DEVOLUTION ISSUES (Hansard, 4 March 1998)

§ Dr. Fox
I beg to move amendment No. 438, in schedule 6, page 79, line 20, leave out from 'Committee' to end of line 21.

The First Deputy Chairman
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 443, in page 81, line 26, leave out 'require' and insert 'request'.
No. 444, in page 81, line 28, at end insert— '(33A) Where a court or tribunal refers a devolution issue for determination in terms of paragraph 33 above, the person making the request for such a reference shall pay all legal expenses of any parties that subsequently take part in any proceedings before the Judicial Committee for the determination of the judicial issue referred.'. No. 445, in page 81, line 45, at end insert— '(6) The person making a reference in terms of paragraph 34 shall pay all legal expenses of any parties that subsequently take part in any proceedings before the Judicial Committee for the determination of the devolution issue referred.'.

§ Dr. Fox
This debate will, of necessity, be a short one. We feel that schedule 6 is generally well drafted, although I should like briefly to deal with three matters. First, amendment No. 438 would dispense with any requirement for leave. We think that there is no reason why the final determination of devolution issues by Scottish courts should not be appealed against without leave to the Privy Council or the House of Lords. We are very keen to hear the Government's justification for that provision.
1161 Secondly, we have tabled amendment No. 443 in an attempt to preserve judicial discretion—which the Government are normally extremely keen on. We should be very interested to know why the Government will not accept the simple change that we have proposed in our rather short amendment.
Finally, we have tabled amendments Nos. 444 and 445 in an attempt to recover the costs of those who become involved in expensive hearings on devolution issues through no fault of their own. Surely it is right that the financial burden should be placed on the budgets of those who do the referring. We think that the amendments would be a very logical, fair and simple tidying up of the Bill, placing the financial burden on those who seek to use the Bill's powers.
I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept our amendments.

§ Mr. Salmond
As the issue is the role of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it is appropriate that we should spend a moment or two examining the nature of the current Judicial Committee. The Committee has 109 members: 63 from England, nine from Scotland, five from Northern Ireland, 14 from New Zealand, one from Australia, one from Barbados, one from the Cayman Islands, one from Jamaica and one from the West Indies. The average age of Committee members is 67, and only two of the Committee's 109 members are female. Of the politicians on the Committee, 11 are former Tory Ministers—led by the venerable Lord Hailsham, and four are current or former Labour Ministers. To my knowledge, there are no former Liberal Democrat or Scottish National party representatives on the Committee. We have difficulty in getting people appointed to such bodies, or so I have heard.
I believe that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was an improvement on the House of Lords in arbitrating in disputes between the two Parliaments, but the complexion and nature of the Committee leave a great deal to be desired. Although only a panel of the Judicial Committee will be selected to serve in each arbitration, one could scarcely say that the Committee is politically representative of the population—it is certainly not representative in terms of gender.

§ Mr. Wallace
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when a panel is selected, it should at least include some people with judicial experience in Scotland?

§ Mr. Salmond
Yes. The hon. and learned Gentleman has helped me, in that I was about to come to an alternative, which I hope we can discuss on Report. That alternative is a constitutional court of judicial appointments between the two Parliaments, such as exists between the Länder and the federal Government in Germany.
I know that in the minute that remains to him, the Minister will be more than happy to respond in the co-operative nature of the Committee to the points that I have made.

§ Mr. Dalyell
What research have the Government carried out on the projected increases in work for the 1162 courts and the Judicial Committee as a result of the Bill? What resources are to be made available to the Judicial Committee for devolution issues?

§ Mr. McLeish
I cannot do justice to the concerns expressed. The kindest thing I can do is to write to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), but we are rejecting the amendments. I shall also correspond with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) about the composition of the Judicial Committee, numbers on the panel and the—