---

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL]

I am grateful to everyone who has spoken. As ever in Committee, a range of issues was raised under an amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, described as straightforward. I shall address the principles that were raised. Members of the Committee will know that not only am I taking this Bill through the House but I am responsible for the policy in this area, so I may be able to wing it rather more than usual. First, Members of the Committee referred to the informality of tribunal proceedings and the tradition that has grown up which has enabled people to approach tribunals in a different way than they would an ordinary court. We do not wish to lose that. I sent a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and other Members of the Committee in which I pointed out that the title issue does not involve any suggestion of moving away from the good practice exercised in many tribunals in that regard. Secondly, as was pointed out, the Judicial Appointments Commission selects candidates. That is right and proper. I believe that the Committee is very much in favour of that process. The Lord Chancellor considers issues of eligibility. We shall talk more about those questions on later amendments. However, there is a discussion to be had about ensuring that eligibility, and perhaps widening the pool of those who are eligible, is a positive concept as long as appointments are awarded on clear merit criteria. Noble Lords who are members of the legal profession or the judiciary would be the first to acknowledge that. We wholeheartedly support that. The main purpose of this part of the Bill is to create a new tribunals service with an opportunity to develop its focus. Across the Tribunals Service a number of different names have been used for those who perform the function that we are discussing. I have come across the names: umpires, adjudicators, commissioners, chairmen and judges. I am not sure that I accept the point about selling the pass. However, I accept the point about the clarity of previous legislation. We have asked members what name they would prefer. They prefer to be called judges. We need to settle on a name. It is as good a name as any; it sends an important signal to the public in which the judiciary is perceived to be independent from government; and it says something about this being a place where you can get justice. I settled on that name for those reasons and no others. I hope that in withdrawing the amendment, which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has no choice but to do in Committee, that he will see that this name is as good as any. I make one other point. As Members of the Committee will know, I am carrying out a review of the role of non-legal members on tribunals. One of the really interesting and tricky issues is on finding appropriate terminology to describe people. It is important that due credit is given to those who perform fantastic work in our Tribunals Service. When I received that response, I felt that it was right to go with that name. It brings it all together under one name. It does not in any way suggest a loss of informality or focus.