Young
Unionists

Yet again we face the effects of Labour’s ill-conceived tampering with the constitution, as by this time next month the United Kingdom will have acquired a Supreme Court. The government in its wisdom has decided that the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, which has effectively carried out its responsibilities for one hundred and thirty years, is no longer sufficient. So at a cost of over £50 million, at a time when we have £800 billion of debt (it may not seem significant in comparsion, but as Tesco keep telling us, every little helps), the government is moving the Law Lords across the street to appearantly do exactly the same thing they are now. So why bother?

The Ministry of Justice claims that introducing a supreme court will, “provide greater clarity in our constitutional arrangements by further separating the judiciary from the legislature”. Therein lies a fundamental problem with the decision – Labour is trying to ensure a separation of powers where none exists. Take for example the anomalous existence of the Lord Chancellor, who as a cabinet minister, head of the judiciary and president of the House of Lords sat in all three branches of government – until this historic high office was abolished by our previous Prime Minister, that is. Under our constitution the executive, legislature and judiciary are deeply intertwined together in Parliament, which is sovereign. While the Law Lords were in the House of Lords, it is therefore arguable that the impact of their rulings on legislation was legitimate, as they were an integral part of the sovereign body. Now they are out of Parliament, the Law Lords, although they have exactly the same role and powers, could potentially undermine parliamentary sovereignty simply by exercising them.

Furthermore, there is the risk a supreme court will assert itself and overstep its powers. The threat of this is more real than you might think, when you consider that it is precisely what the U.S. Supreme Court did. Nowhere in the American Constitution is the court given the power to strike down legislation as unconstitutional, yet the justices awarded it to themselves in 1803 with their ruling in the Marbury v. Madison case. There is little chance any Prime Minister would dare to utter President Andrew Jackson’s response to the Supreme Court striking down his Indian Removal Act in 1832, “the justices have made their decision, now let them enforce it”. Given that the U.S. Supreme Court is still ruling on constitutionality, even Jackson’s stand was insufficient to counter the growth of the court’s power. Already this week we have had the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales redefine the law on assisted suicide – what is to stop the Supreme Court from doing the same?

Why does Labour insist upon change for the sake of change? Our constitution and system of government works. It works well. Yes it occasionally needs tinkered with, but not to the lengths Labour has gone to and wants to go to. The government should be concentrating on the elements of the system that don’t work, such as benefits and welfare or the education mess in England. Then again, these problems require real leadership and determination – two things Brown’s government has consistently failed to provide.