Supreme Court Reform 2021-05-18
2021-05-18
TAGS
Response quality
Questions & Answers
Q1
Partial Answer
▸
Context
The MP notes a long-standing interest in the Supreme Court and questions whether there has been a proper cost-benefit analysis regarding its establishment.
What recent assessment he has made of the potential merits of reforming the Supreme Court. For 600 years, the House of Lords and, latterly, its Appellate Committee did a superb job of being our Supreme Court. Nobody has ever given a proper cost-benefit analysis of what has been gained by abolishing it.
I know that my right hon. Friend has taken a long and keen interest in the Supreme Court. It is entirely legitimate to look at the Act that underpinned the creation of that court to see whether it can be improved and updated. I will be open and consultative as that work is carried out, and I will say more at a later date about which aspects of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 I intend to consider.
▸
Assessment & feedback
The questioner specifically asked whether the Secretary of State would clarify that we do not have a written constitution and that Parliament is supreme, but this was only implied in the response without explicit confirmation or denial.
Under Review
Response accuracy
Q2
Partial Answer
▸
Context
The MP questions the effectiveness of abolishing the House of Lords' Appellate Committee in favor of a separate Supreme Court, suggesting no proper cost-benefit analysis was done.
I doubt that the Government, or any Government, have the guts to abolish this wasteful institution, but will the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor make it clear that we do not have a written constitution? We are not America. The Queen in Parliament—in other words, this House of Commons—is supreme, not the Supreme Court.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to decry the rationalist approach that was taken by the then Labour Government to our unwritten constitution. He is absolutely right to warn us against a descent into a United States-style constitutional court, which will do no one, least of all the judiciary, any good.
▸
Assessment & feedback
The questioner specifically asked whether the Secretary of State would confirm that the Queen in Parliament is supreme over the Supreme Court. The response acknowledges the importance but does not explicitly confirm or deny this point.
Under Review
Response accuracy
Q3
Partial Answer
▸
Context
The MP questions the Government's use of the Supreme Court to prevent Scottish legislation, suggesting a message that judges should only intervene when necessary.
The Leader of the House described a Supreme Court ruling on his Government's plans as a “constitutional coup”, yet we now see the UK Government using the same court to prevent the Scottish Government from implementing human rights legislation. Is the message to judges from the UK Government that they should just stay out of Downing Street's business, but stand by if needed to prevent the devolved nations from implementing democratically agreed policy?
Tempted as I am to talk about the particular issue that the hon. Lady raises, there is an ongoing Supreme Court reference. That is a normal use of our constitutional devices to make sure that all parts of the kingdom, including the devolved Administrations, legislate in a way that is consistent with the powers that they have.
▸
Assessment & feedback
The questioner specifically asked how this approach will protect the Union. The response did not directly address how protecting the Union would be achieved through these actions.
Ongoing Reference
Response accuracy
Q4
Partial Answer
▸
Context
The MP questions whether there is any intention of political interference in the appointment of judges, highlighting the importance of judicial integrity.
Is not one of the key features of our unwritten constitution respect for the independence, integrity and quality of our judiciary? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that we have no intention of going down the American route with any political interference in the appointment of our judges?
My hon. Friend is absolutely on the nail, as ever. He knows that I have long valued the principle of comity, which is that we as parliamentarians respect the independence and role of the judiciary.
▸
Assessment & feedback
The questioner specifically asked if there was an intention to avoid political interference in judicial appointments. The response highlighted the value placed on judicial independence but did not provide a clear commitment or confirmation regarding intentions for future actions.
Response accuracy