I take note of earlier comments, grateful as I am for Joshua’s report. The memories of my contact and dealings with Lord Falconer begin in earlyish 1997. VERY early on in Blair’s first government following the first of May election of that year, the BIrmingham Law Society’s office received a request - some might say a hospital pass (though not I)- to assemble a respectable audience of Solicitors and their staff for a breakfast meeting with Charlie in the Society’s Council Chamber at 8.00 a.m. (sic) on a Saturday (sic). The Chancery Lane Society official clearly from his stunned reaction afterwards had assumed that this had been mission impossible. In fact as then Deputy Vice President I persuaded about sixty colleagues to be present and I guided the “Solicitor’s” Private Personal Secretary by phone to the premises in Temple Street. The PPS: Leicester MP Keith Vaz- I know! But this had been in his hay day. We had then had an amicable and lively hour and a half’s session with many questions and points from the floor, before the “Solicitor”’s departure to as I recall Newcastle upon Tyne for another “getting to know you” meeting with solicitors there. After that cordial relations were maintained especially with Keith and to an extent with Charlie and especially with me well into and after my Presidential year of 1998/99. As time went on I would be challenging him from the floor on occasions beyond my numbering but all the same the main event in truth each year had been the Birmingham Young Solicitors’ Group Dinner where after my intervention Charlie had agreed to be a top table guest together with Lord Derry. They both obviously hugely enjoyed the occasion and stayed for a companionably long time- though scarcely dancing until breakfast time as did I. And so it was- for a while, until governing had grown more difficult. I wonder if Tony ever could spell let alone grasp the meanings of rule of law and due process, but then that is another -rather dispiriting- story. However, I am glad Charlie has now spoken as he has and I heartily agree with him. As to consultation first before the seismic changes, frankly I doubt that if ,on notice, the “uniquely forceful and confident” Lord Irving would have countenanced those measures and his weight added to those of so many of his peers might have seen them all off. I am with Lord F:that would have been serious and damaging for our nation. I remain grateful to my friends and colleagues; indeed they were equally obliging with an audience of a Saturday morning for two of Charlie’s successors, one Labour and t’other Tory, Gary Streeter, of whom the less said………
Is the answer to my own question that in speaking of members of Parliament Falconer means to include the Lords? Certainly, the Lord Chief Justice would be a member of the House of Lords in order to enable him to sit on the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords i.e. he was one of the Law Lords sitting on neither the Government nor the Opposition benches
The courts have become more involved in politics and some judges have relished this change.
The HRA has reduced the power of parliamentary sovereignty, weaponised lawyers and now the reaction has set in….hence Reform type parties springing up all over the west.
Out of curiosity I ask who were the Lord Chief Justices who were at the same time Members of Parliament during the period ending with the First World War? The Lord Chancellor was, I believe, always a Crown appointment and sat on the Woolsack in the Lords and was almost omnipresent in the Constitution until Blair and Falconer
Derry was a family friend of my in-laws… a demon apple-bobber & a menace anywhere around a ping-pong table. I hope one day to hear in detail what he was thinking at the time - I owed him thanks for his encouragement when I took on DETR in JR c2000 & it wouldn’t have been appropriate to ask in the settings we met.
*I’d made no mention of my JR but Derry had heard about it & gave me an reassuring *pat on the shoulder* when raising it quite out of the blue - not sure how he knew but the situation could have been awkward so I was grateful (& relieved tbh).
I’d also like to know how Lord Falconer got to be involved so soon (& under what circumstances) in the Kelly Inquiry - I won’t be holding my breath 🤷🏼♂️😔
The comment about the virtues of not consulting is shocking. Does Lord Falconer think the end justifies the means?
Is that also why he is happy for Assisted Dying to be done by a Private Members Bill? To avoid a long drawn out consultation process which might expose flaws in the Bill
Lord Falconer has previously spoken against wide delegated powers and Henry VIII powers, even calling them in his Gresham reading "unconstitutional". Yet the Assisted Dying Bill which he supports contains many such powers. How does he square that?
Is there a copy of the speech available?
Alas not. But the LCJ has written a foreword to the strategy paper that will be online today.
Much obliged!
Sorry: I had then been Vice President!
I take note of earlier comments, grateful as I am for Joshua’s report. The memories of my contact and dealings with Lord Falconer begin in earlyish 1997. VERY early on in Blair’s first government following the first of May election of that year, the BIrmingham Law Society’s office received a request - some might say a hospital pass (though not I)- to assemble a respectable audience of Solicitors and their staff for a breakfast meeting with Charlie in the Society’s Council Chamber at 8.00 a.m. (sic) on a Saturday (sic). The Chancery Lane Society official clearly from his stunned reaction afterwards had assumed that this had been mission impossible. In fact as then Deputy Vice President I persuaded about sixty colleagues to be present and I guided the “Solicitor’s” Private Personal Secretary by phone to the premises in Temple Street. The PPS: Leicester MP Keith Vaz- I know! But this had been in his hay day. We had then had an amicable and lively hour and a half’s session with many questions and points from the floor, before the “Solicitor”’s departure to as I recall Newcastle upon Tyne for another “getting to know you” meeting with solicitors there. After that cordial relations were maintained especially with Keith and to an extent with Charlie and especially with me well into and after my Presidential year of 1998/99. As time went on I would be challenging him from the floor on occasions beyond my numbering but all the same the main event in truth each year had been the Birmingham Young Solicitors’ Group Dinner where after my intervention Charlie had agreed to be a top table guest together with Lord Derry. They both obviously hugely enjoyed the occasion and stayed for a companionably long time- though scarcely dancing until breakfast time as did I. And so it was- for a while, until governing had grown more difficult. I wonder if Tony ever could spell let alone grasp the meanings of rule of law and due process, but then that is another -rather dispiriting- story. However, I am glad Charlie has now spoken as he has and I heartily agree with him. As to consultation first before the seismic changes, frankly I doubt that if ,on notice, the “uniquely forceful and confident” Lord Irving would have countenanced those measures and his weight added to those of so many of his peers might have seen them all off. I am with Lord F:that would have been serious and damaging for our nation. I remain grateful to my friends and colleagues; indeed they were equally obliging with an audience of a Saturday morning for two of Charlie’s successors, one Labour and t’other Tory, Gary Streeter, of whom the less said………
Is the answer to my own question that in speaking of members of Parliament Falconer means to include the Lords? Certainly, the Lord Chief Justice would be a member of the House of Lords in order to enable him to sit on the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords i.e. he was one of the Law Lords sitting on neither the Government nor the Opposition benches
Interestingly, Sumption's the only one to stay out of the Lords post-Supreme Court.
There is a different viewpoint!
The courts have become more involved in politics and some judges have relished this change.
The HRA has reduced the power of parliamentary sovereignty, weaponised lawyers and now the reaction has set in….hence Reform type parties springing up all over the west.
You reap what you sow.
Out of curiosity I ask who were the Lord Chief Justices who were at the same time Members of Parliament during the period ending with the First World War? The Lord Chancellor was, I believe, always a Crown appointment and sat on the Woolsack in the Lords and was almost omnipresent in the Constitution until Blair and Falconer
Derry as local chancellor🙂
Sorry. Changed that typo online minutes after the email went out.
Derry was a family friend of my in-laws… a demon apple-bobber & a menace anywhere around a ping-pong table. I hope one day to hear in detail what he was thinking at the time - I owed him thanks for his encouragement when I took on DETR in JR c2000 & it wouldn’t have been appropriate to ask in the settings we met.
*I’d made no mention of my JR but Derry had heard about it & gave me an reassuring *pat on the shoulder* when raising it quite out of the blue - not sure how he knew but the situation could have been awkward so I was grateful (& relieved tbh).
*I suspect it’s his wife Alison who I have to thank… some Lady❤️
I’d also like to know how Lord Falconer got to be involved so soon (& under what circumstances) in the Kelly Inquiry - I won’t be holding my breath 🤷🏼♂️😔
Lord Lane's comments appear to show that reductio ad hitlerum was alive and well long before the age of social media!
True, though perhaps he can be forgiven in the light of his wartime military service, for which he was awarded the AFC.
The comment about the virtues of not consulting is shocking. Does Lord Falconer think the end justifies the means?
Is that also why he is happy for Assisted Dying to be done by a Private Members Bill? To avoid a long drawn out consultation process which might expose flaws in the Bill
Lord Falconer has previously spoken against wide delegated powers and Henry VIII powers, even calling them in his Gresham reading "unconstitutional". Yet the Assisted Dying Bill which he supports contains many such powers. How does he square that?