| Courts Bill [Lords]
|
|
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 142, in
'( ) consult any body which is an authorised body for the purposes of section 27 of the 1990 Act or section 28 of the 1990 Act (as amended by section 40 of the Access to Justice Act 1999),'.
No. 145, in
'( ) consult any body which is an authorised body for the purposes of section 27 of the 1990 Act or section 28 of the 1990 Act (as amended by section 40 of the Access to Justice Act 1999),'.
Mr. Hawkins: Again, I am indebted to the Institute of Legal Executives for briefing me and informing me that such important matters should be included. The criminal procedure rules will govern the practice and procedure to be followed in the criminal courts. The Bill as drafted simply provides for the criminal procedure rules committee to
In April 1998, the Institute of Legal Executives was added as an authorised body in its own right to the categories that already included the Bar Council and the Law Society. It was thus enabled to grant rights of audience to suitably qualified legal executives under section 27 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. Currently, the institute is able to grant only civil and matrimonial rights of audience, but it has submitted an application to extend that to criminal proceedings. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues in the new Department will consider that application favourably. The Institute of Legal Executives is also a body authorised to conduct litigation under section 28 of the 1990 Act, as amended by section 40 of the Access to Justice Act 1999, and it is sensible, in the light of those matters, that there should be provision for consultation with all the representatives of all the different parts of the legal profession, including the institute. That would ensure that all the people consulted had knowledge and experience of the rules and criminal processes. Our amendment No. 139 would achieve that. Our amendment No. 142 would make exactly the same change for family procedure rules, which we think would be helpful, and amendment No. 145, Column Number: 156 which is to clause 85, would achieve the same aim in relation to civil procedure rules.I hope that the Minister understands our concerns, which we share with the Institute of Legal Executives, and that even if he cannot accept the amendments today, he will continue to keep the matter under review and perhaps introduce similar Government amendments at a later stage.
11 amMr. Leslie: I will examine the matter raised tangentially by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath in respect of the Institute of Legal Executives in more detail when I get back to the Department. First, however, I should like to deal with the three amendments. They would require formal consultation with the bodies listed in sections 27 and 28 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, including the General Council of the Bar, the Law Society, the Institute of Legal Executives and others, before the procedure rule committees make any rules of court or submit them to the Lord Chancellor. The first point to note is that the Bill does not prevent consultation with any of those bodies. Indeed, it is entirely likely that the procedure rule committees will try appropriately to consult bodies that they feel could add to their work. I assure the Committee that major revisions of procedure rules will have full public consultation, which is a proportionate and sensible approach. For lesser procedural issues and minor matters, there may be a requirement to have less formal processes for consultation, but to have to go through formal consultation on smaller, uncontroversial matters would be excessive. Given that major revisions will have full public consultation, and that consultation with any of the bodies listed is likely, I believe that it is right to leave flexibility in the process of consultation. The formality that the amendments would introduce would be unduly prescriptive and rigid, and as the procedure rule committees will be made up of experts, they will be well placed to determine the extent of their consultation before making rules. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn. Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for his opening comment and the commitment to examine the other issue, which he said that I raised tangentially. I am sure that the Institute of Legal Executives will also be grateful for that assurance. I am not entirely happy that the Minister cannot accept our proposals, but his words are helpful and will be further considered by the institute before Report. At this stage, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 75, in
', with the concurrence of the Secretary of State,'.
This is a probing amendment. We wonder whether we need the phrase
When I first read the wording, my worry was that it would provide a recipe for further battles between the Column Number: 157 Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor or judges and lawyers more generally. We have seen quite a few of those battles in recent times. The Home Secretary seems to be addicted to attacking judges and lawyers, whenever he wants a cheap headline. However, that has not served him well—it has merely upset many of the senior judiciary. It has been made clear in another place that judicial independence is a crucial part of the United Kingdom's constitutional arrangements. I hope that, one day, the Home Secretary will learn that it is not sensible to make the sort of comments that he has made about the way in which our legal system operates.The amendment seeks to remove the provision in clause 72 that says that the Lord Chancellor has to have
It is not clear whether the provision refers to the Home Secretary or to any other Secretary of State. I have heard the Minister mention that the term ''Secretary of State'' may be regarded more generally. However, in the light of the Government's announcement that they intend to abolish the title of ''Lord Chancellor''—if they can get away with it—it is slightly surreal to see the Lord Chancellor referred to in so many parts of the Bill, and particularly in this clause. I shall therefore listen with interest to what the Minister has to say. Norman Lamb: I would like first to press the Minister to clarify which Secretary of State is referred to in the clause. Secondly, does not the involvement of the Secretary of State—or the Home Secretary—muddy the waters with regard to the separation of powers, and lead to the possibility of undue and inappropriate influence being exerted on the rules that are made by the committee? Would it not be more appropriate simply to leave out the reference to the ability of the Home Secretary or other Secretary of State to alter or to amend the rules made by the committee? Mr. Leslie: I am slightly perplexed as to why amendment No. 75 seeks to remove the need for the Home Secretary to concur with the rules made by the criminal procedure rule committee, because the consequence of that would be to give the Lord Chancellor alone the power to allow, disallow or alter the rules made by that committee. I would have thought that Opposition Members wanted Secretaries of State to adopt a more collegiate approach. The strongest reason for the Home Secretary to be involved in that area is the fact that he has wide responsibility for criminal justice policy. I believe that, in a policy sense, it is right for the Home Secretary to be involved in and to concur with any changes to those rules. I believe that a closer and increasingly integrated approach should be adopted by all three Ministries concerned with criminal justice, and that we should ensure that there is greater consistency, collaboration and discussion between all branches of the criminal justice service. That approach has already been adopted, but to reiterate it in the clause is the right way forward. Column Number: 158 To answer the question asked by the hon. Member for North Norfolk, the term ''Secretary of State'' refers to the Home Secretary. I understand that the Interpretations Act 1978 allows references to Secretaries of State in legislation to be generic, in the sense that any Secretary of State has the statutory ability to take on the function of any other Secretary of State. A generic reference is therefore adequate for the purposes of drafting. There is no particular issue at stake, because the Lord Chancellor currently performs many of those functions in his capacity as a Minister of the Crown, and, in future, there will be a separate Secretary of State for the Department for Constitutional Affairs, who will work in tandem with the Home Secretary. I therefore do not believe that there is a problem. It is right that different Ministries should work in parallel with each other on criminal procedure rules. That is why the Committee should resist the amendment. Mr. Hawkins: I do not think the Minister can claim that his colleagues at the most senior level of Government have been operating recently in a collegiate fashion. The huge rivalries and resentments within the Cabinet are very much in the public domain. For the Minister to say that senior Ministers in the Government should work in a collegiate manner takes some gall. I understand that the Minister is not going to accept our amendment. I said that we were probing the matter, and we have succeeded in teasing out the fact that the phrase ''Secretary of State'' refers to the Home Secretary. As I anticipated when tabling the amendment, it may be a recipe for further battles in future when the Home Secretary seeks to be as aggressively—and often mistakenly—populist as the current Home Secretary. However, I am not going to take up the Committee's time by dividing on the matter today. Having placed the point on the record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 8 July 2003 |
