| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 155B:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 155B, I shall speak also to the other amendments that have been grouped with it. Section 49 of the Bill provides for the Judicial Appointments Commission. Schedule 10 is about the commission. The commission consists of a chairman and 14 other commissioners, appointed by Her Majesty at the recommendation of the Minister. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 10 provides that a person must not be appointed as a commissioner if he is a member of this House. The purpose of my amendment is to remove that sweepingly broad disqualification so that Cross-Benchers who are not tainted, as, for example, I am, by being political Peers are eligible to become members of the commission. I fully recognise why Members of the other House are disqualified and I also recognise why those who are still political would not be appropriate to be members of the commission.
I shall briefly explain what each amendment does. Amendment No. 155B amends paragraph 3 of Schedule 10 to delete the prohibition on appointing Members of the House as commissioners.
Amendment No. 156B would amend paragraph 8(9)(e) of Schedule 10, which provides that the first member of the panel selecting commissioners may not be a Member of either House of Parliament and substitutes a prohibition on Members of the House of Commons.
Amendment No. 156C would amend paragraph 8(10) of Schedule 10, which provides that a person may not be the third member of the panel selecting the commissioners if he is a Member of either House of Parliament. It substitutes a prohibition on Members of the House of Commons.
Amendment No. 156D tidies up paragraph 8(11) of Schedule 10 and clarifies that the sub-paragraphs of paragraph 11 are the questions which the Minister and the Lord Chief Justice or Head of Division must consider.
Amendment No. 156E would insert a new sub-paragraph (c) into paragraph 8(11) of Schedule 10, requiring the Minister and the Lord Chief Justice, in selecting the first member of the panel that will choose commissioners, to consider whether the extent of a person's party political activity or affiliation makes them unsuitable for appointment as a member of the panel. That is designed to ensure that, even following the removal of the prohibition on Peers as members of the panel, Peers who are associated with a political party will not be selected. The provision also applies to non-Peers being considered for the post. So someone who was a Member of neither House of Parliament but was a prominent political activist outside Parliament should not be selected as a first member of the panel.
The amendment would also insert a new paragraph, 8(12), which would ensure that the question set out in paragraph 8(11), including new sub-paragraph (c),
14 Dec 2004 : Column 1280
would also be considered by the first member before nominating a person to be appointed as the third member of the panel.
Finally, Amendment No. 156F would insert a new sub-paragraph (c) into paragraph 10(3) of Schedule 10, requiring the panel, in selecting members of the commission, to consider whether the extent of a person's party political activity or affiliation makes them unsuitable for appointment as a commissioner. It is designed to ensure that even following the removal of the prohibition on Peers as members of the panel, Peers who are associated with a political party will not be selected. It also applies to non-Peers, as I have said, being considered for the posts, so someone who was a Member of neither House of Parliament but was a prominent political activist outside Parliament would not be selected as a commissioner. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for the amendments. We have been concerned, and are still concerned, to prevent the new Judicial Appointments Commission being subject to party political domination or influence. The Bill therefore prevented Members of either House of Parliament being appointed as members of the commission or being members of the appointing panel that will choose the commissioners.
On reflection, we agree that many distinguished figures in public life, with the experience and qualities that might well suit them to the work of the commission, are Cross-Bench Peers. There is no good reason why those of your Lordships' House without clear party political affiliations should be barred from membership of the commission. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has indicated, the amendments would remove the restriction on Peers and put in place instead a test of whether someone, whether or not they are a Peer, has past or present party political activities or associations that make them unsuitable for appointment.
In addition, we intend that the terms and conditions of commissioners and their code of conduct will make it clear that they are barred from party political activities. Any commissioner who wished to pursue a party political career would have to resign.
I should take the opportunity to inform your Lordships, with regret, that Dame Rennie Fritchie, the Commissioner for Public Appointments, has decided that she will not, after all, be able to chair the panel selecting commissioners, as was previously announced. That is because her tenure has been extended until next July, when the process of selecting commissioners is likely to be under way, and it would not be appropriate for her to take part in a process about which she might have to consider complaints. Previously, Dame Rennie's term of office had been due to come to an end in February, so she would have been available to chair the panel.
The noble and learned Lords the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice have yet to select a new first member of the panel, but the amendments tabled by
14 Dec 2004 : Column 1281
the noble Lord, Lord Lester, would allow them to select a Cross-Bench Peer if they thought that appropriate.
I welcome the amendments. The Government are happy to accept them, and I hope that the House can, too.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the amendment relates to Cross-Bench Peers, and we all accept that most Cross-Bench Peers have no party political affiliation. However, I understand that a number of Cross-Bench Peers have been members of other political parties or sit as Cross-Bench Peers but are actually still, despite that, card-carrying members of one or other party. Would they be excluded from sitting?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the amendment says that the test covers someone whose past or present political activities make them unsuitable for appointment. Cases would be examined on an individual basis. If that made people inappropriate for appointment, so be it. However, the essence of the amendment is that when it is clear that somebody has a neutral position, if I can describe it that way, they should be eligible for appointment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the point is that merely being a Cross-Bencher does not make that person neutral.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, indeed. The amendment removes the restriction on Peers and replaces it with a test of whether someone—whether or not they are a Peer—has past or present political activities or associations making them unsuitable for appointment. It is that change, which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is getting at, that will make the difference. It applies to Cross-Bench Peers and also to those outside your Lordships' House.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much and must say how happy I am. I always think that Bateman should do a cartoon for such occasions of "The Minister who accepts the Back-Bencher's amendment". It is such a rare experience, and I am very glad indeed. I hope that the first chair of the panel might be someone from the Cross Benches in this House because such a person with sufficient authority would know exactly how to conduct themselves with independence, integrity and authority. However, that is for another day.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 155C:
"(4) A lay justice member is a justice of the peace who—
(a) holds no other listed judicial office, or no other except that of General Commissioner,
(b) is not a practising barrister in England and Wales, and
14 Dec 2004 : Column 1282
(c) is not a practising solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Borrie moved Amendment No. 156:
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |