Martin Partington: Spotlight on the Justice System

Keeping the English Legal System under review

Posts Tagged ‘constitution’

Proposed Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission

leave a comment »

One proposal that caught the eye in the Conservative Party’s manifesto for the December 2019 general election was that, following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, it would be necessary to look at “broader aspects” of the UK’s constitution. The idea was that a constitution, democracy, and rights commission should be established to examine the following issues:

  • the relationship between the government, parliament, and the courts;
  • the functioning of the royal prerogative;
  • the role of the House of Lords; and
  • access to justice for ordinary people.

Other areas would include examining judicial review and amending the Human Rights Act 1998 to balance the rights of individuals, national security, and effective government.

The Government has said that it wants to ensure a range of expertise is represented on the commission. It also wants the commission to evidence from third parties and civic society to inform any recommendations. However, there are currently limited details available on the remit, form, and composition of the commission.

Several commentators and academics have welcomed the general principle of reviewing the UK’s constitutional arrangements. However, some have expressed concern about the context of the commission, particularly coming after the Supreme Court found against the Government on constitutional issues.

Those interested in starting to think about the issues which the Commission, once established, might consider will find the Research Briefing paper, written by Charley Coleman from the House of Lords Library and published in late March 2020, to be an excellent introduction.

The briefing can be found at https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/lln-2020-0089/

Advertisement

Written by lwtmp

July 13, 2020 at 2:46 pm

Posted in Chapter 11, Chapter 2, Chapter 4

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

New Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice: David Lidington MP

leave a comment »

Following the outcome of the General Election in 2017, the period of office of the first female Lord Chancellor, Lynne Truss MP, was brought to an end.

This was widely predicted, as there was a widely held opinion, especially among lawyers and the judiciary, that she had failed to gain the confidence of the legal profession. In particular, her failure to intervene to protect the independence of the judiciary when sections of the mass media attacked senior judges for upholding the argument that parliamentary authority was required before the formal process of the UK leaving the EU could begin, was seen as a lack of understanding of the Lord Chancellor’s obligations to protect the independence of th judiciary, set out in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Lord Thomas, the current Lord Chief Justice, was particularly critical of this.

Truss’ replacement is David Lidington MP. He is another post holder who has no experience of the law. Under section 2 of the Constitutional Reform Act, non-lawyers must nevertheless be ‘qualified by experience’. What this phrase means in practice is proving hard to determine. Presumably the post holder should be someone who understands and is willing to uphold the independence of the judiciary – even where such independence may lead to decisions unwelcome to the Government of the day.

At present it is impossible to say whether the new appointee will turn out to be a more satisfactory appointment than his predecessor, though his previous experience as a Foreign Office Minister suggests that he may have a particular understanding of the importance of upholding the rule of law, and the function of the judiciary is the process.

For comments of the Lord Chief Justice to the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords see http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/constitution-committee/lord-chief-justice/oral/49312.pdf

For the Lord Chancellor’s speech at his swearing-in ceremony, see https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/lord-chancellor-swearing-in-speech-david-lidington

 

 

 

 

 

Written by lwtmp

July 8, 2017 at 2:44 pm

Posted in Chapter 4

Tagged with , , ,

Law for Lawmakers: A JUSTICE guide to the law

leave a comment »

JUSTICE has recently published Law for Lawmakers, a short introduction to some key legal and constitutional principles confronted by MPs, Peers and their staff in their work. This guide is designed to provide basic information and signposts to sources of legal advice and support.

Whilst the legal profession is well-represented in politics it has never dominated the House of Commons. For example, of Parliament’s 650 current MPs, only 88 practise law in England and Wales. As the makers of our laws, as our representatives, and in holding the Government to account, MPs and Peers wear many hats. Each of these roles requires MPs to grapple with the law every day. However, for over three-quarters of all first-time MPs this may be a very new experience.

This Parliament is set to consider constitutional questions ranging from the scope of surveillance powers for the security services to the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union; from a new devolution settlement for the Union to the repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The JUSTICE guide doesn’t set out to answer those questions, but it may help to inform discussion and debate.

The guide may be found and downloaded at http://justice.org.uk/law-for-lawmakers-a-justice-guide-to-the-law/
It is an ideal introduction to the law-making process for all who are interested, not just MPs.

Written by lwtmp

October 16, 2015 at 12:12 pm

Posted in Chapter 3

Tagged with , , , ,

Turning constitutional conventions into law

leave a comment »

During the debate on what became the Scotland Act 1998, Lord Sewel indicated in the House of Lords  (H.L. Deb vol. 592 col. 791) that “we would expect a convention to be established that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament”.

Clause 2 of the Scotland Bill 2015  inserts a new subsection (8) into section 28 of the 1998 Act so it is recognised in statute that, although the sovereignty of the UK Parliament is unchanged by the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, the UK Parliament will not normally legislate for devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.
For further details see http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/scotland.html

 

Written by lwtmp

October 13, 2015 at 4:31 pm

Posted in Chapter 3

Tagged with , ,

English Votes for English Laws – EVEL

leave a comment »

A consequence of the Referendum on Scottish Devolution was that the Prime Minister, David Cameron, announced that he wanted not only to devolve more legislative power to the Scottish Government, but also wanted to ensure that only English MPs were able to vote on Bills that would only have effect in England.
The issue of English Votes for English Laws has proved to be extremely controversial.
A first attempt to create a new parliamentary procedure for dealing with the issue was set out in a paper published by the Cabinet Office in July 2015.
However it ran into serious difficulties in debate in the House of Commons, and the Government decided to rethink how it was going to implement Mr Cameron’s pledge. Revised proposals are expected in the near future.

The text of the original Cabinet Office paper can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-votes-for-english-laws-proposed-changes

Written by lwtmp

October 13, 2015 at 12:23 pm

Posted in Chapter 3

Tagged with ,

The Scotland Bill 2015

leave a comment »

A principal outcome of the Referendum on Scottish Independence was an agreement – the Smith Commission Agreement – that more power should be devolved from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament. The Scotland Bill was published in July 2015 and has started its progress through the Westminster Parliament.

The Explanatory Notes to the Bill summarise the contents of the Bill as follows:

The Bill is an enabling Bill and the majority of the provisions in the Bill set out the powers that are being transferred to the Scottish Parliament and or the Scottish Ministers. In particular the Scotland Bill amends sections of the Scotland Act 1998 and rebalances the devolved and reserved responsibilities between the administrations. The Bill also includes provisions which set out the constitutional relationship of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government within the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements. It does not amend this relationship.
…[T]he Bill:
• declares that a Scottish Parliament and a Scottish Government are considered permanent parts of the UK’s constitutional arrangements, and that the UK Parliament will not normally legislate in devolved areas without the consent of the Scottish Parliament, whilst retaining the sovereignty to do so;
• gives increased autonomy to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Ministers in relation to the operation of Scottish Parliament and local government elections in Scotland;
• gives increased autonomy to the Scottish Parliament in relation to the power to amend sections of the Scotland Act 1998 which relate to the operation of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government within the United Kingdom;
• increases the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament through devolution of the rates and bands of income tax, Air Passenger Duty and the Aggregates Levy, and assignment of VAT revenues;
• increases responsibility of welfare policy and delivery in Scotland through the devolution of welfare powers to the Scottish Parliament and / or the Scottish Ministers;
• gives significant responsibility to Scotland for areas such as road signs, speed limits, onshore oil and gas extraction, consumer advocacy and advice amongst others by devolution of powers in relation to these fields to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Ministers; and
• increases scrutiny for the Scottish Government of specific bodies and increases the ability of the Scottish Government to design schemes relating to energy efficiency and fuel poverty by the devolution of functions to the Scottish Ministers.

The Smith Commission Agreement increases the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament. A new fiscal framework will be agreed for Scotland to accompany the further powers included in this Bill, in order to set and coordinate sustainable fiscal policy for the UK as a whole. This will give the Scottish Government the tools to manage the powers in this Bill while ensuring consistency with the fiscal framework in the rest of the UK. It is intended that that framework will be negotiated in parallel to the passage of this Bill.

There is still considerable political debate as to whether the provisions of the Bill go far enough. The Scottish National Party is arguing for more devolution. The final outcome of this process will be known in 2016.

The Bill and accompanying papers is at http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/scotland/documents.html

The subject of English Votes for English Laws – EVEL – is considered in a separate note.

Written by lwtmp

October 13, 2015 at 12:12 pm

Posted in Chapter 3

Tagged with , , ,

The changing constitution – abolition of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform

leave a comment »

Just over a year ago, (October 2014) I published a blog item here on a consultation by the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee of the House of Commons in which it explored the arguments for and against the adoption of a Written Constitution. It followed that with a rather anodyne report, published before the dissolution of the Coalition Government, suggesting that more work should be done on this.
It also suggested that the Committee should be reconstituted after the outcome of the 2015 Election was known.
Despite the fact that there is considerable discussion about constitutional change, particularly issues – such as English Votes for English Laws – which came out of the Scottish Referendum, the Select Committee itself has not been reconstituted.

For the Select Committee’s Final Report on this subject go to http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/599/59902.htm
Under the title ‘Consultation on A new Magna Carta?’ it attaches, as an Annex, a draft accessible summary constitution, with options for reform, written by Professor Robert Blackburn of King’s College London. This is an interesting contribution to a much wider debate.
For more detailed discussion about constitutional developments you need to look at the work of the Constitution Unit, based in University College London. See http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/

Written by lwtmp

October 12, 2015 at 3:04 pm

Posted in Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4

Tagged with , , ,

Considering the case for a written constitution

leave a comment »

In July 2014, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons launched an inquiry into the question of whether there is a need for a new Magna Carta. The inquiry follows from research undertaken at King’s College London which lays out three different models – including one fully fleshed out, complete constitution – and sets out some of the arguments for and against codifying the constitution in this way. The following summary is from the Committee’s website.

Arguments for

The King’s research points to the fact that the UK has a “sprawling mass” of common law, Acts of Parliament, and European treaty obligations, and a number of important but uncertain and unwritten “conventions” that govern administration, but the full picture is unclear and uncertain to electors in our democracy. They point to concerns about an “elective dictatorship”, and argue that it has “become too easy for governments to implement political and constitutional reforms to suit their own political convenience”. A written constitution would entrench requirements for popular and parliamentary consent.  The present unwritten constitution is “an anachronism riddled with references to our ancient past, unsuited to the social and political democracy of the 21st century and future aspirations of its people. It fails to give primacy to the sovereignty of the people and discourages popular participation in the political process.”

Arguments against

Conversely, the case against a written constitution is that it is unnecessary, undesirable and un-British. The UK’s unwritten constitution is evolutionary and flexible in nature, enabling practical problems to be resolved as they arise and individual reforms made. The research points to concerns that a written constitution would create more litigation in the courts and politicise the judiciary, requiring them to pass judgement on the constitutionality of government legislation (which currently happens only in some contexts, such as compatibility with the Human Rights Act), when the final word on legal matters should lie with elected politicians in Parliament, not unelected judges. There is the simple argument that there are so many practical problems in preparing and enacting a written constitution, there is little point in even considering it. There is no real popular support or demand and, especially given the massive amount of time and destabilising effect such a reform would entail, it is a very low priority even for those who support the idea.

The Committee is currently taking evidence on the issue and will publish a report early in 2015.

For further detail go to http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/political-and-constitutional-reform-committee/news/report-a-new-magna-carta/

Written by lwtmp

October 21, 2014 at 9:06 am

Posted in Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4

Tagged with ,