Procedure for Appointing Judges

Debate between Robert Neill and Keith Vaz

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is right. There are two misnomers in this sense. Confirmation, in the strict sense of the word, is not really what we are doing. We are scrutinising the integrity of the appointments process, which is an altogether different matter and entirely consistent with our tradition. In the same way, I wonder, were the legislation for the Supreme Court being drafted now, would we call it a Supreme Court, as opposed to a Court of Final Appeal? That has rather unfortunate implications, but that is really what it is. It is not quite like the Supreme Court in the United States, and the name sometimes gives people the wrong idea about its function.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East is absolutely right to say that in the recent cases that have attracted press attention, the courts—both at first instance the High Court or the Court of Session and then the Supreme Court—were asked to answer legal questions, and they gave legal answers. It is as simple as that. The judges did their job as lawyers. The attacks on our senior judiciary by some of the press are an outright disgrace and a shame upon this country. They should be called out for what they are: gutter journalism. Would to God that we had a press in this country that had anything like the quality and integrity of our judiciary. We would be the better place for it.

We are fortunate in the quality of our judiciary in all parts of the United Kingdom. We have a rigorous selection process. I am particularly aware of the work of the Judicial Appointments Commission in England and Wales, but I am cognisant of the like work that is done in Scotland and Northern Ireland by their appointments boards. I pay tribute to the work of Lord Kakkar and his colleagues on the Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales. The Justice Committee has had the opportunity to observe and scrutinise its work, and it is accountable to us and to Parliament for the process it engages in. Recently it published its report for the year just gone; it is a substantial document that clearly sets out the methodology by which it works and the consequences.

[Keith Vaz]

I am most grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for giving way. May I declare my interest, which I forgot to do earlier, as a non-practising barrister? My wife is a part-time judge. I put this to the hon. Gentleman: with the system we have now—as opposed to the old system, where the Lord Chancellor made the decision himself, and it was only men who were Lord Chancellor in those days—what does he think about laypersons being able to appoint judges to the highest judicial offices when they themselves are not legally qualified? I think the system is working well, apart from the diversity angle, but what does he think, not only as Chair of the Committee but as a lawyer, about people who are not legally qualified being able to opine on giving posts to those who are the most legally qualified?

[Robert Neill]

The right hon. Gentleman reminds me to refer Members to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I think I would approach the matter he raises in this way: for transparency and because the judiciary needs the confidence not only of the profession but of the wider population and the society it serves, there is a proper role for a lay element in the selection process. The set-up we have in England and Wales with the Judicial Appointments Commission, which has lay members together with experienced practitioners and members of the judiciary, is probably a pretty fair balance as far as that is concerned.

[Keith Vaz]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way for a second time and enabling me to tempt him a little further. The cut-off age has deprived us of some pretty distinguished judges. Does he think we should go that step further and raise the limit from 70 to 75? Can I tempt him down that road?

[Robert Neill]

The right hon. Gentleman tempts me and I fall into the trap willingly: I entirely agree with him. It is a great shame that we have seen the retirement recently of very distinguished and able judges simply by effluxion of time. Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Sir Brian Leveson, Lady Hallett—I was delighted to see her gain a peerage—and others still have much to offer the bench. When we have real difficulty with the recruitment and retention of the highest quality judges, it seems absurd to me to set 70, which most of us would regard as the new 50—certainly those of us who are getting nearer to it—as the limit. We are cutting people off at the height of their professional powers. They have much more to offer and, interestingly, will very often be found, perfectly legitimately and properly, exercising their skills as arbitrators or mediators in commercial jurisdictions, when they would be very happy to continue exercising those skills in high public office as members of the judiciary.

I earnestly hope that one message the Minister takes back to the Lord Chancellor, who I know is apprised of the matter, is that if we have a legislative opportunity in the new Session, we should tack on a clause to increase the judicial retirement age to 75. That would be warmly welcomed. There is more that we need to do at the other end in terms of diversity. There have been improvements, but the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) is right that we need in particular to improve black, Asian and minority ethnic representation in the judiciary. There are signs of improvement, but there is much more to do.

We have made improvements in relation to gender diversity, but ethnic diversity is something that we still need to work on, as well as perhaps social background more generally. As a member of the Bar, I recognise the potential value of recruiting solicitor judges in broadening the social background base of the profession. There are now some very good and able solicitor judges, and I hope that we can encourage that too.

In a short speech, I wanted to reinforce what the Lord Chancellor, who is admirably playing his role in defending the independence of the judiciary, has said, and to recognise the point fairly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) that the independence of the judiciary is not just important in terms of the checks and balances of our own constitution, which are critical, but wholly consistent with our international obligations. My hon. Friend serves as a distinguished member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which is something that I have had the pleasure of doing, as have you, Mr Sharma. We all know that Britain is looked up to by our colleagues because of the independence of our judiciary. How would we be able to exercise restraint on some of the emerging democracies in eastern and central Europe, where such independence is not always to be found, were we to do anything that diluted our judicial independence?

It is important that we maintain judicial independence to meet our obligations under article 6 of the European convention, never mind article 14 of the international covenant on civil and political rights and, of course, the UN basic principles on the independence of the judiciary. If we want Britain to remain a world leader in high esteem, maintaining the independence of the judiciary is critical. I hope that the debate will enable us to send a message to all at large that we recognise the checks and balances that are implicit in, and that underpin, our constitution, and that the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary, and the acceptance of its independence by all, whether we agree with an individual decision or not, are crucial to our national wellbeing.

Leaving the EU: Security, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice

Debate between Robert Neill and Keith Vaz

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

I thought that that issue might be raised, and I was going to say that that does not alter the importance of criminal justice co-operation and, secondly, that where this has been relevant as a criticism of the arrest warrant in the past—in the Symeou case, for example—that is essentially history. What is not often sufficiently recognised are the very important amendments made to the European arrest warrant in 2014. We heard evidence from both the criminal lawyers society and the Criminal Bar Association, who strongly concurred that the amendments of 2014 had removed the risks that had put the unfortunate Mr Symeou in his position.

[Keith Vaz]

It is a great pleasure to serve under the hon. Gentleman’s chairmanship of the Justice Committee. The point made in the intervention by the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), which is a cause of concern to me, is that sometimes countries in the EU issue their European arrest warrant for very minor offences. One example is an individual who had a warrant issued against him because he had stolen a bicycle. It is important that individual countries focus on the reasons why they take out their arrest warrants. I have always regarded it as very serious when a European arrest warrant is issued; it is not appropriate for the minor offences that some countries use it for.

[Robert Neill]

I accept that that is a significant issue, but the two amendments achieved two things. First, they removed any risk of extradition before commencement of proceedings; and, secondly, they introduced in the UK a proportionality filter. It would be better if all other countries that use the European arrest warrant had a proportionality filter, too. From the evidence we heard from Professor Wilson of the Northumbria University’s centre for evidence and criminal justice studies, it seems that even Poland, which has resisted a proportionality filter in the past, is now moving in that direction. The situation is improving there.

The fact that we have those two important safeguards is significant, and it is also important that the European arrest warrant system is a court-driven system, which is subject to judicial supervision rather than being an executive act of extradition. That is why it would be undesirable for us to lose the advantage of the European arrest warrant and have to fall back to the 1957 extradition convention, which was a purely administrative act, carried out through diplomatic channels, without the protection of court intervention or review. It was also much more cumbersome.

UK and Gibraltar Prosecuting Authorities

Debate between Robert Neill and Keith Vaz

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Robert Neill]

Sadly, my hon. Friend is right. I have seen some of the coverage in the Spanish press. It is gratuitous. Unfortunately, the comments, whatever the intention in making them, have been used to fuel the antagonism that some in the Spanish governing party and other parts of the media feel towards Gibraltar. It is worth saying that, precisely because Gibraltar is a small country with a difficult neighbour, an insult to Gibraltar is felt very personally, even by everyday Gibraltarians. It is not just a matter of Government circles; Gibraltarians feel this individually because every one of them sees the consequence of what happens when misleading information is used against them by their neighbours. For that reason, this debate is important, and it is worth setting out why.

The remarks made by the right hon. Member for Leicester East were in the context of a comment about drugs policy and money laundering. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having shown me a letter that he subsequently sent to the Chief Minister, who raised his concerns with the right hon. Gentleman, and I place that on the record. However, the reality is this: the inevitable innuendo in the comments made was that there was a particular issue with Gibraltar and drugs money and money laundering. That is wholly unjustified and untrue, and it is unsupported by any evidence of any kind. In every jurisdiction, we all have to be alert to the issues arising from organised crime, drugs and money laundering. The UK is, and so is Gibraltar, to exactly the same standards as the United Kingdom.

It is worth setting out in some detail, as briefly as I may, the work that Gibraltar has done in this field.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for informing me that he was going to raise these comments. This debate seems to be all about the five words that I spoke in the Chamber. As he knows, I wrote to the Chief Minister and I accepted his assurances that Gibraltar’s financial services were absolutely robust. I pointed out that in my speech I made it very clear that there was no criticism of the people or Government of Gibraltar. If he is now reassuring me again in the House that there is no question of any impropriety of any kind, of course we accept that assurance.

[Robert Neill]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making those comments. More important, I hope the people of Gibraltar will be grateful, because unfortunately, once words are said, even perhaps in an uncharacteristically loose manner, much harm is done in this particular context. I not only want to put that on record in the House, but I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will be able to state the position of the British Government in relation to those matters.

I think the position is this: unfortunately, the comments that the right hon. Gentleman referred to were made on the Floor of the Chamber of this House. They were recorded in Hansard and I am grateful to him for coming along today and withdrawing those comments, again, on the Floor of this House, sitting in Westminster Hall, and on the record in Hansard. That is hugely important to the people of Gibraltar and I am grateful to him for having done that.

Let me set out why that retraction is so important. Gibraltar, throughout recent times, has been fully compliant with all its international obligations. All relevant EU regulations that apply to Gibraltar and all EU directives are transposed into law by Gibraltar’s Parliament. That includes all EU measures on financial supervision and regulation, direct taxation and the fight against money laundering.

Gibraltar has been actively engaged with the OECD on exchange of information arrangements. The OECD and Council of Europe convention on mutual administrative assistance in tax matters has been extended to Gibraltar, and in consequence of a raft of measures, Gibraltar has now, pursuant to various agreements and the convention, exchange of information agreements to the OECD standard with some 77 countries and territories around the world. It has received a glowing review from the OECD on its record of exchange of information. Its overall compliance ratings are in exactly the same league as this country’s and Germany’s. I hope that gives a proper sense of perspective as to the seriousness with which Gibraltar takes these issues.

[Robert Neill]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Independent monitoring reports state specifically that there have been no instances of failure by Gibraltar to co-operate with any requests by any member organisation. He is totally on the money as far as that is concerned. Gibraltar behaves to exactly the same standards as the United Kingdom. We should be proud of it and congratulate it on that.

It is worth pointing out that Gibraltar has signed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act intergovernmental agreement with the UK and the United States on a commitment to common reporting standards and automatic exchange of information. That now extends to 50 countries, with a further 30 in the process of joining it. Gibraltar has applied the EU savings directive since 2005. Its regulatory law enforcement and intelligence authorities, as my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) pointed out, work hand in glove with the United Kingdom and other international counterparts in the detection and prevention of crime. Despite the tensions across the border, the Royal Gibraltar police work effectively and well with their counterparts in the Guardia Civil, notwithstanding political interference from time to time from Madrid, and they should be commended for that.

Gibraltar has draconian all-crimes anti-money laundering legislation, systems and administrative practices in place, all of which comply with EU legislation and operate in exactly the same way as in the UK. Its systems have been tested with independent reviews by the Financial Action Task Force, the International Monetary Fund and others, and have been found to comply, not just in theory, but in practice. The Financial Action Task Force recently revised its 40 anti-money laundering principles and Gibraltar is taking those on board and updating its arrangements in the fight against crime in the same way as the United Kingdom. In other words, it meets exactly the same standards in every regard.

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is giving the Chamber a robust account of the prosecution system. Can he confirm that there have been no prosecutions for money laundering in Gibraltar?

[Robert Neill]

That is my understanding, but my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will be able to deal specifically with that. The fact that we have been successful in such matters is precisely because of the very good arrangements and regulatory systems in place in Gibraltar. It is totally right that we should be alert to the risk of crime, but when good preventative mechanisms are in place and prevent crimes from coming to fruition that is a plus point and we should congratulate Gibraltar on that.