Tuesday Volume 683 3 November 2020 No. 128 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday 3 November 2020 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2020 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 141 3 NOVEMBER 2020 142 The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice House of Commons (Robert Buckland): Naturally, I do not disclose the details of private conversations I have with Cabinet Tuesday 3 November 2020 colleagues, but they, and everybody else who cares to listen, should be in no doubt that I am, and will continue The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock to be, a very active Lord Chancellor in supporting the rule of law, using the authority of my office to advise, to PRAYERS warn and to encourage. I am absolutely committed, under the oath I took, to my constitutional duty to [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] uphold the rule of law. Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 4 June). Alison Thewliss: The Lord Chancellor said he would [NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.] resign if he saw the rule of law being broken in a way that he found unacceptable. Ten days ago, more than 800 of some of the most senior legal figures across the Oral Answers to Questions UK wrote to the Prime Minister stating that attacks on the legal profession by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary undermine the rule of law. When he JUSTICE read that letter and saw the signatories, did he think things had got to the stage of being unacceptable? The Secretary of State was asked— Magistrates: Mandatory Retirement Age Robert Buckland: The hon. Lady is eliding two issues. I was talking in early September about the United Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con): What plans he Kingdom (Internal Market) Bill. Since then, the has to raise the mandatory retirement age for magistrates. Government made important concessions in this House [908299] to qualify the coming into force of those provisions, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the and set out examples where, to all intents and purposes, Home Department (Chris Philp): The Ministry of Justice the EU would have acted in clear bad faith. She is has been running a consultation on increasing the retirement eliding the two issues, I hope inadvertently. When it age for judges and magistrates. The consultation closed comes to defending the legal profession, I have already on 16 October. Over 1,000 responses were received and publicly stated my steadfast support for the profession we will respond formally very shortly. that I am honoured to be a part of. Edward Timpson: My hon. Friend is very aware of my John Nicolson [V]: Former Supreme Court Justice private Member’s Bill to raise the retirement age of Lord Dyson described the Government’s toxic rhetoric magistrates to 75, which has been bumbling along the on the legal profession as “irresponsible”, “dangerous” bottom of the Friday Order Paper for a couple of and “inflammatory,” and months now. Bearing in mind that his own consultation “the language of a demagogue.” on this increasingly urgent matter closed over two weeks The former Director of Public Prosecutions, ago, is he able to give me and many hundreds of Lord Macdonald, said the Government’s language is magistrates, who have been forced to give up dispensing indecent and typifies justice at a time when we can least afford to lose them, some hope that he will be able to legislate at the earliest “precisely this sort of ugly authoritarianism that the rule of law is called upon to counter.” opportunity, either through my Bill or through other means, so we can get that on the statute book as soon as What discussions has the Lord Chancellor had with the we can? Prime Minister and the Home Secretary about those very serious allegations from senior lawyers? Chris Philp: My hon. Friend is quite right. We are losing something like 1,000 magistrates a year as they Robert Buckland: As I said in response to the previous turn 70, often very experienced magistrates who still question, I do not disclose details of discussions I have have a great deal to offer the justice system. The consultation with Cabinet colleagues. However, I can reassure the had two options: raising the age to 72 or to 75. I hon. Gentleman and everybody else that people should strongly commend my hon. Friend for his patience, be in no doubt about my steadfast defence not just of persistence and perseverance in trying to get his private the judiciary but of an independent legal profession. We Member’s Bill through, often in the face of somewhat have, of course, seen criticism of lawyers throughout unfortunate headwinds, on private Members’ Bill Fridays. the ages. I respect the views of members of my profession, This is an urgent issue. As soon as we have formulated a but we should put things into their full context. response to the consultation, we will certainly be looking to legislate via whatever vehicle is available as quickly as Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): I we possibly can. welcome what the Lord Chancellor said about defending The Rule of Law the legal profession and I join him in that. It is an honourable profession and I have always found that Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP): What those I dealt with at the Bar and solicitors generally left discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on their politics behind when they went to argue the case upholding the rule of law. [908300] for their client, which they must do without fear or John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP): favour. Equally, will he recognise that when he and I What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues were doing an awful lot of legal aid work in practice, the on upholding the rule of law. [908302] former leader of the Labour party and then Prime Minister 143 Oral Answers 3 NOVEMBER 2020 Oral Answers 144 was describing legal aid lawyers as fat cats? No one has within the criminal process. Therefore, I think it is best entirely clean hands on this and perhaps we all ought to not to try to draw direct links at this stage without moderate our language when dealing with the professions. knowing more about the evidence, but I reassure her that I will continue to do everything I can to make sure Robert Buckland: The Chair of the Justice Committee that the tone of the debate is right and that passions are puts the matter into its fullest context. Sadly, from cooled when it comes to talking about the important Shakespeare onwards, and probably before, lawyers have role of lawyers. come in for criticism. The question is how far that goes. We live in a lively democracy and none of us is above Joanna Cherry: I reiterate that I am not asking the criticism, but I say to him that in all my years in Lord Chancellor for the precise details of conversations practice, I did precisely what he did, which was to leave or, indeed, to comment on an ongoing case. I am asking my politics at home whenever I went into chambers or him about the general advice that he has given to his into the courtroom. colleagues in relation to his duties and responsibilities regarding the rule of law, because, after the Home Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab): Our country is Secretary’s speech, the Prime Minister went even further a country that prides itself on the rule of law. Without in his conference speech, declaring that he would prevent lawyers, the rule of law would collapse. In recent weeks, “the whole criminal justice system from being hamstrung by…lefty the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have launched human rights lawyers and other do-gooders.” repeated attacks on lawyers representing asylum seekers. I ask the Lord Chancellor again: are newspaper reports Even after a man launched a knife attack on an immigration that he spoke with the Prime Minister in advance of solicitor days after the Home Secretary condemned that speech correct? And did he tell the Prime Minister “activist lawyers”, the Government continue to pour about the attack on the immigration lawyers’ offices petrol on the fire. Does the Lord Chancellor agree with and the warnings from counter-terrorism police to the his colleagues’ characterisation of legal professionals as Home Secretary about the dangers of inflammatory “activist lawyers”, or does he have the courage to publicly language against lawyers? condemn that vile rhetoric? Robert Buckland: I can assure the hon. and learned Robert Buckland: The right hon. Gentleman will Lady that the information about the serious allegations know that on two occasions in public forums, I have about the attack has been communicated to the appropriate made my defence of lawyers very clear and made it clear Ministers and that everything that I have done and will that physical and verbal attacks and the other types of continue to do is entirely consistent with my duty. threat that we might see are entirely unacceptable. He Although, sadly, it might be the province of previous talks rightly about a very serious case that is ongoing—I and current Prime Ministers to make provocative and do not think it would be right for me to comment sometimes lively comments about the legal profession, directly upon it—but we all know the context within it is not the job of the Lord Chancellor to police every which we operate.