Category: Constitutional Law

A modest proposal for helping the Prime Minister “keep on top of government” and “to push priorities”

3rd July 2023

Over on Twitter, the estimable Dr Cath Haddon is live-tweeting a talk from a former cabinet minister to the Institute of Government:

Here is an idea for a Prime Minister to have something to help him or her keep on top of what is going on in government and to push priorities.

The Prime Minister should form a committee of, say, about twenty-two individuals, each responsible for a specific government department or public function.

Those on this committee should report directly to the Prime Minister.

And the Prime Minister should be able to appoint and replace members of this committee as he or she chooses.

This committee should meet at least a couple of times a week – and this meeting should be at Downing Street chaired by the Prime Minister.

There can also be sub-committees dealing with matters where more than one government department is concerned – and these sub-committees can also be chaired by the Prime Minister or their designate.

So as to ensure that priorities are pushed – and as politics should be the language of priorities as one politician once said – these appointees should be politicians not officials.

And appointing members of parliament to this committee would also mean that the Prime Minister would have a useful direct line to what is said about the departments in parliament.

Meetings of this committee should also be attended by the head of the civil service, so that he or she can be part of the discussions and to provide advice and practical insight.

The deliberations should be confidential so that discussions can be frank and not leaked.

And there should be collective responsibility for those on the committee, so that there is a single overall direction to the course of the government.

Those on this committee should also be paid a substantial amount in addition to their parliamentary salary so as to recognise the additional work and to attract the brightest and best.

Such a model would, at a stroke, keep a Prime Minister on top of what is going on in government and for priorities to be pushed across government.

And this is the important thing…

…if a Prime Minister cannot effectively use such a committee to keep on top of what is going on in government and to push priorities, then no “Prime Minister’s Department” is going to be of any greater help.

*

The only thing left is what to call this committee.

**

Pic source.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

Why the United Kingdom government cannot leave the ECHR without either breaching or re-negotiating the Good Friday Agreement

1st July 2023

*

The overlooked obstacle to the United Kingdom withdrawing from the ECHR

*

From time to time the demand comes from a government minister, or from one of their political and media supporters, for the United Kingdom to leave the European Convention of Human Rights.

This short blogpost sets out the most obvious obstacle for the government in doing this.

The obstacle – if that is the correct word – is the Good Friday Agreement.

*

That thirty-six page document – which is not as read as widely as it should be – contains a number of express provisions in respect of the ECHR:

“The British Government will complete incorporation into Northern Ireland law of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), with direct access to the courts, and remedies for breach of the Convention, including power for the courts to overrule Assembly legislation on grounds of inconsistency.

[…]

“There will be safeguards to ensure that all sections of the community can participate and work together successfully in the operation of these institutions and that all sections of the community are protected, including:  […]

“(b) the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and any Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland supplementing it, which neither the Assembly nor public bodies can infringe, together with a Human Rights Commission

[…]

“The Assembly will have authority to pass primary legislation for Northern Ireland in devolved areas, subject to: (a) the ECHR […]”

And so on.

*

The ECHR is not just mentioned in passing in a recital.

Instead the ECHR is integral to the Good Friday Agreement.

Rights under the ECHR that can be relied upon in Northern Ireland are a fundamental part of the agreement.

It was important to Ireland – and to the nationalist community – that there were rights beyond the reach of Westminster and Whitehall (and Stormont) that could be enforced directly against the state of the United Kingdom, including against the police and security services.

*

When this obstacle is pointed out, sometimes the response is “Aha! Why not just have the ECHR applicable in Northern Ireland?”

Of course, there is nothing in the Good Friday Agreement which expressly requires rights under the ECHR to be directly enforceable elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

But.

Article 1 of the ECHR provides:

It may thereby not be open to the United Kingdom to be a party to the ECHR and pick-and-choose who within its jurisdiction can have the benefit of the rights.

This would be in addition to the political issues about having a further legal “border down the Irish Sea”, which presumably would not be welcome to unionists.

*

Perhaps the government of the United Kingdom could seek to renegotiate the Good Friday Agreement?

This would mean Ireland agreeing that those – especially nationalists – in Northern Ireland should have their existing legal rights against the United Kingdom state removed.

It would also mean Ireland agreeing that it would not be able to take the United Kingdom to court in Strasbourg.

And it would also mean – in practice – the United States and the nationalist community agreeing that legal rights and protections are removed.

This is not at all realistic.

*

And the difficulty cannot be resolved by simply copying and pasting the Convention rights into a domestic statute for Northern Ireland.

For unless the rights are as constructed and interpreted by the Strasbourg court, and unless a disappointed party can petition the Strasbourg court directly, they are not “convention rights” – even if identically worded.

(This is partly why even Dominic Raab’s “Bill of Rights” that was to repeal the Human Rights Act had the convention rights in a schedule and a duty on public authorities to comply with those rights.)

*

Part of the difficulty of Brexit was because some did not know or did not care about the particular situation of Northern Ireland. Some also pretended it was not an issue, but as we now know it needed special care and attention – and it still has not been fully resolved.

Similarly those who believe just leaving the ECHR would be easy may again be overlooking the Irish and Northern Irish dimensions.

And unless the Good Friday Agreement is re-negotiated, the United Kingdom leaving the ECHR would place the United Kingdom in breach in Good Friday Agreement.

Well, at least as long as Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom.

And that would be another story.

*

This post is partly drawn from this earlier blogpost.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

The remarkable fall of Boris Johnson – and what it tells us, if anything, about our constitutional arrangements?

19th June 2023

In December 2019, Boris Johnson had the greatest prize that our constitutional arrangements could bestow.

He had led his party to a substantial majority at a general election; his party had the mandate for its proposals in its manifesto; he had the command of his cabinet and his party; and he had even stripped out of his parliamentary party many more moderate Tories.

The opposition was in disarray, and the official opposition had had one of its worst election results in its history.

Few, if any, prime ministers have even been in such a strong position.

He had the prospect of at least one parliamentary term, perhaps more.

Yet now, less than one parliamentary term later, Johnson is not only out of government, he is out of parliament.

There is no comparable downfall in our parliamentary and political history.

Perhaps this story can be understood in purely personal terms: that Johnson was the author of his own downfall.

But.

Just as every politician gains power in a particular constitutional context, every politician who loses power also does so in a particular context.

Had some things been different, had certain events and processes take another course, Johnson could well still be prime minister.

Johnson may well have willed himself into power, but he certainly did not intend to lose power.

A sequence of events meant that it became outside of his control as to whether he could continue to be prime minister, and a further sequence of events meant that it became outside of his control as to whether he would “beat” the privileges committee.

The constitution of the United Kingdom regurgitated Johnson from our body politic and spat him out.

(And the the constitution of the United Kingdom then also regurgitated Elizabeth Truss from our body politic and spat that prime minister out too, though not as far.)

Had our constitutional arrangements been more rigid – more fixed, perhaps codified – it may well be that it could have been harder to get rid of Boris Johnson from government and then from parliament.

For, to repeat, after the last general election, Boris Johnson had the very greatest prize that our constitutional arrangements could bestow, and it is difficult to see how that prize could have ever been formally wrestled away from him by any codified procedure.

Our constitutional arrangements certainly could be a lot better in so many ways – but on the specific question of the ejection of Johnson: could our constitutional arrangements actually have been better?

And if that question seems to you to have a complacent premise, there is then the far more worrying, far less complacent question: what does it say about our constitutional arrangements that such a figure was ever able to get the greatest prize our constitutional arrangements could bestow in the first place? 

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

Telling the story of how the “serious disruption” public order statutory instrument was passed

14th June 2023

Here is a story about law-making told in different ways.

The law in question is a statutory instrument made under the Public Order Act 1986 – the Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations 2023 – which comes into force tomorrow.

*

By way of background

A statutory instrument is what is called “secondary legislation” and it has the same effect as primary legislation, as long as it is within the scope of the primary legislation under which it is made.

Statutory instruments are, in effect, executive-made legislation.  They still have to have parliamentary approval, but they are not open to amendment and rarely have debate or a vote.

Often the parliamentary approval of statutory instruments goes through on the nod, but sometimes they need to have a positive vote in favour.

*

The government’s version

The first way of telling the story is from the government’s perspective.

The statutory instrument was put to a vote in the House of Commons on Monday with the Home Secretary herself leading the debate.

At the end of the debate there was a contested vote, which the government won:The (elected) House of Commons having shown its approval, the House of Lords did not pass a “fatal” motion against the statutory instrument.

Instead the House of Lords passed a motion (merely) regretting the Statutory Instrument:

The vote (against the government) was as follows:

The House of Lords also had a specific vote on a fatal motion, which was defeated:
And when the official opposition was criticised by for not supporting the fatal motion, a frontbencher was unapologetic:

And this is the first way of telling this story: there was a Commons vote; the Lords showed disdain but did not exercise any veto inn view of the Commons vote; and so the statutory instrument became law as the result of a democratic legislative process.

Told this way, the story is about how laws can and are made by such a democratic legislative process

Nothing to see here.

But.

But but but.

*

The constitutionalist version

There is another way of telling this story.

This account starts with the Public Order Act 2023 when it was a bill before parliament.

At a very late stage of the passage of that bill the government sought to amend it so as to include provisions that were substantially similar to what ended up in the statutory instrument passed this week.

The government failed to get those amendments through the House of Lords. and so they were dropped from the bill before it became an Act.

As a House of Lords committee noted:

The Home Office could not answer these basic questions:For this committee to say that it believes “this raises possible constitutional issues that the House may wish to consider” is serious stuff.

What had happened is that the Home Office, having failed to bounce parliament into accepting these amendments into primary legislation by very late amendments, has come up with this alternative approach.

Told this alternative way, the story is not about how laws can and are made by a democratic legislative process.

Instead, the story is about how a democratic legislative process can be frustrated and circumvented by the executive.

Instead of using primary legislation so as to make substantial (and illiberal) changes to the law, the government has used statutory instrument which cannot be amended or considered in detail, and has used its whipped House of Commons majority to face down Lords opposition.

Plenty to see here.

*

The story may continue

Yet this is not how the story (told in either way) may end.

The thing about statutory instruments is that, unlike primary legislation, they can be challenged at the High Court.

This means that there can sometimes be a sort of constitutional see-saw: the convenience of using statutory instruments (as opposed to primary legislation) can be checked and balanced by an application for judicial review.

And that is what the group Liberty is doing, and its letter before claim is here.

In essence, the argument is that – notwithstanding the parliamentary approval – the statutory instrument is outside the scope of the relevant provisions of the Public Order Act 1986.

Liberty seems to have a good point, but any challenge to secondary legislation is legally difficult and it is rare that any such challenge ever succeeds.

*

The moral of the story?

The moral of the story, however it is told, is perhaps about the general weakness of our constitutional arrangements in respect of limitations placed upon rights and liberties.

A government, using wide enabling legislation, can put legislation into place that it cannot achieve by passing primary legislation.

This cannot be the right way of doing things, even if Labour is correct about these illiberal measures having the support of the House of Commons.

There are some things our constitutional arrangements do well – and here we can wave at Boris Johnson and Elizabeth Truss having both been found repugnant and spat out by our body politic.

But there are things our constitutional arrangements do badly – and the increasing use (and abuse) by the government of secondary legislation to do things they cannot (or will not) get otherwise enacted in primary legislation worrying.

And a government casually and/or cynically using (and abusing) wide enabling powers is not a story that usually ends well.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

The resignation of Boris Johnson from the House of Commons

10 June 2023

The silence now seems significant: we should have realised something was up.

Earlier this week former Prime Minister Boris Johnson received the draft report of the Privileges Committee.

And then, something did not happen.

We did not have leaks to political journalists that Johnson was going to be “cleared”.

We did not even have “friends” quoted as being “increasingly optimistic” that Johnson was going to escape a recommendation that he be suspended for ten or more days, which could have led ultimately to a by-election.

We had nothing which could be an attempt to either bounce the committee, or the House of Commons, or public opinion.

Instead, we had silence.

*

As is well-known, Johnson has had “top lawyers” – at public expense – to advise him on what is non-legal, parliamentary matter.

(How and why Johnson secured public funding for this is a story for another day.)

But presumably his lawyers told him that the report was unassailable.

They could again send a raft of legalistic objections to the committee but, frankly, the game is up.

You may be old enough to remember Johnson briefing that a previous exercise in legalistic nonsense was “absolutely devastating” to the committee.

Yet in the end the absolute devastation was to Johnson’s current political and parliamentary career.

*

Perhaps without “top lawyers” giving frank and firm advice Johnson may have pressed on – and, if so, some may say the public money was well spent in bring finality to the matter.

Remember, this was a process in which Johnson had many inherent advantages: a Conservative majority on the committee, who could only make a recommendation to the House of Commons anyway; a Conservative majority in the House of Commons – a majority brought about by his leadership at the last general election; and, if a by-election was required, a Conservative majority in his own seat, in a city where he once was a popular and re-elected mayor.

These structural advantages were in addition to expensive “top lawyers” at public expense – and to the immense influence he has over the media narrative.

All these advantages meant that the process was heavily biased: but heavily biased in Johnson’s favour.

And somehow, Johnson still lost.

*

The committee can – and should – publish the report anyway, so that we can see for ourselves whether it corresponds to Johnson’s attack on the integrity of the committee and its report.

By resigning now, rather than in response to a published report or to an adverse parliamentary vote, Johnson had the best chance of “framing the narrative”, and he took it.

This, again, should have been obvious to us when Johnson did not even try to spin the draft report this week.

And we had the sound of silence instead.

*

“Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”

“To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”

“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”

“That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.

– Silver Blaze, The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes

 

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

Understanding the government’s judicial review of the Covid Inquiry

2nd June 2023

The government of the United Kingdom has commenced a legal challenge to the recently established Covid Inquiry – an inquiry that this government had itself established.

In the words of the Covid Inquiry spokesperson yesterday:

“At 16:00 today the Chair of the UK Covid-19 Public Inquiry was served a copy of a claim form by the Cabinet Office seeking to commence judicial review proceedings against the Chair’s Ruling of 22 May 2023.”

 

*

This is an unusual judicial review.

Usually judicial reviews are brought against the government, and not by the government.

This is because judicial reviews are the normal legal means by which the High Court can be asked to assess whether a public body is acting within its legal powers.

Here, however, it is the government asking the High Court whether the Covid Inquiry – in effect, another public body – is acting within its legal powers.

Unusual, yes, but not absolutely unprecedented, as Dinah Rose KC – one of the greatest judicial review barristers – has pointed out on Twitter:

 

But that said, this judicial review is still unusual.

*

What is this judicial review about?

From a legal perspective, it is about one word: jurisdiction.

To understand this we need to dig into some of the legal background.

*

First, the Inquiry was created under the Inquiries Act 2005 – and this makes the Inquiry, in the lovely phrases, “a creature of statute” or “a statutory creature”.

What this in turn means is that any inquiry created under the Act – the Covid Inquiry and otherwise – does not have universal or inherent legal powers.

An inquiry created under the Act only has legal powers within the scope of the Act – what lawyers call the “vires” of the Act.

An inquiry created under the Act thereby cannot do something “ultra vires” the Inquiries Act.

And if an inquiry does a thing ultra vires the Inquiries Act then that thing can be quashed or declared unlawful by the High Court.

Here the government maintains that the Covid Inquiry has done something ultra vires the 2005 Act.

*

Now we go to the section 21 Notice issued by the Covid Inquiry on 28 April 2023, in which the Inquiry demands various documents from the Cabinet Office.

This Notice is the main target of this judicial review.

This Notice is what the government is primarily asking the High Court to quash.

This judicial review is not the first attempt of the government to dislodge the Notice.

The first attempt was an Application dated 15 May 2023.

This Application was made under a provision of the Inquiries Act which provides:

“A claim by a person that— (a) he is unable to comply with a notice under this section, or (b) it is not reasonable in all the circumstances to require him to comply with such a notice, is to be determined by the chairman of the inquiry, who may revoke or vary the notice on that ground.”

But.

This Application was problematic.

You see, the Application was not actually asking the Inquiry to revoke or vary the Notice – both of which presuppose the Notice was valid in the first place.

No, the Application was telling the Inquiry that the Notice was outside the powers of the Inquiry.

As the Application stated:

“The Inquiry has no jurisdiction to request under rule 9, still less to compel under s.21, the provision to it of unambiguously irrelevant material.”

And the chair of the Inquiry picks this very point up in her ruling (emphasis added and the paragraph broken up for flow):

“I observe at the outset that I am far from persuaded that a wholesale challenge to the legality or vires of a section 21 notice is one that properly falls within the scope of section 21(4) of the 2005 Act.

“Although the application does not make this clear, I infer that it is made under subsection 21(4)(b) of the 2005 Act, which entitles the recipient of a section 21 notice to invite the Chair to vary or revoke the notice on the ground that “it is not reasonable in all the circumstances to require him to comply with [it]”.

“I understand that provision to apply to cases where the recipient of a notice accepts the notice’s validity, but wishes to engage with the Chair as to the reasonableness of complying with it. It does not obviously apply to a situation such as the present, where the recipient of the notice contends that the notice itself is unlawful.”

“The better procedure for raising arguments of that nature is, plainly, an application for judicial review.“

The chair was right – and this response indicates that she and her advisers may understand the scope of the Inquiries Act very well.

The government may have spent substantial public money on instructing the government senior external lawyer to put together a ten-page application, but ultimately the Application was the wrong horse on the wrong course.

A challenge to the jurisdiction of the Inquiry to issue the Notice should be done by judicial review – that is a formal action at the High Court.

Perhaps the government used the Application as a tactic just to get the Inquiry to change its mind, or at least state its legal position expressly – a previous post on this blog described the Application as, in effect, a letter before action.

And the Application did get the Inquiry to set out its legal position explicitly.

But the challenge the government does want to make to the Notice – and also to the Inquiry’s ruling – should be done by means of a judicial review.

Now it is.

And here is the government’s statement of facts and grounds.

*

What are the merits of the judicial review – that is, will the government win?

To the extent that that the government seeks to rely on the Human Rights Act and privacy rights under Article 8 of the European Convention, the government warrants all the mockery it is getting.

This is the very government that is seeking to repeal the Human Rights Act and make it harder for claimants to rely on Article 8 privacy rights.

But.

There is more to the government’s legal case than that – and there is perhaps a route to the government succeeding at the High Court – or on appeal.

Here we need to go back to the Inquiry being a creature of statute.

This means that it is not open to the Inquiry to do just what it wants and to ask for whatever it wants.

The Inquiry can only do things and ask for things within the corners of the Inquiries Act – as augmented here by the Terms of Reference of the Inquiry.

The government is unlikely to win the judicial review with wide-ranging claims about general principles of “unambiguous relevancy” or otherwise.

If the government does succeed then it will be because that, in this particular case, the correct construction of the Inquiries Act, taken in tandem with the Terms of Reference, mean that, on this one occasion, the Inquiry has done something outside of its legal powers.

If the government can show this, then the Covid Inquiry loses – and the Notice falls away.

But.

The Covid Inquiry will also have been aware of this potential legal challenge when putting the Notice together, and it would seem that the measured content of the Notice and the precision of its requests place the Notice within the scope of the Inquiries Act when read with the Terms of Reference.

In other words, the legal(istic) “prep” of the Covid Inquiry for this potential challenge was started long ago, and – unlike the impression given by the Cabinet Office – not in a rush over the last couple of weeks.

*

Finally, let us consider the greased piglet.

The former Prime Minister Boris Johnson is currently making more mischief than a dozen lords-of-misrule.

He appears to want to single-handedly sabotage the government’s legal case:

On this, let us be careful.

There is industrial-scale misdirection afoot.

Let us wait to see what is actually disclosed – and how the Inquiry assesses that disclosure.

And note in Johnson’s letter, at the seventh paragraph, the deft and camouflaged  “relevant” – and also note who he is proposing to conduct this all-important search.

We should not get too excited at such claims.

But that said, the sudden rampaging entry of Johnson into this otherwise delicate judicial review is extraordinary.

This is such an unusual judicial review – and in more than one way.

**

Disclosure: I am a former central government lawyer.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

“Not a promising start” – a close read of the Covid Inquiry ruling against the Cabinet Office, and why it may be very significant

24th May 2023

(This is the first in a planned series of posts on the Covid Inquiry – the next will be on Boris Johnson’s lawyer difficulty.)

*

Today the Covid Inquiry made what may be a significant ruling that could shape how it will go about obtaining information and documents from unwilling to provide those documents.

This post explains today’s ruling – and sets out what the ruling may signal about the inquiry as a whole.

*

To begin: public inquiries are powerful legal creatures.

Very powerful.

That is why governments tend to avoid having inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 if it can possibly be avoided.

For example, the Daniel Morgan panel inquiry was not under the 2005 Act.

*

One of the immense powers of a public inquiry is in obtaining evidence.

The key provision here is section 21, which should be read in full by those following the Covid inquiry generally.

Section 21 provides:

We also need to look at Rule 9 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 for how an Inquiry can obtain information without resorting to a section 21 notice:

*

Real legal power, however, lies not so much in having a right to request something, but in what happens if that request is denied.

Here we go to section 35 of the Act:

Whack.

Not complying with a section 21 request is a criminal offence.

There are narrow exceptions to compliance with a section 21 request – for example if a document is privileged.

But subject to narrow exceptions, there is an obligation to comply with a section 21 request to provide evidence.

*

In respect of documents, the Act provides that a person is required to provide documents “that relate to a matter in question at the inquiry”.

The crucial word here is “relate”.

It is a broad word, and it means that the scope is far wider than say a requirement to provide documents that are, say, directly relevant.

Documents that can “relate” to something can merely be documents that, although not directly relevant, contextualise other documents.

For example, a document may show what a decision-maker may have been preoccupied with at the same time a more relevant document was created, and so on.

And the provision prompts an obvious question: who decides whether a document “relates” to the work of an inquiry?

*

The Covid Inquiry has broad terms of reference (and these also should be read in full by anyone following the inquiry).

And it seems earlier this year, the Inquiry was in correspondence with the Cabinet Office.

Significantly, the Inquiry was only relying at this early stage on requests under Rule 9 – and not (yet) the supercharged legal power under section 21.

According to documents released by the Inquiry today, there was substantial correspondence earlier this year between the Inquiry and the Cabinet Office.

But it seems the Inquiry was frustrated with what was (not) being disclosed and what was being redacted.

And so on 28 April 2023 (though not published at the time) the Inquiry chair issued a Section 21 notice:

Such a notice has to be taken seriously – very seriously.

The government, however, contended that it did not need to comply.

And instead made an application under the Act for the notice to be revoked.

The Cabinet Office even went so far to instruct the Treasury Devil – the government’s most senior external legal adviser – to set out the application.

And so we have a ten-page legal(istic) submission which looks far more like a court pleading than anything else.

*

The primary objection of the government is what it calls “jurisdictional”.

In essence, the government contends that the Inquiry cannot order disclosure of documents which are “unambiguously irrelevant”.

The published application is very reliant on the phrase “unambiguously irrelevant” – even though that is not expressly mentioned in section 21 of the Act.

It is almost as if the government’s lawyers have devised this test for themselves, and now insist it has to be applied.

Of course, the section 21 power is for documents “that relate to a matter in question at the inquiry” – and here we have to remember that the Covid Inquiry’s remit is very wide.

In simple terms, the government’s position is that if a requested document does not relate to a matter in question at the inquiry then the Inquiry has no power to order disclosure.

And the crucial point is that the Cabinet Office says it is for them to decide whether a document is “unambiguously irrelevant” – and not the Inquiry:

“It is also important to note that the Cabinet Office has explained, in correspondence, the measures it has taken as a result of which the Inquiry can be assured that the appropriately high threshold has been, and will be, accurately and properly applied. The ability of parties to distinguish between potentially relevant material (including adverse material) and unambiguously irrelevant material is seen day in and day out in all litigation contexts. Such judgements are made by qualified legal representatives, owing professional obligations beyond those owed to their client, up to and including Leading Counsel.”

*

The Application was considered by the chair of the Inquiry.

And the chair of the Inquiry said No.

Her ruling was published today, and it takes the government’s objections to jurisdiction head on.

The chair observes:

“The Notice was, as I have explained, premised on my assessment that the entire contents of the documents that are required to be produced are of potential relevance to the lines of investigation that I am pursuing.

“The essential thrust of the application therefore appears to be that this assessment is irrational, and thus there was no power to issue the Notice, because the Cabinet Office has reviewed the documents for itself and has concluded that those parts which are sought to be withheld from the Inquiry are “unambiguously irrelevant”. 

“I do not accept that my assessment was irrational.”

*

(Please note I have broken up longer paragraphs from the quoted documents for flow.)

*

The chair then makes a strong point about breadth and who makes the choice (emphasis added):

“First, it is self-evident that the Terms of Reference of this Inquiry are of great breadth. It is equally obvious that in order to discharge those Terms of Reference I will need to undertake a large number of extremely diverse lines of investigation.

“Those lines of investigation are bound to involve factual matters that are not specified in, and which may be collateral to, not only the issues identified in the Terms of Reference itself, but also the issues particularised in the published provisional scope document for any particular module of the Inquiry, and/or any more detailed lists of issues that the Inquiry may provide to Core Participants.

“For example, in order to evaluate the response of the government and/or of any individual Minister to the pandemic, it may be necessary for reasons of context for me to understand the other (superficially unrelated) political matters with which they were concerned at the time.

“Such matters may acquire greater significance where it appears to me, or it is otherwise suggested, that a Minister dealt with Covid-related issues inadequately because he or she was focusing (perhaps inappropriately) on other issues.

“For similar reasons, I may also be required to investigate the personal commitments of ministers and other decision-makers during the time in question.

“There is, for example, well-established public concern as to the degree of attention given to the emergence of Covid-19 in early 2020 by the then Prime Minister.

Moreover, the need for me to investigate allegations that have been aired publicly regarding disagreements between members of the government and breaches of Covid-19 regulations by those within government provides a further basis upon which material such as diary arrangements and content which may not appear to relate directly to the response to Covid-19 are of at least potential relevance to the investigations that I am conducting.

“The fact that the Cabinet Office has asserted that matters such as “entirely separate policy areas with which the Inquiry is not concerned” and “diary arrangements unconnected to the Covid-19 response” are “unambiguously irrelevant” to the work of my inquiry 4 demonstrates that it has misunderstood the breadth of the investigation that I am undertaking.”

*

“Misunderstood.”

Ouch.

The chair continues:

“Second, it does not follow from the fact that the Cabinet Office has itself reviewed material, and considers it “unambiguously irrelevant”, that my assessment that the material is of potential relevance is irrational.

“The application seeks to establish a principle that the Chair of a public inquiry will be acting ultra vires in requiring the production of material where the recipient of a section 21 notice declares that material to be “unambiguously irrelevant”.

“I reject that proposition.

“The key flaw, as it seems to me, is that it wrongly allocates to the holder of documents, rather than to the inquiry chair, the final decision on whether documents are or are not potentially relevant to the inquiry’s investigations.”

Well, quite.

*

She adds:

“It cannot be right that a mere assertion by such a person of “unambiguous irrelevance” has the effect of extinguishing any power in the inquiry to require the production of the documents so that it can determine for itself the relevance or otherwise of the material.

“In this case the document holder is a government department, but, in another, it might be, for example, a private individual or entity suspected of criminality.”

*

And then the ruling gets very interesting, as she illustrates one particular point (again emphasis added):

“…it is apparent that some important passages (relating for example to discussions between the Prime Minister and his advisers about the enforcement of Covid regulations by the Metropolitan Police during the public demonstrations following the murder of Sarah Everard) were initially assessed by the Cabinet Office to be “unambiguously irrelevant” to my investigations and therefore redacted from copies of the WhatsApp messages initially provided to the Inquiry.

“Whilst those redactions have now (very recently) been removed, it was not a promising start.”

Not a promising start.

*

The Application was dismissed, and the government has to disclose the requested documents by next Tuesday 30th May 2023.

The Cabinet Office may make a judicial review application to quash the notice – but unless it takes such a step, the only choice now is compliance or criminality.

*

More generally, the chair’s ruling may be highly significant: an early sign that this Inquiry is not to be messed with, and that it will see through legalistic disclosure points of the government.

As such it is a very encouraging development.

**

I plan to do a further post in the next day or two focusing on Boris Johnson’s particular problems with this disclosure decision.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

Why we now don’t just have “proper” political scandals

23rd May 2023

Today in parliament, during a debate on an urgent question related to the conduct of the current Home Secretary, a backbencher asked a striking and thought-provoking question:

“What’s wrong with this country? We used to have proper scandals abour sex or money, or about PM’s invading Iraq…”

There is an answer to this question, though perhaps not the one he wants or expects.

The reason is that the informal and often hidden ways these sort of issues used to be dealt with are no longer followed.

The hyper-partisanship and opportunism of ministers – especially in the last five or so years – means there is now a general attitude of getting away with things.

The unseen checks and balances provided by self-restraint – the soft constitutional conventions, as opposed to hard(ish) constitutional law – are old hat.

Cummings and Johnson may well be gone – but their damage to our constitutional arrangements lingers.

And so – there being no other way to deal with, say, the conduct of the current Home Secretary – it has become a parliamentary and public matter.

There is nothing as a buffer before any mess-up becomes part of day-to-day politics.

And unless ministers relearn the checks and balances of self restraint – in a word, “constitutionalism” – then it may be that there will be a lot more time and attention on these not “proper scandals”.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

A possible implication of the recent “Will of the People” rhetoric of ministers

15th May 2023

Last week there was a newspaper article under the names of two cabinet ministers.The piece was a warning to the House of Lords about the government’s illegal migration bill.

The “will of the people” in the headline is eye-catching.

And what is also eye-catching is that the new Lord Chancellor put his name to this piece.

One would perhaps not expect too much from the current Home Secretary, but it is striking that Alex Chalk is content to have this under his name too.

The “will of the people” in the headline could have been disregarded as an editor’s embellishment if it was not for the last paragraph of the article (emphasis added):

“We urge the House of Lords to look at the Illegal Migration Bill carefully, remember it is designed to meet the will of the British people in a humane and fair way and back the bill.”

So the “will of the people” line is quite deliberate.

The cabinet ministers are being serious.

And if they are serious, this line perhaps has serious implications.

*

The United Kingdom is, of course, a representative democracy and a parliamentary system.

As such, the United Kingdom is not a direct democracy.

Even the few referendums that have been held only had any legal consequence to the extent that a parliament provided for that consequence.

In this system, the notion of a mandate has weak purchase.

An incoming government can ignore a manifesto commitment after a general election.

A government can even flatly reverse a manifesto commitment, as the Conservative government in 1987-92 did with the poll tax (“community charge”).

The only significant effect that a manifesto commitment has for a government after a general election is that, in the event a Bill has opposition in the House of Lords, ministers can say it is an issue on which the democratic element of the polity has conferred a mandate.

And then, by convention – but not by any hard constitutional law – the House of Lords will pass the legislation, rather than delay it or defeat it.

Now, let us look at the Conservative manifesto for 2019:Oh.

(That is the manifesto’s only express mention of asylum seekers.)

There is also this:

The key passage here is “Only by establishing immigration controls and ending freedom of movement will we be able to attract the high-skilled workers we need to contribute to our economy, our communities and our public services.  There will be fewer lower-skilled migrants and overall numbers will come down”.

The introduction to the manifesto also promised that there would be“an Australian-style points based immigration system”.

And there is a promise to “overhaul the current immigration system, and make it more fair and compassionate”. 

No particular legislation is proposed, and – in respect of “illegal” migration, there is no specific measure promised or even a policy stated.

There are just very general objectives.

*

And now let us look at the bill before parliament.

This bill does not introduce “an Australian-style points based immigration system”, the only (relatively) specific policy mentioned in the manifesto in respect of controlling borders.

There seems nothing in the Bill which was spelled out in the manifesto.

Contrast this with, say, the 1987 commitment to introduce the poll tax:

“We will reform local government finance to strengthen local democracy and accountability.

“Local electors must be able to decide the level of service they want and how much they are prepared to pay for it.

“We will legislate in the first Session of the new Parliament to abolish the unfair domestic rating system and replace rates with a fairer Community Charge.

“This will be a fixed rate charge for local services paid by those over the age of 18, except the mentally ill and elderly people living in homes and hospitals. The less-well-off and students will not have to pay the full charge but everyone will be aware of the costs as well as the benefits of local services. This should encourage people to take a greater interest in the policies of their local council and in getting value for money.”

Legislation was then promised and the content of that legislation described – both in what will be repealed and what would replace it.

There is nothing in the 2019 Conservative Manifesto which has similar detail about the current illegal migration bill.

*

What this means is that ministers are contending that broad-brush statements in a manifesto confer a mandate, rather than any detailed proposals.

As long as ministers can say a general objective is stated in a manifesto, they can seek to browbeat the House of Lords.

The two ministers in their article say:

“It is entirely right that the Lords should scrutinise this important piece of legislation — that is the purpose of parliament’s second chamber. At the same time, it must be balanced against the clear desire of the British people to control immigration. This was a government manifesto commitment in 2019, with a pledge to take back control of our borders.”

Note the weasel word “clear”.

“That is why we have taken robust measures, with the assistance of some of the country’s finest legal minds, to ensure our bill can meet the expectations of the British people.”

Note the implicit admission that these measures were not before the electorate at the 2019 general election, but have been developed afterwards – by “some of the country’s finest legal minds”.

*

Is the Conservative manifesto of 2019 sufficiently precise for this bill to have a mandate?

No, of course not.

Statements of general objectives in a manifesto do not – cannot – confer mandates on particular measures.

It is not, and should not be, open for a minister to declare that a measure should not be delayed or defeated in the House of Lords because of general statements of intent in a manifesto.

Many measures could be said to meet that intent – measures different to the ones before the House of Lords.

Had the governing party specified the actual measures in the manifesto, then ministers would have a point.

But the governing party did not, and so ministers do not.

*

The implication of this “will of the people” rhetorical device is that the government does not wants  be subject to the rules and conventions of representative democracy and of a parliamentary system.

The implication is that a minister’s interpretation of broad statements in a manifesto cannot be gainsaid.

What the minister wills is the will of the people.

Members of parliament and peers would then be left with no role other than to approve what a minister says is the will of the people, just because of general statements in a manifesto.

That would create a significant constitutional imbalance.

*

And on a more mundane level, if this approach catches on then it may mean that even those (like me) who are sceptical of proportional representation and electoral reform will have to change their (our) minds.

For the one-member-per-constituency model only makes sense (if it makes any sense at all) if MPs are not delegates but representatives.

And the so-called “Salisbury doctrine” – that provides that the House of Lords does not block manifesto commitments – only makes sense in respect of things that have a degree of specificity in a manifesto.

What Braverman and Chalk are seeking to do here may be attractive to them (or their article writers) in the short-term, but for each constitutional push there is (or should be) an equal and opposite counter-push.

And so seeking to bully the House of Lords with rhetoric about “the will of the people” for measures which were not actually set out in a manifesto could be counterproductive.

If ministers are acting like there is a direct democracy, then the current system is not sustainable.

And if there is electoral reform and proportional representation, then it is likely that such stridency in policy will be far more difficult.

The ministers may tell peers that the measures are good and practical (even if they are not), and thereby promote the bill on its merits.

But if they keep playing with this “the will of the people” rhetoric, Conservative politicians may discover that, if there is electoral reform and proportional representation, the actual will of the people will be a very different beast.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

“The King’s Champion” – why a confident monarchy should welcome challenges on coronation day

5th May 2023

Here is a remarkable, and as this post will contend misconceived and historically illiterate, take on the coronation:

And here is a similarly misconceived message:

*

Let this blog introduce you to the King’s (or Queen’s Champion).

According to that history website:

“Originally it was the champion’s duty to ride, on a white charger, fully clad in armour, into Westminster Hall during the coronation banquet.

“There he threw down his gauntlet and challenged any person who dared to deny the sovereign’s right to the throne. The king himself of course, could not fight in single combat against anyone except an equal.

“It was only at the Coronation of Queen Victoria in 1838 that the traditional ride and challenge was left out of the ceremony. Henry Dymoke – Queen’s Champion at the time – was created a baronet by way of compensation.”

And here at Wikipedia is more information – and a splendid pic:*

And akin to the familiar challenge in a wedding ceremony, the challenge was expressly made:

“If any person, of whatever degree soever, high or low, shall deny or gainsay our Sovereign Lord [     ], King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, son and next heir unto our Sovereign Lord the last King deceased, to be the right heir to the imperial Crown of this realm of Great Britain and Ireland, or that he ought not to enjoy the same; here is his Champion, who saith that he lieth, and is a false traitor, being ready in person to combat with him, and in this quarrel will adventure his life against him on what day soever he shall be appointed.”

*

Times change, and the nature of challenges change, but the essence is just the same.

A confident monarchy should welcome challenges on coronation day.

Offering this challenge was part of the reason there were coronations.

From a constitutional and legal perspective, a coronation has little significance: the new monarch rules and can exercise powers on the death of the last monarch.

The function of the coronation is therefore largely symbolic: and part of the symbolism was to show off the confidence of the new monarch by offering a challenge to, well, challengers.

Bearing this in mind, let us go back to the take quoted above.

“The Coronation is not the moment to start an argument about the future of the monarchy” – yet hundreds of years of the king’s champion says otherwise.

“Our tolerance for any disruption…” – imagine the, ahem, disruption of a knight arriving to challenge the coronation.

Perhaps it is understandable though that some pundits and the police don’t realise that coronations were once about challenges as well as about validations.

After all, it would take a sense of history.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.