Comments on: The Law Lords depart

By: lordnorton

lordnorton — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:40:01 +0000

Ana: It was not a particularly wise move; it was certainly a rushed one, taken without prior consultation. The Lord Chancellor had a distinctive role, one that enabled him to protect (rather than undermine) judicial independence. This was later recognised by an amendment to the Constitutional Reform Bill imposing a statutory duty on the minister to protect that independence. The Lord Chancellor was seen as fulfilling a detached, largely non-political role. That cannot be said of Justice Secretary, Jack Straw.

By: Ana

Ana — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:48:57 +0000

Thank you for baring with me and being so prompt, i am going to make one last point … although i DO NOT agree with the fact that Lord Chancelor was part of all three bodies and i can understand why it could be seen as he could not be impartial,do you think stripping the LC of his responsibilies which stem from a 800 year old tradition was a wise move and as a result will this have a negative impact our constitution?

By: lordnorton

lordnorton — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:33:39 +0000

Ana: A good question. The two were already independent – the law lords operated as a very distinct entity – but the Government’s view was that this was not necessarily clear to the public, who would be confused by the highest court of appeal being located in Parliament. The move was designed to make it clear they were separate. Whether such a move was necessary for that purpose is debatable: not all of us were convinced.

By: Ana

Ana — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:43:16 +0000

My apologies if i sound ignorant but i am only a first year college student, so i clearly do not know as much as the rest of you so if you can bare with but i am still no clearer. . . if the The Supreme Court will essentially exercise the same powers as those of the appellate committee of the House of Lords then how has this made the branches more indpendent… i assumed one of the aims of the Act was to create more independence between the two!

By: lordnorton

lordnorton — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:05:09 +0000

Ana: Formally, the relationship will not change. Primarily, the seat of the highest court of appeal is moving – across the road from the Palace of Westminster to what was the old Middlesex Guildhall, the other side of Parliament Square. The Supreme Court will essentially exercise the same powers as those of the appellate committee of the House of Lords. In practice, I believe there will be some changes, but these are not formally prescribed. I think the new court may be isolated, and vulnerable to criticism from ministers, to a greater extent than the law lords – understood and to some extent protected by the Lords – were.

N Holzapfel: I agree. I have been thinking along the same lines. One could either bar them from standing for the Commons or bar them for a set number of years. A provision to this effect was in the Government’s White Paper on Lords reform: anyone elected to the House would then, after serving their term, be barred for a period of five years from seeking election to the Commons.

By: N Holzapfel

N Holzapfel — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:51:55 +0000

If the attempt to prevent allowing resignation from the House of Lords fails, perhaps barring ex-lords from ever becoming MPs would be enough to prevent the “revolving door” concern. A restriction along these lines could perhaps be used to preserve the independence of the Lords even if it become mostly elected; maybe by going even further and prohibiting members of the Lords from joining a political party or holding a government position.

By: Ana

Ana — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:24:37 +0000

Will the Constitutional Reform Act change the relationship between the executive and legislative? If so how? I am aware that prior to this there was concern that the power’s were fused together but what is actually going to change?… as Croft already pointed out it has been mentioned that there will be a change but we haven’t been told what the cause of action will be?

By: lordnorton

lordnorton — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:36:48 +0000

Croft: I would accept the point about those expelled from the House and it may be that it should not be optional in those cases. On the excepted hereditaries, they are in the same position as life peers in that they have accepted a position in the House for life and therefore know what they have let themselves in for. (The exception, of course, is the Earl Marshal and, in an even more unusual position, as you know, the Lord Great Chamberlain.) I understand your point about those who resign being able to give up their titles. As I indicated in my earlier comments, my concern is more with resignation than with disclaiming. As I mentioned, one can choose not to use one’s title. (I don’t think Lord Melchett, for example, disclaimed his title, but he never uses it.) Some existing members of the House effectively drop their title once they are out of the chamber, or at least the precincts. One episode of the ‘South Bank Show’ not so long ago had Melvyn Bragg doing a profile of Ruth Rendell and as part of it interviewed P. D. James. There was at least at one point a mention that they were all members of the Lords.

I know that not all marriages nowadays are for life, and that life sentences do not necessarily mean life, but when it comes to life peerages I think we should take a stand!

By: Croft

Croft — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:21:23 +0000

I suppose I can think of two or three reasons why the title should/could be resigned. The first is roughly at present those who succeed but for moral/political reasons don’t want a title. Non-use is a poor substitute to non existence. The second is a peer who commits a crime and is (soon to be) expelled from the house but presently can’t resign the title. I’m prepared to believe some would resign the title under such circumstances. The third would seem to be a subset of the first, namely those life peers who didn’t want a title and object to such things but had to accept it to sit in the Lords. If they leave/retire they may wish to be able to legally drop the title. As a tidying up exercise I think it has some merits even if I think your point on the Life peers being accurately labelled is unanswerable!

On Senex’s point there is a difference. The Defence Sec/Health Sec (etc) is rarely a general/doctor whereas the key legal positions in government are held by lawyers.

By: lordnorton

lordnorton — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:52:32 +0000

Croft: You identify well some of the drafting problems with the Bill and I will be pursuing them. As to my objection, my view is that when you accept a life peerage, you know what you are letting yourself in for: the name is something of a giveaway. There is a world of difference between retirement and resignation. I favour enabling someone to apply for permanent leave of absence because they are no longer able to commit themselves to the House (for example, for reasons of age or infirmity) but not allowing the House to be used as a revolving door between the two Houses. I share the concerns expressed by Kyle Mulholland. On disclaiming titles, I am not quite sure that I understand why this has been included. The reason for disclaiming a title under the 1963 Act was to ensure that one ceased to be a member of the Lords. Under this Bill, one can resign from the House. Disclaiming the title is a separate exercise. Given that one does not have a to use a title (John Thurso and Douglas Hogg in the Commons, for example), then one of my colleagues may be correct in saying that it will be a provision that is hardly, if ever, used.

Senex: A barrister who sits in the Commons represents constituents in the Commons, the same as a solicitor who sits as an MP. As far as I am aware, barristers are not able to opt to pursue a constituent’s case professionally in the courts. Barristers are a minority in the House and so not able by force of numbers to block change to the legal system.

Kyle Mulholland: You make an excellent point: I share entirely your concerns. The value of a life peerage is that, once ennobled, there are no sanctions of any note that the party can deploy against you. Enabling members to move in and out may change fundamentally the relationship.