The Committee recognises the appetite in many quarters for fundamental constitutional change and welcomes the Government's renewed focus on constitutional reform and renewal in response to this. It is surprised by the limited provisions in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, and fears that this may be a missed opportunity to make progress in some areas of reform. Any programme introducing fundamental change should be carefully constructed and aimed at a coherent outcome taking into account the widest possible range of views and allowing sufficient time for consideration and response. The Government's approach to constitutional reform has been ad hoc and piecemeal. Reform must underpinned by a set of constitutional principles based on a proper understanding of the position and role of Parliament in relation to the other institutions of state. The report covers the Parliamentary Standards Bill, House of Lords reform, a written constitution, stronger powers to local government, electoral reform, young people's engagement with politics, freedom of information. The Committee cautions that inappropriate handling of bills and proposals for reform specifically designed to restore public trust may further undermine that trust.
The remit of the Committee is to examine the constitutional implications of all public bills brought before Parliament. Their report considers whether existing procedures enable adequate parliamentary scrutiny of measures that propose constitutional change. The report contains a number of recommendations including: 1) the publication of bills in draft form should become the norm rather than the exception; 2) the Government should develop a more integrated approach to dealing with constitutional issues by reviving the Constitution Secretariat; 3) as yet, the Committee is not convinced that a dedicated department of Constitutional Affairs should be created, and finds there are strong arguments in favour of the leading responsibility for constitutional affairs remaining in the House of Lords rather than the Commons.
Judicial independence is generally understood as requiring that judges must be insulated from political life. The central claim of this work is that far from standing apart from the political realm, judicial independence is a product of it. It is defined and protected through interactions between judges and politicians. In short, judicial independence is a political achievement. This is the main conclusion of a three-year research project on the major changes introduced by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, and the consequences for judicial independence and accountability. The authors interviewed over 150 judges, politicians, civil servants and practitioners to understand the day-to-day processes of negotiation and interaction between politicians and judges. They conclude that the greatest threat to judicial independence in future may lie not from politicians actively seeking to undermine the courts, but rather from their increasing disengagement from the justice system and the judiciary.
The constitution is the foundation upon which law and government are built. Yet the United Kingdom has no agreed process for constitutional change. The Committee does not accept that the government should be able to pick and choose which processes to apply when proposing significant constitutional change. It therefore recommends in this report the adoption of a clear and consistent process. These recommendations are not intended to restrict the government's right to initiate constitutional change, but to hold ministers to account for their decisions. The Committee regard it as essential that, prior to the introduction of a bill which provides for significant constitutional change, the government considers the impact of the proposals upon the existing constitutional arrangements, subject the proposals to detailed scrutiny in the Cabinet and its committees, consult widely, publish green and white papers, and subject the bill to pre-legislative scrutiny.The Committee looks at these processes in this report, as well as considering the desirability of public engagement and building consensus. Also the importance of not rushing parliamentary scrutiny of legislation once introduced into Parliament and of conducting comprehensive post-legislative scrutiny of significant constitutional legislation once passed. Also recommended is the minister responsible for a significant constitutional bill in each House set out the processes to which a bill has been subjected in a written ministerial statement. This comprehensive package from which the government should depart only in exceptional circumstances and where there are clearly justifiable reasons for so doing. The Committee believes this approach is pragmatic and achievable, enabling the flexibility of the United Kingdom's current constitutional arrangements to be retained whilst enhancing and underpinning those arrangements
A clear and reliable account of public law, now revised and updated in an attractive new format in which the main points are brought to the fore and complexities explained to help you get to grips with this core component of an undergraduate or CPE/GDL law degree.