| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Garnier: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, who must have very good eyesight. That is the next point in my notes. I said at the start of my speech that I wanted to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring two points of concern about shortcomings in new clause 26, which I am otherwise happy to support.
My first concern was the lack of sanctions forfailure. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) asked what sanctions or penalties would
be available to the second Chamber if a Member of that House, having made a declaration to the effect that he was willing to serve under the terms of the new clause, failed to abide by that declaration. Would it be open to the second Chamber to expel him? Would it be open to the Government--or the Prime Minister who had recommended to Her Majesty that the Member be granted a life peerage to sit in the House--to withdraw the life peerage? Those matters need to be considered. It would have been useful for the Committee to hear more about the matter, but that does not vitiate the good sense of the thrust of the new clause.
Mr. Stevenson:
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman address the first question in my previous intervention? What criteria does he envisage being established to determine whether the call for a declaration of a willingness to serve has been made into a reality?
Mr. Garnier:
We are talking about a hypothetical situation.
Mr. Stevenson:
No, we are not.
Mr. Garnier:
If the hon. Gentleman will have the patience to listen to the answer to his fair question, he will see that we are talking about a hypothetical position, because the measure is not yet in effect. One would have to look at the new clause criteria and see whether any given Member of the second House had complied with the willingness declaration. Had he or she given sufficient attention to the workings of the second Chamber in relation to the consideration of Bills and draft statutory instruments? Had he or she given sufficient attention and time to the study of the European Community obligations of the UK, the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown and the work of Select Committees? Many things are easier to recognise than to define and, in the event of a Member of the second Chamber failing to come up to scratch in relation to the declaration of willingness, the other place would find mechanisms for bringing him or her to book.
My complaint is that those mechanisms are not spelled out in the new clause. Although the new clause in itself is not to be undermined on that basis, it would have been a better new clause if the details had been included.
Mr. Brady:
Does my hon. and learned Friend consider that, even without sanctions, the inclusion of the new clause would have the benefit of dealing with a problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon)--that there would be a premium on the silent Member of the interim Chamber who might wish to be appointed to a subsequent Chamber? The new clause would make it difficult for a Government to choose the Members who had done and said nothing to go on and serve in any ultimate Chamber.
Mr. Garnier:
I take my hon. Friend's point, which he made more eloquently than I might have.
Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton):
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he felt that the new clause had a problem, in that it failed to include any sanctions. Types of sanction have been suggested, but the hon. and learned
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Order. I always deliver wisdom to the Chamber.
Mr. Garnier:
You have done so again, Mr. Martin.
I find new clause 26 generally acceptable, but it has one or two deficiencies. There is an omission regarding the Law Lords--the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary--who at present are life peers and Members of the other place, and are entitled to vote and speak on matters outside their remit as judges of the highest court in the land. I am marginally concerned that the requirement to declare a willingness to be involved in the matters listed in subsection (4)(a), (b), (c) and (d) may in some way affect the independence of the judiciary.
Mr. Letwin:
My hon. and learned Friend is making a serious point. I hope that he will accept that it was no part of our intention to suggest that there should be any such prejudice to the Law Lords' neutrality. Of course, we assume that the Standing Orders would reflect that, in defining such participation by the Law Lords as neutral.
Mr. Garnier:
I am pleased to have that assurance. I am not surprised, because, if our party stands for anything, it stands for the independence of the judiciary.
Mr. Rammell:
I was fascinated to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman lauding the Conservative party's commitment to the independence of the judiciary. Is that his party's view on General's Pinochet's case, which is being adjudicated in the other place?
Mr. Garnier:
I will not answer that question. That was an unworthy intervention. In expecting me to answer, the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that the Committee should have some role in influencing the Judicial Committee in reaching its decision in the extradition case. He will have to await the judgment of the other place. I am not prepared to express an opinion about that matter in this forum.
There is an unmet need to define the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament and the new devolved bodies in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. I want to be sure that the Judicial Committee of the other place, or that body in its other guise as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, will be entitled to carry out its work in arbitrating differences between, for example, the Scottish Parliament and the United Kingdom Parliament.
We must anticipate that there will be constitutional tensions between the devolved bodies and the United Kingdom Parliament. Equally, there are already tensions between this place and the European Parliament and the constitutional arrangements of the European Union. There may also be tensions between us and London's new mayor and assembly, but I am not so worried about that.
We need an arrangement that protects the ability of the Judicial Committee to arbitrate on such matters. A jurisdiction may grow up that provides a body of law; the independent judiciary and the constitutional court
which may develop should be uninfluenced and uninhibited by the need for declarations such as those in the new clauses.
Mr. Letwin:
Given that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is specifically given the role of adjudicating devolution issues, we have taken it as axiomatic that, in serving on that Committee, their lordships would be acting not as Members of the House of Lords but as members of that Committee, and hence wholly neutral.
Mr. Garnier:
The only problem with that point is that they will in fact be Members of the House of Lords. We may need to give that aspect of the new clauses further consideration. It may be that we shall be assisted in that by the other place, when it considers this aspect of the Bill.
It is important that we should carefully consider the current constitutional role of the other place and what we hope its future constitutional role will be in dealing with the legal matters to which I adverted. In the past, the House of Lords has performed a vital role as an arbitrator between the justice systems of the Commonwealth and the citizens of its states, and I hope that it will continue to perform that role in the United Kingdom.
Mr. John M. Taylor (Solihull):
Under the previous Government, I undertook a mission on behalf of the Lord Chancellor's Department to visit several of the jurisdictions in the Caribbean.
Mr. Taylor:
It ill lies in the mouth of my right hon. Friend to begrudge me a trip to the Caribbean, which was non-stop hard work. I never had a moment's relaxation, as I visited all the jurisdictions in the eastern Caribbean--
The First Deputy Chairman:
Order. I have slackened the reins somewhat, and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has talked about the Law Lords, but we must get back to the new clauses, which are more narrow than the subject that the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) is addressing.
Mr. Taylor:
I apologise to the Committee, Mr. Martin, but I was provoked.
The First Deputy Chairman:
Order. If the hon. Gentleman is intervening, it is a rather long intervention, and I wish to see the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) back on his feet.
Mr. Garnier:
You want me back on my feet, Mr. Martin, and I shall obey you. Before very long, I shall get back to my seat, but I wish to express my genuine support for the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring. I do not yet have a firm view about which new clause is better, and whether the declaration should be of a sessional length, a 6 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |