'Lord Chancellor should be a lawyer not a career politician', practitioners tell inquiry

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) has warned the House of Lords Select Committee that the office of Lord Chancellor as it currently stands should cease to exist unless changes to the role are made.

The House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution is holding an inquiry into the office of Lord Chancellor, which is currently combined with the role of secretary of state for justice.

Since the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the role of the Lord Chancellor has changed significantly. The committee aims to explore what the role and responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor are, as distinct from those of the secretary of state for justice. The committee are also examining the criteria for appointment as Lord Chancellor as well as exploring the future of the office.

APIL argue that future Lord Chancellors should be released from what it considers to be a conflict of interest which arises from 'serving two masters'.

President of APIL, John Spencer, said: "The fundamental problem with the current role is that it combines the duties of an independent Lord Chancellor with the political role of Secretary of State for Justice, which generates an obvious and potentially serious conflict of interest."

Spencer continued: "An individual cannot reasonably be expected to defend the rule of law and the independence of the courts while promoting a political agenda as secretary of state."

APIL's evidence to the committee also raises concerns that there is no longer a requirement for a Lord Chancellor to be legally qualified.

For APIL, a Lord Chancellor needs to be fully informed as to the workings of the legal system, so that they can be aware of any potential consequences of changes to the system. APIL submit that this would allow Lord Chancellors to continue to protect the independence of the judiciary, and defend the rule of law.

Therefore, APIL has called for section 2 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 should be amended to state that the Lord Chancellor must have experience as a qualifying practitioner. Moreover, APIL believe that Lord Chancellors should be appointed from the judiciary.

Finally, APIL submit that for the Lord Chancellor to carry out their duties and responsibilities effectively, 'it is imperative that the office is above party politics' and that it would be 'inappropriate for the Office of Lord Chancellor to be held by someone who would seek to use the office to advance his political career'.

The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx) has also provided evidence stating that given the importance of the role the majority of its members believe that the Lord Chancellor should be a lawyer and that 70 per cent of respondents to its own survey did not agree that the role of Lord Chancellor and justice secretary was best performed by the same person.

APIL's full written evidence to the Select Committee on the Constitution is now on the parliament website here.

CILEx's full written evidence to the Select Committee on the Constitution is now on the parliament website here.