The Home Secretary, the Home Office, and “statutory duties”

Hallowe’en, 2022

The uses made of certain law-related phrases in political discourse can be fascinating.

Take the current political row about the treatment of asylum seekers in Manston.

It appears from news reports that the current home secretary Suella Braverman and/or the previous home secretary Priti Patel failed to ensure there was sufficient accommodation for asylum seekers.

This failure was, in turn, a breach of the law – and, it is alleged, that this breach of the law was knowingly made.

In essence, the accusation is that the home secretary was told what the law was and the home secretary chose not to comply with that law.

*

I do not know – and I suspect you do not know – the truth of the matter (at least not yet).

But the language in which the accusations are framed is interesting.

This is not, it seems, about human rights gone mad or “woke” or both.

It is not about a minister “taking a view” on the risk of there being a successful challenge, either by an application for judicial review or otherwise.

It is not thereby about an area of law with “grey areas” or “fuzzy edges” or whatever evasive language one can get away with.

No.

This row is about good-old, old-fashioned, domestic law “statutory duties”.

That is the sort of binary law in respect of which you either comply or do not comply.

It is not the sort of law in respect of which, for example, you take a view on whether you have acted “proportionately” or not in a particular case, and in respect of which you guess (ahem, forecast) how a court will deal with a challenge.

Where the law provides binary “statutory duties”, a government department (and indeed anyone else, including you) should not “take a view”.

You comply.

Simple as that.

The Act of Parliament says you should do [x], and so you do [x] – else you are in breach of your duty to do [x].

It is therefore not open to Braverman or any other partisan to ignore the law on the basis that it is about woke human rights and assert that the courts will strike the wrong balance for proportionality.

And this is why, in part, I think this row has reached the public domain.

*

This is not about exercises of discretion in individual cases, where the home secretary or relevant official can take one view or another on a case-by-case basis.

This is wholesale non-compliance.

That is why I think officials are more jumpy than they otherwise would be.

This is not a decision to interfere with right in individual cases, but an apparent decision to disregard entire legal rules.

Perhaps the relevant home secretary did not realise or care for the distinction.

Perhaps the disdain for “individual case” human rights law has tripped over to disdain for the general rules of legal compliance with statutory duties.

Who knows.

But we have got to a point where even Home Office officials – Home Office officials! – are sufficiently alarmed by a home secretary’s proposals to disregard the law that they are contacting and briefing journalists.

*

First it was individual human rights, and now it is general statutory duties.

Once you start making exceptions to the rule of law, those exceptions become wider and more troubling.

Brace, brace.

 

***

Thank you for reading – and this blog needs your support to carry on for another year.

Please do help this blog continue providing free-to-read and independent commentary on constitutional matters and other law and policy topics.

Posts like this take time and opportunity cost, and so for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

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.

The comments policy is here.

Politeness among strangers – some thoughts about internet comments

29th October 2022

Yesterday’s post went up late and it was on a contentious issue, where the views I expressed were probably not shared by many of those who follow this blog.

But still, at the time of writing, there were 141 comments – some of a high quality, and many were balanced on the PR issue.

Only one comment was not published by reason of irksomeness.

*

Of course, comments moderation makes a difference.

Comments moderation is time-consuming, but I think it is worthwhile as it ensures a good standard of published comments.

I see my role as a letters’ editor of an old-style newspaper, where there was pride in what letters were published.

And so it is not like the anything-goes antics of “below the line” on other media sites.

I think it is a false economy for such sites not to pre-moderate their comments, as it means fewer (if any) sensible people will spend much time looking at the comments.

As for “free speech” (or “freeze peach”), nothing in my moderation policy is stopping a person from publishing a view elsewhere.

But curating the comments on this site is itself an exercise of free speech.

I especially welcome – and treasure – comments that show how my posts are wrong in detail or in principle or in reasoning, but without abuse and name-calling.

This is because the subject matter of this blog – law and policy and how the two connect – is the thing, and there really is no merit in saying things which are incorrect.

And so as Twitter becomes more of a Hellsite – and I spend far less time on there than I used to, and my main account there is now permanently locked – I would like readers and commenters to know that they are welcome here.

For it is possible to have polite discussions on the internet on contentious issues between strangers.

Thank you.

***

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.

The comments policy is here.

For and against changing the electoral system

27th October 2022

Here is a brief post on a constitutional topic that I have avoided on this blog: the electoral system.

This is a topic on which many of you will have Very Strong Opinions – and, as with a codified constitution and membership of the European Union, it may be difficult for you to comprehend why someone could possibly not be in favour.

But.

The value, at least for me, in the current system is twofold.

First, I think there is merit in one person being the representative for a distinct, meaningful area – for example, Birmingham Edgbaston, or the Isle of Wight, or the Western Isles, and so on.

This is especially so given the convention that Members of Parliament refer to each other by their constituencies.

It means that parliamentary debate is itself a congress of places and local identities.

One member constituencies also mean we have by-elections, which provide a form of accountability between general elections that can be surprisingly effective – for example, Johnson’s fall from office followed two huge by-election defeats.

Second, many systems of proportional representation seem to give disproportionate power to party lists and party managers, breaking the direct link between the voter and the candidates.

But, but.

Those two factors are not overwhelming, and perhaps can be offset by other factors.

It cannot be right for certain parties, such as the Green Party, to have so low a parliamentary presence given their national share of the vote.

The current party system is also somewhat artificial, and the parties are themselves faction-ridden coalitions kept together by the needs of the electoral system, and this just causes different political problems – as we have seen with both the Conservative and Labour parties in recent years.

The current system has not even avoided hung parliaments – for example, in the late 1970s, the mid 1990s, and between 2010-15 and between 2017-19.

And the powers of party managers and party lists is just exercised in different ways, with certain candidates benefiting from safe seats.

*

So my mind is not made up, and recent experiences have tested my assumptions in favour of the current system.

(I do not have Very Strong Opinions on every constitutional issue!)

Can a case be made for electoral reform which (a) does not involve name-calling of those opposed, (b) keeps the geographic links without giving party lists and managers too much power, and (c) keeps the possibility of by-elections as a potent political device between elections?

I open to persuasion – and so may be many others who have hitherto been wary of electoral reform.

***

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.

The comments policy is here.

Re-visiting the “codified constitution” debate after the Johnson and Truss premierships

26th October 2022

From time to time it is worth revisiting the question of whether we should have a codified constitution.

For many the answer is self-evident.

Indeed, one sometimes cannot imagine a political situation in the United Kingdom where somebody, somewhere would not add “and this shows why we need a written constitution”, as if it were some universal panacea.

The view of this blog, as you may know, is more sceptical.

There is nothing inherently good or bad about a codified constitution: the test is is whether the constitution is liberal or illiberal.

In other words: whether or not the constitution tends to permit unchecked and unbalanced executive, judicial or legislative power.

Those constitutions which do not check and balance such powers tend to be illiberal, and those which do tend to check and balance such powers tend to be liberal.

The test, for me, of a constitution is not whether it is codified or not, but whether it is liberal.

And if we were to somehow have a codified constitution it should be at least as liberal as the current uncodified constitutional arrangements.

*

So: are our current constitutional arrangements liberal?

Some of you reading this will have Very Strong Opinions – and are undoubtedly and impatiently scrolling through this irksome post.

But.

Take a moment.

Here are three counter points to consider.

First, during Brexit, the Supreme Court twice stopped the executive from acting against the rights of parliament, in the two Miller cases.  And parliament itself was able to legislate for the Benn Act in the face of opposition from the executive.

Second, since 2016 the body politic has been able to regurgitate and spit out a sequence of Prime Ministers and other ministers who have been repugnant for one reason or another – Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, and so on.

And third, and notwithstanding the nominal overall majority, we have ended up with, in effect, a hung parliament anyway.

If we were to have a more rigid, codified constitution that entrenches executive power, none of these things may have been the case.

We could, like in the United States, be stuck with a Trump-like politician for a term with only the clumsy and practically useless weapon of impeachment.

*

That said, there are problems.

For example – yes, we have been able to spit out a succession of repugnant politicians, but it is hardly to the credit of our constitutional arrangements that we have had such figures becoming Prime Minister in the first place.

And we are still only one competent tyrant (and a parliamentary majority) away from the “supremacy of parliament” being used to create Enabling Acts conferring wide discretionary powers on minsters that courts will have to accepts as being unchallengeable.

Our constitutional arrangements may be liberal in some respects, but there is still the scope for abuse, as well as it providing a framework for inadequate politicians to take (as well as lose) powerful jobs.

And recent years have shown the limits of the “good chap” approach of ministerial self-restraint, with Johnsonian anything-goes.

The counter-case is strong.

*

So there are reasons to be in favour of our current constitutional arrangements, but also reasons to be worried.

The next two years are, from a liberal and progressive perspective, likely to be grim – especially if the new Prime Minister and his cabinet are alert to avoiding the unforced errors of the last two Prime Ministers, and are able to “deliver” (ahem) their policy agenda.

We cannot always trust illiberal ministers to make easy mistakes.

And the next two years will be the real test of whether our constitutional arrangements are robust as well as liberal.

Brace, brace.

***

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.

The comments policy is here.

Here we go again: Raab returns to the Ministry of Justice

25th October 2022

When Dominic Raab left the Ministry of Justice when Elizabeth Truss became Prime Minister, the blog teased that the Human Rights Act was still there and Raab was not.

Well.

Raab has today returned to the Ministry of Justice as Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor (and Deputy Prime Minister).

And this means things do not look good for the Human Rights Act.

As this blog has previously averred, the Human Rights Act is Moby Dick to Raab’s Captain Ahab:

And so when Raab went, it seemed the Act was safe.

The new Truss administration dropped the “Bill of Rights”, a dreadful mess of a Bill.

That reversal was, it seems, the price exacted by Robert Buckland, the former Lord Chancellor, for serving as Welsh Secretary in Truss’s cabinet.

But earlier today, Buckland announced he was leaving the cabinet under the new Prime Minister Rushi Sunak:

Buckland’s letter refers to a meeting, and one wonders if he again asked for an assurance about the Human Rights Act – and, if so, what the answer was.

*

While Raab was away, his replacement Brandon Lewis had the confidence and sense to negotiate a resolution to the strike by criminal barristers.

It is unlikely that resolution would have happened had Raab stayed on, and it should not be taken for granted that action by criminal lawyers has come to an end.

*

As this blog has previous stated, those who sneer at Raab for not understanding human rights law are wrong.

It is that he does understand it – he just does not care for it.

And this makes him a more formidable opponent to liberals and progressives than someone who is merely ignorant of the applicable law.

We do not know yet whether Raab will now seek to revive the “Bill of Rights” many of us had assumed would pass into oblivion.

There are at least two years left of this parliament and so there is perhaps enough time for him to have a go at forcing the Bill through if he can, regardless of any backbench worries.

He may have difficulty in the House of Lords, however, as the 2019 Conservative Manifesto stopped short of promising to repeal the Human Rights Act.

But for Raab this is unfinished business, and so such an attempt is more than likely.

And for those who have a liberal or progressive interest in the law, we are again that fabled bowl of petunias:

“Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was Oh no, not again.”

Oh no, not again.

***

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.

The comments policy is here.

A close reading of Boris Johnson’s statement saying he is not standing for leadership

 

24th October 2022

Yesterday the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson provided a statement about not standing for the leadership of the United Kingdom’s governing Conservative Party.

I joked on Twitter that a close of reading of this statement was a joy – and I was then commanded by the highest of all temporal and spiritual authorities to do a post setting out why.

And so here it is.

*

A close reading of any text has to have regard to the (seeming) intentions of the author, the content of the text itself, and the relevant context(s).

Here we have a resignation but not a formal resignation – indeed, there was not even a prior application, formal or informal, to which this is a sequel.

It is not any form of a required text – it was instead volunteered by its author.

This means that more regard has to be made to (seeming) intention and context than otherwise, as there are no formal, required “buttons” to “press” with its content.

*

Now let us begin.

“In the last few days I have been overwhelmed by the number of people who suggested that I should once again contest the Conservative Party leadership, both among the public and among friends and colleagues in Parliament.”

See how the “I”s are buried in this sentence, so as to indicate that it is not really about him.

The references to “the number of people” and to “the public and among friends and colleagues in Parliament” is pretty much an exercise in duplication.

The author could have said more simply “In the last few days I have been overwhelmed by [encouragement] that I should once again contest the Conservative Party leadership, both among the public and among friends and colleagues in Parliament.”

But the author needs to emphasise the quantity of people, and so the double-egging of “the number of people”.

The “overwhelmed” also indicates that he is protesting too much – and, indeed, the context implies that he was instead underwhelmed.

He did not get enough support.

*

“I have been attracted because I led our party into a massive election victory less than three years ago – and I believe I am therefore uniquely placed to avert a general election now.”

The author was once a winner, and it is important that this is emphasised and that the reader is reminded.

There was not just a “election victory” but a “massive” one.

And it was not now some time ago, back in 2019, but only “less than three years ago”.

But it is the last part which is most interesting, where the author puts forward a false proposition about an imminent general election.

There is no imminent general election – and there cannot be one without the governing party wanting one.

So this is misleading.

The author then protests that he is not only well placed but “uniquely placed” to “avert” this non-existent imminent general election.

He presents himself as The One – “uniquely”.

And he uses “therefore” when he means “thereby” – a neat and deft trick to make the proposition seem stronger than one bare assertion leading from another.

*

“A general election would be a further disastrous distraction just when the Government must focus on the economic pressures faced by families across the country.”

The “further disastrous distraction” means, of course, that there was a previous “disastrous distraction” – and here he can only mean his own loss of office.

The necessary implication of seeing his own loss of office as a “disastrous distraction” is that he is not contrite about how he lost the premiership.

*

“I believe I am well placed to deliver a Conservative victory in 2024 – and tonight I can confirm that I have cleared the very high hurdle of 102 nominations, including a proposer and a seconder, and I could put my nomination in tomorrow.”

Ah, the “well placed” line – a feature of a million job application letters, where the applicant cannot think of a better way of boasting that they are fit for a vacancy.

This follows the “uniquely placed” just two sentences ago, and it is saying the pretty much same thing: his electoral prowess.

Also note the passing mention of 2024, as for when this election should be.

Then we have “tonight I can confirm that I have cleared the very high hurdle of 102 nominations”.

Not just a hurdle.

And not just a high hurdle.

But a “very high hurdle”.

And he has “cleared” this hurdle.

This is energetic imagery.

The superfluous “I can confirm” – like the “therefore” in a previous sentence – is intended to make a proposition seem stronger.

Of course, in context, this is an unimpressive proposition, as his supporters have claimed for days that he had over a hundred nominations.

He is now reduced to claiming that he has managed 102 (or perhaps more).

The detail of “including a proposer and a seconder” gives an impression of desperation.

The crescendo of this sentence is “I could put my nomination in tomorrow” is an attempt to convince the reader and perhaps also the author.

Of course he could.

*

“There is a very good chance that I would be successful in the election with Conservative Party members – and that I could indeed be back in Downing Street on Friday.”

Not just a chance.

And not just a good chance.

But “a very good chance”.

*

“But in the course of the last days I have sadly come to the conclusion that this would simply not be the right thing to do. You can’t govern effectively unless you have a united party in parliament.”

But.

Having bigged himself up as the one who is “uniquely placed” to avert an imminent general election (which will presumably now have to take place) and “well placed” to give his party a general election victory in 2024, he now says it is not actually in his party’s interests for him to avert this looming defeat and claim this brilliant victory.

It would “simply not be the right thing to do”.

Why?

Because, he says, “You can’t govern effectively unless you have a united party in parliament.”

Seemingly gone is the “overwhelming” support he has in the party from the start of the statement, and gone also is the support that enabled him to “clear” a “very high hurdle”.

The support, in fact, is not “overwhelming”.

His candidature would split the party so much that he would not be able to “govern effectively” – even though he contends he is “well placed” to govern so effectively as to achieve a general election victory in 2024.

None of this adds up.

*

“And though I have reached out to both Rishi (Sunak) and Penny (Mordaunt) – because I hoped that we could come together in the national interest – we have sadly not been able to work out a way of doing this.”

With “reached out” we switch in style from the hapless job application to irksome public relations verbiage.

The context here is that the other two contenders rebuffed him.

The framing of this sentence is to blame the other two contenders for rejecting his approach: they are the ones who are not thereby acting in the “national interest”.

He is the statesmanlike goodie, and they have let him and you down.

And you are to be “sad” at this outcome.

*

“Therefore I am afraid the best thing is that I do not allow my nomination to go forward and commit my support to whoever succeeds.”

Hello, here is “therefore” again, seeking to add gravity.

Just sentences ago he had “come to the conclusion that [becoming leader again this week] would simply not be the right thing to do”, and now – separately – he is saying he has concluded because of another reason that “the best thing is that I do not allow my nomination to go forward”.

Given he had already decided this before “reaching out” it makes no sense for him to say that the rebuff is the reason he did not “allow” his nomination to go forward.

The author wants us to believe he is both a wise statesman and the unfairly scorned reject.

He wants both the credit for not standing and for others to be blamed for him not standing.

He wants the king-making cake, and to eat it.

*

“I believe I have much to offer but I am afraid that this is simply not the right time.”

Well.

***

Thank you for reading – and this blog needs your support to carry on.

Please help this blog continue providing free-to-read and independent commentary on constitutional matters and other law and policy topics.

Posts like this take time and opportunity cost, and so for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

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.

The comments policy is here.

The fantasy of the Brexit “ring of power”

21st October 2022

Imagine, if you will, a Brexit “ring of power” – as magical and metallic a prop as you would find in any work of high fantasy.

This ring, however, has two qualities.

*

First, the size of this ring is diminishing slowly over time.

In December 2019 its size could be measured as a majority of 81 parliamentary seats.

Now, in October 2022, its size can be measured as 71 seats.

And with by-elections and defections, its size will go down and down.

*

Second, the shininess of this ring also is diminishing over time.

In December 2019 it was bright and glimmering.

But now it is somewhat faded and – by January 2025 – there will be no shininess left at all.

The shininess is time-limited.

*

Yet, for both these qualities, it is still a ring worth seizing – or so its pursuers think.

For a parliamentary majority is worth having, especially for the Conservative party, as they are not that common.

After 1992, the Conservatives had to wait until 2015 before they had an overall majority, and they promptly lost that in 2017.

In 2019, they managed another overall majority against weak opposition and with the promise of “getting Brexit done”.

But this may now be the last Conservative overall majority for a political generation, if not for all time.

One can understand why so many Conservative politicians want to wear the ring and wield its supposed power before January 2025.

*

The problem for those seeking to wear this ring and wield its supposed power is that the ring was itself wrought out of a deeper fantasy.

This were the fantastic notions that, first, the prospect of Brexit could be easily avoided with a mere referendum – and that, second, Brexit would be easy and inconsequential.

In 2015 the Conservatives avoided splitting the vote with Ukip with the promise of a referendum.

Then the Conservative government under Cameron nonchalantly assumed the referendum would be an easy win, and so they lost.

In 2019 the Conservatives promised that getting Brexit done would be easy, but it has not been.

Instead the clouds and forces of reality, as manifested in market forces and otherwise, batter and bruise the United Kingdom.

We have sluggish-to-no growth and have willingly cut ourselves off from the huge single market of our neighbours – a single market we helped fashion to our advantage in the 1980s.

We are getting relatively ever-poorer.

And there is nothing which any government can really do about it while we remain cut off from the huge single market of our neighbours.

All politicians can do is incant the same old lie about “taking back control” as the United Kingdom is increasingly at the mercy of global forces.

*

No politician who puts on the ring is going to do well: there are just different forms of failure, different ways to implode, different reasons to resign or be sacked.

One national step forward, of course, would be to suddenly trash the ring of power, and to have a fresh general election.

To rid ourselves of the allure of this cursed artefact.

But there is no reason to believe that those craving the ring of power would voluntarily agree to lose the ring completely while it still exists and glimmers.

And they can toss the ring among themselves until January 2025.

*

But, because the ring’s power is ultimately illusory, then no good can come to those who put the ring on.

Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss have all come and gone, even if Johnson wants to come back again.

The ring, forged with lies, will destroy each politician who wants to wear it.

And after January 2025 – or some happier earlier date – the ring disappears.

The Conservative majority built on the back of Brexit disintegrates.

There will then just be a political void where the governing party used to be

And those who remember will wonder why any of it was ever thought worthwhile.

***

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.

The comments policy is here.

So this is what happens when we do not have a functioning Prime Ministership

20th October 2022

I have been a constitutional geek since about 1987 – from the time of the conflicts about the “community charge” legislation and then Maastricht up to the Brexit showdowns in parliament and the Supreme Court.

But I have never seen political chaos like yesterday – which is carrying on into today.

On the face of it, it could seem nothing much happened: there was a parliamentary vote which the government won.

There was yet another cabinet resignation in a year packed with ministerial resignations, and a Downing Street aide was suspended.

All pretty normal in these not-normal political times.

But.

The details from yesterday were extraordinary: a confidence vote which was not a confidence vote; the opposition party almost taking control of the parliamentary timetable; a three-line whip for the governing party to vote against a manifesto commitment; a large backbench rebellion; a former minister not asking a question in parliament in return for a suspension of that aide; a reported standing row between the departing Home Secretary and the Prime Minister; reports of physical violence in the voting lobbies; a Prime Minister wandering almost-lost through the same lobby unable to properly register her vote; the Chief Whip and Deputy Chief Whip resigning and un-resigning, and then reportedly threatening to un-un-resign unless a statement was put out by Downing Street in the middle of the night (at 1.33am); and so on.

Even Wikipedia could not keep up:

*

Well.

All the drama from yesterday points to one thing.

There has been an absolute collapse of Prime Ministerial power.

The details from yesterday (and today) are effects, not causes.

They are the effects of there being an implosion in Downing Street, of there being a gap where a functioning Prime Ministership should be.

One way of reckoning the significance of a thing is to imagine what would happen if that thing did not exist.

But now we no longer have to imagine what would happen if we ceased to have a functioning Prime Ministership.

We can now see.

*

This is not – yet – a constitutional crisis.

It is certainly a political crisis – indeed, it is an exemplar of a political crisis.

And it certainly is a constitutional drama.

But not all political crisis tip into constitutional crises.

This is not a constitutional crisis – but unless Parliament and the Cabinet sort it it out, it well could do

The essence of politics is conflict – and it is the failure to resolve those conflicts that can trigger a crisis.

Parliament and the Cabinet now need to act – swiftly – to restore a functioning Prime Ministership.

Until and unless a functioning Prime Ministership is restored there will be an accumulation of more unfortunate and dramatic political details.

And there will be worse: because once a Prime Ministership fails, the government itself will tend to fail; and unless Parliament can check and balance that failure, then Parliament itself could be seen to fail.

*

Brace, brace – as this blog often says.

But alas that warning is too late for the Prime Ministership of Elizabeth Truss.

That has already crashed.

***

Thank you for reading – and please now help this blog continue providing free-to-read and independent commentary on constitutional matters and other law and policy topics.

Posts like this take time and opportunity cost, and so for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

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.

The comments policy is here.

How the constitution of the United Kingdom has been tested continuously for over seven years

19th October 2022

Imagine that a group of political experimentalists had come together about seven or so years ago to devise a scheme to test just how far the constitution of the United Kingdom could be pushed.

Imagine that demonic scheme was as follows:-

First: the test of a supposedly non-binding referendum in what was normally a parliamentary system

Second: the test to see if a Prime Minister could force through an extra-parliamentary invocation of Article 50, free from any statute.

Third: the test of whether – after over forty-five years – the United Kingdom could be extracted at speed from the European Union.

Fourth: the test of whether parliament could put in place a mechanism to ensure that such a departure required a withdrawal agreement to be in place.

Fifth: the test of whether a Prime Minister could close down parliament so as to force through a no-deal departure.

Sixth: the test of how the constitution can deal with with a dishonest knave of a Prime Minister.

And now we have a seventh: the test of how the constitution can deal with a vacant fool of a Prime Minister.

I may have missed out some of the tests along the way.

We may also soon have other tests – about how to deal with a border poll on the island of Ireland, or a move towards an independent Scotland.

*

The constitution has been through a lot in the last ten years – perhaps too much.

Some would say that the tests set out above “show the need for a codified constitution” – but one suspects for some anything and everything “shows the need for a codified constitution”.

In each of the tests to date, there is support for the view that our uncodified constitutional arrangements have fared relatively well.

The supreme court checked and balanced the attempted misuses of Prime Ministerial power and asserted the rights of parliament; parliament with the Benn Act forced a government to enter into a withdrawal agreement; and the body politic ejected Boris Johnson as Prime Minister, even though he had recently won a substantial majority.

But the constitution needs a rest, on any view.

Constitutional law has now been continuously exciting for seven years; and it should never be exciting for more than a few weeks at most, if at all.

And as I type this, a Home Secretary is resigning and government backbenchers are threatening to vote against in a “confidence” motion.

The constitution is not going to get a rest anytime soon.

Brace, brace.

Again.

***

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.

The comments policy is here.

Guest Post: Adam Wagner’s Emergency State reviewed by the legendary police blogger Nightjack

18th October 2022

The legal blogger Adam Wagner has written a book about the coronavirus regulations.

But the internet does not need another post by one legal blogger saying another legal blogger is wonderful, and so I asked someone else to review it.

Richard Horton was a police sergeant in Lancashire tasked with making sense of and enforcing the regulations on a daily basis, and so I asked him to do the review.

Horton also happens to be the legendary former police blogger known as Nightjack, winner of the Orwell Prize in 2009 – and it is a great honour for this blog to publish his guest post.

**

Emergency State by Adam Wagner

Review by Richard Horton

 

A few years ago I was a jobbing Police Sergeant on a response team in South Lancashire. My hair was short, my beard was goatee and life was good, busy, but good.

Enter stage left the wily Chief Inspector of my parish with a cunning plan. “Richard” he said, “we have a job that needs doing at Licensing Sergeant. Could you take it on?”

I was on the far side of 50 with a borked right knee. Retirement was only a few years away. The joys of managing an ever increasing workload with ever decreasing resources and dealing with the belligerent antisocial at weekends were beginning to fade.

I was being offered one of those fabled “glide path to retirement” jobs.  This was the Licensing Department, a small team that knew the job better than me, lots of meetings, the occasional licence review. This was the job to see me out to my pension, and all I had to do was to get my head round the Licensing Act.

Of course I snatched his arm off.

*

I settled into the new post fairly quickly. There was a first month punctuated by my wise staff coughing gently and saying “Errm Sarge, you can’t actually do that” and I was lucky enough to do some barrister-led training in licensing.

I had my feet underneath me, everything was going well and then March 2020 happened.

From then on, my colleagues and I had to operate in a rapidly mutating landscape of laws and regulations that soon resembled the hedge in Sleeping Beauty.

The world had caught a virus and here in England, the Government tried to take control.

*

Nightly, ministers appeared on radio and television making policy pronouncements about the State of Emergency. From the start, there was a disconnect between what was being said and what was being written into the regulations.

On one notorious occasion, a local night club operator understood this and used better reading and barrister advice on those regulations to stay open until the last possible minute when the local council and I had convinced ourselves that the venue should close.

My team and I would literally huddle round our little office radio waiting for the latest press conference. I would wait expectantly for the publication of each iteration of the regulations. We then had to go out and enforce this stuff.

The simple life of a Licensing Sergeant was suddenly complicated. I vividly remember right at the start taking a police van out along the Merseyside border to check on some outlying pubs. I passed many groups of people, families as far as I could tell, who were going on a walk  for exercise. In many cases they looked very uncomfortable seeing a police van approach. I just smiled and waved. Some smiled and waved back. Some didn’t. It felt very strange.

Despite my best efforts, I could not reconcile the briefings to what was coming out in the regulations. Guidance from above was still some distance away. Policing was taking a “let a hundred flowers bloom” approach to enforcement. Things were getting muddled.

I thought I understood what it all meant. I became a sort of one eyed go-to for colleagues but in truth I just was not sure.

Into that chaos stepped Adam Wagner, a human rights barrister at Doughty Street Chambers. He was doing the hard work of reading, understanding and explaining the Coronavirus regulations for the rest of us. It came as some relief to have his work as a reference that proved more reliable and helpful than any amount of briefing and policy announcements.

*

Almost inevitably, having stepped into the very centre of the storm, Wagner has now written a book about the State of Emergency and called it Emergency State.

As a history of the times it struck me as entirely accurate. As I read the book there were may moments where I was right back in the Licensing Office reading the latest regulation and thinking “Umm, OK, how are we going to make this work? Actually can we make this work?”

What was a substantial meal? Did a Scotch Egg count? Was the rule of 6 households, acquaintances, indoor, outdoor, socially distanced, masked? What distance was a social distance?  How loud could you sing at the karaoke? Was it a nightclub or a multi-use licensed venue? What actually was a nightclub? What parts of my responsibilities were in what tier?

*

As soon as my copy of Emergency State arrived I was inevitably drawn to pages 66-68 of the book, Police – understanding of rules.

Wagner dip sampled police officers on their understanding of the regulations and as I feared, he found that the unenforceable guidance had been rolled up into the law by some of my colleagues.

He is generally sympathetic to our plight but rightly points out that in the State of Confusion, many people were given police instructions that were not based on any legal power and many fixed penalty notices were given out that should not have been.

This is important stuff when the police had been given such great power and authority. Policing should learn from this because in the cold light of hindsight, it will diminish our legitimacy.

*

From the beginning Wagner sets out that this was a real emergency. There was a virus, it was killing many people, there was no cure, little effective treatment and no vaccine. There was a real prospect of NHS resources being overwhelmed.

He doesn’t claim any special medical knowledge but he understood early the value of bringing his experience and knowledge as a barrister to bear on getting a proper understanding of the scope and power of each development of the Coronavirus regulations. It is a balanced and thorough view. Many times as a I read Emergency State I found myself thinking “Yes Adam but….” only to find that my but was addressed a few paragraphs later.

*

The book is helpfully organised chronologically with each chapter headed up by the relevant dates and poignantly the cumulative Coronavirus death toll.

Chapter 6 – Patchwork Summer took me back to that incredibly good summer in 2020 when I spent time patrolling parks with local council staff because there was a local political opinion that somehow groups of people gathering legally in a public park to enjoy picnics and cold beers from the local off licences was a thing to be stopped. Those gatherings were not stopped but we had to look.

*

If I had to pick one chapter to survive it would be Chapter 8 – Step By Step.

We should never forget “Partygate” and Wagner sets out persuasive evidence that inside government, things were much closer to the Versailles court of the Sun King than to say, Battle of Britain era Fighter Command.

I read this chapter with a near constant smile. Who had kept all the receipts? Who knew what regulations were being flouted on which dates? Who could definitively say “You broke your own regulations, the ones that you made”? Who could point out that the Metropolitan Police policy on retrospective enforcement of the regulations explicitly allowed and indeed encouraged retrospective investigations into something like “Partygate”?

This comes as a conclusion to one of Wagner’s central themes that for about two years there was an exercise in strong use of state power with very little effective scrutiny. As a country we largely rolled with it but those thorny thickets of regulation  were often poorly thought out, impractical and unfair. All the while, behind the palace walls there was hedonistic exceptionalism.

*

As I read this book, I could always feel Wagner setting out his evidence and heading towards conclusions. It is well written and accessible and it has to be to coherently draw together the ratcheting of fiat law into everything from the public joy of a walk in the country to the private joy of the bedroom. This is no dry legal telling of the tale. It takes the reader back into the daily history, the tragedies and the fear of Coronavirus. It has a narrative that you can feel.

If I were to clumsily summarise it, I would say that a State of Emergency was necessary but we somehow ended up with an Emergency State.

There are lessons to be learned about keeping that state in some sort of effective balance and on this occasion neither the courts or the legislature were particularly effective.

We (mostly) willingly surrendered many freedoms and although they were eventually returned to us, a blueprint for making further lock downs and restrictions on our freedoms with weak scrutiny and little ongoing accountability is now known. Without scrutiny and accountability we may be left solely reliant on the wisdom and responsibility of our state which is a bad thing.  Will those lessons be remembered when we pass this way again?

Probably not I think but if they are, this book Emergency State will be a good start for anybody that wants to know what really happened and more importantly, how it happened.

Richard Horton

TAFKA NightJack

***

***

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.

The comments policy is here.