-
- Observer.co.uk,
- Sunday June 15, 2003
And yet, as you would expect from any decent oracle, while the statement appears utterly straightforward and reasonable enough at first sight, when you pick it apart it turns out to be altogether more tricksy and complicated.
Mr Kelly surely appreciates the irony of his statement. The Government has taken the politics out of the legal system, but in a way that has proved somehow too political for both an enraged opposition and constitutional campaigners alike.
It does seem a little ungrateful to complain. By announcing the effective abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor, the creation of a Supreme Court and an independent procedure for the appointment of judges, the Government has delivered precisely what the Bar Council, along with just about everyone in the legal profession, has been demanding for decades. When the government appears to have clipped out last Sunday's Observer leader and pretty much implemented it by midweek, it should be pretty easy for most liberals to raise a cheer.
And the reforms are, of course, welcome. But new problems now arises because the Government didn't consult with anyone about these far-reaching moves. I think it is probably clear what a broad consensus of opinion wanted - which is pretty much what the government has done. The problem is that whether we now have the commitment to reform is entirely another matter. Here it will be essential to take soundings and ensure that the legal profession, and elected politicians are on board for further changes.
And some very big questions remain. How independent will the appointments process for judges really be? Will the Supreme Court simply be the Law Lords in a different guide? And how, exactly, do you go about abolishing the 1400-year-old office of Lord Chancellor overnight?
The suspicion is already emerging that this was policy made up on the hoof during the reshuffle, either to deflect attention away from the resignation of Health Secretary Alan Milburn or as a compromise to avoid ruffling David Blunkett's feathers by creating a Justice Ministry.
It certainly took people by surprise, including Home Office staff who were told the day before the reshuffle that plans for full-scale reform of the Lord Chancellor's Department had been deferred until the next election when they would be written into the Labour manifesto. Considering the fact that no legislative time has been set aside for the reforms this may yet turn out to be the case.
So how can something that is so fundamentally right-minded go so wrong from the outset?
The answer is simple and embodied in the very man who is expected to carry out the reforms: Lord Falconer. It is extremely difficult to argue that reforms designed to clarify Britain's constitutional framework should be instigated by a non-elected member of the political elite who just happens to be a personal friend and former flatmate of the Prime Minister. For all of his undoubted personal abilities, Falconer sits in our national legislature because Tony Blair decided to give him a peerage.
Indeed, the very fact that the Department of Constitutional Affairs is to be headed by a man called Lord Falconer seems to express pretty much everything that is wrong with a constitution that allows such a farcical level of patronage.
The outgoing Lord Chancellor Derry Irvine, another personal friend of Tony Blair's, seems now to be saying that he himself would have been happy to legislate himself out of existence. Perhaps Lord Falconer will be happy to do the same and he should certainly be encouraged to do so. Only when personal patronage of this kind is removed from British public life will there be genuine constitutional reform.
