I was just about to come to that point, because it arose in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) said that she thought that the decision needed to be unanimous. On consideration, and after discussion with colleagues and others, I concur. A unanimous judgment would be a check step that would guarantee that the body of evidence was robust. The argument against a unanimous vote would be that a majority vote was sufficient insurance, because at least two judges would have to agree. In my judgment, it should be unanimous. However, those details do not have to be decided now as they could be dealt with by a statutory instrument that would establish the standing orders for the procedure.
In the previous debates on this point, the Minister cited cost as a reason not to have three judges. He said that in Lord Carlile’s 2003 report"““he estimated that 10 additional judges would be required to produce the same criminal justice system. Those judges would have to be recruited and trained, and accommodation would have to be provided for them. If necessary—of course we would do this if we were to move to that system—steps would have to be taken to protect their security. That would have significant financial implications.””—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 8 November 2005; c. 25.]"
Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lembit Opik
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 30 November 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill 2005-06..
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
440 c290 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:16:13 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_281823
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_281823
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_281823