On rapid constitutional change...
Beat this Americans... 1,400 years after the post was first created, the role of the Lord Chancellor in the UK has been abolished. And, for the first time in hundreds of years, the political establishment and the judiciary have been forcibly separated from one another. This - obviously - is a tremendous move and almost certainly a positive one. My only anxiety is the speed of the shift and the way it doesn't really appear to have been the result of any public debate. We will soon have a supreme court. Who knew? [Thanks to Michael for the link]
Tony Blair revealed a renewed thirst for radical constitutional reform yesterday when he swept aside 1,400 years of history by abolishing the post of lord chancellor and setting up a new US-style supreme court in place of the law lords.
The prime minister will also set up an independent judicial appointments commission, a reform resisted until very recently by Derry Irvine, who quit the government yesterday after six years.
The reforms, the product of a long Whitehall battle, bring about the much-demanded separation of powers between the judiciary and politicians.
I'm really interested in a debate about this subject - is it a good thing or a bad thing? Is it being pushed through? Where's the debate?
Comments
Please stay on-topic, informative and polite. I reserve the right to remove comments for whatever vague capricious reasons seem reasonable at the time.
Well the position had been deemed 'illegal' by the European Court of Human Rights...
Where's the debate, you ask? It happened about 250 years ago when Montesquieu first wrote about the separation of powers. Tony Blair has obviously moved from the Bible, through the Koran, and come stumbling across 'The Enlightenment'. At this rate he'll be discovering socialism before the summer's out.
→ Posted by: Will Davies at June 13, 2003 2:17 PM
I'm gobsmacked. First I've heard of it - there hasn't been any debate at all, or at least nothing covered by the papers.
→ Posted by: pogo at June 13, 2003 4:01 PM
We could go a bit further in the timeline to Sir Thomas More and his resistance to Henry VIII. There was a small 'debate', at that time, about the role of Lord Chancellor. We all know where that embarrassing situation led.
Rapid change is perceptive at best, can the government slowly remove the Lord Chancellor from his position? Does public debate (not papers and politicians) influence the government? I suppose the government will do what's best for the people, they always do.
→ Posted by: Gummi at June 13, 2003 4:18 PM
I think the no debate issue is a red herring. Falconer is Lord Chancellor, and the Government have stated that they want to abolish the position -- but it has to go through the usual path for legislation, being approved by the Parliament etc. The new department is quite a dramatic way to announce this intention, but at least it might stop judicial reform dropping into the same black hole Lords reform has. (Possibly... could this reform be clearing a bottleneck to what the Government want to do to the House of Lords?)
→ Posted by: mattw at June 13, 2003 4:58 PM
Yep! Tossing the Lord Chancellor allows for greater 'flexibility' to reform the House of Lords.
→ Posted by: Gummi at June 13, 2003 5:26 PM
I'm not as well versed in this issue as I'd like, but I envy you all a bit today. We could use some constitutional reform here in DC. Yes, we've got a Supreme Court, but look what they did to us in the 2000 election... unfortunately, even when there's something as flawed as our electoral system, the tendency here is to treat our Consitution like a religious text; it's barely 200 years old, yet we're averse to ever changing it, and it allows all sorts of reprehensible things to perpetuate.
On the other hand, I suppose there are some pretty daring people in our government... or is brazen a more appropriate word?
→ Posted by: tim at June 13, 2003 8:23 PM
Holy crap! Just like that?
Although I support judicial independence from the executive and legislative brances, Blair really could have asked the Commons first, you know, our democratically elected representatives? Or are we following the American lead of deciding that democracy is archaic and not important for a Modern Britain (whatever one of them is...).
If in doubt, just ask Tony. He even knows where the Weapons of Mass Destruction are...
→ Posted by: Tom Morris at June 14, 2003 12:51 AM
Lord yes, get rid of that anachronism as soon as is humanly possible (in my humble lawyerly opinion). I had no idea the Executive and the Judiciary were so entangled over there!
New Zealand can hardly talk though - we're going through a debate over a proposed Supreme Court, which would break ties to the Privy Council and see the Attorney-General appoint directly to the bench. I'd like to see a Commission here too - sounds like a bloody good idea.
This article [ad viewing req'd] on two possible vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court (while being pretty lefty) shows how dodgy the whole situation can get.
→ Posted by: Dave at June 14, 2003 1:59 AM
Incidentally, 1,400 years is PR invention. The royal chancellor didn't have any kind of legal role until about 1100, under Henry I, and even then it's a bit debatable. Before that he was just a secretary.
→ Posted by: Ned at June 14, 2003 1:13 PM