Downing Street Says » Constitutional Reforms/Supreme Court

Asked the Prime Minister’s reaction to apparent threats from the Lords to hold up the Constitutional Reform Bill, the PMOS said that any Government was elected to make decisions and bring forward legislation which it believed would improve our country. A consultation on the constitutional reform proposals had taken place over the course of four months. We believed it was the right thing to do for reasons we had set out many times. In our view, it would increase transparency, remove patronage and abolish the role of the Lord Chancellor, thereby ensuring that the focus of the individual with that responsibility could be far more narrowly drawn on issues of delivery relating to the courts. The Supreme Court would separate the judiciary from the legislature, with that separation enshrined in law. The Government had decided to introduce the Bill in the Lords so that they could conduct their proper role of scrutinising and improving the Bill. However, the amendment being proposed would essentially kick it into the long grass by setting up a Committee. This was a procedural device which had not been used since 1975 and we regarded the move as a delaying tactic. We would have to await the result of the vote tonight before deciding how to take things forward.

Asked if the Government might agree to delay the establishment of the Supreme Court in order to get the rest of the Bill through Parliament, the PMOS pointed out that today was only Second Reading of the Bill in the Lords. We wanted all these reforms on the statute book. Put to him that reintroducing the Bill in the Commons and then invoking the Parliament Act if necessary would make it almost impossible to get the Bill through before the next election, the PMOS said that it was important to be patient and wait and see what happened in the Lords today. Self evidently, the Government could not be put in a position where it was held hostage to the Lords on issues relating to reform. We would have to reflect very carefully on the outcome tonight. Asked if this sort of behaviour from the Lords would influence the Government’s thinking on the Lords Reform Bill, the PMOS said no.

Asked if the Prime Minister believed it was appropriate for the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, to advise Peers to vote against the Bill, the PMOS said that Lord Woolf was, of course, perfectly entitled to express his views. Equally, the Government was perfectly entitled to disagree with them and to continue with its programme of reform. We were doing so with good reason.

Asked why the Government now appeared to be rushing to get the Bill through Parliament when it had been in no particular hurry to bring it forward in the first place, the PMOS said that the Government obviously had to look carefully at its legislative programme. There were always competing priorities as to what should be included in the Queen’s Speech. At around the time of the reshuffle last June it was true that there had been a bit of static in the air. However, that was not to say that the Government had not been reflecting on the issues for some time. It had. Indeed, subsequent to setting out our plans, there had been a four-month consultation exercise. For all the reasons we had set out, we believed it was an important modernising piece of legislation for our constitution.

Asked if he would agree that the rush to get the Constitutional Reform Bill through Parliament would be particularly galling for proponents of the Hunting Bill who had reportedly been told that that Bill would not return to Parliament until much later in the year at the very earliest, the PMOS said that the Government had to reflect on different pieces of legislation, decide at what point to address the different issues and when to bring forward legislation. When we had anything further to say about hunting, we would let people know.

8 Comments »

Well, the Lords now have "kicked the Bill into the long grass".
Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 9 Mar 2004 on 12:05 am | Link
It just amazes me that the government would waste so much time and energy on a matter like this when really it should have anticipated the Lords would reject it. Surely there is much else besides which would benefit from the same energy, and would have a much better chance of proceeding? So many things that I can’t think of a single one right now, but I’m sure other contributors can help me out…
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 9 Mar 2004 on 11:49 am | Link
It is surely a worthwhile task to separate Judicial appointments from the Executive, and to remove the senior Judiciary from Parliament. You could make the argument ‘it would take up too much time’ about almost anything.
Comment by David Boothroyd — 9 Mar 2004 on 11:56 am | Link
True – but why the sudden urgency when there are other things which would benefit much more from the attention. Especially, as I pointed out initially because this was bound to be thrown out by the Lords anyway right from the start – how come that wasn’t anticipated, and if it was, why did they bother? Surely the fact that it was rejected by the Lords by a fair majority means it was badly thought out in the first place – not the idea but the detail?
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 9 Mar 2004 on 12:04 pm | Link
It isn’t sudden. The announcement was in June last year. Perhaps the Government assumed that, after Lord Irvine had been roundly criticised as being overmighty, that his critics would welcome a move to make the Lord Chancellor less mighty and in general to decrease the power of the Executive and enhance that of the Judiciary. Sadly, vested interests among the Law Lords coupled with their conceit for their status and Conservative opportunism ruled the day. I would caution you against using the argument that the result of a vote in the Lords makes a reasonable point about the merits of a proposal. Fox-hunting anyone? Age of consent? etc.
Comment by David Boothroyd — 9 Mar 2004 on 12:56 pm | Link
But my point was precisely that; the fact that the proposals went against the grain for the Law Lords et al surely meant that it was doomed from the off. Now, if the house of Lords was properly reformed as we were led to believe was a priority with the Government, maybe this would not have happened…
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 9 Mar 2004 on 1:13 pm | Link
The law is too important to be left to the Law Lords.
Comment by David Boothroyd — 9 Mar 2004 on 1:57 pm | Link
I am currently studying the effects of what A reformed constitution would do…and I have found myself agreeing with the Conservatives, if something works, why change it. The House of Lords and our two tier system of Parliament is what has determined and individualised Britain for many hundreds of years. The Law Lords do not work for the sake of making money and gaining status (since they already have this) they do it because they can and surely this makes their decisions impartial and after looking at many of their reports, I find them to be extremely clever people. Why should we change something that is so important to our history so that we become more in line with the USA and EU? I think messing with a system that has worked for so long is dangerous.
Comment by Laura — 27 Nov 2004 on 6:00 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Monday, March 8, 2004

Constitutional Reforms/Supreme Court

8 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries