In the course of its inquiry into the Cabinet Office, the Constitution Committee of the Lords took evidence from Lord Turnbull, who was Cabinet Secretary in 2003 when the decision was taken to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor. He commented on the stance taken by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, saying that he disagreed with the proposal and “was not prepared to lead the consultation. That is where the problem originated”.
Until now, Lord Irvine (pictured) has not commented on the events surrounding the decision to abolish the office. However, having seen Lord Turnbull’s evidence, he submitted written evidence to the Committee, which has now been published. In his submission, Lord Irvine gives a detailed account of what transpired. He explains that the Prime Minister failed to grasp the constitutional significance of what was proposed, regarding it as a machinery of government issue. Lord Irvine heard rumours that the office was to be abolished, saw the Prime Minister – realised that he had no appreciation of the fact that the abolition of the office required extensive consultation, careful preparation and primary legislation – and then had a second meeting with him:
“We started with my complaint that he had not discussed with me in advance such far reaching plans for the abolition of the office. He repeated that it was impossible to do so because if machinery of government changes were discussed in that way they would leak all over the press. It then strongly bore in on me that the Prime Minister had not received any or any proper advice and was completely unaware that complex primary legislation was required.”
The Prime Minister said that the plan was to transfer the responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor’s Department immediately to a Secretary of State in the Commons (Peter Hain) and then abolish the office of Lord Chancellor with least delay. Lord Irvine explained that the office existed in statute and could only be removed by statute. He subsequently handed to the PM in another meeting a two-page memorandum (“so that he could be in no doubt as to how I saw the situation”) explaining the large task involved in removing the office of Lord Chancellor. He also wrote: “The whole process has been botched, with poor advice to you and no involvement of me or Hayden [Sir Hayden Phillips, the Permanent Secretary].” He later sent a formal Minute, which included an alternative proposal under which he would see through legislation to achieve what was intended. “This ‘alternative proposition’ was I understand rejected after Cabinet on Thursday, 12th June 2003. That afternoon I returned the Great Seal to Her Majesty and ceased to be a member of the government.”
It is a powerful critique and offers a fascinating insight into what went on at the heart of government.
Lord Norton,
The Secretary of State in Commons? I think that with the Obama precedent your lordship can hope to see the day that will have everyone in the international community lining up to hug the Monarch. I hope we can do more things that will stem the horrible tide of formality that is deluging the planet. When I find the site with the stats then I will post the data but I have yet to isolate one that shows the total morbidity attributed to formality — it must be huge.
As a note I feel is related I mention that Communist China is one of the great success stories of the modern economy. Let me make a few points.
1. The Great Hall of the People is staggeringly impressive and is filled with fabulous art. I saw Taoist battle axe guards there when I visited.
2.In the heart of Government all the Imperial monuments frame the scene and are unbelievably imposing and also well preserved by the Communists.
3. When the largest gatherings are held Chiefly and sagely costumes are part of the mix and the Mao suit is actually a uniform of a mid level Putong or Mandarin — only the business suits are new.
America and the European Union are the influences to be appeased. But I know for a certainty quite a few people hope in these places hope that your Queen’s title will not be changed to General Manager of the National Protocol and History Department just yet.
I thank Lord Irvine for at last speaking out and putting the record straight. I have wondered so many times why this noble Lord has remained silent, and although I had an idea why, his article has proven me correct, he is indeed an honourable man.
In the year 2002 I exchanged correspondence with Lord Irvine regarding certain Magistrates that had been appointed contrary to the Act of Settlement 1707 and also contrary to Magna Carta clause 45. Lord Irvine rightly suspended them. Perhaps if at this point I explain that, some years earlier when I sat on an Advisory Committee for appointing new Magistrates, the panel wanted to appoint a young gentleman that had not been borne here in the UK. However, to confirm that we could indeed appoint him, although the Chief Clerk of that day said that we could, the decision was made to write to the then Lord Chancellor (about 1990) to ask him. The reply came back, under no circumstances as it was contrary to our Constitution. On June 11th 2002 a written question was asked about the recent matter above, and it was revealed that 22 Magistrates had indeed been suspended.
On 12th November 2003 col 1379 I read that the (now 23) Magistrates had been reinstated . Still contrary to the Act of Settlement and the cases they had appeared on, all be it in error, have authenticated all acts carried out by them during their time in office.
When asked on 2nd July 2002 House of Lords whether they plan to repeal the Act of Settlement, The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg) replied that there were no plans to legislate in that area. I took it from that, that the Government were just going to ignore our Constitution and as nothing further would be done, they would be able to ignore our Constitution time and time again until the people eventually would rise up against them.
Forward to the 12th April when we read in the Daily Express “Foreigners to join the Police”. Such is the way of this Government, it has continued to try to destroy our Constitution in every possible way, the end object of so doing, for “deeper and more meaningful integration into the European Union”..
Lord Irvine’s silence, puzzled me because I had read every word of his “The Inaugural Magna Carta Lecture” Lord Irvine had given to the House of Representatives, Canberra, Australia 14th October 2002. That Lecture could not have come from any person that had no love of his Country’s Constitution or the unique way this Country’s Constitution had survived all these years. Now I understand, and now I also understand why he now wants to record the accuracy of what happened for the public record. He also realises the enormity of the damage perhaps irreparable damage, that has been done to this Country by the very Government he served so well with honour. Time will tell.
The Courts Act 2003, clause 42, averted section 3 of the Act of Settlement.
Whoever the next government is, they need to look at the revolutionary changes instigated by Tony Blair which have fundamentally changed, virtually unchecked, all parts of the country’s constitution. All of the ones deemed unnecessary need to be reversed, including this one.
Perhaps we could have Habeas Corpus back as well. Not everything that came before the revolutionary governments of the last 30 years was bad, I reckon, or am I just mad?
Lord Norton, The sacking of Derry Irvine by Blair must rank as one of the great political betrayals of a personal friend. I do not say that the political decision by Blair was wrong, he wanted the Lord Chancellor, the Minister for Justice, in the Commons and reasonably enough but the episode does throw light on why there is little room for room for enduring loyal personal friendships in the political game.
I, Baroness Murphy will say that Blair was wrong. I will say that there is no doubt what so ever that the removal of the Office of Lord Chancellor, the removal of the Law Lords from the House of Lords (and perhaps in time, the Bishops) the removal of the remaining Hereditary Peers, and the setting up of a Supreme Court (that can never be a truly supreme Supreme Court here in the UK) is the biggest piece on constitutional vandalism that has so far taken place. Sadly, there will be more.
Should you not leave at least 16 Hereditary Peers as required by the Act of Union as stated in Clause XX11 of that Treaty (And there is obviously a great deal of difference between Hereditary Peers and Life Peers-otherwise why get rid of the Hereditary?)The SNP will be rubbing their hands in glee because the ENGLISH will have deliberately repudiated the Treaty and Act of Union 1706/7 and they will be able to become a separate and independent Country and Nation, or a REGION of the European Union as it is so classed as far as the European Union is concerned.
There was indeed only HEREDITARY PEERS in 1706/7, and Clause XXII was a most important clause for without that guarantee of at least 16 Hereditary Peers and 45 Scottish MP’s sitting in the Houses of Parliament, there would have been no United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Article 11 of the Treaty of Union 1707 embodies the substance of the Act of Settlement 1700, and although the Government feels it has the authority to do anything it likes, it is restricted and has to obey the law above the law, which is our constitution. Start messing about further with the Act of Union and the Act of Settlement starts to unravel, this affects Her Majesty’s Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has lasted longer than ever the European Union will, whether it survives this Government remains to be seen. A Union that cannot take the people along with what it wants to do, that cannot trust the people to be as enthusiastic about a full state of Union as those at the top do, should know, as the people obviously already do, that their Government is totally in the wrong. The people should have had a say, a free, honest and truthful referendum. Without doubt, each and every MP’s Lord and Lady know that the people should have had a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon. You also know, as sadly do I, that there will be deaths because of what this Government has done in the betrayal of the people that once voted for them. It is not just the Government the people have lost trust in, the people have lost the trust in all MP’s.
I often think that complexity undermines what we strive for because its use is compelling. The more educated/experienced we become the further away we move from any first principles that underlie such complexity.
My perception of this started when I was being taught math at a young age. My tutors would insist that answers be derived from first principles. My memory of the math has faded but there does remain an abiding appreciation of the simplicity that underpins it all.
The HoL is embroiled in complexity and I sometimes think peers are given to ‘tunnel vision’ being too focused on the job at hand. For me the role at the highest level concerns itself with the constitution, which can be described in a single word ‘freedom’, and defending that freedom from those that govern us.
Essential to this is independence. The Judiciary as Law Lords were a natural part of the HoL with its culture and protective ‘guarantee’ of independence.
Lord Irvine must lament his role in what has happened. He has sought to protect those that rule us with reticence and would have continued to do so had he not been forced into disclosure by committee evidence. He is a casualty of accountability.
The HoL Constitutional Committee is working to understand what happens in the Cabinet Office. Its informative to listen to guest answers as they elaborate on its history and ongoing complexity.
Key: Cabinet Office Enquiry: 30-6-09 to 01-11-09
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Archive.aspx
This article is about abolishing the role of the Lord Chancellor. However, this Government has recently ratified a treaty that will abolish a great deal more than the role of Lord Chancellor. I, sadly, SENEX did not have the luxury of a tutor and I had to work for a living at the age of fourteen. Perhaps that was the best education any one could possibly have anyway.
I was however, whilst at school, taught about our Constitution, our Country and why our way of life which was so different from the Continent, and why we had fought our way through a full scale war to keep it so.
The Rt Hon Miliband seems to think we can ‘lead’ in ‘Europe’, have a loud voice. The awful truth is that it will be led by Germany and France, surely he knows that too?
I have just read through the Rt Hon David Miliband’s “Strong Britain in a Strong Europe”, along with New Art 188R in the Treaty of Lisbon which, combined with the EU’s SOFA Directive in the Official Journal of the EU C 321/6 dated 31.12.2003. on
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2003:321:0006:0016:EN:PDF And wonder what those that sit in Parliament will do, or perhaps more importantly wonder what the people will do if and when they see Foreign Forces marching down our street, fully armed when the British people are no longer allowed to have guns even though the Bill of Rights said they may. (Law Lords Ruled against that after Dunblane)
Do you think the people will clap and cheer them like they do when our Forces return from Afghanistan? Or when our forces return on the shoulders of their friends as they take them into Church?
Do you think the people will be pleased if the UK Contributions to the EU are increased as is proposed, at a time when our forces are still out fighting? When they need more equipment? When people are having to pay so much more for everything they buy and when so many are losing not just their jobs, but their homes?
Please look to the future and try to see what is happening and what will happen because it is YOUR Country as well as the peoples. The Treaty of Lisbon should never have been ratified and our Constitution should have been left alone. The people will turn to their own Constitution in the end.
Thank you Matthew.I think this is what you mean, below. However, as this was done retrospecvtively, it did not help the gentleman that I wrote about that would have made an excellent Justice of the peace.
Section 42: Effect of Act of Settlement on existing justices of the peace
92. This section retrospectively validates the appointments of a number of foreign lay magistrates appointed before 31 January 2002 in unwitting breach of the nationality requirements of the Act of Settlement 1700, and allows them to resume their role as lay magistrates. Their actions as magistrates prior to this legislation are not invalidated. The section also ensures that the restrictions in the Act of Settlement do not apply to appointments made after this Act received the Royal Assent.
93. The Act of Settlement 1700 imposes restrictions as to who may be employed in the service of the Crown. Section 3 of this Act applied to lay magistrates, meaning that any non-UK, Eire or Commonwealth nationals sitting as lay magistrates were doing so in violation of this Act.
Mistakes had obviously been made so it was deemed easier to alter our Long standing Constitution rather than admit to not making sure Court Clerks knew the law of the land.
In altering the Act of Settlement were the rest of the Commonwealth Countries notified of these changes? Should these changes to our Constitution have been put to the people in a referendum?