The incoming Master of the Rolls talks passionate Supreme Court debates and becoming a Lord to Suzanna Ring and Alex Novarese

On debate between the judges

It is very civilised. From what I understand about many other jurisdictions, the heat and passion is more literal than what goes on here. Obviously, people feel very strongly about their positions.

You exchange drafts. Sometimes in an early draft, someone who disagrees with someone else might express themselves in quite intemperate language, but usually by the time the finished product emerges the more extreme language has been removed. That's usually as far as it gets.

On judges speaking out

It's healthy that judges should speak on issues they are suitably placed to speak about. But I think we also have to be terribly circumspect about talking about anything political even if it is related to the law. Whatever we might privately think about the regrets with legal aid it's not wise for judges on the whole to speak and if anyone is going to speak on issues like this is, it should be the Lord Chief Justice.

But there's a huge area in which we can and do talk about. It is good that some of the mystique of judges should be [removed] so that people can see the sort of people we are. The old-fashioned idea that judges don't say anything except through their judgments, I think that's outmoded really. I doubt whether there are many that still subscribe to that view but we've got to be careful.

On proving yourself at the Supreme Court

Every time I go into court is a challenge. You want to do your best. You don't want to make an idiot of yourself. It's such an open and transparent process. I feel like going into court is like writing an exam paper. It's like I have never grown up; I've been doing this since I was at school.

On the complexity of law

I don't think it's too complex for us, it's a different question whether it's too complex for the good of the country and I think the answer to that in many respects is that it is, particularly in the area of criminal law. Time and again complaints have been made about the massive amounts of legislation, often ill thought out and rushed through in the response to the latest problem and sometimes the drafting is appallingly complicated and doesn't work and then the courts are left with the difficult task of trying to make it work. It would be better in an ideal work if there was less legislation and there was more time taken over it but that'll never happen because politics is politics and the political pressures to do something quickly are huge.

On the Human Rights Act

It's worked extremely well. It's achieved its goal, which was to make the European Convention on Human Right part of our domestic law to enable us to deal head on with human rights questions and the result has been very few cases actually go to Strasbourg. I believe we are contributing now quite a bit to Strasbourg jurisprudence because the [European Court of Human Rights] recognises the high quality of our judgments, and so they take a lot of note of decisions of our human rights decisions and our interpretations and I think it's very good. And recently there has been a better understanding in Strasbourg of the need to understand and give effect to the local needs of local jurisdictions, particularly ones that have long experience of an independent judiciary. The frustration there has been is of Strasbourg not understanding – and it's not just our country – but I think things have gotten better. I just get the slight sense that we're hearing a bit less about this. I would hate to see us go back to the pre-1998 Act days. It would be a really retrograde step.

On the Supreme Court compared to the House of Lords

It's been a very good thing. Some of my more senior colleagues miss the atmosphere of the Lords but from a personal point of view of the effective functioning of the court in the public interest I think this has been a terrific thing to have done. I was fairly agnostic before I came here. I understood that it was done for constitutional and presentational reasons, but what I didn't know is that it's a very good building to work in. My brother came here today for the first time – sat in for half a day – and he told me that that the welcome that they get downstairs is warm and the staff are wonderful. When we give our judgments there are press summaries, the person who has written the leading judgment has to produce a summary of the summary. This all takes time but it is all produced with a view to make the place user-friendly and enable people to understand what these quite difficult cases are all about.

On changing the law

You think long and hard about getting rid of a rule of law that has been around for a long time. But if you feel that there is no longer any justification for it, then you need to have a good reason for not changing it.

On second thoughts

Once I've done a judgment, I move on. I usually can't even remember what I was doing last week. You are concentrating so hard on what you're doing. In some ways, that's a good thing because it means you just don't have time to worry about it – there's no point in worrying about what you did last week.

On becoming a Lord

When I first came here, I was Sir and I was the only one. I didn't like that as I looked like I was an add-on; second class. Frankly, the fact I'm not a peer doesn't bother me because I'm a judge. It's good that we're all Lord from a presentational point of view. We all look the same and that's what matters.