Elections: Registration

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

Perhaps someone from Northern Ireland will intervene, but, again, the language is not borne out by the facts. It did not totally collapse. In this gradual process that we are bringing forward, we are learning from the examples and lessons of the Northern Ireland experience, as well as looking at some of the practices that are going on there now. Northern Ireland votes are a standard joke but we are now learning lessons about voluntary registration and its success in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, the existing system, whereby householders can in theory be prosecuted for failing to return their registration forms, has not worked, largely for the simple reason that no one can tell who the responsible householder is in households with more than person. Therefore, does not individual registration offer a good opportunity at least to consider a meaningful compulsory system, and is that not important, given that the electoral register determines not just the right to vote but also the call-up for jury service?

[Lord McNally]

Those are very valid points. To put the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, into perspective, I again emphasise that the annual canvass will continue to support the maintenance of the electoral register. Significant work, including public awareness campaigns by the Electoral Commission, will be funded in 2014-15 to manage the transition to individual electoral registration. In both those years, door-to-door canvassing will be used by electoral registration officers as part of a wide suite of powers to encourage people to register to vote. This is a step forward against electoral fraud. Instead of making emotional interventions, it would be good if the Labour Party would endorse it and get on with encouraging people to register.

Community Legal Service (Funding) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2011

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I regret that I, too, must support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, because of my concerns about the impact on child welfare. I regret doing so, because I know that the Government take the welfare of children very much to heart, and I thank the Minister for ensuring that domestic violence issues have been kept out of the scope of the order and that tandem representation of children in private law cases will be untouched.

I remind the Minister and other Members of the House of Article 3.1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states:

“In all actions concerning children”—

whether undertaken by legislative bodies or other institutions—

“the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration”.

I should be very interested to hear from the Minister how the best interests of children have been considered in this move by the Government to cut legal aid.

Children need the best experts and lawyers in the immensely complex cases that they are often drawn into. My concern is that those experts will be driven out by the further cut in their finances. Expert witnesses to the family courts—including paediatricians, child and adolescent psychiatrists, educational psychologists, adolescent psychotherapists and independent social workers—are all subject to the 10 per cent cut, having already had their fees seriously cut. For clinicians working in London, the situation is worse, because London-based practitioners are allowed to charge only two thirds of the amount charged by those based outside London. As everyone knows, it is more costly to practise in London.

I am concerned that because of the impact on expert witnesses there will further delays for children in the courts and that poor decisions will be made. If a child is taken into local authority care and the wrong decision is come to, it will stay with that child for the rest of his life and possibly for the rest of his children’s lives. We need to get those decisions right and we need the right expertise.

A further concern of the expert witnesses is that they cannot deal directly with the Legal Services Commission but have to work indirectly through solicitors. Perhaps the Minister could look at that, because it would certainly be an improvement if they could deal directly with the commission.

I look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope that he can give some comfort to your Lordships.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I rise with a heavy heart to speak against this annulment Motion. It is with a heavy heart because, for all my professional life, I have been a devoted supporter of legal aid. I declare an interest as a barrister who over the years has done a great deal of publicly funded work. My first ever motion to a Liberal Democrat conference was on the promotion of legal aid. The Liberal Democrat Lawyers Association, which I chaired for a number of years, drank a toast every year at its annual dinner to the Legal Aid Fund, a toast proposed by a prominent lawyer. It is noteworthy in the context of today’s debate that the toast was changed some 10 years ago to “justice for all”, as an ironic response to cuts in civil legal aid made by the then Labour Government. I chaired a policy group entitled A Right to Justice, which helped to define Liberal Democrat policy on improving the legal aid scheme. My party has always taken as its starting point for discussion on this topic that access to justice is a crucial right and that legal aid funding provides a vital public service. There is no point in having rights enforceable at law if citizens cannot secure those rights in courts of law. I know from many years’ experience of him that that is the position my noble friend the Minister takes as well.

However, while there was much to agree with in all the speeches that have been made so far in favour of the Motion, we live in difficult times. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, fairly acknowledged, savings must be made. The provisions of the order are estimated to deliver £120 million of the £350 million of savings that the Ministry of Justice is required to make in legal aid over the spending review period from 2011-15. If we do not make those savings, matters can only get worse and later cuts will have to be deeper.

On a personal note, in Greece, my wife's home country, I have seen at first hand the effects of the extreme austerity measures cutting back public expenditure. The cuts could have been much less harsh had the Government there got a grip on the public purse earlier when all the signs of overspending were plain for all to see.

The need to make savings in the legal aid budget was recognised by the Labour Party in Government who made some 30 attempts to limit it, reducing fees in real terms across the piece as they did so, between 2006 and their leaving office. Furthermore, that was before the full extent of the deficit became apparent and the need for deficit reduction and cuts across the board became as clear as it is now. On 18 May 2009, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked whether the Labour Government would maintain the rates of legal aid payments in family law cases. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, replied:

“Family legal aid costs have risen unsustainably from £399 million per year to £582 million per year in the past six years. We need to control these costs in order to protect services for vulnerable clients”.—[Official Report, 18/5/09; col. 1201.]

In the consultation paper sent out by Ministry of Justice in July 2009, for which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, as legal aid Minister, was responsible, its proposals were described as follows:

“Our legal aid system is one of the best funded in the world. We spend around £38 per head on it annually in England and Wales, compared to £4 in Germany and £3 in France. Even countries with a legal system more like ours spend less; for example, both New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland spend around £8 per head”.

I regard the fact that we still spend considerably more than comparable countries on legal aid as a matter for pride. That is still the case but it highlights the degree to which the legal aid budget must bear its share of the economies that have to be made.

The Labour Government's consultation paper continued:

“While we devote considerable resources to legal aid—£2bn annually—”

the figure is now £2.2 billion—

“our resources are limited, and we need to review regularly how legal aid funds are being spent, and whether we are securing value for money for the taxpayer and providing the services that the public need”.

The Government's response to the consultation, published in January 2010 and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said:

“The Government wants to ensure that we rebalance the legal aid budget as far as possible in favour of civil help for those who need it most. But we also need to ensure that the resources we currently devote to civil legal aid are being targeted appropriately, and that the rules for granting funding are as robust as they need to be to ensure that resources are expended on meritorious cases … The intended effects are to redirect resources onto higher priority areas, and to ensure that funding is only granted to eligible clients”.

The words “rebalance” and “redirect resources” would inevitably have involved real terms reductions in fees. Labour’s 2010 election manifesto said:

“To help protect frontline services, we will find greater savings in legal aid and the courts system”.

When this Government's consultation paper on legal aid was published, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, very fairly said, as he said tonight:

“It would have been hypocritical of Labour to say we would not cut anything. If we had, we would be rightly criticised”.

It is beyond doubt that the reductions in fees embodied in the order, which the noble Lord seeks to annul, do make it more difficult for the already hard-pressed community legal practitioners, mentioned in the Motion, to thrive and will make it more difficult for barristers, junior and senior, who work on publicly funded work. We agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that such practitioners carry out an essential service for those least able to afford it. This order does involve a 10 per cent cut in their fees and in the fees of barristers for publicly funded work across the field of civil and family law, not just social welfare law. It includes—I would suggest rightly—a limit on experts’ fees for the first time. It is going to be more necessary than ever for lawyers to practise as efficiently as they can and the harsh reality is that they will earn less from legal aid work. However, I am far less clear that their core viability is threatened.

We will be debating these issues—and the other issues about the scope of legal aid mentioned by the noble Lord, but not the subject of this order—in full when the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill comes to this House shortly. I hope we will also be able to explore during the course of this Parliament other ways in which savings might be made without damaging the quality of the justice system. Progress is being made in exploring the achievement of savings through alternative dispute resolution procedures. I believe there is also room for improvement in the efficiency of the court system to produce savings. In the family field, I look forward with great hope to the final report of the Family Justice Review chaired by David Norgrove.

I would make it clear from these Benches that we have been, and are, heavily involved in discussions with practitioners and others , including many civil and family law practitioners, both barristers and solicitors, who have quite rightly expressed their concerns to us. We will examine closely with Ministers whether, and how far, the Bill achieves fairness and the protection of the vulnerable in the use of extremely limited resources. We would hope and expect that in due course, in a reviving economy, any gaps in provision that emerge will be refilled. However, that there must now be some cuts in fees is inevitable in these straitened circumstances.

In advancing this annulment Motion I suggest that the noble Lord and the Labour Party need to tell us what choices they would have made, or would make now, in cutting the legal aid budget. What were the cuts that he was intending to implement? How would they not have threatened hard-pressed community practitioners? Until those questions are answered fully, I suggest that, however regrettable the need for fee cuts in civil and family proceedings, it would not be sensible to divide the House on this Motion.

[The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for raising this issue tonight and for concentrating my thoughts—like those of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—on the welfare of children as they are treated by our legal system. We spent the whole of this afternoon talking about the treatment and rights of children. I look forward to the Government’s response and comment on the ways in which children can be particularly protected in our legal system by the way in which the distribution of fees is arranged throughout that system.

I am still puzzled by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and why it should be this area in which we look for savings. A number of noble Lords have spoken of areas, in criminal law, for example, where there could be significant savings. Why should it be this area? I think of the work, for example, of Henry Hyams, a firm of solicitors in Leeds which takes some 2,000 cases a year from the most deprived areas of Leeds. They tell me that almost all of those cases involve the welfare of children.

That takes us to the effect of these cuts on those clinicians who provide reports to assist the courts in making determinations about the safeguarding of children—professionals who provide evidence of injury and of abuse and who are often key to the welfare of children. We have improved immensely our understanding of childcare in our society, and much of that has been due to the diligence of such professionals. We are all made very aware when a mistake is made by one of those professionals; we forget the thousands of cases when accurate decisions are taken about children’s welfare and their future. The debate that we had all afternoon and this debate come together in looking at the well-being—again—of children, and of their place in our society.

Clergy in pastoral work are often aware of the time spent both by those clinicians and by lawyers with their clients, seeking the best way forward for children and family life, often in work that is undertaken quite outside the fee system. We claim to be a society that puts the family first; social welfare law is an important part of enabling us to do that.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, spoke of the way in which he hoped that, if there were gaps in our provision, they would be able to be filled again as the economic situation becomes better. But the most important part of our response to the difficulties in which we find ourselves is that those who are most deprived in our society should be those whom we seek to protect from the cuts being made. The Government and many local authorities seek to do that, yet in this particular instance those cuts are bearing at their hardest on those least able to bear the brunt of them.

Cohabiting: Law Commission Report

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will introduce legislation to enable qualifying cohabitants to apply for financial relief on the breakdown of their relationship, as recommended by the 2007 Law Commission report on cohabiting.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, while declaring an interest as a barrister undertaking some family work, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, as has been confirmed in a Written Ministerial Statement, the Government do not intend to take forward the Law Commission’s recommendations for reform of the cohabitation law in this parliamentary term.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, although I confess it was disappointing. Does he nevertheless agree that it is unjust, as the slightly wider Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, recognised some time ago, that cohabitants who separate, no matter how long they have lived together and even if they have children, cannot in England apply to the courts for financial relief to compensate for careers abandoned, time spent looking after children or contributions to their cohabitants’ success, and if so, is it not surely now time to implement the Law Commission’s sensible and limited scheme, which would not undermine marriage or civil partnership and which has been widely applauded by the judiciary and the family professions?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the Law Commission for its work, not just on this matter but in general. I am a very firm supporter of the Law Commission and the work it does, and I know that this House has played an important role in bringing Law Commission recommendations into law. However, the Government have decided not to implement the Law Commission’s scheme in this parliamentary term, because major changes to family legal aid are being implemented next year, and further reforms of the family justice system are also on the horizon following the final report of the family justice review, which will be published in October. We do not believe it would be sensible to seek to implement further changes in the law governing cohabiting couples during this period.

Personal Injury Lawyers

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

Whether it is a matter for the OFT or the regulator is a balance of judgment. The noble Lord is right that the figures are showing a doubling. One of the factors that one must look at is the unbelievable increase in whiplash claims, about which I know the Association of British Insurers has held talks with my colleague Jonathan Djanogly. It is far too easy to find in even the most minor of accidents that subsequently whiplash is claimed, along with quite substantial damages. One of the weaknesses in the system is that the insurance companies find it easier to settle and pass on the costs to the customer than to fight these bogus claims in the courts.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this practice of insurers charging solicitors referral fees for names is not only unethical and offensive but ensures that the claims are handled not by the most competent or well qualified solicitors but by those who are prepared to pay the most to buy the clients—thus effectively depriving their clients of their right to choose the best lawyers to handle their cases? Is that not another good reason for implementing Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendation for a ban on such fees?

[Lord McNally]

I agree with my noble friend. I hope that the more the public are aware of what the noble Lord described as this “dirty little secret”, the more it is in the public domain and the more that all parts of the insurance industry, including the insurance companies, solicitors and the consumers, will demand—and we will respond to that demand—to ban it.

Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Bill

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Friday 13th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, while I declare an interest as a practising barrister, I should add that I have never conducted a case in this precise area of the law, so while I am grateful to my noble friend for looking at me when suggesting that experts in this area of the law were due to speak, I doubt his accuracy. However, I congratulate my noble friend on bringing this Bill forward for a Second Reading and on what I must say was a masterful exposition of its terms.

As noble Lords will have appreciated, this Bill involves three distinct reforms, each of which, I would suggest, is beneficial and necessary to correct anomalies in the present law. The first reform set out in Clause 1 is that where a parent disclaims an interest in an estate, whether on intestacy, which is the alteration to the Administration of Estates Act 1925, or under a will, which is the alteration set out in Clause 2 of the Wills Act, that disclaimer does not bind his or her children. As my noble friend has explained, it achieves this by treating the disclaiming parent as having died immediately before the intestate or the testator who is, as he rightly pointed out, usually a grandparent, so that the children can inherit directly. This is a sensible and sympathetic reform. It is right that a parent can disclaim, for whatever reason, for himself or herself. However, it is wrong that that disclaimer should bind his or her children. That may cause not only loss to the children, but if they know of the disclaimer, it may also cause stress to the grandparents, who then know that their grandchildren will not inherit.

The second reform uses the same device on intestacy and under wills to ensure that the forfeiture rule does not disinherit the children of a person who forfeits his or her inheritance. There are of course clearly understandable reasons for the forfeiture rule, which is now defined by the Forfeiture Act 1982. The rule provides that someone who has killed another—often, but not always, a parent—cannot inherit from the victim’s estate either on intestacy or under the victim’s will. That applies to anyone party to the killing as well. The rule is obviously primarily intended to ensure that killers who kill to gain an inheritance are deprived of the fruits of their crime. However, the present operation of the rule also prevents the children of the killer from inheriting the victim’s estate. Since again the most predictable circumstances in which this can operate are where a son or daughter kills a parent, the effect is to cut the victim’s grandchildren out of the inheritance. That is anomalous and unfair, as the Law Commission recognised.

In DWS, the case where a son had murdered both his parents and therefore could not inherit under the forfeiture rule, which has already been cited and which was the case that led to the reference to the Law Commission, the result was that his child could not do so as well. The judgment of Lord Justice Sedley has already been read out in part, but I hope that I will be forgiven for trespassing on the time of noble Lords for a moment or two more to mention another passage of that judgment where, using very plain English, Lord Justice Sedley said:

“Most people in the situation of the two deceased parents in the present case, if told that in such an unimaginable event their son would be disqualified from inheriting and asked what they would then like to happen, would say that they would like their estate to go their grandchild”.

That is the result at which this part of the Bill is aimed.

In western society, we reject the principle that the sins of the father shall be visited upon the children from generation to generation. We are right to do so, and the Bill recognises that.

The third reform is designed to protect the interests of the children of a single parent under 18 who dies before reaching majority. At present, if someone under 18 and single has a child and inherits from a parent under an intestacy while still under 18, the child cannot inherit and the parent’s interest in the estate passes to other relatives. Again, that is plainly wrong. The Bill uses the same device to treat the parent as having predeceased the intestate, again usually a grandparent, so that the interest in the grandparent’s estate will pass from the intestate grandparent to the single parent’s child.

These are small reforms. They are, I suspect, entirely uncontroversial. They may sound complex, but they are relatively simple in their application.

The DWS case was in 2001; the Law Commission’s consultation was in 2003; and that led to the Law Commission’s report in 2005, a thoroughly commendable report. This Bill comes before this House in 2011. We must do better. We do not know how many possible heirs have been deprived in a grandparent’s estate between 2005 and 2011, but surely it cannot be right to tolerate a delay of that length in the implementation of such an uncontroversial proposal.

The Law Commission brings great expertise to these questions. It consults widely, as it did in this case. It reports in detail and generally with very well reasoned and intellectually sound recommendations. We have it in our power to pass uncontroversial Bills introduced into the House of Lords with some speed. Yet the Law Commission’s implementation log, admittedly most recently updated only in November 2010, says that the last report to be implemented was that from 2006, which led to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Even that delay is substantially too long. There are a number of reports since 2006 awaiting implementation. We now have an annual reporting requirement on the Law Commission. We have a protocol between the Law Commission and the Government under which procedures are governed. I simply invite the Minister to give some attention to how we may ensure that in simple and straightforward cases uncontroversial reports of the Law Commission are brought to Parliament more quickly than hitherto.

That said, commencement under the Bill is a matter for the Secretary of State. It is to be not less than three months after Royal Assent. I simply urge the Minister, once that short period, which is no doubt designed to enable lawyers to catch up with the provisions, has elapsed, to bring them into force as quickly as possible.

Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) (Family Proceedings) Order 2011

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, these statutory instruments are necessary to support the implementation of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, which will come into force on 6 April 2011. The Family Procedure Rules are being made as required by the Courts Act 2003, which gives power for new rules to be made for all family proceedings. This means that one unified set of procedures can be applied to all types of family proceedings in all types of courts dealing with such cases. The Courts Act provides that the rule-making power is to be exercised with a view to securing that the rules are both simple and simply expressed.

The Ministry of Justice and the Family Procedure Rule Committee—the body established to make the rules—have developed a set of rules to cover all family proceedings in the High Court, the county court and the family proceedings court. The new rules will bring a number of benefits, including modernisation of some language, a single unified code of practice for all family courts and, where appropriate, harmonisation of the procedure in family proceedings with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules. In fact, the approach followed in the Family Procedure Rules is already being applied to adoption proceedings. The Family Procedure (Adoption) Rules 2005 used the new approach to support those proceedings. When the new Family Procedure Rules come into force on 6 April 2011, they will help fulfil the Government’s intention that the new approach should be extended to all family proceedings.

The two instruments we are considering today are critical to the operation of the new Family Procedure Rules. They ensure that the new rules will operate as intended, and that other enactments will refer appropriately to those rules. I hope that the Committee will support their approval. I will take each instrument in turn.

The Family Procedure (Modification of Enactments) Order 2011 makes amendments to other legislation in consequence of the coming into force of the Family Procedure Rules. For example, Article 6(b) of the order inserts a new subsection (3) into Section 54 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. That new subsection provides:

“In family proceedings a magistrates’ court may stay the whole or part of any proceedings or order either generally or until a specified date or event.”

This gives magistrates' courts the same power to stay—in effect, halt—proceedings that the High Court and county courts already have. As a result, the procedural rules referring to such stays in the Family Procedure Rules can apply to all courts dealing with family proceedings. The order also amends various enactments which currently refer to rules which are to be superseded by the Family Procedure Rules 2010. This means that, from 6 April 2011, those enactments will refer to the 2010 Rules or to specific provisions within them.

The Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) (Family Proceedings) Order 2011—the destination of appeals order, as it is known to its friends—makes various minor amendments to the routes of appeal. It provides that appeals from decisions made by a district judge of a county court will lie to a judge of that court and that appeals from decisions made by a district judge of the High Court, a district judge of the principal registry of the Family Division or a costs judge will lie to a judge of the High Court. It puts in place provisions in existing rules regarding the destination of appeals from a district judge which would otherwise be lost as those rules are replaced by the Family Procedure Rules. The new destination of appeals order consolidates these provisions with the provisions from an existing destination of appeals order, so that the routes of appeal in family proceedings are dealt with in one place. This is in line with our policy of simplifying the way in which rules for family proceedings are presented. Part 30, “Appeals”, of the practice direction that supplements the Family Procedure Rules sets out all the routes of appeal and the practice steps that people will need to take, which will provide considerable assistance to a person who wants to appeal against a court’s decision.

These orders have already been debated in the other place and have been approved. Members were generally supportive of the Family Procedure Rules and approved these provisions which support the implementation of those rules. The two statutory instruments are important to make it possible for the new Family Procedure Rules to operate as intended, and to ensure that other legislation is properly amended in consequence of the coming into force of those rules. The rules will bring considerable benefits to people involved in family proceedings. I hope that noble Lords will approve these two draft orders so that the benefits of the new rules can be fully achieved.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, we plainly welcome the move towards uniformity of procedures among the High Court, the county court and the magistrates’ court and the move to a single code of practice and harmonisation where possible, although it is not always completely possible, between family proceedings and other civil proceedings under the CPR. I particularly welcome the provisions that will give magistrates’ courts the power to stay proceedings and to make orders for costs in a way that they have not been able to do so in the past.

Also of considerable importance is the move to give magistrates’ courts the power to make an order of disclosure against non-parties. The lack of such a provision for the magistrates’ courts has been, and is, capable of giving rise to delay. When witnesses turn up, the documents are not in court and there has to be an adjournment in order for them to be obtained. For that provision to be effective, it should be borne in mind that the burden is on solicitors and litigants to ensure that they use the order and the provision by applying for orders for the production of documents in good time so that, when matters come for a hearing, all the documents are before the court.

The destination of appeals order is also extremely helpful in dividing appeals from the junior judges in the High Court to High Court judges from appeals from junior judges in the county courts to county court judges. However, one further point that I would make, which is a matter for listing officers rather than for the legislation, is that those of us who practise in family proceedings will well know that we have extremely experienced district judges at both levels, but we also have a number of rather less experienced deputy High Court judges and deputy county circuit judges sitting as circuit judges. It is a matter of importance that we do not list appeals from very experienced district judges before very much less experienced deputies at the senior level. That is not a point for the order, but it is a point of some importance in practice.

Justice: Judicial Appointments

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress is being made in improving gender and ethnic diversity in judicial appointments.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, in February 2010, the independent advisory panel on judicial diversity published its report, which detailed a number of recommendations to deliver speedier and sustained progress to a more diverse judiciary without diminishing appointments on merit. In response, the judicial diversity taskforce was established to oversee the assessment and implementation of those recommendations. The taskforce met last Monday to review what has been achieved to date, and will publish its report on progress shortly.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his helpful Answer, but given the lamentably low number of women judges and the virtual absence of ethnic minority judges among our senior judiciary, which bears a very poor comparison with those of other European and other common law jurisdictions, does he agree that it is time for urgent and effective action and that all necessary steps should be taken to ensure that the recommendations of the taskforce that he mentioned, set up as a result of the recommendations of the advisory panel chaired last year by my noble friend Lady Neuberger, are implemented in full and without delay?

[Lord McNally]

My noble friend makes a correct assessment of the figures for judicial appointments. The meeting last Monday was my first with the diversity group, and I made it very clear that as far as I am concerned, the concept of trickle-up is not a response to the diversity problem that we face in the judiciary.