I think that it partially answers the hon. Gentleman's question if I say that we are seeking to correct a legislative anomaly. Every hon. Member agrees with the principle that we should have an independent judiciary in this country, and that that independence should be robustly protected in all ways.
We have talked about the appointments process, in which we are trying to entrench that fundamental principle of independence. Another crucial aspect of judicial independence is salary protection for judicial office holders, and that is what clause 36 is designed to advance. There is a legislative anomaly, and we are trying to remedy it by providing a statutory prohibition preventing the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor from determining reductions in the salaries of judicial office holders in tribunal services.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked why only these members of the judiciary are mentioned in the clause, and the answer is that most other judicial office holders are already protected in primary legislation from the Executive determining reductions in their salaries. That statutory salary protection is widely regarded as an important safeguard of judicial independence against Executive interference, but currently there are no equivalent provisions for tribunal judges. This change is designed to harmonise the statutory safeguards of judicial independence across the judiciary, and it was welcomed by the Joint Committee.
Lay members of tribunals will not have the same protection, precisely because of the principle of judicial independence. Lay members do valuable and crucial work, but none the less they are not part of the judiciary in quite the same way.
It might be worth informing the Committee that there are a relatively small number of judicial office holders who will still not receive salary protection in the way set out in clause 36. The judge advocate general and the deputy and assistant judge advocates general are not covered by primary legislation because they fall outside the mainstream judiciary.
I hope the Committee will feel able to support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Wills
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 4 November 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
498 c888-9 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:41:40 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_591904
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_591904
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_591904