| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) (Lab): Inquiries that I have made to the apex of the Scottish legal establishment suggest that the Scottish position has been carefully addressed and that the establishment in Edinburgh is satisfied, so I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that. However, is it not essential to the creation of a truly UK body that it be administered and financed separately from the English court system? Is this body to be run through the Department for Constitutional Affairs?
Mr. Leslie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments on our conclusions on the relationship between the Scottish jurisdiction and the UK supreme court. It is indeed important that we have absolute respect for the three distinct jurisdictions in our country, and his second point touched on that. We do not want the United Kingdom supreme court to become subservient to the England and Wales jurisdiction, and that is not our proposal. As far as possible within the accounting rules that Parliament expects, we want that supreme court to have a separate accounting officer and separate budgetary arrangements. Although there will have to be some accountability to Parliament for all the taxpayers' money that is expended, we recognise the unique position of the UK supreme court in that respect.
Mr. Mark Oaten (Winchester) (LD): I thank the Minister for his advance notice of the statement. Does he recognise, however, that although my party supports the move towards a supreme court, much good will has been lost through the Government's approach to consultation on the exercise? The proposals are designed to build trust in the system, but the Government will need to consult much more properly and widely in the months ahead if they are to gain the trust of the judicial system and Members of Parliament.
On today's announcement, why do the Government want to require up to five names to be put to the Prime Minister? Does the Minister not acknowledge that that could lead to greater interference from the Prime Minister and accusations in the media over his reasons for choosing certain individual names from the list of five? Would it not be better to stick with the suggestion of having just two names in the first place?
Does the Minister have concerns over the loss of expertise? We fully support the planned break in the link between the Lords and the justices, but current knowledge could then be lost from the other place. With that in mind, do the Government plan that those who have served as justices of the supreme court will be able to be appointed to the House of Lords afterwards?
There might then be concerns, however, over accusations of political involvement because the Prime Minister had chosen certain individuals who had served as justices of the supreme court. Further to that, does the Minister have any plans to set an age of retirement for the new justices?Finally, the new building will be controversial. Will the Minister explain why it has to be sited in London, and will he assure us that the building will not be entirely new, with all the costs involved in that, but will be an existing site?
Mr. Leslie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his approach, which is slightly more constructive than that of the official Opposition. He asked why London is the preferred location. It is an obvious thing to say, but given that London is the capital city of the United Kingdom, it should be the main permanent base for the supreme court. However, it would be open to the president of the supreme court to decide, if required, that the court could occasionally sit elsewhere. I will not rule out or rule in new buildings or refurbished buildings at this stage, as that would be prejudicial to commercial consideration of the matter.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the age of retirement. We propose that 70 should be the normal retirement age for justices of the supreme court, and 75 if they are on the reserve or supplemental list. As for his comments about whether we should remove sitting judges from the second Chamber, I believe that it is right to do so, particularly if we want to underline the separation of the legislature and the judiciary. There is, of course, scope in the proposals for retiring justices to enter the House of Lords after they have concluded their contribution to the justice system. A shortlist of two to five names is necessary in these particular circumstances, given that appointments cover three jurisdictions—Northern Ireland, Scotland, and England and Wales. We need to ensure that we have the capability to reflect the full breadth of knowledge required for all those jurisdictions, and there is scope for that in the shortlisting process. The nomination process will, however, be taken out of politicians' hands, and that is a major step forward.
Mr. David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): Will there be pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft legislation in due course? Looking ahead to the time when the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council loses its UK devolution work load, will my hon. Friend say something about the sustainability of its remaining work load, which consists of the cases that it takes from some Commonwealth countries? In particular, have those countries said anything about his proposals?
Mr. Leslie: On the latter point, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will still be required as long as Commonwealth countries need that final court of appeal to be available for their own legal systems. It is a matter for them whether they wish to use it or end such usage. Recently, for example, New Zealand decided not to continue with that relationship, but to end it. However, we will sustain the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for those purposes. Pre-legislative scrutiny is not currently part of the proposals. There have been five months of consultation on proposals for
the supreme court. The period from the beginning of that consultation to the end of legislative consideration will involve about 18 months-worth of scrutiny. It is important that we look at the details but also make progress as soon as we can.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): Does the Minister accept that he is proposing change to an institution that does not require change? In fact, it is working admirably. He has spoken about advancing credibility, improved independence, greater effectiveness and enhanced trust, but does he not understand that the Judicial Committee possesses all those things now, and nothing that he has said will reinforce them? Surely the truth is that we are hearing arguments in favour of change for the sake of change, and are tinkering around with accepted institutions. Such tinkering will increase cost, extend political interference in the choice of senior justices and ultimately bring the system through which we administer the law into disrepute.
Mr. Leslie: I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes that view. Improved independence for our judiciary is a cause well worth striving for, and his considerations about cost should not override that—not that the process would necessarily be costly. There is a need for change, as I have said, and not just because the role of the justices is blurred—are they legislators or they are acting in a judicial capacity? There is currently a self-denying ordinance under which Law Lords cannot speak adequately or vote on particular proposals. If they do so, they disqualify themselves from involvement in certain legal matters. That proves that there is a requirement to act, and we need to do so.
Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): I strongly welcome my hon. Friend's statement and the detail that he has given to the House. It must be right that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State should be involved in the selection process. That is the nature of democratic accountability. However, will my hon. Friend clarify two points? First, will the person chairing the selection panel be judicially qualified. Secondly, my hon. Friend told the House that the Law Lords were aware of the statement, so can he confirm that the Lord Chancellor will meet the Law Lords to discuss the detail that has been given to the House? As he knows, they were split 50:50 in favour of or against the reforms. It is extremely important that they are fully on board in terms of these proposals.
Mr. Leslie: It is important that my noble Friend the Secretary of State and I engage in debate with all involved in Parliament, not least with the Law Lords as they currently work. We shall continue to have that dialogue and ensure that we refine our proposals. It is important that we have the final passage of the recommendation from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Queen to make the appointment.
A justice of the supreme court is an important appointment to make and all actions in the name of the Crown need to go through Ministers so that somebody can be accountable to Parliament for that action, even if Ministers are effectively taking the nomination and selection process from a shortlist from an independent
appointments commission. It is envisaged that we shall have the president of the supreme court chairing the appointments panel, so I can satisfy my hon. Friend that there will be legal qualification in that respect in overseeing the work that is carried out. I know that we will continue to work together with my hon. Friend to make sure that we scrutinise these proposals as legislation emerges.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |