| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Peter Hain: That really was hard work as a question—[Hon. Members: "Answer."] I will happily give the hon. Gentleman the answer. The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs has made it clear that he will not sit as a Law Lord—
Mr. Grieve: But he appoints the judges.
Peter Hain: Obviously, because that is the existing system, and it takes a bit of time to reform. That process of reform, which the Conservatives do not like—they do not like modernisation or reform, and they want things to stay the same for ever and a year—will be in a context of consultation.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the way in which the Government are tackling this matter is like throwing tacks on a cricket pitch? He knows all about that. When he answers, will he also tell us how he will apportion his time between his two jobs?
Peter Hain: As it happens, for the record, although I am not sure that it is relevant, I never threw any tacks on any cricket pitches.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) rose—
Peter Hain: Let me take a serious question.
Mr. Heath : A long time ago, the right hon. Gentleman talked about informed opinion outside this House and a coalition of interests against reactionary forces that were frustrating reforms. Informed opinion outside the House was very interested in the concept of a ministry of justice deriving some of its powers from the Home Department. Reactionary forces within the Home Department threw their toys out of the pram and said that that would not happen. Will there be a proper debate about that and proposals to take powers from the Home Department and give them to the Department for Constitutional Affairs so that it becomes a genuine ministry of justice?
Peter Hain: Again, I think it best that the hon. Gentleman reads the press release issued by No. 10. If he wants to initiate a debate along those interesting lines using Liberal Democrat time in the House, that will no doubt prove fruitful.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): The right hon. Gentleman talks a great deal about consultation, but at the same time he talks about the Government's plans as though they were set in concrete. What will they do if the results of the consultation are inimical to their current apparent policy?
Peter Hain: As the Leader of the House of Lords made clear yesterday, if the other place decides that it does not want to elect its own Speaker, and would prefer the Government to appoint its Speaker, which is very unlikely, no doubt the Government will have to listen.
Peter Hain: I want to make some progress in explaining some of the detail, as some Members clearly have not followed it.
Peter Hain: I will then happily take more interventions, including one from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
Secondly, we will consult on the establishment of a supreme court to replace the existing arrangement of the Law Lords, who operate as a Committee of the House of Lords. That will take the Lord Chancellor, a politician and Minister as well as a judge, out of the final court of appeal and establish it on a fully independent
basis. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, although he refused to confirm it, agrees with us. He said that
- "I must accept that we would need a supreme court of the kind that the United States has. I believe that the Supreme Court has served the US extraordinarily well . . . we would have nothing to fear from that."—[Official Report, 1 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 653.]
Peter Hain: We have already concluded the first stage of reform of the House of Lords, and we await the second stage. What does the right hon. Gentleman believe? Does he believe in a supreme court or not? What does the Leader of the Opposition believe? What is the Opposition's policy? They do not have a policy any more.
Geraldine Smith (Morecambe and Lunesdale): This debate, although entertaining, shows how out of touch the Opposition are with the British people. Not many people in my constituency will lose sleep over the Government reshuffle. What they are concerned about is the health service, education and antisocial behaviour. Why will the Conservatives not discuss those subjects?
Peter Hain: Because they are frightened of doing so.
The supreme court idea, too, is a sensible measure of constitutional modernisation, supported by, among others, none other than the senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham. In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on 17 March 1998, he said:
- "I am wondering whether it—
- "could not all be brought more into the open . . . by having a different system for example a judicial appointments commission."
- "I think there is a very strong case for having a supreme court that is in the same position constitutionally"—[Interruption.]
Peter Hain: As I was saying, Lord Bingham has also said:
- "I think there is a very strong case for having a supreme court that is in the same position constitutionally as the supreme courts of every other country in the world, whether it be in the US, Canada, Australia, India or France".
- "To modern eyes, it was always anomalous that a legislative body should exercise judicial power, save in very restricted circumstances . . . The law lords are judges not legislators and do not belong in a House to whose business they can make no more than a slight contribution . . . My own personal preference would be for . . . a supreme court severed from the legislature".
Mr. Adrian Flook (Taunton) rose—
Peter Hain: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan.
Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a straight answer? Is the description on today's Order Paper of the former Scotland Office accurate or not? I only want to know the tense in which to describe the Department.
Peter Hain: I have already answered that question. The Scotland Office exists. It exists as it did before Thursday, as it does now, and as it will in the future, as does the Wales Office.
Mrs. Shephard: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) say that her constituents are not at all bothered about the matters being debated in the House today. I must say to her, that my constituents—and almost everyone in the country—are deeply bothered that the one thing over which a Government have complete control, a reshuffle, this Government have utterly botched. If they cannot run their own reshuffle, they certainly cannot run the country.
Peter Hain: Again, the Opposition concentrate on process and not on substance. They are afraid of modernisation, and they do not like the idea of a supreme court—or perhaps they do. They should make up their minds. Do they like the fact that, in future, judges will be appointed by an independent commission rather than by a member of the British Cabinet? Surely such modernisation is to be welcomed by everybody.
Mr. Allen: This may not be the occasion on which to consider the serious constitutional moves that were made last week, but there must come a point at which all Members of the House will look back on the announcements that were made last week, one of which—the creation of a supreme court—will remain outstanding. That is a monumental move forward by the Government on which I congratulate the Prime Minister. Should not all Members of the House consider that proposal with great seriousness, because the legislature will need to have a role of some description? Is it not appropriate that all Members should consider that? Is it not appropriate that even Her Majesty's loyal Opposition should get their act together—even if they
are allowed 18 months to do so—to decide their policy on a supreme court, which may involve ratification or interview?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That was far too long an intervention.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |