Courts Bill [Lords]

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in

clause 72, page 33, line 39, leave out ', disallow or alter' and insert 'or disallow'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 77, in

clause 72, page 33, line 41, leave out 'or altered'.

Amendment No. 82, in

clause 79, page 37, line 18, leave out ', disallow or alter' and insert 'or disallow'.

Amendment No. 83, in

clause 79, page 37, line 19, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment No. 84, in

clause 79, page 37, line 20, leave out 'or altered'.

Amendment No. 89, in

clause 85, page 39, line 31, leave out ', disallow or alter' and insert 'or disallow'.

Amendment No. 91, in

clause 85, page 39, line 34, leave out 'or altered'.

Column Number: 159

Mr. Hawkins: This group of amendments seeks to make changes in relation to the criminal procedure rules. There are similar amendments to clauses 79 and 85 for family and civil procedure.

In our amendments, we have said that the Lord Chancellor should be able to allow or disallow the rules but not to alter them, because the criminal procedure rule committee and the equivalents for family and civil procedure should be making the decisions. The Lord Chancellor—any Lord Chancellor—should not then—

Norman Lamb: I am slightly confused. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Lord Chancellor should be able to allow or disallow, but amendment No. 76 states

''leave out ', disallow or alter'''.

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that point?

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman may be right to point that out. My point is that we intend in the group of amendments that the Lord Chancellor should not be able to substitute his judgment for that of the procedure rule committees that make the decisions and that are specialists in the various sectors: crime, family law and civil procedure. We seek to put in some protection to ensure that the committees call the shots and that the Lord Chancellor should not be able to tinker. I hope that the Minister will understand what we are seeking to achieve.

Stephen Hesford (Wirral, West): Is it the hon. Gentleman's understanding that the criminal procedure rule committee has a mandatory function or an advisory function, with the Executive function left to the Lord Chancellor and others?

Mr. Hawkins: The criminal procedure rule committee, and the similar committees for civil procedure and family law, will, as clause 72(1)(a) states,

''consult such persons as they consider appropriate''.

They will then make the rules signed by a majority of their members, who are experts used to dealing with such matters at the sharp end. It should not then be for the Lord Chancellor to tinker. That is our proposition shortly stated. I hope the Minister will take it seriously, and I will listen with interest to his response.

Norman Lamb: I rise to speak in support of the amendments and to deal with the intervention from the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), who describes the committee as conceivably advisory, when it is there to draft, prepare and consult on the rules. Its function is clearly far more statutory than simply advisory. It would be bizarre to create a committee stuffed full of expertise, as the Bill describes, but then to allow the Lord Chancellor to override that and to vary or to disallow the rules that it makes. Surely if we create a committee with the expertise to enable it to draft, prepare and consult on those rules, it should be left to it to confirm them. I agree with the amendment, which would delete ''disallow or alter''.

Column Number: 160

11.15 am

Mr. Leslie: I am slightly taken aback by the views of Opposition Members, who are usually guardians and bastions of accountability and of ensuring that Ministers are held to account for decisions that are taken. We envisage that the criminal procedure rule committees will rightly make the rules for procedures in courts daily. Those rules, however, are made with Ministers' approval, and provisions are set out for altering or disallowing them so that, in certain extreme or rare circumstances, any disagreements or discussions can be resolved quickly and the process can move on.

If there were a disagreement between procedure rule committees and the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chancellor's ability to alter those rules would mean that there was no eternal toing and froing between those committees. That ability would be used in only the most extreme and unforeseen circumstances. However, we are in effect talking about secondary legislation, so we need that safeguard, not least so that Ministers are accountable, not least to Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West was right to raise the general issue about broader accountability.

We want to delegate much of the work to the procedure rule committees, but we want that long-stop capability in place. This matter was the subject of quite a lot of debate in the other place. The Government listened to much of that debate, and accepted that the ability to alter the rules would be used only in rare and extreme circumstances, and that such alteration would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That would give Parliament a higher level of scrutiny than the proposal to allow the Lord Chancellor simply to alter the rules. It would also ensure that Parliament had the opportunity to consider fully the exercise of that power by the Lord Chancellor.

We have already conceded the need for the affirmative resolution procedure, so I believe that we have struck the right balance to ensure that Parliament has its say in overseeing the powers of the Lord Chancellor in this respect. We have therefore completed the credibility process. I hope that hon. Members can now see why we need the provision to alter powers in that manner.

Mr. Hawkins: In the light of the Minister's remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 73 to 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77

Family Procedure Rule Committee

Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 79, in

clause 77, page 36, line 36, leave out 'one person with' and insert 'two persons with current'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 87, in

clause 83, page 38, line 36, after 'with', insert 'current'.

Mr. Hawkins: We are suggesting that the Bill should include the fact that there is a need for two people,

Column Number: 161

rather than one person, with current experience of the lay advice sector. Two people are set out in clause 83, so why not two people in clause 77? For clause 83, we have tabled a more restricted amendment to make it clear that we are talking about people with ''current'' experience.

We want to ensure that those who understand the lay advice sector are fully involved. People such as those in citizens advice bureaux feel strongly about that, so I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to what, after all, is a modest change to the Bill. Even if he cannot accept our proposed wording today, I hope that he will accept that it would be helpful to table something along these lines in a Government amendment at a later stage.

Mr. Leslie: Although I sympathise with some of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath in advocating amendment No. 87, on reflection there might be difficulties with inserting the words ''current experience'' in the clause. My argument follows on from some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Upminster. She expressed worry that experience can sometimes be lost when we have cut-offs and allow people to serve only if a current definition can be applied to them. I suspect that she might be concerned about this amendment.

Stephen Hesford: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the form of words in the amendment were included in the Bill, the Committee would be bereft of the benefit of the experience that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath brings? I know that his experience goes back to the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Mr. Leslie: I am not sure that it is fair to characterise the hon. Gentleman purely as having experience from the 1970s and 1980s. I am sure that he has experience of matters in the 1990s and the new century. I do not know whether he is applying to be a member of the family procedure rule committee, and it would not be fair for me to go into any details. All the

Column Number: 162

normal Nolan committee procedures relating to applications must be followed in the normal way, and the hon. Gentleman can consider his application in due course.

We should be wary about the wisdom of adding the word ''current'' to the issue of experience. It could exclude people with very recent experience of the lay advice sector. For example, an applicant might have built a vast depth of knowledge of the field over 20 or 30 years, but then left a month before applying to a particular position. If the amendment were accepted, such an applicant would have to be rejected and his knowledge would be lost. That is not the right approach as it is too restrictive.

In any case, we have not found references to ''current experience'' in other primary legislation. There would be issues in defining what is current experience. It is necessary to ensure that we have the flexibility to include very recent experience, although I understand the hon. Gentleman's point.

Amendment No. 79 has the further effect of increasing the number of lay advisers on the family procedure rule committee from one to two. The amendment is similar to another tabled in another place by Baroness Anelay of St. Johns. She recognised that

''the family procedure rule committee has a narrower remit and is more specialised''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 February 2003; Vol. 644, c. 661.]

and that perhaps the committee would need only one lay advice member. She consequently withdrew her amendment, and I advise the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to do the same.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

The following Members attended the Committee:
O'Brien, Mr. Bill (Chairman)
Cranston, Ross
Hawkins, Mr.
Hesford, Stephen
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Johnson, Mr. Boris
Kidney, Mr.
Lamb, Norman
Leslie, Mr.
Miller, Mr.
Moffat, Laura
Prentice, Ms Bridget
Thomas, Gareth
Watkinson, Angela
Woodward, Mr.
Wright, David

 

---

Prepared 8 July 2003