MPs to to see law in action
Supreme Court offers to tell new legislators what they need to know
New MPs will be offered a guided tour of the UK Supreme Court as part of their induction process, the court’s president announced last week.
In oral evidence to the House of Lords constitution committee, Lord Reed of Allermuir said they would also be offered a short written guide to the UK legal system.
Lord Strathclyde, a former leader of the house, had pointed out to Reed that there would probably be a large number of new members of parliament with little or no understanding of the relationship between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.
In response, Reed said he had made a short film with the court’s chief executive and the Commons Speaker that would be circulated to all MPs after the general election.
“The film focuses on the role of the Supreme Court, the rule of law in our constitution and judicial independence,” he added. “I cannot force [MPs] to watch the film, read the material or take up our offer of a visit — but I hope they will.”
Strathclyde, clearly impressed, seemed to think that some members of the House of Lords should watch it too.
Reed told the committee that he and his colleagues had been doing
a lot of work with parliamentarians — the House of Commons justice committee, the Speaker and, specifically, Conservative parliamentarians of both houses who have invited me to speak to them — and officials and clerks of both houses, again, to try to build up an understanding of the constitutional relationships and confidence that demarcation lines are understood.
As to the effect this is having, my relationship with ministers is positive and constructive. For that matter, when I was invited by a Conservative member of parliament to speak to a group of about 20 Conservative parliamentarians, I rather wondered if I might be going into the lion’s den. But I welcomed it because, at the very worst, it was a chance to address misconceptions. In fact, it was a very welcoming environment and we had a productive discussion.
International relations are an important part of the UK Supreme Court’s work, despite its limited budget. The president visited Tokyo last year — but only after the Supreme Court of Japan had agreed to pay for his trip. His visit included an audience with the emperor.
Reed told peers that, when he met ministers from departments other than the Ministry of Justice,
the single thing that comes as a complete shock to them is the international role of the court. They do not realise that most of our cases involve people from outside the UK and that it is world trade that we are dealing with. They think that we deal with criminal convictions, family disputes and so forth.
Comment
Law is not generally taught in schools and most newly-elected lawmakers are unlikely to be familiar with the subtleties of the UK’s uncodified constitution — or even how parliament works. The Supreme Court is just across Parliament Square from the House of Commons and MPs should certainly take up the court’s invitation to visit.
It’s almost 15 years since the law lords, as they then were, left the Palace of Westminster for the last time. Supreme Court justices are right to try to restore the kind of personal relationships that existed when there were closer links between parliament and the UK’s highest court.
Of course, judges must steer clear of politics. But that’s something they are well aware of, as Reed and his deputy Lord Hodge made clear at other points during their evidence.
In my view, it’s not just MPs who need to understand, as Reed put it, that “the supremacy of parliament is not the supremacy of a government”. Once our new legislators have realised how little they and their colleagues know about parliamentary democracy, they should ensure that the next generation receives a better grounding in the law and the constitution than they themselves are likely to have received.
Schools are the place to start, of course. And perhaps a broadcaster might launch a topical discussion programme about developments in the law.
Just a thought.
Thank you. Sorry to be so pedantic.
Yes parliamentarians make law; but only where a group have a majority. My concern is that in a common law system all of us should understand that there are two sources of law: statute and common law. And that common law - ie judge-made law - rules all, save when a judge is overidden by the Supreme Court or Euro Court of Human Rights or by statute (ie a majority group of MPs). (And I know full well that you, JR, know all this.)
Speaking for myself, I should prefer that the term 'lawmaker' were abolished....