*/
Stephen Hockman QC argues the case for a written constitution
No one could have foreseen that the inconclusive outcome of the General Election, and the establishment of a Conservative/Liberal Coalition, would thrust so called “political reform” to the forefront of the political and news agenda.
The written agreement dated 11 May 2010, which forms the basis of the Coalition, includes a commitment for fixed term Parliaments of five years (including a controversial provision for earlier dissolution if and only if 55 per cent or more of the House of Commons vote in favour), a commitment to a referendum on the introduction of the Alternative Vote system for the House of Commons (under which voters record their preferences on the ballot paper, and if no candidate receives more than half of the votes cast on the first count of first preference votes, then second and possibly later preferences are redistributed), and a commitment to establish a commission to consider the “West Lothian Question” (the alleged anomaly whereby Scottish MPs can vote on all matters relating to England whereas English MPs cannot vote on matters which under the devolution settlement are devolved to Scotland).
In a recent article written before the Election, Richard Gordon QC (“A Blueprint for Change” Counsel April 2010, pp 20-22) suggested that the price of restored trust in democracy might be the introduction of a codified constitution. Do the recent political developments mean that calls for a codified constitution are now redundant? In my view the answer is emphatically “no”. Of the many reasons why almost all democracies have reduced their constitutional arrangements into writing, the following seem to me to be the most important:
To assist in what might otherwise seem the very formidable task of moving towards codification, a small group of lawyers and academics – including distinguished representatives from Scotland and Northern Ireland – has produced a paper analysing and listing the issues and questions which would need to be resolved in the preparation of a codified constitution. This paper has recently been published by JUSTICE (“Towards a Codified Constitution”, Stephen Hockman QC, Vernon Bogdanor and others, 2010).
On one important issue, however, Richard Gordon QC goes too far. In his view the fundamental problem with our present system is the principle of parliamentary sovereignty (once succinctly defined in the following eight words: “what the Queen in Parliament enacts is law”). He advocates transferring sovereignty to the constitution itself, recognising that this would mean that the Supreme Court would have power to strike down unconstitutional laws, such powers being necessary precisely because of the need to ensure the constitution as supreme law was properly enforced. The difficulty with this approach was very succinctly expressed by Lord Bingham (see (2010) LQR 131) in his review of Vernon Bogdanor’s recent book “The New British Constitution” (Hart Publishing, 2009). As Lord Bingham points out this would involve a significant transfer of power from Parliament to the judges and it seems doubtful whether this would be publicly or politically acceptable, let alone welcomed by the judges themselves.
How to define the status of a codified constitution has for long been a vexed question, but in a typically British way we have in fact tumbled upon an answer to the question, although in an equally British way we have failed to notice the answer. One of the pretty well unchallenged achievements of the last government (whose constitutional changes did not receive universal support in legal circles) was the mechanism in the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”) under which legislation found incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights can admittedly not be struck down as unconstitutional, but can be the subject of a declaration of incompatibility, which is a strong pointer towards the introduction of subsequent amending legislation. There is no reason why this mechanism could not be applied to other provisions in a codified constitution, thereby conferring on the constitution as a whole the status currently enjoyed by the HRA under this typically British compromise.
In one of his last decisions as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown instituted arrangements for a group of individuals to examine the feasibility of producing a codified constitution for the UK. In the longer term this might be one of his more far-sighted legacies to the British people.
No one could have foreseen that the inconclusive outcome of the General Election, and the establishment of a Conservative/Liberal Coalition, would thrust so called “political reform” to the forefront of the political and news agenda.
The written agreement dated 11 May 2010, which forms the basis of the Coalition, includes a commitment for fixed term Parliaments of five years (including a controversial provision for earlier dissolution if and only if 55 per cent or more of the House of Commons vote in favour), a commitment to a referendum on the introduction of the Alternative Vote system for the House of Commons (under which voters record their preferences on the ballot paper, and if no candidate receives more than half of the votes cast on the first count of first preference votes, then second and possibly later preferences are redistributed), and a commitment to establish a commission to consider the “West Lothian Question” (the alleged anomaly whereby Scottish MPs can vote on all matters relating to England whereas English MPs cannot vote on matters which under the devolution settlement are devolved to Scotland).
In a recent article written before the Election, Richard Gordon QC (“A Blueprint for Change” Counsel April 2010, pp 20-22) suggested that the price of restored trust in democracy might be the introduction of a codified constitution. Do the recent political developments mean that calls for a codified constitution are now redundant? In my view the answer is emphatically “no”. Of the many reasons why almost all democracies have reduced their constitutional arrangements into writing, the following seem to me to be the most important:
To assist in what might otherwise seem the very formidable task of moving towards codification, a small group of lawyers and academics – including distinguished representatives from Scotland and Northern Ireland – has produced a paper analysing and listing the issues and questions which would need to be resolved in the preparation of a codified constitution. This paper has recently been published by JUSTICE (“Towards a Codified Constitution”, Stephen Hockman QC, Vernon Bogdanor and others, 2010).
On one important issue, however, Richard Gordon QC goes too far. In his view the fundamental problem with our present system is the principle of parliamentary sovereignty (once succinctly defined in the following eight words: “what the Queen in Parliament enacts is law”). He advocates transferring sovereignty to the constitution itself, recognising that this would mean that the Supreme Court would have power to strike down unconstitutional laws, such powers being necessary precisely because of the need to ensure the constitution as supreme law was properly enforced. The difficulty with this approach was very succinctly expressed by Lord Bingham (see (2010) LQR 131) in his review of Vernon Bogdanor’s recent book “The New British Constitution” (Hart Publishing, 2009). As Lord Bingham points out this would involve a significant transfer of power from Parliament to the judges and it seems doubtful whether this would be publicly or politically acceptable, let alone welcomed by the judges themselves.
How to define the status of a codified constitution has for long been a vexed question, but in a typically British way we have in fact tumbled upon an answer to the question, although in an equally British way we have failed to notice the answer. One of the pretty well unchallenged achievements of the last government (whose constitutional changes did not receive universal support in legal circles) was the mechanism in the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”) under which legislation found incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights can admittedly not be struck down as unconstitutional, but can be the subject of a declaration of incompatibility, which is a strong pointer towards the introduction of subsequent amending legislation. There is no reason why this mechanism could not be applied to other provisions in a codified constitution, thereby conferring on the constitution as a whole the status currently enjoyed by the HRA under this typically British compromise.
In one of his last decisions as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown instituted arrangements for a group of individuals to examine the feasibility of producing a codified constitution for the UK. In the longer term this might be one of his more far-sighted legacies to the British people.
Stephen Hockman QC argues the case for a written constitution
In this month’s column, Chair of the Bar Sam Townend KC highlights the many reasons why barristers should pay the Bar Representation Fee and back the Bar Council’s efforts on behalf of the profession
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
Leading legal DNA, drug, and alcohol testing provider AlphaBiolabs has made its first Giving Back charity draw of 2024 with Andrew Sibson, a Legal Officer at Leeds City Council, being chosen as its first winner
Discover Lloyd’s unique approach to financial planning and experience working with barristers
Trust Delaunay Wealth to stand by your side amid the uncertainties ahead, writes Lloyd French
Lighting fires that cast unfairness into the shadows, creating history at home and abroad, and being comfortable with who you are – the remarkable criminal and international human rights barrister Kirsty Brimelow KC
Marking International Women's Day, Will Tyler KC interviews two female silks at the helm of two huge specialist Bar associations about their lives and careers – finding a common theme both to their success and the challenges facing their respective Bars
No longer an exclusive boys’ club, but still some way to go. To mark International Women's Day, Millie Rai describes what it’s like being a young female barrister at the Commercial Chancery Bar
If we fail to nurture women’s collective talent, half the population of this country will not be properly represented – from the junior Criminal Bar right up to the senior Judiciary. We cannot let all the hard work be undone, says Tana Adkin KC on International Women's Day
In this month’s column, Chair of the Bar Sam Townend KC highlights the many reasons why barristers should pay the Bar Representation Fee and back the Bar Council’s efforts on behalf of the profession