Committees that go on for a long time, and there is a cricket analogy and a tennis one. In cricket there are long periods with not much happening, but now and  again an important innings occurs. This amendment is one of seven that the Government are proposing to reverse what has happened in the Lords. The tennis analogy is better as there are long rallies and lots of sets, like in the French final the other day, but occasionally there is a crucial game. This is a crucial game in the midst of the Committee’s proceedings because—