Clause
42
Fees
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Bellingham:
I shall be brief. I mentioned vexatious
applicants earlier, when we discussed the section relating to costs and
expenses. I presume that I ought to have raised that point under clause
44, but I seek clarification that the judge can award costs against
a vexatious applicant. The clause mentions fees, which are presumably
fees that can be charged to applicants. Will the Minister clarify
that?
Vera
Baird:
This is, I think, about fees and not costs. It is
about paying the court fees, so possibly the hon. Gentleman is just a
tad off target again.
Simon
Hughes:
When will the fees that are provided for in the
clause be published and what consultation will there be about the
publication of the new fees under the new
system?
3.15
pm
Vera
Baird:
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date of
publication. The fees will be published in due course. What is
important for the hon. Gentleman to know is that there is no intention
of permitting them to impede access to justice. I am not sure what
consultation is required in relation to fees, but I shall write to him
about that.
Simon
Hughes:
I am grateful. I merely say that it would be
helpful if there were the same system for assessing the amount that one
might pay or for which one might receive an exemption or a reduction,
as is the case in other situations. That way, people would not have to
deal with different forms for tribunals from those with which they have
to deal in other parts of the legal
process.
Vera
Baird:
There is no intention of having any different
priority from that which applies generally in the courts service. The
Government do not believe that fees should be charged if they are
likely to cause financial hardship. Affirmative resolutions would be
needed before fees could be charged for the first time in respect of
any matter, so there will be ample opportunity to discuss them if
necessary.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause
42
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
43 and 44
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
7
Administrative
Justice and Tribunals
Council
Mr.
Bellingham:
I beg to move amendment No. 71, in
schedule 7, page 146, line 37, at
end insert ‘or insolvency,
or—
(a) that the member has been
absent from meetings of the Council for a period longer than 6 months
without permission,
(b) that
the member has been convicted of a criminal offence,
or
(c) that the member is
otherwise unstable or unfit to discharge the functions of a member of
the
Council.’.
Paragraph
3 of schedule 7 is
entitled:
“Term
of office of appointed members of
Council”.
Sub-paragraph
(1) says:
“Subject to the
following provisions of this paragraph, a person appointed under
paragraph 1(2) is to hold and vacate office in accordance with the
terms of his
appointment.”
Sub-paragraph
(5) says:
“The
Lord Chancellor may remove a person appointed under paragraph 1(2) on
the ground of inability or
misbehaviour.”
The
amendment would add the words, “or insolvency”, which it
seems to me would make sense; the tribunals council should not contain
members who have been made insolvent, though maybe that would fall
within “inability or misbehaviour”. It also covers
certain other matters. The first is absence from council meetings for
longer than six months without permission, which is a serious
dereliction of duty. The second is conviction for a criminal offence.
The third is instability or lack of fitness to discharge a council
member’s functions.
I hope that the Committee will
consider accepting the amendment because it would be nice to end the
day with a minor triumph. We are being reasonable; we are giving the
Minister the opportunity to clarify the meaning of
“inability” and “misbehaviour”. It might be
that one would be considered to have misbehaved if one had been
convicted of a criminal offence, and it might be that one would be
considered unable if one had been declared insolvent, but making it
explicit would be a good idea.
Vera
Baird:
The same amendment was withdrawn in Grand Committee
in the other place. As the hon. Gentleman has said, schedule 7 provides
for the removal of appointees on the grounds of inability and
misbehaviour. That is in line with the criteria for removing judges, so
we think that it is the right approach. If it is deemed necessary to
make explicit reference to specific kinds of misbehaviour or inability,
that can be covered in the terms of appointment, for which provision is
made in paragraph 3(1).
I am sorry to disappoint the
hon. Gentleman that we do not accept the amendment, but let me reassure
him that he has triumphed time and time again in the Committee by the
clarity of his argument.
Mr.
Bellingham:
I thank the Minister for those courteous
words. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Schedule
7 agreed to.
Clauses 45 to 48 ordered to
stand part of the
Bill.
Schedules
8 and 9
agreed
to
.
Clauses
49 and 50 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
10
agreed
to
.
Clause
51
“Relevant
qualification” in section 50: further
provision
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Simon
Hughes:
I want to put it on the record that although there
was some controversy on Second Reading and elsewhere, I am very
positive about the
proposals in this part of the Bill. It is right that there should be
wider eligibility, which this part of the Bill and particularly this
clause provide. I welcome that, as I welcome the Government’s
intention of widening by gender and ethnicity the pool of people from
which the judiciary is drawn. I am grateful to the Minister for giving
me the latest information that I asked for this morning.
I want to share one amusing
thought with the Committee. There are some helpful tables that set out,
for example, the gender balance among the judiciary. I think we all
know that in March 2004, there were 11 male Lords of Appeal in Ordinary
and one female Lord of Appeal in Ordinary—Lady Justice Hale was
the first woman law lord. However, it is amusing to discover that three
of them are of unknown ethnicity. It
seems to me that when people reach that level of seniority, they should
be asked about their ethnicity or it should be noted. I know they do
not have to fill in forms, which is understandable, but it does no harm
to know about ethnicity in the higher reaches of the judiciary. As it
happens, they are all white, but the day may come soon when they are
not all
white.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 51
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
52 and 53 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
11
agreed
to
.
Clauses
54 to 56 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Michael
Foster.]
Committee
rose at twenty-four minutes past Three o’clock
till
Tuesday 20 March at a quarter to Eleven
o’clock.
| 
