The Critics of the Government’s Proposals Essay

Subject: “The critics of the Government’s proposals to get rid of the station of Lord Chancellor and make a Supreme Court are motivated by blind attachment to tradition instead than a rational analysis of the issues” The United Kingdom is a Constitutional Monarchy and is based on Parliamentary Democracy. with a Queen and a Parliament that has two houses: the House of Lords. and the House of Commons. Supreme legislative power is vested in Parliament. which sits for five old ages unless dissolved Oklahoman. The executive power of the Crown is exercised by the Cabinet. headed by the Prime Minister. Since the coming of the tenth century. England has existed as a incorporate entity and along with that has brought approximately many alterations into the manner England was governed which invariably reflected the alterations in the times as the old ages passed by.

In the twelvemonth 1997 the electoral triumph of the Labour Party after 18 old ages of a Conservative regulation is assuring to convey about a Constitutional reform that will non merely function to deconcentrate the United Kingdom but besides contribute to the effectivity of the Separation of Powers which has long been an issue of contention. along with the debut of separate Parliaments in Wales and Scotland. Among some of the other elements of the Constitutional Reform as proposed by this authorities is the decentalisation of powers from Westminster and Whitehall. The function of the Lord Chancellor is instead controversial in the sense that his duties are in struggle with the philosophy of the Separation of Powers.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

This philosophy states that the power of the province has to be divided between the three variety meats. viz. the bench. legislative assembly and executive. Each of the variety meats should run independently and none will go all powerful. The Lord Chancellor. who is the member of the cabinet. is the caput of the bench and is entitled to sit in the House of Lords to hear the entreaty instances. Besides that. he is the talker of the House of Lords. which is the legislative chamber. This direct struggle to the philosophy of separation of powers is seen to be incompatible with the independency of the bench.

The fact that the Lord Chancellor is involved in all the three variety meats of authorities is said to be unacceptable. What about guaranting just test which requires that a justice must be independent of the authorities? However. one could hold doubt as to whether the Lord Chancellor. when sitting as a justice. would be biased against the authorities. In visible radiation of the proposed Constitutional Reform the Lord Chancellor because of his duty in connexion with this system of justness. he should no longer be allowed to sit as a justice hearing a instance. Apart from the office of the Lord Chancellor being revamped is the proposed creative activity of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The authorities besides announced in 2003 that it would stop the constitutional anomalousness under which a House of Lords Committee served as Britain’s concluding Court of Appeal. and replace it with a 12-member Supreme Court located in its ain edifice.

Among some of the unfavorable judgment is the fright expressed by some Judgess that the Supreme Court will go more powerful than the House of Lords Committee it is supposed to replace. and the possibility that this tribunal can asseverate itself in resistance to authorities. There is besides the statement that any alteration to the present British Constitution would destabilise the state and would be damaging to its citizens. nevertheless. one can certainly recognize that the simple frights and concerns being expressed are no more than kids throwing fits when they have been taken off from that which they are accustomed.

Are we so afraid of alteration that we are non seeing the benefit which these two drastic alterations will offer. non merely for the repute and character of the United Kingdom but besides to the citizens it governs? The Supreme Court will be bolder in justifying both the freedoms of persons. What this means is that the 12 justnesss which will be appointed will be the concluding arbiters between the citizens and the province and they will be the ultimate cheques and balances that the jurisprudence is right and reasonably applied. This is merely a instance of altering the signifier instead than the substance of the United Kingdom.

There is small difference in the work the Supreme Court does. The instance work that will be dealt with by the Supreme Court is the same that comes earlier justnesss as they sit as Law Lords in Parliament. The pronounced difference is that they will be go forthing the House of Lords and will be hence independent of Parliament. The issues are these: We have a state of affairs where the Judges who decide instances in the House of Lords are the really Judgess who sit in Parliament where Torahs are being made. It is a clear convergence of powers when it is observed that these said members of the bench are take parting in the jurisprudence doing procedure every bit good.

It is nil less than a drawn-out brainwash if this is non observed as a benefit of the reform. It is non merely about apportioning balanced power to the bench. independency philosophy of the United Kingdom’s legal system is even guaranteed from the grass root. The most of import subject of this reform will be to overhaul the legal system of the United Kingdom: seting more balanced power. independent mechanisms toward choosing the Judgess ; all are the mechanism to make equal human self-respects. Is this non what we should endeavor for?

Have we become so accustomed to our old ways that we are merely contradicting the issue of alteration no affair how positive it may be for us? Be this as it may. we seem to bury that this United Kingdom has a history of alteration which is merely brought approximately to keep our image of staunchness and stableness but adequate to reflect the modern facets of life. This separation brings the United Kingdom into line with many comparable modern provinces. It means the Supreme Court becomes the concluding pillar in the fundamental law: Parliament creates Torahs. the authorities and public organic structures use those Torahs – and the tribunals monitor their application.

The issue with those who have badly criticized and believe in the hindering of this alteration is merely that members of the United Kingdom are really proud of their traditions and they attempt to keep same. However. every state and every state has its ain imposts and traditions. It is merely natural for this to be so. However we can non allow our love and passion for what has since been a tradition blind us to what the state needs for farther development to take topographic point.

We can non bury the ideality of the Separation of Powers we have been endeavoring to accomplish by merely closing down the really alteration which may convey about this ideal. The alteration in map of the Lord Chancellor and the coming of the Supreme Court must non be treated as a short glass of inexpensive whisky which one merely engorges instead allow us handle it as a bottle of all right vino which increases in value over clip.