| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Alun Michael: There is a right and a wrong way to raise a point in the Chamber, if I may say so.
I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to people from his constituency who were involved in the rescue effort. Indeed, I pay tribute to those who contributed to that effort, wherever they came from. It was a great credit to all of them, and it is a tragedy that those skills and that bravery had to be demonstrated in such tragic circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that warnings had been ignored. It is always easy to place more emphasis on warnings after the event than before, but the circumstances, and how this came about, will need to be examined carefully. If there were warnings that were ignored, we will certainly need to look into it, but I am not aware that that is the case.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that journalists had been able to track people down immediately after the event. The police, too, appear to have been able to work very quickly. It sometimes takes an event—a tragedy—of this sort for a lot of information that has not been made available before suddenly to be made available. I hope that one of the consequences of what has happened will be that anyone anywhere in the country who knows of individuals being exploited will inform the authorities, whether those people are being exploited in the way that may have been involved in this case—we do not have all the facts yet—or in the manner
highlighted by the report of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Regional Affairs, so that together we can do all we can to avoid future tragedies.
Jim Sheridan (West Renfrewshire) (Lab): My Gangmaster (Licensing) Bill seeks only to protect workers wherever they are in Britain, regardless of their status in this country. I agree with what my right hon. Friend said about the work of the TGWU and other coalition partners who have supported the Bill. Does he agree with me that the voluntary code is not working, and that it is time for effective legislation? Can he flesh out what he said about sharing the objectives of the Bill, and help to end the human misery of what can only be described as modern slavery in today's society? Is it not time to move on? If it had been 19 dogs that had died at Morecambe bay, the RSPCA would have launched a criminal investigation to ensure that it did not happen again. A life is a life, whether it is the life of a dog or the life of a Chinese worker. Effective legislation must be provided to give protection.
Alun Michael: I certainly agree that whoever is affected by a tragedy of this sort, human sympathy is needed. We must learn the lessons, and ensure that wherever possible such tragedies cannot happen in the future.
My hon. Friend mentioned the work of the TGWU and its co-operation with other organisations. They include the National Farmers Union—and I must say that seeing the TGWU and the NFU on the same side gives one pause for thought. A number of organisations, including some representing the retail trade, are co-operating with a wide variety of interests, all of which understand different parts—different strands—of this complex problem.
We share my hon. Friend's wish for measures that can help to end exploitation. We want to ensure that any legislation is effective, rather than only appearing to tackle the problem, or increasing the amount of bureaucracy without preventing the evils that my hon. Friend and I, along with my colleagues throughout Government, want to be eradicated.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard (South-West Norfolk) (Con): The Minister has spoken of the need for the Government to know the scale of the problem, yet Operation Gangmaster has been in existence since 1998. What has it been able to do to inform the Government about the number of migrant workers employed illegally by gangmasters? If it has not been able to provide that information, is he disappointed?
Alun Michael: It is always disappointing to know that there is a problem and to try to deal with it when it is difficult to pin down its scale, but, as I indicated earlier, no previous Govt took the steps that we have taken to try to tackle the problem—not just to measure it but actually to deal with it. I referred earlier to the public money that has been recovered and to the prosecutions that have taken place. We have made progress, but I agree with Members on both sides of the House that more needs to be done, so I hope that minds will have been concentrated in all organisations, as well as in the Government, to ensure that that happens in future.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington) (Lab): The House is aware both of the need
for seasonal casual labour in agriculture and of the strong emphasis that the Home Secretary has put on dealing with traffickers in illegal immigrants, but those 19 dead Chinese young people were treated little better than 19th-century coolie labour. Whatever people's immigration status, no one in Britain wants them to be treated like that—no one is mourning them, no one has claimed their bodies and their nearest and dearest probably still do not know that they are dead—so I urge the Minister to look very seriously indeed at licensing gangmasters.
Alun Michael: I have already indicated to the House that we are looking carefully at the private Member's Bill being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire. Police activities are under way at present, so we should await full information before jumping to conclusions on some of the issues involved. It is difficult to respond to every aspect in this debate; there is the tragedy that took place last week in specific circumstances, but also the general activities of gangmasters about which the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee and many Members have made observations. Although we can talk about the general, the specific will need specific answers when we have full information and the result of the investigations.
Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con): The Minister speaks of minds being concentrated by the tragedy, but should not minds in Government have been concentrated by the tragedy in my constituency seven months ago when three exploited vulnerable agricultural workers travelling in a minibus were killed by the train in which I was travelling? Is it not true that although personal tragedy is a real reason for quiet voices in the Chamber, it does not mean that the Government can escape criticism for inaction? The Government's response to the report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on gangmasters, although full of fine words and platitudes, shows no sense of urgency to deal with the problem. When will the Government show that sense of urgency?
Alun Michael: The trouble is that the House sometimes shows a sense of urgency when a tragedy
takes place—not only the one last week but the one in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, to which he referred—yet the work of the Government goes on between such events. From discussions with Lord Whitty, who has been working with colleagues across the Government, I know how much work has been going on to tackle the problem of gangmasters and those who are exploited by them. It is not right to underestimate the amount of work and effort, not just of Ministers and Departments but also of those who work in the enforcement agencies. I referred in an earlier response to the figures that demonstrate how much work is being done. We are dealing with a difficult and almost intractable problem, to try to find mechanisms that will really work to eradicate it. I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) that the problem is important and that we should concentrate on it—that is why the Government are indeed concentrating on it.
Mr. John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab): My right hon. Friend said that he would use the full force of the law. Does he accept that the fines in prosecutions for the employment of illegal labour are at trivial levels? Will he now act on the recommendation, made just two weeks ago by the all-party Select Committee on Home Affairs, that the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which can be used to seize the assets of drug dealers and of people traffickers, should also be used to seize the assets of those people who employ illegal workers and subject them to the sort of conditions in which tragedies happen?
Alun Michael: There are examples bordering on the trivial, and I agree with my right hon. Friend on the need for concern about that. I believe that in a recent case a fine of about £100 was given, which clearly does not get across the message that the matter is taken seriously by the courts, or, indeed, by Parliament, but responses from Members on both sides of the House demonstrate the seriousness with which the House approaches the matter. Fines of up to £5,000 are possible, and I believe that it applies per worker, so we could have multiples of £5,000 fines in respect of the number of people employed. We shall certainly keep the matter under review.
UK Supreme Court
4.10 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): With permission, I should like to repeat a statement made in the other place by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs on the proposed new UK supreme court.
On 14 July we published for consultation our proposals to establish a supreme court for the United Kingdom. We published last week a summary of responses, and today I am setting out our plans in detail—a key element of our comprehensive programme of constitutional modernisation and reform, aimed at enhancing the credibility and effectiveness of public institutions and increasing trust and accountability.
Just as our proposals on the judicial functions of the office of Lord Chancellor rest on the separation of powers between the judiciary and the Executive, so too with our court system: we believe that the time is right to make a clear and transparent separation between the judiciary and the legislature. By creating a supreme court, we will separate fully the final court of appeal from Parliament.
Nothing in the proposal intends or implies any criticism of the way in which the current Appellate Committee or its members have discharged their functions. They are not in the other place today, because they are at work hearing cases. They have asked for it to be made clear that they do not intend any discourtesy by their absence: indeed, it is another manifestation of the singular consequences of situating our highest court within the legislature. The Government take the view that, as part of our plans to sustain and enhance the vital independence of the judiciary, the present position is no longer sustainable. The time has come for the UK's highest court to move out from under the shadow of the legislature.
The Government have been in close consultation with the Law Lords since these proposals were announced and they are aware of the detailed proposals being put before Parliament today. We will introduce legislation to create a supreme court. Under our proposals, the supreme court for the United Kingdom will replace the existing system whereby the Law Lords operate as a Committee of the House of Lords. The supreme court will exercise the same appellate jurisdiction as the Appellate Committee exercises, in respect both of the courts from which appeals may lie and of reviews by appellate petition. There will be no changes to the rules governing leave to appeal.
The supreme court will also take over the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in respect of devolution issues under the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The creation of a separate and free-standing supreme court does not in any way imply the creation of a new body of United Kingdom law. Being the ultimate court of appeal in the UK does not mean that the court hears "UK appeals".
As is currently the case with hearings in the Appellate Committee, decisions made in an appeal from a court in one of the three jurisdictions within the UK will be of
binding effect only within that jurisdiction, and of persuasive effect in the others. Only on devolution issues, as at present, will the decisions of the court be binding in all legal proceedings. The avenues of appeals from Scottish courts will remain the same for the supreme court as they were for the House of Lords, so that only Scottish civil appeals will be heard by the new supreme court. The final court of appeal for criminal cases in Scotland will continue to be the High Court of Justiciary.As the key objective is to achieve a full and transparent separation between the judiciary and the legislature, it follows that justices of the supreme court, other holders of full-time judicial office, or retired justices of the supreme court who continue to sit, will no longer be entitled to sit or to vote in the House of Lords, or to participate in the work of Parliament for as long as they hold their judicial appointment. The same will apply to the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Master of the Rolls. I pay tribute to the valuable contribution to the work of the other place that they and the Law Lords have made.
Judges of the new supreme court will be known as "Justices of the Supreme Court". We propose that the first 12 justices will be those holding office as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary at the commencement of the new supreme court. Two of them are from Scotland and one from Northern Ireland, so their appointment would ensure an appropriate balance of expertise across the UK at the creation of the new court, as well as providing continuity. Qualifications for appointments will be unchanged.
Appointments will be made on the recommendation of a new supreme court appointments commission, to be convened when there is an actual or impending vacancy. The composition of the commission—consisting of members of the appointments commissions from across the United Kingdom, with Members of Parliament and the Government ineligible for membership—guarantees nominations free from political interference and influence. The president of the supreme court will chair the appointments commission and the deputy president will also be an ex-officio member. That will ensure a proper balance of lay and judicial input to its deliberations. The commission will consider candidates eligible for appointment by reference to criteria that have been approved by Parliament, subject to the overriding principle of merit. It will have a duty, each time it meets, to survey the field of all eligible candidates across the three jurisdictions and focus on the most meritorious.
The commission will recommend to the Secretary of State a minimum of two and a maximum of five candidates for each vacancy. On receipt of the nominations, the Secretary of State will be under a statutory duty to ensure that the court has, among its members, sufficient knowledge and expertise of the law in each United Kingdom jurisdiction. In doing so, he will be required to consult the senior judiciary in each of those three jurisdictions. The Secretary of State will then submit a name from the shortlist to the Prime Minister, who will make a recommendation to Her Majesty accordingly. There will also be an obligation to canvass the views of the First Minister of Scotland, the First Minister of Wales and the First Minister and Deputy
First Minister of Northern Ireland, if responsibility for criminal justice matters has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly.The requirement for a longer shortlist than is presented to the Secretary of State for vacancies for judicial offices in England and Wales derives from the UK-wide jurisdiction of the supreme court. Justices of the supreme court must be the best available in the UK as a whole, but the court must always contain the necessary breadth of experience of each constituent jurisdiction. To balance those requirements, it will be necessary for the Secretary of State to consult on a wider range of candidates. It is envisaged that there would never be less than two Scottish justices, and there would normally be one justice from Northern Ireland.
The supreme court will be administered as a distinct constitutional entity. Special arrangements will apply to its budgetary and financial arrangements to reflect its unique status, and it will present annual reports, which will be made available not only to the Westminster Parliament, but to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales. The chief executive, who will be appointed through fair and open competition, will be responsible for accounting for the court's finances and will report on a day-to-day basis directly to the justices of the court. The court will have a staff of its own, working to that chief executive.
The supreme court will stand at the apex of the judicial systems of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. As such, it is appropriate that it should be based in London, as the capital city of the United Kingdom. However, it may be appropriate, on occasion, to hear cases—such as devolution cases, or cases raising issues specific to Scottish or Northern Ireland law—in other parts of the United Kingdom. However, it would be for the president of the supreme court to decide when it would be appropriate for it to sit elsewhere.
It is clearly important that the new supreme court should be housed in an appropriate building. I have therefore commissioned an extensive property search to identify suitable locations. That search has been based upon a statement of requirements that has been discussed and agreed with the Law Lords and has considered a wide range of options—both commercial sites and those already on the Government estate. An evaluation is currently being conducted to identify the preferred location. I will seek the views of the Law Lords, the First Ministers of the devolved Administrations and the Lord President of the Council before any final decision is made. Until that process has been completed, it could be prejudicial to our commercial position to disclose all the details. However, I will undertake to inform both Houses of the preferred option at an appropriate time.
There will be other opportunities for debate and scrutiny of those proposals in both Houses. I also look forward to receiving the report of the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, which will comment not only on the supreme court, but on the judicial appointment commission for England and Wales. I believe that those proposals will result in a supreme court that will be, in the words of the noble and learned Lord Steyn,
- "a badge of independence and neutrality . . . a potent symbol of the allegiance of our country to the rule of law".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |