Examination of Witnesses (Questions 96-99)
RT HON
LORD BINGHAM
OF CORNHILL
25 MAY 2004
Chairman: Welcome.
Keith Vaz: I would like to declare an
interest, that I am a non-practising barrister.
Peter Bottomley: I repeat what I said
the last time we were together, that we are fellow members of
a partly charitable, partly corporate body of no importance to
this.
Q96 Chairman: Other interests were declared
earlier this afternoon. Well, we are very glad to have you back
again for something of an update. Quite a lot has happened since
the last time you were before us. Do you want to comment initially
on that at all?
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: No.
Chairman: I am sure it will all emerge
in the course of the questions. We are obviously aware of the
proceedings which are going on in the House of Lords on the Bill
and indeed the existence of those proceedings, I think, in part
reflects this Committee's express desire that we should take a
slightly more measured approach to considering the legislation
and that seems to be happening and we want to continue to play
a part in it. I wonder if we could perhaps start by looking at
the nature of the Court and any issues which that gives rise to.
We have just been talking to your New Zealand counterparts and
we had a rather interesting session with them. Perhaps Mr Cranston
would open up on that.
Q97 Ross Cranston: This may take you
back to ground which you do not want to traverse again, but Lord
Hope has made an interesting comment and I think some of the other
Law Lords have made this comment, that the association with the
House of Lords as a parliamentary body is useful and sitting in
on, and listening to, debates gave him a dimension to some of
the issues which would come before him as a judge which he would
not otherwise get. That has come up in the evidence he has also
given to the Select Committee of the House of Lords. You may not
want to go through that because I think you were very clear last
time about—
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: Well,
it is certainly not a point which impresses me at all. The truth
is that the Law Lords have played less and less and less part
in the business of the House of Lords. If you drew their contributions
to debates on a graph, it would go plummeting down and there are
a number of reasons for this which are very familiar to you and
also to me, but the truth is that we are very inactive members
of the House.
Q98 Ross Cranston: I do not think it
was the contribution which the Law Lords would make, but more
what they could learn by sitting there. I think that was the way
he put it.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: Well,
if you plotted on a graph the amount of hours per month that the
Law Lords spend sitting in the Chamber, it would be negligible.
They basically do not do it. People do sometimes forget that we
have a rather demanding full-time job which keeps most of us extended
most of the time. I am not accusing you of forgetting that because
I appreciate you know that very well.
Q99 Ross Cranston: Could I ask you about
appointments. The Bill has a clause which says that the appointing
body will put forward two, three, four names, but the Lord Chancellor
has subsequently said that he is considering an amendment whereby
only one name would go forward. I personally, just to state my
own view, prefer the existing provision in the Bill, but I do
not know whether you have any thoughts on that change.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: It has
been the subject of correspondence between myself and the Lord
Chancellor and we have not reached agreement, although certainly
his position has moved a little. The history is that he originally
wanted five names and that is actually simply too many because
whilst you could probably find, and I think you could find, five
thoroughly credible names if it was, so to speak, an English appointment,
it could be harder to find five credible names if it were a Scots
appointment bearing in mind that you would not want to recommend
anybody who did not want to come and it could be impossible in
a very small judiciary like in Northern Ireland to find five credible
names. I have discussed this with Lord Carswell and I am not saying
anything behind his back; it is a view he fully shares. Therefore,
the proposal of five names was modified to not fewer than two,
no more than five, but among my colleagues there has been quite
a lot of resistance to that and we have reverted to thinking that
the suggestion which we originally made is actually the right
one, which is that the Commission puts forward a name and the
Lord Chancellor can ask the Commission to think again giving reasons
why he wants it to think again. The Commission would then, in
good faith, think again. It might come up with the same name or
it might come up with a different name, but whichever name it
came up with on the second occasion would be accepted. Now, that
seemed to us to be a good formula and it is our preference, but
I cannot claim it is one which the Lord Chancellor has as yet
accepted.
| 
