Scrutiny : third progress report : seventh report of session 2004-05 : report, together with formal minutes and appendices / House of Lords, House of Commons, Joint Committee on Human Rights.
- Great Britain. Parliament. Joint Committee on Human Rights
- Date:
- 2005
Licence: Open Government Licence
Credit: Scrutiny : third progress report : seventh report of session 2004-05 : report, together with formal minutes and appendices / House of Lords, House of Commons, Joint Committee on Human Rights. Source: Wellcome Collection.
29/52 page 25
![5 Constitutional Reform Bill Date introduced to the House of Lords 03-04 24 February 2004 Date introduced to the House of Lords 04-05 24 November 2004 Date introduced to the House of Commons 21 December 2004 5.1 We reported on the Constitutional Reform Bill in our Final Scrutiny Progress Report of last Session.” We have since received a response from the Government to our comments, in the form of a letter from Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor. We publish this letter as an Appendix to this Report.” 5.2 On one matter we are seeking further clarification from the Government. In our earlier Report we welcomed the express statutory duty placed on Ministers to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary, contained then in clause 1(1) and now in clause 4(1) of the Bill.*° But we also took the view that the particular duties imposed on the Minister for the purpose of upholding that independence, then in clause 1(4) and now in clause 4(6) of the Bill, were too weakly stated and potentially represented a retrograde step in terms of the degree of legal protection given to judicial independence*’. In his reply, Lord Falconer states that “the Lord Chancellor’s ability to fulfil [the clause 4(6)] duties cannot be and has never been unqualified. His duty in relation to the defence of judicial independence is, and always has been, subject to issues of resources, differing views about the effect of particular policies, rival demands on government and Parliamentary time, and competing policy considerations”. We find this argument surprising. We have therefore written to the Lord Chancellor to ask for further justification for his contention that the duty of the Lord Chancellor, and of other Ministers, to defend judicial independence may be qualified by factors such as those he has described, and how such qualifications could be held to be consistent with the apparently unqualified nature of the duty as expressed in clause 4(1) of the Bill.® 78 Twenty-third Report of Session 2003-04, Scrutiny of Bills: Final Progress Report, HL Paper 210, HC 1282 79 Appendix 4a 80 Twenty-third Report, op cit., para. 1.39 81 ibid., paras. 1.41 and 1.42 82 Appendix 4b](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32221873_0029.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
