British constitutional history was made Thursday as judges in a new Supreme Court were sworn in, replacing the House of Lords as Britain's highest appeal tribunal. Ending a centuries-old judicial quirk, 11 new Justices took their oaths of office in the new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, housed in a gothic building just across from the Houses of Parliament.
Although largely symbolic, the move - which will also see television cameras allowed into court for the first time - should make the administration of justice more transparent, politicians and judges say. "This is important. It emphasises the independence of the judiciary, clearly separating those who make the law from those who administer it," said Lord Nicholas Phillips, president of the new court.
"As Justices of the Supreme Court, we will be more visible to the public than we ever were when sitting as members of the House of Lords." Since 1876, the role of final court of appeal for England, Wales and Northern Ireland has been performed by the Law Lords, a House of Lords committee made up of top judges.
Before then, it was the job of ordinary peers who contemporary commentators said were often unfamiliar with the law - and keener on drinking at gentlemen's clubs than hearing complex cases. Although the Law Lords' independence was not in question, in recent years ministers and many top lawyers came to believe that separating the judiciary, parliament and the executive was important for the sake of clarity.
The move was decided by the Labour government which, when Tony Blair was prime minister, also made reforms such as cutting the number of hereditary peers in the House of Lords and devolving power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Some commentators say that creating the Supreme Court could make it easier for the government to push its constitutional reform agenda even further - by making the House of Lords fully elected.
"Moving the Law Lords out of the House would remove one of the major barricades to creating an elected House of Lords, which (Justice Secretary) Jack Straw is keen on doing," said Paul Stone, a senior partner with solicitors DLA Piper. "So, the creation of a new Supreme Court could be less about a change in the way our legal system operates and more about a potential shift towards a massive change in our parliamentary structure."
The new Supreme Court Justices are in fact the same men who had until now been called Law Lords - minus their wigs, but still keeping their robes, in which they processed across Parliament Square on Thursday. They will remain members of the House of Lords but will be disqualified from sitting or voting there until they retire from the Supreme Court. Newly appointed judges will not have a seat in parliament.
But their new home will be miles away from the fustiness of the Lords' red leather benches, often occupied by dozing peers. Its courtrooms are light, spacious and have plenty of access for curious members of the public, plus carpets designed by pop artist Peter Blake, who was behind the Beatles' "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" album cover.
The new tribunal will cost 14 million pounds (22 million dollars, 15 million euros) a year to run, including the salaries of the judges and the upkeep of the building. But critics including Mark Wallace of the TaxPayers Alliance, which campaigns for lower taxes, question the price tag.
Wallace also noted that, since Britain is a member of the European Union, the Supreme Court's rulings can be overturned by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. "The irony is that despite all the money and all the pomp, it won't really be supreme - European law will still overrule it," he said.