Letter from D G B Lyon
1. I write not on the technical aspects
of the contents of the Bill but as an interested observer of the
principles involved.
2. I am a retired solicitor who spent his
career in local government. I can remember being taught about
the separation of powers and the admirable principle it was but
the reality was that it caused a lot of difficulty if too rigidly
followed. My lecturers then went on to say although we nodded
at it we had evolved a compromise which worked admirably.
3. I must say that in all my years in the
law I never heard anyone complain about the lack of rigid separation.
Admittedly my forays into the world of the Court of Appeal and
the House of Lords were rare but I feel sure that it is only in
the closed circuit of Westminster that anyone evinced the slightest
interest in tinkering with a situation which has survived the
test of time over very many years.
4. On a practical point, even if a new Supreme
Court does appear why does there have to be a frantic search for
new premises with the consequent cost. The Lords have sat as a
court in the House and no one seemed to be put out, why cannot
that continue?
5. The ill-thought out and precipitate action
to abolish the position of Lord Chancellor showed what a lynch
pin the post is. I hope someone was covered in confusion as hasty
steps had to be taken to hold the position pro term. Again why
is the practical experience of many many years being discarded.
The demands of the position have, to the rest of us, transcended
any political beliefs, why has that suddenly and allegedly become
untenable?
6. Whatever else may have been said about
individual members of the highest court and the holder of the
Lord Chancellorship the long traditions of this mature democracy
have ensured that political bias has been reduced to an insignificant
factor in decision making. Indeed it is not unknown for that bastion
of democracy, the Commons to express views that decisions should
reflect the current political colour, allegedly "because
that is what the `people' demand" and they are piqued when
those decisions don't.
7. Reductio ad absurdum—It ain't broke
so why fix it.
15 April 2004
| 
