A parliamentary committee for
judiciary-related matters
80. The Select Committee in the House of Lords said:
"The Committee agrees that it is desirable
for a committee of Parliament to act as a bridge between Parliament
and the judiciary, particularly in the event of the senior judges
being excluded from the House. Such a committee should not seek
to hold individual judges to account."[61]
81. As the House of Lords Select Committee explained
in their report, there are two basic ways of establishing such
a committee: a statutory committee could be established by the
Bill;[62] alternatively,
Parliament itself could establish a committee (or an existing
select committee could assume the role). The idea of creating
a statutory committee has found favour in some quarters. Lord
Mackay of Clashfern, the former Lord Chancellor, moved an amendment
to this effect.[63] The
advantages of a statutory committee were not, however, clear to
the House of Lords Select Committee on the Bill, who in their
report set out the relative advantages and disadvantages of both
types of committee:[64]
The advantages of a statutory committee is that
its existence is protected by statute whereas a parliamentary
committee has to be re-appointed by Parliament each Session and
at each re-appointment its terms of reference, and very existence
could be called into question. The powers of a statutory committee
on the other hand can be enshrined in the Act. The disadvantage
of a statutory committee is that its terms of reference and powers
may be less flexible and therefore the development of its role
is likely to be less fluid.
82. Another important decision is whether the committee
responsible for oversight of judiciary-related matters should
be a committee of the House of Commons, the House of Lords, or
a joint committee of both Houses. A clear majority of the House
of Lords Select Committee on the Bill preferred the option of
a joint committee.[65]
83. In general we agree with the House of Lords
Select Committee on the importance of a continuing Committee with
responsibility for judicial matters. We think that this Committee
serves this function. It would be appropriate for both Houses
to have their own Committees for maintaining a relationship with
the judiciary which can meet jointly, if they see fit. We do not
see the necessity for inserting a provision to this effect in
the Bill.
59 
