Much of the evidence we have taken in the Joint Committee on the Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill has tended to be useful and rather worthy. There has been some disagreement, as for example over whether Parliament’s powers in relation to a decision to commit troops to action should be vested in statute or a parliamentary resolution, but nothing too explosive. That changed on Wednesday when we took evidence from Jack Straw’s predecessor as Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton (pictured). Did he express nuanced disagreement with certain aspects of the measure? Hardly. He fired a broadside against the whole Bill.
What were his views on the proposals for changes to the judicial appointments process? He couldn’t see the point of them. The changes made by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 had not yet had time to bed in; it was too early to be making further changes. His views on the provisions covering the Attorney General? They didn’t go far enough. He thought the Attorney should be someone detached from, and not a part of, Government. Did he see merit in the Bill? He could see some merit in the provisions governing the civil service, but couldn’t see much point in the rest. Rather than it constituting a Constitutional Renewal Bill, he thought it could best be described as a Constitutional Retreat Bill. He recognised it was not our job to re-write the Bill, but he seemed to be inviting us to do just that.
That livened up the proceedings. We shall soon be considering the provisions covering demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament. Apart from the police and parliamentary authorities, we shall be taking evidence from campaigning organisations that have variously organised demonstrations. That too may prove interesting. In the interim, perhaps we may see Lord Falconer demonstrating with a placard proclaiming ‘Kill the Bill!’
Since this blog is intended to allow polite, well-argued, thoughtful debate I shall refrain from describing what I think of Lord ‘Charlie’ Falconer, as I would be unable to do so and keep the language civil and Parliamentary.. I will merely refer to the fact that he used to share a flat with Tony Blair, and express my view that ‘birds of a feather, flock together’.
I was actually in the public gallery watching this committee when Lord Falconer sat. It was indeed highly interesting, and I do agree with what he said (though I am no fan of him) – it’s a largely needless Bill, probably brought through as a sop to some in the Cabinet who love to tinker and scribble over the Constitution willy-nilly.
I’m still sad at the creation of an unecessary, expensive Supreme Court.
Ahh, Charlie doing a ‘Geoffrey Howe’; pity it wasn’t in the other House.
Adrian: I agree with you on the Supreme Court. Lord Lloyd of Berwick, a former Law Lord, and I argued against the move. I was not persuaded of the case for change and take the view that the move can have the effect of isolating the highest court, making it more vulnerable to criticism from the executive.