MPs query bias in the Supreme Court
The government was rebuked yesterday for the hint of political bias placed into the judicial appointments process of Britain’s new Supreme Court.
The cross-party Commons’ Constitutional Affairs Select Committee released a report yesterday into the latest round of judicial reforms.
The changes will see the Supreme Court replace the job of the Law Lords as the final point of appeal and the abolition of the historic post of Lord Chancellor.
MPs said the proposals – announced last June – had been too rushed, with the consultation process curtailed and the legislative timetable restricted.
“It is a matter of considerable regret that these proposals were formulated and announced in a way that was hurried and evidently without the knowledge of many of those who should have been extensively consulted,” said committee chairman Alan Beith.
“The government should introduce its proposals in the form of draft legislation to enable proper parliamentary scrutiny of such fundamental propositions,” he added.
The committee asked for more time to reflect on the fundamental changes being made to British law, the “undue haste” of which was caused by more by politics than legal needs.
Regarding judicial appointments, the Committee said it welcomed plans to improve diversity and transparency but warned Law Lords did a good job and any changes must lead to discernible improvement.
The final decision lies with the Constitutional Affairs Secretary who – after consulting with the senior judiciary – passes on one name to the prime minister.
Previously the Lord Chancellor recommended Law Lords to the prime minister after taking informal advice from senior judges.
Last night, constitutional affairs minister, Christopher Leslie, defended the proposals.
Mr Leslie said: “The Law Lords have done a very good job, but the problem we have is that they are members of the legislature. They are in effect members of a political body.
“It matters where they are, because if we have the highest court of appeal in the land sitting in the legislature, then perhaps we have got a people interpreting the law also making the law.
“What we need to do is have clarity on the role of the Law Lords. I would not want to cast any aspersions on the Law Lords who do a very good job, but it can be improved.”
