The news with a big update to law reports is up on Insite Law
PM warned that elevation of Michael Martin could damage Lords
Guardian: Michael Martin , the former Speaker of the Commons, was today elevated to the House of Lords despite a warning from the independent appointments commission that his presence could “diminish” the upper house. In an unprecedented move, the commission wrote to Gordon Brown to warn that Martin’s conduct in recent months, which led him to become the first Speaker of the modern era to be forced out, could damage the Lords’ reputation.
The article in The Guardian left a rather sour taste in my mouth as I rose very early to see the sunrise – cloudy. Michael Martin has been elevated to the Lords – a tradition going back some time. The Guardian reports: “The intervention by the commission, chaired by the former Foreign Office permanent secretary Lord Jay, is understood to be the first time in modern times that questions have been raised about elevating a former Speaker to the Lords….
… In a carefully worded letter to the prime minister, the commission referred to the terms of its vetting procedures. These state that the commission’s role “is to advise the prime minister if it has any concerns about the propriety of a nominee”.
In plain English… the Lords don’t want any more unsuitable people turning up to add to the carnival atmosphere of recent years with Peers being suspended for corruption and a couple of ‘master criminals’ with jail experience (although one currently in jail) among their noble ranks.
The Guardian noted: “ Martin was nominated for a peerage by the Commons as part of a “humble address” to the Queen. In a message to MPs on Monday the government whip, Helen Jones, in her role as the vice-chamberlain of the household, reported that the Queen had agreed to confer a peerage on Martin “for his eminent services during the period in which he has, with such distinguished ability and dignity, presided in the chair of this house”. The traditional form of words was greeted with ridicule. Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, a Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, said: “This is old-fashioned nonsense. Parliament should start using words that people understand and believe. Michael Martin should not be handed a P45 in an ermine envelope.”
Few question the value of a second chamber, but the classic British fudge of half reform started by Blair has left us with an institution still made up of unelected people, accountable to no-one, with fairly extensive powers; powers which can be over ridden only by taking our ball back and by invoking the Parliament Act. For my own part we should move to a position where we have an elected second chamber and remove the titles of Baron this and Baroness that and build a Parliament that reflects a mature and modern democratic country.
The whole business of titles is verging on the comic opera in the 21st Century. Orders of The British Empire and the like are ridiculous enough when Empire seems to be limited to a tedious lump of rock on the rump of Spain and a few islands dotted about the world. I have no problem at all in the State rewarding excellence – but surely it is not beyond us to call the awards something rather more meaningful?
The trouble is – people like all the flummery that goes with a title and this is harmless enough – but not when it comes to the government of our country. We are a democracy with a constitutional Monarch. We are no longer a feudal society. We are no longer a society where the robber barons of ye olde Englande rule in a gentleman’s club environment. An elected chamber (perhaps we could even call it a Senate?) would be a very valuable step forward in governance. The trouble is, without the ermine, the titles and all the other nonsense that goes with it currently – would anyone want to be part of it?
In October the Law Lords become Supreme Court Justices. It would be good, in time, if we could get rid of peerages and other titles denoting links with a feudal past from our judicial system as well. What about Justice, Appeal Justice, Surpeme Court Justice? They seem to describe the position more than adequately without the prefix Lord, Lady. Mind you… why stop there? … let’s get rid of the whole shooting match and become a republic, enjoy our history and base our future on a classless society? The Americans do it rather well – and they are celebrating Independence this very weekend on the 4th July. Anyone fancy that or as we say in the modern vernacular… Anyone ‘Up for it’?
They tell me that the Tower of London has space in it… I’d better keep my head down… but on reflection that is not really a good idea when talking about the Tower of London. I’m orf for breakfast, some coffee and a bit of Smokedo. I’ve been up since 3.30 and it is time for a walk.
the major factor in favour of an upper chamber for me is precisely that it be unelected. it’s exactly the same as having an unelected judiciary. neither need appeal to populism, neither has to play a short-term game, neither are subject to narrow party political interest with the threat of deselction held over them if they fail to toe the party line.
both can make their decisions entirely on the merits as they see them. not something you could ever accuse the house of commons of doing.
gongs? well the sad truth is that lots of ‘ordinary’ people (anything from what was once called the working class to the genuinely ‘posh’) love gongs because they feel they have moved one step closer to the acme of posh, her maj and the aristocracy. we aren’t a republic because most people love the monarchy despite (or possibly because of) the fact that they are a bunch of dull, worthless, champagne-swilling intellectually and socially retarded inbreds – if they came from norwich we’d all be pointing at them and sniggering; as they come from germany and greece, only some of us point at them and snigger. but many people in the country aspire to them – just look how many successful intelligent people at middle temple swarmed in to get tickets for the beeno celebrating our new royal bencher. what exactly is that about? electing someone without the brains or application to make it into the bar into a position of supposed honour? you’d think the bright and successful would have no truck with it. and you’d be wrong. most people want to feel like part of the club and gongs are their honorary membership.
religion and theatre had their roots very closely intertwined and it is revealing that the growth of law is one of the major themes of the oresteia. it’s all theatre – strip the theatre from the law and it will lose its power over the minds of society. it may be a more honest way to do things but will it be a more effective way?
SW – there is, of course, some force in the idea of an unelected second chamber. There is no doubt that much good and valuable work is done by the present peers and their independence is well documented.
I am, of course, in favour of Her Majesty. She has done nothing but serve the interests of our country and she has done a remarkable job. Perhaps the time for a cut back Monarchy will come on her passing? I don’t think republicanism will ever take hold here and it doesn’t really matter if it doesn’t to the great scheme of things.
What is important, however, is the independence of the judiciary and I feel that the new Supreme \Court will be better served by being separate physically from the palace of Westminsiter. We don’t know yet how the Supreme Couirt will work in subtle changes – but I for one do hope we shall see a Supreme Coirt more prepared to give robust pronouncements.
Lord Bingham, you may recall, commented on the fact that in our history the judiciary has been more than prepared to toe a government line. Recent judgments have shown that government must expect to comply with the law.
We all know that the judges are Her Majesty’s judges – but I do think it would be good to see judges without the geegaws and baubles of the honours system – it would, I suspect, create more respect for the law not less – independence from dependence on honour?
Law should be impartial and classless in my view. I would argue of course that the knighthoods and peerages given to judges are symbols of histrory and few judges, I suspect, are motivtaed in their decision to take an appointment by such honours. If that is so, then they should have no difficulty whatsoever in relinquishing them in favour of an altogether more special title of ‘Justice’ or ‘Judge’?
And while I am still at liberty…. we could get rid of the ‘M’Lord’ stuff in favour of the gender neutral ‘Judge’ as a mode of address.
Good grief…. I’ll be committing the solecism of suggesting that barristers be forced to stop wearing their burqas and wigs next… perhaps it is best that we observe their human right to dress as they see fit and fitting to go to work?
Just a thought.
I’m with Simply in favouring the unelected option. But, there again, I’m also in favour of the abolition of universal sufferage.
Hah, Middle gets lumbered with the duff, uncool royal. Not only does Inner have the better library but we also get the more funky royals, Philip and Anne, as our royal benchers. When Philip pops his clogs, I hope we have first dabs on Zara as a replacement.
I don’t think that I can add anything to the observations of Simply regarding the composition and make up of the second chamber. I see this as a positive step that the committee is actually using its powers to stop an unsuitable candidate joining the House of Lords.
On the issue of gongs, titles, and references to glories past (I weep a single tear for the loss of the Empire every night), I personally believe that they do play an important role in socety, which is that it remains the only hook on which it is still possible to hang a sense of national idenity.
The government wonders why there is a break down of social cohesion, and does not seem to realise that if you don’t teach children about the country that they live in, and give them a sense of pride in its past achievements, you create a while generation that has no respect for this country or its institutions.
In mypersonal opinion this country’s past achievements and history,coupled with the recent advances in respect for human rights and individual freedoms, are a far better way of forming a sense of identity than some nonsense set of quango thought up ‘british values’.
BarorBust / Barboy
I just have these old fashioned ideas about quality….. I am, naturally, a great fan of our country – all of it and not just Scotland!
I suspect that we all have a sense of what Britain is and means.. . Mine is one of healthy skepticism and optimism…
‘more funky royals’ – surely in the category of ‘more popular varieties of swine flu’ or ‘more enjoyable urinary tract infections’.
excuse me while i get my sides repaired.
and lest my first post should be taken as a fraudulent misrepresentation that i am a sane, middle of the road liberal, i really should declare that despite all people’s fondness for gongs and royalty, my preferred view is ’shoot the lot of them’. just so’s we’re clear, you understand.
SW… shall we meet next week and have that drink.?.. you have my mobile number, I think…. I am orf to the Land of The Dragon for weekend to see a great women – a good friend back from Aus for a short break.
New to this site, but fascinated by the above debate. I think that Bar or Bust’s contention about social cohesion is on the money.
No system currently, is beyond what would have been referred to in centuries gone by as Original Sin; i.e man is man and man is corrupt in his very nature. Wishing only to be biblical and not sexist, but blame Eve.
Honours & Awards do not cost a great deal, but have a deep and tangible effect out of all proportion to their material worth. Admittedly this can only be so if the system is respected in this way and handled as such. Try explaining to the bereaved of a fallen service person that the lump of tin and enamel that is cherished by them is not worth it.
This brings me on to The Monarchy. Practically, it may be as expensive to get rid of it as to maintain it. More importantly the institution of The Monarchy provides a non-partisan focal point for the nation. Without it we would be nothing more than Eurotrash – The French mourn the loss of their monarchy and it has taken them a good deal of political upheaval in the last 2 centuries to stabilise. The Germans would love a monarchy to give them the Divine Right to rule over continental Europe. We on the other hand are suitably bourgeois about the affair. It is what makes us British, rather than American, Belgian, Italian or even Turkish.
I think that recent events prove that there are many wrongs out there, but British society despite all its apparent ills is not as bad as we think. It could be better, but whinging alone will not achieve improvement. As for law being accesible to all, maybe lawyers, especially Barristers, should be civil servants – discuss.
Japes.. on the question of medals for military service I could not agree more – but I did cover my position by saying that I have no difficulty at all with the State rewarding excellence. In fact there is to be a new medal struck for those who die in battle – long overdue.
On the Monarchy – I am in favour of our history – not all glorious, of course.
I think British Society is extremely healthy as it happens – and becoming more tolerant and diverse – save for the nutters in the BNP and other anti-immigration parties who want British for the British whatever that means…. we are a mongrel nation as, indeed, are many in Europe.
Barristers as civil servants….. it would be like herding cats! What we need is a look at the costs of going to court – and this is being done. We also have to decide, as a nation, whether we want people to have access to Justice and how much we are prepared to pay in taxes to achieve it.
I suspect that many would take the view that money would be better spent elsewhere. It was ever thus… as they used to say.
I am not anti-monarchy by any means – but I do feel that that peerages and knighthoods in a modern society is a bit ridiculous….
Respect comes from action and words not titles…. etc etc.
As you are new to my blog – it is only fair to indicate that I do not hold myself out as anything – i write whatever comes into my head and this is often dictated by what wine is coursing through my head. I do, however, despite appearances, manage to get a bit of law into the blog – but the sensible stuff I do on my online rag Insite Law.