| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
ADVOCATE-GENERAL
The Advocate-General was asked—
International Law
16. Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) (Lab): What issues of international law have been raised with her since 13 January. [152902]
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): No devolution issues of that nature have been raised. In relation to non-devolution issues, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be well aware of the long-standing convention in relation to Law Officers' advice that has been adhered to by successive Governments. I remind him that the purpose of that convention is to enable the Government to get the legal advice that they need to perform their functions without having to explain or to justify it, or to reveal that they may have concerns about a particular legal position.
Mr. Dalyell : Will my hon. and learned Friend show her QC curiosity in relation to the inquiries that the Scottish Secretary is to make into the payment to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine general command on 23 December 1988?
The Advocate-General: I do not think that my hon. Friend fully understands my ministerial remit, but I shall certainly pass his comments on.
Devolution
17. Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con): What devolution issues she has considered since 13 January. [152903]
18. Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): What devolution issues have been raised with her since 13 January. [152904]
19. Annabelle Ewing (Perth) (SNP): What devolution issues have been raised with her since 13 January. [152905]
20. Mr. Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): What devolution issues she has considered since 13 January. [152906]
21. Ann McKechin (Glasgow, Maryhill) (Lab): What devolution issues she has considered since 13 January. [152907]
The Advocate-General: Since 13 January, 51 devolution issues have been intimated to me, all of which were in the criminal arena and concerned matters such as pre-trial delay, failure to communicate information required by sea fishing measures, and the use of sexual history evidence in trials. I am happy to elaborate on those matters if hon. Members wish.
Miss McIntosh: I am most grateful to the hon. and learned Lady, particularly following our illuminating half-hour Adjournment debate last week, which was most positive. Will she comment on the situation that will arise after the enactment of the Traffic Management Bill, which will apply in England but not in Scotland? In particular, has she or her office given any thought to the difficulty of prosecuting for road traffic accidents in which cannabis use has been a causal factor?
The Advocate-General: Prosecutions and prosecution policy are entirely matters for the Lord Advocate. I am sure that he has considered that issue, and it is not for me to advise him.
Mr. Carmichael : Today's report by the Constitutional Affairs Committee states at paragraph 39:
- "The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over Scottish appeals and any changes will require legislation or a resolution of the Scottish Parliament."
The Advocate-General: The short answer is that we do not have a Bill yet. My functions in relation to Scottish Parliament legislation do not kick in under section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998 until Bills are available. We are awaiting a United Kingdom Bill, and there is no Scottish Parliament legislation for me to examine.
Annabelle Ewing: During last week's Adjournment debate, which some would describe as less than enlightening, and in which I was fortunate to
participate, I asked the Advocate-General a question to which I did not get an answer. I should therefore like to ask it again today. Is the hon. and learned Lady constitutionally required to put the interests of the United Kingdom Government before those of the Scottish Parliament?
The Advocate-General: One of the reasons why I could not finish all the points that I wished to make in the interesting Adjournment debate that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) instigated was that I took too many interventions, including those from the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing). I did reply to her question during the debate, but I do not think that she liked the answer. I must make it plain that I am a UK Law Officer and I obviously get instructions, which I consider, from UK Departments. However, my job is to give the best advice that I can about the law. It therefore does not matter whether I am advising the UK Government or anybody else: I always try to give the best advice I can.
Mr. Reid: Customs and Excise is a UK department, whereas the Scottish courts are devolved. Customs and Excise claims that 200,000 bottles of spirits are sold illegally every day, yet in two years there were only five prosecutions for spirit duty fraud in the Scottish courts. As the Government's legal adviser in Scotland, can the Advocate-General shed any light on the reason why there are so few prosecutions when so much fraud is alleged?
The Advocate-General: In the devolution settlement, all prosecutions—whether involving UK Departments or devolved matters—are devolved to the Lord Advocate. Prosecution policy is entirely a matter for him, and it is not for me to interfere with that.
Ann McKechin: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, notwithstanding the concerns that the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs raised today, the proposal for a supreme court is not a threat to the traditions and values of Scots law, and that it should be viewed as part of the process of evolution?
The Advocate-General: My hon. Friend sums up the matter well. Scots law has survived for many centuries through developing. The institutions, too, develop, and the proposal is one example of that.
CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary was asked—
Lord Chancellor
22. Ann Winterton (Congleton) (Con): If he will make a statement on the future role of the Lord Chancellor. [153651]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): To reform the justice system and enhance judicial independence, the Government have concluded that it is no longer tenable for a Cabinet Minister to head the
judiciary and chair the second Chamber. The Government will therefore introduce legislation to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor in this Session of Parliament.
Ann Winterton : Why are the Government hellbent on meddling with our unwritten constitution and abolishing the office of Lord Chancellor, which has maintained judicial independence and in which our constituents have confidence? After all, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Mr. Leslie: That is the right thing to do, and I shall explain why. It is right not only because we need more clarity and transparency than the current blurred arrangement between the different branches of our constitution provides, but, more importantly, because we need a more effective Parliament, judiciary and Executive to ensure that each branch can focus on its core functions. We now have a ridiculous position whereby the head of the judiciary is a politician who also chairs the second Chamber, and the Prime Minister chooses who should chair the House of Lords. The changes are overdue, and I am glad that we can make them.
Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): The Under-Secretary is aware that the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs has today published our report on the reforms. Although there is support for modernisation of the judicial system, there is also concern that the pace is too fast and that mistakes will be made. Will he assure hon. Members that the post of Lord Chancellor will not be abolished until all the other elements of the modernisation process have been put in place and seen to work?
Mr. Leslie: I welcome the report of the Select Committee, which looked in great detail at some of our proposals. The constitutional reform Bill will make it plain that all those different aspects are interrelated and that the reform programme has been well thought through. Of course I understand the need for widespread consultation, and the consultation documents were issued last July, so we have had a considerable period in which to consider them. However, I do not see any particular outstanding reason why we should have a further, prolonged period of debate before introducing the legislation so that the House can consider it line by line and in detail, in the proper scrutiny process that is needed.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): Bearing it in mind that the Lord Chancellor will have to remain in office until certain of these processes are complete, can the Minister give us an approximate date—or even a year—by which he expects the supreme court to be sitting in its own building and the judicial appointments commission to be appointing judges?
Mr. Leslie: That is a simple question but, obviously, the answer depends not only on the date of Royal Assent for the legislation but on when we identify the future building for the supreme court. Both matters depend on various factors, some of which are commercial—in regard to whether we refurbish a building or build a new one—while others are connected to the passage of
legislation through Parliament. However, I anticipate that we should be able to make progress in the next couple of years and see such matters settled in good time.
David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab): Is my hon. Friend aware that, far from criticising the plans that have been announced, we need to take further radical steps, here and in the other place? We must bring ourselves up to date. Parliament ensures the civil liberties of all our citizens, but that is no reason to worship what has occurred over centuries. Modernisation is essential.
Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend is right, and implicitly highlights the obvious conservatism of the Opposition, who have opposed themselves to any change, no matter how obvious and rudimentary it appears to the rest of the country. They think that Westminster is happy with the current arrangement, that the establishment is content with it, and therefore that no change is necessary. However, we believe that we must make sure that our constitution has clarity and transparency, so that it can be understood by the wider public. We must also ensure that we have a justice system that serves the public's needs.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath) (Con): Does the Minister recognise that the Government are indulging in dangerous constitutional tinkering, and that they have caused great anger through such proposals as the idea of calling the presiding officer of the other place the Lord Speaker? That move would be dangerous and confusing. Have not the Government in recent days accepted not one or two, but 12 Opposition amendments in another place to replace the title of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs with the original title of Lord Chancellor in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill? The Government are really in a terrible mess. Would it not be better to keep the historical role of the Lord Chancellor, which works?
Mr. Leslie: I take that as a commitment that the Conservatives will put it in their manifesto that they will repeal any changes and reinstitute the office of Lord Chancellor. Is that what the hon. Gentleman is saying? I can hear no response whatever from him—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the Minister that no response is necessary. The Minister is there to answer a question.
Mr. Leslie: It is important that we do answer that question. There are several important issues involved, including whether the second Chamber chooses a different title for the person who presides over its business, but that is a matter for the second Chamber itself to debate. We will be careful to make opportunities to listen to what it says on that. The fact that there have been a number of amendments to a Bill in the other place is almost irrelevant, given that we will have the constitutional reform Bill, which will make all the necessary changes to previous legislation when it is passed. The principles are clear, which is what the hon. Gentleman refuses to address.
David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): I congratulate my hon. Friend on a rare ministerial victory over Jeremy Paxman last night on this issue. He performed superbly. Does my hon. Friend agree with the Lord Chief Justice that there could be a threat to judicial independence because future judges whose decisions offend Governments might be disciplined, moved to other work or denied promotion? Should there not be legislation to protect their independence?
Mr. Leslie: Following extensive discussions with the Lord Chief Justice about the constitutional reform Bill, I am pleased to say that he has mentioned in a speech to the other place that he agrees with the process of changes now in train. For that reason, we shall put into the Bill provisions to ensure that the Secretary of State has a duty to uphold and maintain judicial independence, and that the Government as a whole have to respect that independence. Those are positive steps forward, and I know that my hon. Friend will welcome them.
Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon) (LD): If the office of Lord Chancellor is abolished, does the Minister believe that there should be an objective voice in Cabinet at all times to safeguard the interests of justice? Does he also believe that that role should be undertaken by the Attorney-General, who would then have to attend not selected Cabinet meetings but all of them? Does the Minister then believe that the Attorney-General should be a voting or non-voting member of the Cabinet?
Mr. Leslie: Thankfully, the composition of the Cabinet is a matter not for me but for the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman asks who should have the role of defending judicial independence. I believe that it should be the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. That is our proposal, and we shall put it into the Bill. I hope that that will go some way towards satisfying the hon. Gentleman.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |