Appellate Committee of the House of Lords (Hansard, 18 June 2002)

§ Lord Lester of Herne Hill
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Chancellor on 10 June (WA 3), what are their reasons for concluding that the present arrangements for the hearing of appeals by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, and in devolution cases by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, are preferable to the creation of a supreme court for the United Kingdom independent of the House of Lords. [HL4701]

§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg)
Our present arrangements work well. I am not aware of any case where the Law Lords' membership of this House has inhibited them from carrying out their judicial functions. That being the case, the Government are not presently persuaded that there is a sufficient case for changing the existing arrangements.

§ Lord Lester of Herne Hill
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Chancellor on 10 June (WA 3), whether they have consulted the senior judiciary and legal profession of each country of the United Kingdom before reaching the view that a sufficient case has not been made out for the abolition of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and its replacement by a separate new supreme court; if so, what were the views obtained in the course of such consultation; and, if not, whether they will now do so. [HL4702]

§ The Lord Chancellor
It is for those advocating change to make out the case for it. So far, the Government remain unpersuaded. In the circumstances, they do not feel that a consultation exercise is necessary or desirable. Those advocating both sides of the argument are well able to put their views forward without formal consultation.

§ Lord Lester of Herne Hill
asked Her Majesty's Government:
73WA
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Chancellor on 10 June, what are their reasons for considering that it is inappropriate to create an independent supreme court for the United Kingdom with equivalent resources and facilities to the supreme courts of other common law countries. [HL4703]

§ The Lord Chancellor
It is not necessarily inappropriate; nor are the current arrangements inappropriate, and they work well. As far as a new supreme court building is concerned, the Government do not presently attach a sufficient public expenditure priority to its creation.

§ Lord Lester of Herne Hill
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Chancellor on 10 June (WA 3) whether they will consider the views of the Joint Select Committee on House of Lords Reform before reaching a conclusion as to whether a new supreme court for the United Kingdom should be created, independent of the House of Lords. [HL4704]

§ The Lord Chancellor
The Government are not presently convinced that there is a sufficient case for making a change in the existing arrangements. If the joint committee on reform of the House of Lords makes proposals in this area, the Government would of course consider them.