|
Mr. Leslie: Because one source in one organisation makes an allegation does not always make it absolutely true. My understanding from the Department of Health and the officials who have talked to my Department is that they are content and happy with these provisions. I accept that we need to take some level of cautious approach, particularly on how this developing area of law proceeds. I have already given a commitment that we will take a cautious approach in looking at further orders affecting this area of policy. Clearly, we must take a number of factors into account. If the hon. Gentleman is urging a prudent and cautious approach, I am more than happy to agree to that attitude, which I believe we have already taken in drawing up the provisions.
I turn to amendment No. 155, which would prevent periodical payment orders being linked to the retail prices index where the damages relate to future care and medical costs. In a similar way to, but not quite in the same vein as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, I am wary about the amendment. For a start, it makes no provision for indexation, in which case the claimant would be worse off, but, more than that, the suggestion that there should be links to another inflation index raises the worry that insurers would be unable to provide a product; their financial regulations limit the index-linked products that they can provide. As a result, awards may have to be made by way of lump sums, which are effectively linked to the retail prices index. Therefore, the whole purpose of giving the courts greater powers to order periodical payments might be defeated.
We need to make sure that we have a sound, firm foundation for the indexation and the awarding process. There are arrangements in the clause for variations, and the periodical payments approach gives the claimant an end product that is much more tailored to their needs.
I believe that I have dealt amply with many of the concerns that hon. Members have raised. For reasons that I have given—and others—I do not believe that taking out the RPI link would be appropriate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will reconsider their amendments.
Norman Lamb: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 100
Power to alter judicial titles: Northern Ireland
Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in
clause 100, page 54, line 22, leave out 'Lord Chancellor' and insert 'Prime Minister'.
We have come to the sensitive subject of Northern Ireland. I am sorry that no one from the Northern Ireland parties was appointed to sit on the Committee, because the hon. Member for North Down (Lady
Column Number: 188
Hermon) has been helpful in a number of recent Committees considering legal Bills of which I have been a member. We think that the Prime Minister should make the orders about any alteration in judicial titles in relation to Northern Ireland. That is a small but important point. Again, it feels somewhat surreal debating whether the Lord Chancellor will do something, when the Government have said that, if they have their way, there will not be a Lord Chancellor in about three years—
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): Hear, hear.
Mr. Hawkins: I hear the hon. Gentleman talking about getting rid of the Lord Chancellor, but I went with the new Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, to Her Majesty the Queen's official opening of Tynwald, the Manx Parliament, yesterday, and it is clear that the present Lord Chancellor is thoroughly enjoying his role. He also enjoyed all the ceremonial that we saw at Tynwald. It is apparent that the Isle of Man is keeping all the traditions that the Government want to sweep away. Lord Falconer might reflect on that when he considers what his Government are doing. Who knows, the Government might have a change of policy if the present Lord Chancellor has his way.
On the sensitive subject of Northern Ireland, any changes in judicial titles should be made by the Prime Minister. That is a serious point, although it can be quickly debated.
Mr. Leslie: I realise that the hon. Gentleman's amendment refers to the narrow terms defined in the clause, but dare I suggest that there was a bit of mischievous intent in tabling it? Perhaps he was seeking to reopen discussions about the changes affecting the position of Lord Chancellor. He seemed to suggest that in his comments. However, it would not necessarily be in order for me to address those points in detail. Suffice it to say that I do not think that there is any convincing or compelling reason why the Prime Minister need exercise a power of the type the hon. Gentleman mentions in Northern Ireland, when the Lord Chancellor is capable of dealing with it.
Titles are a matter for the Crown, and it is for Ministers of the Crown to advise on them. Therefore, the Lord Chancellor, who is to be the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, is quite capable of undertaking that function. The current arrangement is adequate, and we see no need to have the powers vested in the Prime Minister, as opposed to the Lord Chancellor, so I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Mr. Hawkins: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 101
Official solicitor of Northern Ireland
Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in
clause 101, page 55, line 25, after 'Court', insert 'or a barrister'.
Column Number: 189
This amendment is a small point. I declare an interest as a member of the Bar of England and Wales, although I am not currently in practice. There seemed no reason why a barrister in Northern Ireland should not be considered as a possible appointee as an Official Solicitor. I am not a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland, and I have never practised there, but I know that in the courts of England and Wales there is no restriction. The Minister will correct me if I wrong, but I think that those qualified at the Bar, rather than as solicitors, have been appointed as Official Solicitors in the past. I want to probe the Government on that small point.
Mr. Leslie: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is holding fast to his seat: I am sympathetic to his amendment. It seeks to allow barristers, as well as solicitors, to be eligible for appointment as Official Solicitors. At present, only solicitors of seven years standing are eligible for that post. The position advocated by the hon. Gentleman is attractive. I see no immediate difficulty with what he is trying to achieve, and it merits further consideration, in particular in Northern Ireland. However, I urge him to withdraw his amendment for two reasons. First, I am advised that there might be drafting issues that we have to get right. Secondly, I want the opportunity to give further consideration to the matter as it applies to Northern Ireland. There is merit in his suggestion, and I hope that we can act on it at a later stage.
Mr. Hawkins: I am delighted to hear that. It shows how flexible this Minister is able to be. In those circumstances, I am happy to withdraw the amendment, so long as the Minister is happy when he introduces a Government amendment to admit that the idea came from the Conservative Benches. On that understanding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Column Number: 190
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 102 to 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 107 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clauses 108 and 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 110
Short title
Mr. Leslie: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in
clause 110, page 59, line 28, leave out subsection (2).
This is a technical amendment, known as a privilege amendment, that is inserted in Bills that commence in the House of Lords and deal with charges on public funds. It is intended to avoid formal infringement on the financial privileges of the House of Commons. It is designed to show that the Lords are able to legislate on such matters, but that that ability is not absolute, being subject to the tolerances of the House of Commons. The amendment is a procedural device to avoid the impression that the other place has authorised expenditure.
Mr. Hawkins: Unlike the Minister, I have come across such an amendment before. I know that it is traditional, I know the reasons for it and I am happy with it.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 110, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
Adjourned accordingly at a quarter-past Four o'clock till Thursday 10 July at half-past Nine o'clock.
The following Members attended the Committee:
O'Brien, Mr. Bill (Chairman)
Cameron, Mr.
Hawkins, Mr.
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Johnson, Mr. Boris
Kidney, Mr.
Lamb, Norman
Leslie, Mr.
Miller, Mr.
Moffatt, Laura
Prentice, Ms Bridget
Watkinson, Angela
Woodward, Mr.
Wright, David
| 
