You are on page 1of 178

CASE STUDY: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE COMMONS AND LORDS DISAGREE CENTRAL ISSUES In a bicameral parliamentar ! !

!tem, r"le! are nee#e# ab$"t t%e relati&e p$'er! $( eac% c%amber $( t%e le)i!lat"re. o In some constitutions, eac% H$"!e %a! e*"al p$'er an# t%e c$n!ent $( b$t% i! re*"ire# ($r le)i!lati$n. o T%i! i! n$t !$ in t%e Unite# +in)#$m, '%ere t%e C$mm$n! (dominated by the government %a! p$'er t$ #i!re)ar# t%e &ie'! $( t%e L$r#! an# pre!ent a -ill ($r r$ al a!!ent. o W%at are t%e /"!ti(icati$n! ($r t%i! arran)ement0 o W%at are t%e limit! $n t%e C$mm$n!1 abilit t$ p"!% t%r$")% le)i!lati$n!

In the Unite# +in)#$m, these ru"es are partl in the #orm o# a c$n!tit"ti$nal c$n&enti$n (the $Sa"isbury%Addison convention and partl in le)i!lati$n (the &ar"iament Act '('' as amended by the &ar"iament Act '()( . o T%i! c%apter e2pl$re! t%e #i((erence! an# !imilaritie! bet'een t%e!e t'$ #i((erent 3in#! $( c$n!tit"ti$nal n$rm. *uring the +assage o# a ,i"", the Sali!b"r 4A##i!$n c$n&enti$n is that the L$r#! 'ill )i&e a Sec$n# Rea#in) t$ a mani(e!t$ -ill and a&$i# ma3in) 'rec3in) amen#ment!1 t%at c%an)e t%e )$&ernment1! mani(e!t$ intention.

I#, at the end o# the "egis"ative +rocess, there is #ea#l$c3 bet'een t%e C$mm$n! an# L$r#!, the Parliament Act! all$' a -ill t$ recei&e r$ al a!!ent 'it%$"t t%e a)reement $( t%e L$r#!. o This mechanism has been used on on"y a hand#u" o# occasions since it -as created in '(''.b"t al'a ! in %i)%l c$ntenti$"! circ"m!tance!. This cha+ter a"so e2amine! t%e r$le $( t%e c$"rt! in re)"latin) #i!p"te! bet'een t%e C$mm$n! an# L$r#!. o The c$"rt! %a&e n$ remit t$ a#/"#icate $n breac%e! $( c$n!tit"ti$nal c$n&enti$n.

o In the Att$rne General & 5ac3!$n liti)ati$n (/00)%01 , a +ro%hunting +ressure grou+ sought to cha""enge the "ega" va"idity o# the 2unting Act /00) (banning hunting in Eng"and and 3a"es , -hich had received roya" assent under the &ar"iament Acts. o This +rovided the courts -ith an o++ortunity to c$n!i#er t%e l$n)4r"nnin) #ebate $&er t%e nat"re $( le)i!lati$n enacte# 'it%$"t t%e L$r#!1 c$n!ent. o Some c$mmentat$r! !"))e!t that it $pen! t%e #$$r t$ ("t"re c$"rt! m$#i( in) t%e principle $( parliamentar !"premac .

INTRODUCTION Loo4 at / events5 convention and the Acts This cha+ter "oo4s at the circumstances surrounding t-o events. Section /, Conventions regu"ating Commons%Lords re"ations, dea"s -ith the decision o# the U6 &ar"iament in /001 to set u+ a committee to e7amine -hether the constitutiona" conventions governing the re"ationshi+ bet-een the 2ouse o# Lords and the 2ouse o# Commons shou"d be codi#ied. The e7tracts and 8uestions in Section / are designed to he"+ you to understand9 o the nature o# constitutiona" conventions5 o the +ros and cons o# codi#ying constitutiona" conventions in the United 6ingdom (and ho- this re"ates to the debate about ado+ting a -ritten constitution 5 and o ho- constitutiona" conventions o+erate to regu"ate the res+ective ro"es o# the Lords and the Commons. Section :, the &ar"iament Acts, "oo4s at the decision o# the Commons (and

the Labour government to +ress ahead and +resent the 2unting ,i"" /00) #or roya" assent des+ite the im+"acab"e o++osition o# the Lords to the +o"icy o# a tota" ban on hunting -i"d anima"s -ith dogs5 the Lords +re#erred a +o"icy o#"icensed hunting. To understand the signi#icance o# this e+isode, -e -i"" need to trave" bac4 in time to '('' and '()(, -hen the Commons +assed genera" statutory ru"es (the &ar"iament Acts see4ing to curb the +o-ers o# the Lords. The e7tracts and 8uestions in Section : are designed to he"+ you to understand9 the nature o# the &ar"iament Acts. did they $de"egate; +o-er to +ass ,i""s to the Commons, or did they rede#ine; the meaning o# &ar"iament, in circumstances in -hich there is dead"oc4 bet-een the t-o 2ouses! o the <usti#ications #or a system that a""o-s one chamber o# the U6 &ar"iament (the Commons to override the o++osition o# the other (the Lords to a ,i""5 and o the ro"e o# the courts in revie-ing -hether the &ar"iament Act '()( (-hich sought to "imit #urther the +o-ers o# the Lords -as a va"id Act o# &ar"iament. Re+resentatives o# the Countryside A""iance, a +ro%

hunting +ressure grou+, +ursued a <udicia" revie- c"aim arguing that the '()( Act -as inva"id and there#ore so -as the 2unting Act /00). This raises +ro#ound 8uestions about the "imits o# the constitutiona" +rinci+"e o# +ar"iamentary su+remacy. =ou can use Sections / and : se+arate"y.but a common theme "in4s both events.

b6RELATIONS -ETWEEN THE COMMONS AND THE LORDS / houses% 2>C and 2>L That common theme is the re"ationshi+ bet-een the res+ective ro"es and +o-ers o# the Commons and Lords. Alm$!t all lar)e #em$cratic !tate! have nationa" "egis"atures c$n!i!tin) $( t'$ 7c%amber!1 $r 7%$"!e!1. The United 6ingdom, o# course, is no e7ce+tion. T%e H$"!e $( C$mm$n!, c$mpri!in) 89: MP! e"ected on a $#irst +ast the +ost; basis #or geogra+hica" constituencies o# about ?@,000 +eo+"e is re#erred to as the $L$'er C%amber1, even though it has greater +o-ers and democratic "egitimacy. The H$"!e $( L$r#!;t%e 7Upper C%amber1;c$mpri!e! ab$"t <:: peer! (there is no #i7ed number ,

none o# -hom are direct"y e"ected (unti" #urther re#orms are introduced .

=ir!t !it"ati$n9 ,y convention, Lords -i"" not vote against the ,i""s -hich to #u"#i"" their mani#esto This arrangement is ca+ab"e o# "eading to tensions and thro-s u+ t-o basic 8uestions. Airst, -hat ru"es shou"d govern hoeach o# the t-o 2ouses a++roaches the scrutiny o# government ,i""s! This is a matter $( c$n!tit"ti$nal c$n&enti$n (rather than statute "a- , the main one being the Sali!b"r 4A##i!$n c$n&enti$n, named a#ter the Lords -ho #irst agreed the ru"e in '()1. The c$n&enti$n !ee3! t$ pre&ent t%e L$r#! (r$m &$tin) #$'n a p$lic c$ntaine# in a )$&ernment -ill su++orted by the Commons i( t%e -ill !ee3! t$ ("l(il a c$mmitment c$ntaine# in t%e mani(e!t$ $n '%ic% t%e )$&ernin) part 'a! electe#.

Sec$n# Sit"ati$n9 Rare situation that dead"oc4 ha++en, by '('' Act, s4i+ the 2>L Second, -hat ru"es a++"y i#, -hen each 2ouse has #inished scrutiniBing a government ,i"", t%e c$me t$ $pp$!in) &ie'! a! t$ '%et%er t%e -ill !%$"l# be pa!!e# an# pre!ente# ($r r$ al a!!ent0 Aortunate"y, t%i! !it"ati$n #$e! n$t ari!e &er $(ten. As -e sa- in Cha+ter '0, t%ere ma be a pr$ce!! $( pin)4p$n) bet'een t%e t'$ H$"!e!, in -hich they debate di##erences o# vie- on -hat the ,i"" to be +resented #or roya" assent shou"d contain. ,ehind the scenes, repre!entati&e! $( t%e main p$litical partie! tr t$ %ammer $"t a #eal t$ '%ic% t%eir !"pp$rter! in eac% H$"!e can a)ree.

It i! al!$ t%e ca!e t%at t%e )$&ernment ma #eci#e t$ 'it%#ra' c$ntr$&er!ial cla"!e! #rom a ,i"" i# it becomes c"ear that it -i"" not gain the su++ort o# the Lords. >ccasiona""y, %$'e&er, t%ere i! #ea#l$c39 the C$mm$n! ta3e! $ne &ie' an# t%e L$r#! an$t%er on -hat is desirab"e in the nationa" interest. The Parliament Act >?>>, a! amen#e# b t%e Parliament Act >?@?, +rovides statutory ru"es as to -hen a ,i"" a++roved by the Commons, b"t #i!a)ree# t$ b t%e L$r#!, ma n$net%ele!! be )i&en r$ al a!!ent.

Re"ation bt- t-o houses actua""y is re"ationshi+ bt- govt and others member ="n#amental *"e!ti$n! $( principle an# p$litic! lie 'it%in -hat can, at #irst sight, !eem t$ be *"ite #r , tec%nical i!!"e! $( %$' t'$ in!tit"ti$n!.the Commons and the Lords.'$r3 t$)et%er in t%e p"blic intere!t. This -as rec$)niAe# b t%e 5$int C$mmittee $n C$n&enti$n!, the -or4 o# -hich -e "oo4 at short"y. 5$int C$mmittee $n C$n&enti$n!: :. C..,D This is a #ree country, and the 3estminster &ar"iament is one o# the things -hich ma4e it so. &ar"iament is a com+"e7 mechanism, but at its heart is a sim+"e ba"ance9 the ba"ance bet-een enab"ing the Eovernment to do things, and ho"ding them to account.as4ing 8uestions, +ro+osing a"ternatives, #orcing them to revea" in#ormation and <usti#y their actions.

This re+ort is about the most im+ortant as+ects o# ho- this crucia" ba"ance -or4s. ). >ur remit re#ers to the re"ationshi+ bet-een the t-o 2ouses o# &ar"iament. 3hen a H$"!e $( Parliament ta4es a +osition or e7ercises a +o-er, it se"dom does so because all t%e Member! (eel t%e !ame 'a 5 m$re $(ten it i! b ne)$tiate# a)reement $r b ma/$rit &$te. In our parliamentar #em$crac the ma<ority in the 2ouse o# Commons i! cl$!el a!!$ciate# 'it% t%e G$&ernment9 it sustains it, and m$!t Mini!ter! are #ra'n (r$m it.

In t%e L$r#!, at +resent, the H$"!eB! acti$n! ma at an time be #ictate# b a c$mbinati$n $( $pp$!iti$n partie! an# Cr$!!benc%er!. There#ore, though Ft%e relati$n!%ip bet'een t%e t'$ H$"!e! $( ParliamentC ma !$"n# rat%er ab!tract, in practical term! it "!"all mean! t%e relati$n!%ip! bet'een Parliament an# )$&ernment, and bet-een government and other members.

EDAMPLES O= SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE LORDS AND COMMONS HAEE DISAGREED ON +EY PROEISIONS IN A -ILL % Eovt $"ose; /00G%0@ Session.The )$&ernment! C$"nter4terr$ri!m -ill !$")%t t$ create p$lice p$'er! t$ #etain terr$ri!t !"!pect! ($r ($rt 4t'$ #a ! +assed in the Commons (by a sma"" ma<ority o# nine , b"t t%e L$r#! &$te# t$ rem$&e t%e cla"!e (r$m t%e -ill. The 2ome Secretary, Hac8ui Smith I&, announced that the )$&ernment '$"l# rel"ctantl accept t%e L$r#!1 &ie' and not see4 to use the &ar"iament Acts to insist on the +o-er being created. Acc$r#in)l , t%e C$"nter4 terr$ri!m Act F::G #$e! n$t #eal 'it% #etenti$n 'it%$"t c%ar)e.

% Eovt "ose due to +rocedure did not $a""o-; them to use Act '('' /001%01 Session.The )$&ernment! C$n!tit"ti$nal Re($rm -ill pr$p$!e# t$ ab$li!% t%e $((ice $( L$r# C%ancell$r (see Cha+ter 1 . T%e L$r#! #i!a)ree# -ith this and voted #or amendments that +reserved the o##ice in a modi#ied #orm. The )$&ernment 'a! "n%app , b"t c$"l# n$t "!e t%e Parliament Act!, beca"!e t%e -ill %a# been intr$#"ce# (ir!t t$ t%e L$r#!, rat%er t%an t$ t%e C$mm$n!.

%,i""s +assed by using Act '()( /00/%0: Session.T%e )$&ernment! H"ntin) -ill 'a! amen#e# in t%e L$r#! (by a "arge ma<ority o# /'/ t$ c%an)e t%e pr$p$!e# p$lic #rom an outright ban to one that +ermitted hunting under "icence. The )$&ernment, an# c$n!e*"entl t%e C$mm$n!, re("!e# t$ accept t%i! and the 2unting ,i"" -as not +resented #or roya" assent. A ne' -ill 'a! enacte# in the #o""o-ing /00)%01 session 'it%$"t t%e L$r#!1 a)reement "n#er t%e Parliament Act!. As -e sha"" see "ater in the cha+ter, the courts -ere ca""ed on to ad<udicate on -hether this -as "a-#u".

%,i""s +assed by using Act '()( '(((%/000 Session.The governments Se2"al O((ence! HAmen#ment6 -ill sought to e8ua"iBe the age o# consent #or straight and gay se7 at '? years o"d. The +rovision -as +assed in the Commons, but the L$r#! rem$&e# it (r$m t%e -ill ($Eood +arents do not -ant their sons to be encouraged to ta4e u+ homose7ua" re"ationshi+s at such an ear"y ageJ said one member o# the Lords . The Sali!b"r 4A##i!$n c$n&enti$n -as re#erred to in the LordsK debates, in -hich it 'a! p$inte# $"t t%at t%e pr$p$!al 'a! n$t incl"#e# in Lab$"r! >??< )eneral electi$n mani(e!t$. A ne' -ill in F:::4:> 'a! enacte# 'it%$"t t%e L$r#!1 a)reement "n#er t%e Parliament Act!.

CONEENTIONS REGULATING COMMONS4LORDS RELATIONS Issue emerged a#ter '()1 -hen govt +arty change -hich invo"ve ma<or changes and need "egis"ation Let us start by considering -hat constraints are +"aced on the +o-er o# the Lords to vote do-n a government ,i"", in cases in -hich that ,i"" is based on +romises made in the genera" e"ection mani#esto o# the governing +arty. The i!!"e emer)e# !tar3l a(ter t%e >?@9 )eneral electi$n, -hich the Lab$"r Part '$n. T%e Lab$"r )$&ernment embar3e# $n a ma!!i&e pr$4 )ramme $( !$cial an# p$litical c%an)e, inc"uding the creation o# the Nationa" 2ea"th Service (giving #ree medica" care to a"" 5 the Nationa" Insurance Act '()? "aid the #oundations #or a -e"#are state and ma<or industries -ere ta4en into +ub"ic o-nershi+.

All $( t%i! re*"ire# le)i!lati$n.

A. THE SCOPE O= THE SALIS-URY ;ADDISON CONEENTION >rigin;s SALIS,UR=.A**IS>N C>NLENTI>N% recogniBe the govt has the mandate to +ass the "egis"ation -hich #u"#i"" the mani#esto HM G$&ernment, H$"!e $( L$r#!: Re($rm: :.G The Eenera" E"ection o# '()1 +roduced a Labour Eovernment -ith a ma<ority o# '1? in the 2ouse o# Commons. In the 2ouse o# Lords, ho-ever, on"y a sma"" number o# +eers too4 the Labour -hi+. Indeed, there -ere on"y '? Labour +eers out o# a tota" o# @:' voting +eers. This imba"ance +osedMa considerab"e strain on the re"ationshi+ bet-een the t-o 2ouses.

*uring the Eovernment o# '()1% '(1', the then Ei!c$"nt Cranb$rne, Lea#er $( t%e Opp$!iti$n in t%e H$"!e $( L$r#! (C-ho assumed the tit"e o# theD #i#th Iar8uess o# Sali!b"r #rom '()G an# Ei!c$"nt A##i!$n, the Lab$"r Lea#er $( t%e H$"!e $( L$r#!, came t$ an a)reement on the +assage o# ma<or +ieces o# Eovernment "egis"ation through the 2ouse o# Lords. Liscount Cranborne described his +ers+ective on the agreement in the 2ouse o# Lords debate on the 6ingKs S+eech o# '()1, in -hich the EovernmentKs "egis"ative agenda -as being considered9

o FW%ate&er $"r per!$nal &ie'!, 'e !%$"l# (ran3l rec$)ni!e t%at t%e!e pr$p$!al! -ere +ut be#ore the country at the recent Eenera" E"ection and that the +eo+"e o# this country, -ith #u"" 4no-"edge o# these +ro+osa"s, returned the Labour &arty to +o-er. o The G$&ernment ma , t%ere($re, I t%in3, (airl claim t%at t%e %a&e a man#ate t$ intr$#"ce t%e!e pr$p$!al!. o I belie&e t%at it '$"l# be c$n!tit"ti$nall 'r$n), -hen the country has so recent"y e7+ressed its vie-, ($r t%i! H$"!e t$ $pp$!e pr$p$!al! '%ic% %a&e been #e(initel p"t be($re t%e elect$rate.F :.@ Since that time, the doctrine 4no-n as the FSa"isbury%Addison ConventionKK has come to im+"y that the H$"!e $( L$r#! !%$"l# n$t re/ect at !ec$n# $r t%ir# rea#in) an intenti$n t$ le)i!late

menti$ne# in t%e G$&ernmentB! electi$n mani(e!t$.

5$int C$mmittee re(er t$ t%e c$n&enti$n '%en re($rm $( HOL In the United 6ingdom, there is a "ong%running debate about re#orm o# the Lords. As +art o# this re#orm +rocess, it -as decided in /00? that &ar"iament shou"d set u+ a se"ect com%mittee o# members #rom the Commons and the Lords (a $<oint committee; -ith the terms o# re#erence cto consider the +ractica"ity o# codi#ying the 4ey conventions on the re"ationshi+ bet-een the t-o 2ouses o# &ar"iament -hich a##ect the consideration o# "egis"ation. The committee, -hich com+rised e"even +eers and e"even members o# &ar"iament (I&s , inter+reted its remit as being $to see4 consensus on the conventions a++"icab"e no-, and to consider the +ractica"ity o# codi#ying them.? The committee used the usua" methods9 it invited -ritten evidence to be submitted5 it dre- u+ a "ist o# +eo+"e that it -ished to 8uestion in ora" evidence sessions5 and having gathered a"" o# the evidence, the committee agreed a re+ort. In this #irst e7tract #rom the committee;s re+ort, the #ocus is on

ho- the convention has changed in recent years. 5$int C$mmittee $n C$n&enti$n!, Rep$rt Se!!i$n /001%0?, 2L /?1% "N2C '/'/%' (#ootnotes omitted ILab$"r )$&tJ % Labour +eer argued that 2ouse become busier so 2>L has the #unction to curb the +o-er o# e7ecutive ??. The debate on the Sa"isbury% Addison Convention deve"o+ed considerab"y in the '((0s. In '((: the Crossbench +eer, Lord Simon o# E"aisda"e Ca retired La- Lord -ho, in his ear"ier "i#e, had been a Conservative I&D, initiated a debate on the Convention and other +ractices -hich 8ua"i#y the +ar"iamentary ro"e o# the 2ouse o# Lords. *uring that debate L$r# Ric%ar# Ia Lab$"r li(e peer an# KCJ, the Leader o# the >++osition in the Lords, 8ueried F-hether the Sa"isbury doctrine, +ure and sim+"e, can any "onger be -ho""y su##icient to cover the +osition Co# the 2ouse o# LordsD in this day and age C...D.

There sti"" seems to be a consensus in the 2ouse on the desirabi"ity o# -hat, I su++ose, I can ca"" the genera" +ractice o# se"#%restraint -hen it comes to "egis"ative matters. ,ut it i! imp$rtant t$ ac3n$'le#)e t%at a! t%e H$"!e %a! bec$me b"!ier, 8uestions -i"" increasing"y be raised, and have been raised, about the viabi"ity o# its #ormer ro"e C...D. The ("ncti$n $( t%e H$"!e, though, has c%an)e# (r$m bein) primaril a re&i!in) C%amber. One $( t%e main ("ncti$n! t%e H$"!e is that it is e((ecti&el t%e $nl place in '%ic% t%e le)i!lat"re can c"rb t%e p$'er $( t%e e2ec"ti&e.C

% C +eer su++ort the convention as in +ractice 2>L did not vote do-n mani#esto ,i"" ?G. L$r# He!3et% Ia C$n!er&ati&e %ere#itar peerJ, the Eovernment Chie# 3hi+, said he -as Fan "na!%ame# !"pp$rter $( t%e #$ctrineF -hich he described as meaning Fin practice t%at t%e H$"!e #$e! n$t !ee3 t$ &$te #$'n a mani(e!t$ -ill at !ec$n# $r t%ir# rea#in).C In ans-er to the suggestion that the Convention shou"d not be a++"icab"e in the case o# #rame-or4 ,i""s Cthat is, ,i""s that contain "itt"e detai".see Cha+ter (D he said that he be"ieved it -ou"d be di#O#icu"t to distinguish categories o# ,i""s to -hich the doctrine shou"d not a++"y.

% SA convention is constitutiona" +rinci+"es, and i# -ant to change such convention, by another convention it is better done in debate in 2>C rather than in committee stage ?@. Ei!c$"nt Cranb$rne Ia C$n!er&ati&e %ere#itar peer, the grandson o# the KLord CranborneK re#erred to in +ara. ?:, aboveD, the Lord &rivy Sea" and Leader o# the 2ouse o# Lords, subse%8uent"y addressed the constitutiona" +osition o# the 2ouse o# Lords inc"uding the Sa"isbury% Addison Convention in a "ecture to the thin4%tan4 &o"iteia in '((?. 2e commented FIt is a doctrine that has become acce+ted in constitutiona" circ"es9 so much so that it has come to be 4no-n as the Sali!b"r C$n&enti$n: t%at i!, it %a! been rai!e# in t%e lan)"a)e $( p$litic! int$ a c$n!tit"ti$nal c$n&enti$n. That means it is de#inite"y +art o# our constitution. I certain"y regard it as such, and so does our +arty.F

Ei!c$"nt Cranb$rne ac3n$'le#)e#, %$'e&er, t%at 'ere t%e L$r#! t$ be re($rme#, the H$"!e mi)%t c%$$!e t$ ren$"nce t%e #$ctrine. Liscount Cranborne al!$ re(erre# t$ t%e c$n&enti$n t%at t%e c$mmittee !ta)e $( c$n!tit"ti$nal mea!L"re! !%$"l# be ta3en $n t%e (l$$r $( t%e H$"!e $( C$mm$n! -hich he sa- as an im+ortant constitutiona" sa#eguard. He a!3e# '%et%er t%e Lab$"r Part 'a! plannin) F'%ile in!i!tin) $n t%e pre!er&ati$n $( t%e Sali!b"r C$n&enti$n in t%e H$"!e $( L$r#!, t$ $&ert"rn t%i! cr"cial c$n&enti$n I...J in t%e H$"!e $( C$mm$n!0

The Convention +ost%'(((9 % C +eer argued a"though res+ect to Common but 2>L need to scrutiniBed and im+rove "egis"ation as -e"" ?(. In '(((, short"y a#ter the enactment o# the 2ouse o# Lords Act C-hich removed most hereditary +eersD, the Leader o# the >++osition in the 2ouse o# Lords, L$r# Strat%cl #e Ia %ere#itar C$n!er&ati&e peerJ, gave a "ecture to &o"iteia on Rede#ining the ,oundaries bet-een the T-o 2ouses. 2e argued that m$!t $( t%e c$n#iti$n! t%at )a&e ri!e t$ t%e Sali!b"r #$ctrine %a# )$ne. FSome might there#ore conc"ude that the doctrine itse"#, as origina""y conceived, has out"ived its use#u"ness. I -ou"d be "ess dogmatic. Certain"y it needs to be ree7amined in the ne- conditions that arise.F

Lord Strathc"yde then ventured some guesses about the ConventionKs neboundary. FThe Sa"isbury%Addison agreement in essence he"d that the H$"!e $( L$r#! '$"l# n$t &$te a)ain!t mani(e!t$ items at Second Reading, n$r '$"l# it intr$#"ce 'rec3in) amen#ment! to such +rogramme ,i""s. o Wrec3in) amen#ment mean c%an)e t%e intenti$n $( mani(e!t$ The 2ouse o# Lords is not sudden"y going to change a"" that. It 'ill al'a ! accept t%e primac $( t%e electe# H$"!e. It 'ill al'a ! accept t%at t%e K"eenB! G$&ernment m"!t be carrie# $n. -"t, e*"all , it !%$"l# al'a ! in!i!t $n it! ri)%t t$ !cr"tini!e, amen# an# impr$&e le)i!lati$n.C

4 L +eer argued that it is constitutiona""y -rong i# 2>L against -i""s o# e"ectorate G0. >n '1 *ecember '((( -ar$ne!! 5a o# &addington Ca Lab$"r li(e peer, -ho coincidenta""y is the daughter o# the Labour &rime Iinister Him Ca""aghanD, Lord &rivy Sea" and Leader o# the 2ouse o# Lords Cthe Labour governmentKs minister res+onsib"e #or getting business through the LordsD, said in re+"y to a starred (ora" 8uestion FC...D the Sali!b"r MA##i!$n c$n&enti$n %a! n$t%in) t$ #$ 'it% t%e !tren)t% $( t%e partie! in either 2ouse o# &ar"iament and everything to do -ith the re"ationshi+ bet-een the t-o 2ouses C...D it m"!t remain t%e ca!e t%at it '$"l# be c$n!tit"ti$nall 'r$n), '%en t%e c$"ntr %a! e2pre!!e# it! &ie', ($r t%i! H$"!e t$ $pp$!e pr$p$!al! t%at %a&e been #e(initel p"t be($re t%e elect$rate.C

Wa3e%am rep$rt: U+ho"d +o"itica" -i""s is needed in U6 even coa"ition govt is #ormed G'. The 3a4eham re+ort in Hanuary /000 Cthis -as the Roya" Commission on re#orm o# the 2ouse o# LordsD described the Sali!b"r 4A##i!$n C$n&enti$n a! Can "n#er!tan#in) t%at a Bmani(e!t$B -ill, ($re!%a#$'e# in t%e )$&ernin) part B! most recent e"ection mani#esto and +assed by the 2ouse o# Commons, !%$"l# n$t be $pp$!e# b t%e !ec$n# c%amber on Second or Third Reading.F The re+ort #urther noted that the C$n&enti$n %a! !$metime! been e2ten#e# t$ c$&er B'rec3in) amen#ment!B '%ic% B#e!tr$ $r alter be $n# rec$)niti$nB !"c% a -ill. G/. The 3a4eham re+ort ac3n$'le#)e# that !$me pe$ple %a# ar)"e# t%at $nce t%e !it"ati$n %a# been reac%e# in '%ic% n$ $ne part c$"l# c$mman# a '$r3in) ma/$rit in the !ec$n# c%amber t%ere '$"l#

be n$ nee# t$ maintain t%e C$n&enti$n. It c$n!i#ere#, %$'e&er, t%at Ct%ere i! a #eeper p%il$!$p%ical "n#erpinnin) $( t%e Sali!b"r C$n&enti$n -hich remain! &ali#. T%i! ari!e! (r$m t%e !tat"! $( t%e H$"!e $( C$mm$n! a! t%e Unite# +in)#$mB! pre4eminent p$litical ($r"m and #rom the #act that the )eneral electi$n! are t%e m$!t !i)ni(icant e2pre!!i$n $( t%e p$litical 'ill $( t%e elect$rate.C

4 Convention is no needed as not a"" voter -i"" ever read the mani#esto and not a"" -i"" agree -ith every things inside, resu"t o# e"ection is not came #rom any +o"icy enacted and -hen a#ter debate, it may di##er #rom -hat origina""y stated in mani#esto, sa#eguard system by 2>L is needed G:. The 3a4eham re+ort recognised that Fthere are substantia" theoretica" and +ractica" obstac"es to +utting any #orma" -eight on mani#esto commitments. Onl a tin min$rit $( t%e elect$rate e&er rea#! part mani(e!t$!5 and as it is most "nli3el t%at an &$ter 'ill a)ree 'it% e&er !entence $( an mani(e!t$, it i! rarel p$!!ible t$ interpret a )eneral electi$n re!"lt as e&i#ence $( clear p"blic !"pp$rt ($r an !peci(ic p$lic . C...D

T%in3in) $n an )i&en i!!"e ine&itabl #e&el$p! $r c%an)e! $&er time an# le)i!lati$n intr$#"ce# in the third or #ourth session o# a Parliament ma #i((er !i)ni(icantl (r$m t%e rele&ant mani(e!t$ c$mmitment. T$ #en !"c% le)i!lati$n c$n!tit"ti$nal pr$tecti$n, -hi"e +roviding additiona" sa#eguards #or other +ro+osed "egis"ation sim+"y because it ha++ened to be truer to the origina" commitment, '$"l# be "nrea!$nable.C

% Re+ort conc"uded that convention needed to be maintained and suggest to create ne- convention G). The re+ort c$ncl"#e# t%at t%e principle! "n#erl in) t%e C$n&enti$n remain &ali# an# !%$"l# be maintaine#. C Aversion o# the Bman#ateB #$ctrine !%$"l# c$ntin"e t$ be $b!er&e#9 -here the e"ectorate has chosen a +arty to #orm a Eovernment, the e"ements o# that +artyKs genera" e"ection mani#esto shou"d be res+ected by the second chamber.F ># +articu"ar interest in the conte7t o# our in8uiry, the re+ort continued, FIt i! n$t p$!!ible t$ re#"ce t%i! t$ a !imple ($rm"la, partic"larl $ne ba!e# $n mani(e!t$ commitments. T%e !ec$n# c%amber !%$"l# pra)maticall '$r3 $"t a ne' c$n&enti$n re(lectin) t%e!e principle!.C

A"though mani#esto is not a++roved by e"ectorate, but convention is -or4s #or this country, it is binding but not "ega""y to ensure its #"e7ibi"ity G1. In /00' L$r# Sim$n $( Glai!#ale Ca retired La- LordD initiated another debate to ca"" attention to the &ar"iament Acts and the Sa"isbury%Addison Convention. 2e noted that there -as a"-ays something "nreal ab$"t t%e C$n&enti$nB! re(erence t$ a mani(e!t$ Fbecause a mani(e!t$ #$e! n$t c$ntain /"!t a li!t $( pr$p$!al! '%ic% are c$mmitte# ($r appr$&al t$ t%e elect$rate C...D. 2o-ever, the )reat t%in) ab$"t t%e Sali!b"r c$n&enti$n i! t%at it '$r3!.

Eenera""y, t%at i! en$")% in t%i! c$"ntr I...D. The "ast comment to ma4e about it is that it i! a c$n!tit"ti$nal c$n&enti$n an# n$t c$n!tit"ti$nal la'. In other -ords, it is bin#in) $nl p$liticall an# m$rall b"t n$t le)all , and $nl !$ l$n) a! it i! c$n&enient.C

4 C. +eer argued that it is not -ise to o++ose the commitment -hich #orm +art o# ne- govt G?. Ei!c$"nt Cranb$rne It%e %ere#itar C$n!er&ati&e peerJ noted that the tem+orary agreement bet-een his grand#ather and Liscount Addison, had been transmogri#ied into a convention. FThe convention says that the 2ouse -i"" not vote at Second Reading against a mani#esto ,i"" or +ass a -rec4ing amendment during the remaining stages.F 2e ac4no-"edged that a"though he -as sce+tica" about the doctrine o# the mani#esto b"t %e ($"n# it C#i((ic"lt t$ !ee t%at it '$"l# be 'i!e ($r t%i! H$"!e, re($rme# $r n$t, t$ $pp$!e a !peci(ic c$mmitment '%ic% ($rme# part $( t%e electi$n plat($rm $( a ne' G$&ernment.C

4 I# govt have the right to not #u"#i"" the mani#esto +romises due to circumstances change then -hy &ar"iament cannot have the right to say as -e"" Cob<ect to the ,i""D -hen the circumstances change a"though he did not be"ieve -rec4ing amendment is a""o-ed GG. L$r# Strat%cl #e considered that, given the ne- com+osition o# the 2ouse, the Convention deserved to be revie-ed, a"though %e #i# n$t belie&e that even the ne- 2ouse had the right to cha""enge the Commons on Second Reading or by tab"ing 'rec3in) amen#ment! t$ c$re mani(e!t$ item!. ,ut he shared the concerns e7+ressed by those Lords -ho had s+o4en about the status o# mani#estos. FElecti$n pr$mi!e! can be &a)"e and easi"y mani+u"ated by governments, -ho re!er&e t%e ri)%t t$ /etti!$n mani(e!t$ pr$mi!e! i( t%in)! c%an)e.

I( )$&ernment! can %a&e t%e ri)%t, '% cann$t Parliament! t$$ %a&e a !a $n circ"m!tance! a! t%e c%an)e0 3hi"e the case #or giving mani#esto +romises a re"ative"y easy ride in the #irst #e- Sessions o# a EovernmentKs "i#e is "arge"y unassai"ab"e, !"b/ect $nl t$ ParliamentB! $&erri#in) #"t t$ !a(e)"ar# t%e c$n!tit"ti$n, it #$e! n$t mean t%at t%at !%$"l# a"t$maticall e2ten# t$ t%e '%$le (i&e ear!.C

% AE argued that convention maintained even i# the 2>L re#orm G@. The Attorney Eenera", Lord 3i""iams o# Iostyn Ca Labour "i#e +eer and PCD, argued that FThe basis o# the Sa"isbury convention, there#ore, #$e! n$t c%an)e b &irt"e $( an alterati$n in t%e c$mp$!iti$n $( t%i! H$"!e.C He #i# n$t belie&e t%at it %a# (allen int$ #i!"!e ,. C...D

C$ncl"!i$n!9 convention has evo"ved% it a++"ied to mani#esto ,i"" introduced in both 2ouses and ,i""s is not sub<ected to -rec4ing amendment, the ,i""s amendment by Lords may considered by Commons T%e c$n&enti$n %a! e&$l&e# (G. 3e are +ersuaded by the strength o# the argument that the Sa"isbury%Addison Convention has changed since '()1, and +articu"ar"y since '(((. Indeed, this -as tacit"y admitted by the Eovernment -hich said, in -ritten evidence, FAor a convention to -or4 +ro+er"y, ho-ever, there must be a shared understanding o# -hat it means. A contested convention is not a convention at a"".F The continued va"idity o# the origina" Sa"isbury%Addison Convention is c"ear"y contested by the Libera" *emocrats. (@. T%e C$n&enti$n n$' #i((er! (r$m t%e $ri)inal Sali!b"r 4 A##i!$n C$n&enti$n in t'$ imp$rtant re!pect!.

It applie! t$ a mani(e!t$ -ill intr$#"ce# in t%e H$"!e $( L$r#! a! 'ell a! $ne intr$#"ce# in t%e H$"!e $( C$mm$n!. It i! n$' rec$)ni!e# b t%e '%$le H$"!e, un"i4e the origina" Sa"isbury% Addison Convention -hich e7isted on"y bet-een t-o +arties. ((. The C$n&enti$n '%ic% %a! e&$l&e# i! t%at: In the H$"!e $( L$r#!: o A mani(e!t$ -ill i! acc$r#e# a Sec$n# Rea#in)5 o A mani(e!t$ -ill i! n$t !"b/ect t$ B'rec3in) amen#ment!B -hich change the EovernmentKs mani#esto intention as +ro+osed in the ,i""5 and o A mani(e!t$ -ill is +assed and sent (or returned t$ t%e H$"!e $( C$mm$n!, so that they have the o++ortunity, in reasonab"e time, t$ c$n!i#er t%e -ill $r an amen#ment! t%e L$r#! ma 'i!% t$ pr$p$!e. -. CODI=YING CONEENTIONS

Codi#ied but not enacted As -e"" as identi#ying the sco+e o# conventions regu"ating re"ations bet-een the Lords and Commons, the committee -as as4ed to consider -hether it -as #easib"e to codi#y such conventions. $C$#i( in) #$e! n$t nece!!aril mean placin) t%e c$n&enti$n! in le)i!lati$n5 it can al!$ mean !ettin) $"t r"le! $r practice! in a #$c"ment (such as a c$mmittee rep$rt, rather than a $,i""; , -hich is t%en #ebate# an# appr$&e# b a re!$l"ti$n $( eac% H$"!e $( Parliament, 'it%$"t t%at #$c"ment bec$min) 7la'1.

In order to set out ru"es or +ractices in such a document, it may be necessary #irst to de#ine things. In Cha+ter @, -e sa- that this -as one o# the issues that arose in debates about re#orming the armed #orced de+"oyment +rerogative +o-ers. A simi"ar issue arose in re"ation to the Sa"isbury%Addison convention.

2o- can the $de#inite"y; +ut to the e"ectorate be decided! 5$int C$mmittee $n C$n&enti$n!: ILab$"r )$&t at t%at timeJ '0'. Each section o# the Convention -hich has evo"ved over recent years re#ers to a mani#esto ,i"". >ne o# the main +rob"ems to be addressed in deciding -hether it -ou"d be +ractica" to codi#y the Convention is ho- to de#ine a mani#esto ,i"". '0/. W%en a)reein) t%e $ri)inal C$n&enti$n in >?@9, Liscount Cranborne said that he be"ieved Fit '$"l# be c$n!tit"ti$nall 'r$n), -hen the country has so recent"y e7+ressed its vie-, #or this 2ouse Co# LordsD t$ $pp$!e pr$p$!al! '%ic% %a&e been #e(initel p"t be($re t%e elect$rateC (em+hasis added .

O&er 9: ear! later -ar$ne!! 5a o# &addington, the Leader o# the 2ouse o# Lords, restated that +osition9 Fit must remain the case that it -ou"d be c$n!tit"ti$nall 'r$n), -hen the country has e7+ressed its vie-, ($r t%i! H$"!e t$ $pp$!e pr$p$!al! t%at %a&e been #e(initel been p"t be($re t%e elect$rate.C (em+hasis added . H$' t%en can t%e *"e!ti$n $( '%et%er a pr$p$!al %a! been #e(initel p"t t$ t%e elect$rate be #eci#e#0

% A"though Lords can have the idea about de#inition to mani#esto is about, but it shou"d not be #ine reading into it '0:. The Leader o# the 2ouse o# Commons argued that the #ina" decision on -hat a mani#esto is F has to be a matter #or the Commons as the body having +rimacy, it cannot "ie in the ro"e o# the Lords #or the Lords as an im+ortant but nece!!aril !"b$r#inate c%amber t$ !a , CWell, it ma %a&e !ai# D b"t 'e t%in3 Y, or, to +ic4 u+ your +hrase on the '()1 mani#esto, BT%ere i! a #i((erence bet'een reall imp$rtant electi$n c$mmitment! an# t%$!e '%ic% are "nimp$rtant.B F o T%at mean HOL can c$n!i#er '%at i! t%e mani(e!t$ ab$"t

Lord Aa"coner o# Thoroton, Secretary o# State #or Constitutiona" A##airs and Lord Chance""or Ca Labour "i#e +eerD, considered that the Convention F'$"l# n$t be c$n&incin) i( it #epen#e# $n a &er (ine rea#in) $( eac% in#i&i#"al mani(e!t$ C...D it nee#! t$ be a )eneral !en!ible rea#in) b$t% $( '%at i! in t%e mani(e!t$ an# br$a#l '%at t%e )$&ernment !tan#! ($r in determining -hat is covered by it.F

% Com+"e7 and "ess +recise o# the convention not suitab"e #or "egis"ation, on"y core o# the mani#esto needed but not every -ords '0). The >++osition Cthe Conservative &artyD agree -ith the 3a4eham re+ort that F BIt i! n$t p$!!ible t$ re#"ce t%i! t$ a !imple ($rm"la, +articu"ar"y one based on Iani#esto commitOments.K The Convention -as +ragmatic in origin % and shou"d continue to be addressed in +ragmatic #ashion #rom case to case.F '01. The Libera" *emocrats consider, ho-ever, that Fmani(e!t$! can ne&er be #etaile# en$")% t$ c$n!tit"te a reliable, sti"" le!! a /"!ticiable ba!i! $n '%ic% t$ #ra(t le)i!lati$n.F Mani(e!t$! are n$' m"c% m$re c$mple2 an# le!! preci!e t%an t%e 'ere in >?@9. This +osition has to be seen in the conte7t o# the Libera" *emocratsK vie- that the Lords shou"d not re<ect

any government ,i"" at Second or Third Reading. '0?. Lord 3i""iamson o# 2orton, the Convenor o# Crossbench &eers, thought it 'a! rea!$nable Ct$ c$n!i#er '%at are t%e c$re element! $n '%ic% a part )$e! t$ t%e elect$rate to have a man% date and you have to be care#u", beca"!e e&er '$r# in a mani(e!t$ ma n$t nece!!aril be part $( a c$re pr$)ramme, that that does not tie too much the re"ations bet-een the t-o 2ouses.F

'0G. 3e agree that le)i!lati$n $(ten cann$t ea!il be i#enti(ie# a! a #irect tran!p$rtati$n #rom a mani#esto. As severa" o# our -itnesses +ointed out, the mani#esto on -hich the Lab$"r Part '$n t%e >?@9 electi$n c$ntaine# G pa)e!9 that on -hich it -on the F::9 electi$n 'a! >>F pa)e! "ong and it '$"l# be "nreali!tic t$ e2pect t%at man , i( an , &$ter! a)ree# 'it% e&er line $( t%e mani(e!t$.

4 Convention sti"" a++"ied even in the coa"ition govt Cs"ight ma<orityD but ta4e e7tra care '0@. Another +otentia" di##icu"ty re"ates to ho- the Convention -ou"d a++"y in the case o# a minority government. The vie- o# the Leader o# the 2ouse o# Commons Fis that i( an c$aliti$n $r arran)ement as in '(GG )ain! t%e !"pp$rt $( t%e #em$craticall electe# H$"!e and en#$r!e# b a m$ti$n $( c$n(i#ence then the pr$)ramme ($r '%ic% t%e )ain t%at en#$r!ement !%$"l# be re!pecte# b t%i! H$"!e I$( L$r#!J.C '0(. In the Libera" *emocratsK viethe Fcircumstances -ou"d be entire"y di##erent because the 8uestion o# hothe minority government managed to get its mani#esto through -ou"d invo"ve negotiation -ithin the Commons.F

''0. Lord Strathc"yde be"ieved F I( a )$&ernment %a! a ma/$rit in t%e H$"!e $( C$mm$n!, a government has a ma<ority in the 2ouse o# Commons and !$ t%e !ame c$n&enti$n! !%$"l# appl . E*"all '%ere a )$&ernment i! tr in) t$ p"!% t%r$")% !$me &er "np$p"lar mea!"re 'it% a &er , &er !mall ma/$rit , -ith a substantia" government rebe""ion, I thin4 it is a clear !i)nal ($r t%e H$"!e $( L$r#! t$ ta3e e2tra !pecial care in e2aminin) t%at mea!"re.C

Iani#esto inc"ude regiona" mani#esto as -e"" '''. There is a"so the 8uestion o# -hether the Convention a++"ies to matters inc"uded in regiona" mani#estos. The Lea#er $( t%e H$"!e $( C$mm$n! c$n(irme# t%at t%e !peci(ic i!!"e $n '%ic% he -as *"e!ti$ne# 'a! in t%e U+ mani(e!t$ but added Fe&en i( it %a# n$t been a re(erence in t%e Wel!% mani(e!t$ '$"l# %a&e been !"((icient.C

No need to de#ine -hat is mani#esto ,i"", there is no di##icu"ty since the convention a"-ays o+erate -e"" in the +ast ''/. There are other $b&i$"! #i((ic"ltie! in #eci#in) '%et%er a -ill i! a mani(e!t$ -ill. -"t t%$!e #i((ic"ltie! are n$t ne'. T%e %a&e e2i!te# !ince t%e $ri)inal Sali!b"r 4A##i!$n C$n&enti$n -as articu"ated in '()1 b"t %a&e n$t pre&ente# t%e C$n&enti$n (r$m $peratin) e((ecti&el in t%e &ari$"! p$litical circ"m!tance! -hich have +revai"ed !ince t%en. T%e G$&ernment n$te# t%at t%e H$"!e $( L$r#! %a# &$te# #$'n a )$&ernment -ill $nl t%ree time! !ince >??F. F>nce -as on the second introduction o# the Euro+ean &ar"iamentary E"ections ,i"" in '((@, -hen the ,i"" had been reintroduced -ith a vie- to +assing it under the &ar"iament Acts and 4i""ing the ,i"" on Second Reading -as necessary #or it to receive Roya"

Assent in time to a""o- the necessary secondary "egis"ation to be made. A second occasion -as on the Se7ua" >##ences Amendment ,i"" in '(((, -hich -as a ,i"" to -hich a #ree vote had been a++"ied. >n"y the third, the Iode o# Tria" (No / ,i"" in /000 -hich -as voted do-n on Second Reading a#ter its +redecessor ,i"" (-hich had started in the Lords had been sub<ect to -rec4ing amendments in Committee, -as a Eovernment #"agshi+ +o"icy ,i"", but -as not a Iani#esto ,i"".F '':. We #$ n$t rec$mmen# an attempt t$ #e(ine a mani(e!t$ -ill. N$r #$ 'e c$n!i#er t%at t%e #i((ic"ltie! in i#enti( in) a mani(e!t$ -ill are !$ !"b!tantial that they -ou"d +revent &ar"iament #rom articu"ating a convention concerning the 2ouse o# LordsK +ractice in re"ation to mani#esto ,i""s.

Eiven the vie- o# a"" our -itnesses that the H$"!e $( L$r#! %a! n$t breac%e# t%e $ri)inal Sali!b"r 4 A##i!$n C$n&enti$n, -e thin4 that there is little li3eli%$$# t%at it 'ill breac% t%e c"rrent c$n&enti$n in ("t"re. 3e a"so e7+ect that it 'ill be a! p$!!ible t$ #eal pra)maticall 'it% an pr$blem! '%ic% ma ari!e in t%e ("t"re a! it %a! been in t%e pa!t.

Codi#ication% give the 2>L set the terms o# condition and 2>C debate on it ''). In order to ensure that the convention no- re#"ects an agreement bet-een both 2ouses, and to give a"" +arties and non% a"igned Iembers in both 2ouses the o++ortunity to e7+ress their vie-s, eac% H$"!e !%$"l# %a&e a c%ance t$ #ebate it. 2o-ever, a"though both 2ouses have an interest in the convention, it c$ncern! primaril t%e be%a&i$"r $( t%e H$"!e $( L$r#!. 3e there#ore +ro+ose that the L$r#! be )i&en t%e $pp$rt"nit t$ #ebate and agree a reso"ution !ettin) $"t t%e term! $( t%e c$n&enti$n, and that the re!$l"ti$n be t%en c$mm"nicate# b me!!a)e t$ t%e C$mm$n!. T%e C$mm$n! c$"l# t%en %$l# a #ebate $n a m$ti$n t$ ta3e n$te $( t%e me!!a)e.

A ne- name% Eovernment ,i"" Convention ''1. In our vie- the Sa"isbury%Addison Convention has evo"ved su##icient"y to re8uire a ne- name -hich shou"d a"so he"+ to c"ari#y its changed nature. 3e recommend that in #uture the Convention be described as the G$&ernment -ill C$n&enti$n.

$Codi#ied; -ord not suitab"e% it -i"" bene#it neither govt nor &ar"iament CIn the conc"uding +art o# its re+ort, the Committee made the #o""o-ing statement,D /G(. In our vie- the -ord Fc$#i(icati$nN i! "n%elp("l, !ince t$ m$!t pe$ple it implie! r"le4 ma3in), -ith de#initions and en#orcement mechanisms. Conventions, by their very nature, are unenO#orceab"e. In this sense, there#ore, codi#ying conventions is a contradiction in terms. It -ou"d raise issues o# de#inition, reduce #"e7ibi"ity, and inhibit the ca+acity to evo"ve. It might create a need #or ad<udication, and the +resence o# an ad<udicator, -hether the courts or some nebody, is incom+atib"e -ith +ar"iamentary sovereignty. Even i# an ad<udicator cou"d be #ound, the +ossibi"ity o# ad<udication -ou"d introduce uncertainty and de"ay into the business o# &ar"iament.

In these -ays, #ar #rom reducing the ris4 o# con#"ict, c$#i(icati$n mi)%t act"all #ama)e t%e relaLi$n!%ip bet'een t%e t'$ H$"!e!, ma4ing it m$re c$n(r$ntati$nal an# le!! capable $( m$#eraLti$n through the usua" channe"s. T%i! '$"l# bene(it neit%er t%e G$&ernment n$r Parliament.

Eovt res+ond and acce+t as -e"" as a++roved by 2>L In *ecember /00?, the )$&ernment p"bli!%e# a res+onse to the committees re+ort, stating9 $We accept t%e 5$int C$mmitteeB! anal !i! o# the e##ect o# a"" the conventions, and t%e 5$int C$mmitteeB! rec$mmen#ati$ns and conc"usionsK >n '? Hanuary /00G, the 2ouse o# Lords debated the re+ort. &eers +raised the re+ort and there -as -ide agreement -ith its +ro+osa"s. Wit%$"t a &$te bein) calle#, t%e L$r#! appr$&e# t%e m$ti$n 7T%at t%i! H$"!e ta3e! n$te 'it% appr$&al $( t%e rep$rt $( t%e 5$int C$mmittee $n C$n&enti$n! $( t%e U+ Parliament (2L &a+er /?1, Session /001%0? K.

THE PARLIAMENT ACTS I# convention cannot so"ve the con#"ict then the Act +"ays its ro"e So #ar, -e have #ocused on the main convention regu"ating re"ations bet-een the Commons and the Lords -hi"e a ,i"" is under consideration. I(, at t%e en# $( t%e le)i!lati&e pr$ce!! ($r a partic"lar -ill, t%ere i! !talemate bet'een t%e C$mm$n! an# t%e L$r#!, r"le! are !et $"t in t%e Parliament Act!.

'('' Act enacted as a conse8uence o# 2>L re#use to a++rove the money ,i""s and a#ter threated by 6ing to #"ood the 2>L to ensure its enactment The #o""o-ing e7tract summariBes the bac4ground to the enactment o# the &ar"iament Act '(''. 2ouse o# Lords Constitution Committee, Constitutiona" as+ects o# the cha""enge to the 2unting Act/00), Seventh Re+ort, Session /001%0?, A++endi7 '9 &ro#essor Rodney ,raBier, The &ar"iament Acts C...D The 2ouse o# Lords remained hereditary and +ermanent"y contro""ed by the Conservative &arty. =et the 2ouse o# Commons had been made more re+resentative o# the e"ectorate through e7tensions o# the #ranchise. And in '(0? the Libera"s -on a "ands"ide

Eenera" E"ection victory on a +rogramme -hich +romised ma<or socia" "egis"ation, much o# -hich -as anathema to most +eers. The 2ouse o# Lords re<ected some o# the Libera" EovernmentKs re#orm bi""s, and in '(0(, in its greatest act o# de#iance, the L$r#! re/ecte# t%e =inance -ill -hich embodied L"oyd EeorgeKs F&eo+"eKs ,udgetF. In res+onse the 2ouse o# Commons +assed a reso"ution -hich condemned that action as FC...D a breach o# the Constitution and a usur+ation o# the rights o# the Commons C...DF The Libera"s -on a Eenera" E"ection in Hanuary '('0, and as a resu"t the 2ouse o# Lords most re"uctant"y +assed the Ainance ,i"".

As8uithKs G$&ernment %a# #eci#e# t$ !ettle t%e m$re )eneral p$int ab$"t t%e relati&e le)i!lati&e p$'er! $( t%e t'$ H$"!e! b c%an)in) t%e la', b"t c$"l# $nl per!"a#e t%e H$"!e $( L$r#! t$ accept t%e re!"ltin) Parliament -ill a#ter a second Eenera" E"ection in '('0 (-hich the Eovernment again -on and the !"b!e*"ent p"blicati$n $( a )"arantee (r$m +in) Ge$r)e E that, i( nece!!ar , %e '$"l# create en$")% Liberal peer! t$ $&erc$me t%e re!i!tance $( t%e H$"!e $( L$r#! t$ t%e bill. =ace# 'it% t%e c%$ice $( t%e l$!! $( it! #ail c$ntr$l $( t%e "pper H$"!e, or a re#"cti$n in it! le)i!lati&e p$'er!, +eers o+ted #or the trimming o# its +o-er as the "esser o# t-o evi"s. The Parliament Act >?>>;pa!!e#, it !%$"l# be n$te#, b b$t% H$"!e! be($re recei&in) R$ al A!!ent;'a! t%e $"tc$me $( t%at l$n) c$n!tit"ti$nal cri!i!.

Changes by the Act9% 2>L "ose +o-er over money bi""s, 2>L on"y can de"ay ,i""s u+ to / years, ma7imum "i#e o# &ar"iament on"y 1 years C$ntin"e#: The &ar"iament Act '('' made no attem+t to change the com+osition o# the 2ouse o# Lords, a"though the +reamb"e stated the intention Fto substitute #or the 2ouse o# Lords as it at +resent e7ists a Second Chamber constituted on a +o+u"ar instead o# a hereditary basis,F but added (rather +"aintive"y that Fsuch substitution cannot be immediate"y brought into o+eration.F

The '('' Act changed the "a- in three main res+ects. o It !trippe# t%e H$"!e $( L$r#! $( m$!t $( it! p$'er $&er m$ne bill!. o It c%an)e# t%e ab!$l"te &et$ en/$ e# b t%at H$"!e over most bi""s int$ a p$'er t$ #ela t%e pa!!a)e $( !"c% bill! ($r "p t$ t'$ ear!, s+read over three +ar"iamentary sessions, a(ter '%ic% t%e '$"l# pa!! int$ la' 'it%$"t t%e appr$&al $( t%e H$"!e $( L$r#!. o And the ma2im"m li(e $( Parliament 'a! re#"ce# (r$m !e&en ear! t$ (i&e.

A++"ication o# '('' Act The &ar"iament Act '('' -as used to pre!ent -ill! ($r r$ al a!!ent #e!pite t%e L$r#!1 #i!a)reement t%ree time!, a"" in re"ation to constitutiona" change9 o the Wel!% C%"rc% Act >?>@ ($disestab"ishing; the Church o# 3a"es 5 o the G$&ernment $( Irelan# Act >?>@ (setting u+ a #rame-or4 #or government in Ire"and, the -ho"e o# -hich -as then +art o# the United 6ingdom 5 and o the Parliament Act >?@? (amending the &ar"iament Act '('' to restrict #urther the de"aying +o-ers o# the Lords .

The Act ma4e sing"e%chamber govt -hich can change constitution uni"atera""y Ce7ce+t e7tend &ar"iament +eriodD -hich $considered; as #oundation o# U6 constitution Eern$n -$)#an$r: The >?>> Parliament Act t%"! mar3e# a ("n#amental c%an)e in the ,ritish constitution. I# -ritain 'ere t$ en/$ , ($r m$!t practical p"rp$!e!, !in)le4 c%amber )$&ernment, then the H$"!e $( C$mm$n! '%ic% in practice mean! t%e )$&ernin) part , cou"d no- "nilaterall alter an part $( t%e c$n!tit"ti$n, -ith the singe e7ce+tion that it c$"l# n$t e2ten# t%e (i&e ear ma2im"m inter&al bet'een )eneral electi$n! 'it%$"t t%e c$n!ent $( t%e L$r#!.

Under the +ost%'('' constitution, the )$&ernin) part '%ic% c$ntr$lle# t%e H$"!e $( C$mm$n! became t%e !$le an# !"preme /"#)e $( t%e e2tent $( it! p$'er. C...D It -as #or this reason that *icey dec"ared in '('1 that the Parliament Act mar3e# Bt%e la!t an# )reate!t tri"mp% $( part )$&ernmentB. Aor it sho-ed that +arty -as Knot the accident or corru+tion, but so to s+ea4, t%e &er ($"n#ati$n $( $"r c$n!tit"ti$nal ! !temB. *icey be"ieved that the Act "e#t a ga+ in the constitution, a ga+ -hich he be"ieved shou"d be #i""ed by the re#erendum. &erha+s, ho-ever, the ga+ is nobeing #i""ed by the <udges.

Act '()(% Eovt +assed the Act due to an urgent ,i"" -hich cannot be de"ayed #or t-o years time The Parliament Act >?@?; enacte# "n#er t%e Parliament Act >?>> 'it%$"t t%e L$r#!1 c$n!ent .is o# s+ecia" interest to us. As -ith the emergence o# the Sa"isbury%Addison convention, its +o"itica" driver -as the -ish o# the Att"ee Labour government ('()1%1' to have in +"ace a constitutiona" assurance that the ,i""s a++roved by the Commons, needed to im+"ement the socia" and economic revo"ution, -ou"d not be he"d bac4 unreasonab"y by the Lords (-hich -as dominated by Conservative hereditary +eers . T%e )$&ernment 'a! partic"larl c$ncerne# t%at t%e L$r#! '$"l# #ela t%e Ir$n an# Steel -ill, -hich sought to nationa"iBe those industries by setting u+ a government body to +urchase com+u"soOri"y shares in a"" #irms o+erating in that section in the United 6ingdom.

The '('' Act, in e##ect, gave the Lords a veto over government ,i""s introduced in the "ast t-o years o# a &ar"iament, because the )$&ernment '$"l# n$t be able t$ reintr$#"ce a -ill a(ter t'$ ear!1 'aitin) and +ress #or roya" assent -ithout the Lords; consent.

'('' Act and '()( Act The '()( Act reduced the Lords; +o-er o# de"ay (see ,o7 ':./ .

I& argued about un#airness since Conservative govt did not get the $bene#it; -ith it Csince most +eers are conservativeD but other +arty govt can bene#it to it Introducing the Second Reading debate o# the &ar"iament ,i"" in the Commons on '0 November '()G, Herbert M$rri!$n MP (ho"ding the ministeria" o##ice o# The Lord &resident o# the Counci" @ made the #o""o-ing statement. C... WJe are #i!c"!!in) an imp$rtant c$n!tit"ti$nal i!!"e, name"y, the +o-ers o# the 2ouse o# Lords in re"ation to the 2ouse o# Commons.a +rogressive 2ouse o# Commons and a pr$)re!!i&e G$&ernment. C...D o Pr$)re!!i&e )$&t i! $t%er t%an C$n!er&ati&e )$&t

I mention that because it i! part $( t%e "n(airne!! $( t%e !it"ati$n t%at a C$n!er&ati&e G$&ernment %a! n$ tr$"ble -ith the Lords, '%erea! a pr$)re!!i&e G$&ernment %a!.

'()( Act can be a++"ied other than Ioney ,i""N,i"" re"ated to "i#e o# &ar"iament Let us "oo4 more c"ose"y at s. /(' o# the &ar"iament Act '('', as amended by the '()( Act. &ar"iament Act '('', as amended by the '()( Act, !. F Restriction o# the +o-ers o# the 2ouse o# Lords as to ,i""s other than Ioney

I( an P"blic -ill H$t%er t%an a M$ne -ill $r a -ill c$ntainin) an pr$&i!i$n t$ e2ten# t%e ma2im"m #"rati$n $( Parliament beyond #ive years is pa!!e# b t%e H$"!e $( C$mm$n! in t'$ !"cce!!i&e !e!!i$n! (-hether o# the same &ar"iament or not , and, %a&in) been !ent "p t$ t%e H$"!e $( L$r#! at lea!t $ne m$nt% be($re t%e en# $( t%e !e!!i$n, is re/ecte# b t%e H$"!e $( L$r#! in eac% $( t%$!e !e!!i$n!, that -ill !%all, on its re<ection #or the second time by the 2ouse o# Lords, un"ess the 2ouse o# Commons directs to the contrary, be pre!ente# t$ Hi! Ma/e!t an# bec$me an Act o# &ar"iament on the Roya" Assent being signi#ied thereto, n$t'it%!tan#in) t%at t%e H$"!e $( L$r#! %a&e n$t c$n!ente# t$ t%e -ill9 Pr$&i#e# t%at t%i! pr$&i!i$n !%all n$t ta3e e((ect "nle!! $ne ear %a! elap!e# bet'een t%e #ate $( t%e !ec$n# rea#in) in t%e (ir!t $( t%$!e !e!!i$n! $( t%e -ill in the 2ouse o# Commons and the date on -hich it +asses the 2ouse o# Commons in the second o# those sessions.

Ioney ,i"" de#inition and automatica""y +assed -ithin a month -ithout a++"y s./(' In genera" terms, a m$ne -ill1 i! $ne t%at #eal! $nl 'it% ta2ati$n, t%e nati$nal #ebt, $r 7!"ppl 1 ("ega" +ermission #or the government to s+end +ub"ic #unds 5 !"c% -ill! cann$t be amen#e# b t%e L$r#! and a"t$maticall pa!! i( t%e L$r#! %a&e n$t pa!!e# t%em 'it%in a m$nt%, !$ !. FH>6 #$e! n$t nee# t$ appl . o >?>> Act applie#

'()( Act sti"" re#"ect constitutiona" im+ortance on "i#e o# &ar"iament The e2cl"!i$n $( -ill! !ee3in) t$ e2ten# t%e #"rati$n $( Parliament be $n# (i&e ear! means that the ma2im"m li(e $( an $ne Parliament can $nl be e2ten#e# 'it% t%e a)reement $( b$t% H$"!e! $( Parliament. T%i! re(lect! t%e c$n!tit"ti$nal imp$rtance $( en!"rin) t%at )eneral electi$n! are %el# at lea!t $nce e&er (i&e ear!.

A. THE EALIDITY HOR OTHERWISE6 O= THE PARLIAMENT ACT >?@? At #irst sight, t%e !"))e!ti$n t%at an Act $( Parliament i! in&ali# appear! rat%er impla"!ible , )i&en t%e principle $( t%e !"premac $( Parliament. The 2unting Act "itigation to -hich -e are about to turn, ho-ever, ($c"!e# $n a l$n)4!tan#in) #ebate am$n) c$n!tit"ti$nal la' er! $&er '%et%er t%e Parliament Act >?@? 'a! a &ali# Act $( Parliament.

3ade;s argument9 &ar"iament Act '('' de"egates &ar"iaments +o-er, so de"egated "egis"ation cannot be

used to enact a "egis"ation Ci.e. Act '()(D -hich increase #urther Common;s +o-er In his boo4 C$n!tit"ti$nal ="n#amental! and his artic"e $T%e ba!i! $( le)al !$&erei)nt 1, 3ade said that &ar"iament has three constituent e"ements.t%e !$&erei)n, t%e H$"!e $( C$mm$n!, an# t%e H$"!e $( L$r#!.and that an Act $( Parliament i! le)i!lati$n t$ '%ic% eac% $( t%e!e t%ree element! %a! a!!ente#. Le)i!lati$n enacte# "n#er the +rovisions o# the Parliament Act >?>> i! $nl enacte# b t%e !$&erei)n an# t%e H$"!e $( C$mm$n!. It there#ore %a! n$t been a)ree# t$ b Parliament.

3ade argued that, in the Parliament Act >?>>, Parliament #ele)ate# la'4ma3in) capacit t$ t%e !$&erei)n an# t%e H$"!e $( C$mm$n!, and that le)i!lati$n enacte# by virtue o# the &ar"iament Act '('' is t%ere($re #ele)ate# le)i!lati$n ma#e "n#er #ele)ate# p$'er!. Ioreover, he argued, an Act o# the Pueen and the Commons is on"y acce+ted by the courts as "abecause it has been +assed in accordance -ith the &ar"iament Acts '('' and '()(. The acid test #or an Act o# &ar"iament is -hether it is va"id on its #ace. Le)i!lati$n pa!!e# in acc$r#ance 'it% t%e Parliament Act! i! n$t &ali# $n it! (ace5 it i! &ali# $nl beca"!e it %a! been pa!!e# in a manner t%at 'a! !et $"t in t%e Parliament Act! >?>>4@?.

As a genera" +rinci+"e, a b$# t%at %a! been )i&en #ele)ate# p$'er cann$t increa!e t%e p$'er t%at %a! been )i&en t$ it5 $nl t%$!e '%$ #ele)atin) t%e p$'er can #$ t%i!. This means that the !$&erei)n an# t%e C$mm$n! c$"l# n$t "!e t%e Parliament Act >?>> t$ e2ten# t%e p$'er given to them by &ar"iament in that Act. T%e >?@? Act 'a! enacte# "!in) t%e Parliament Act >?>>. Wit%$"t t%e c$n!ent $( t%e H$"!e $( L$r#!, it amen#e# t%e >?>> Act b re#"cin) t%e #ela in) p$'er $( t%e L$r#!. T%i! %a# t%e e((ect $( increa!in) t%e p$'er $( t%e C$mm$n!. Wa#e !ai# t%at $nl Parliament c$"l# increa!e t%e p$'er c$n(erre# $n t%e C$mm$n! b t%e Parliament Act >?>>.

The im+"ication o# these arguments is that the Parliament Act >?@? i! n$t an Act $( Parliament an# t%ere($re call! int$ *"e!ti$n t%e &ali#it $( Act! $( Parliament that have subse8uent"y been made under its +rovisions, incl"#in) t%e H"ntin) Act F::@.

Counter%argument9 It is rede#inition, not de"egation% Pueen in &ar"iament and Act itse"# stated that it is $Act o# &ar"iament; Ot%er! #i!a)ree# -ith 3ade and his su++orters. In essence, their argument is that the K"een in Parliament can alter t%e pr$ce#"re t$ be "!e# ($r enactin) le)i!lati$n #or +articu"ar +ur+oses, so that, in e##ect, &ar"iament can rede#ine itse"# #or these +ur+oses. The Parliament Act >?>> enable# Parliament t$ re#e(ine it!el( a! t%e !$&erei)n an# C$mm$n! in relati$n t$ t%e -ill! t$ '%ic% it applie#. This being so, no 8uestion o# de"egation arises.

This, they say, is rein($rce# b t%e act"al '$r#in) $( t%e Parliament Act >?>>, -hich +rovides in s. FH>6 t%at a -ill ma#e "n#er it! pr$&i!i$n! 'ill bec$me an 7Act $( Parliament1. This e7+ression clearl in#icate! t%at pr$&i!i$n! ma#e "!in) t%e Parliament Act pr$ce#"re are Act! $( Parliament and n$t item! $( #ele)ate# le)i!lati$n.

THE HUNTING ACT F::@ In the /00/%0: session o# &ar"iament, the Labour government introduced a ,i"" to ban huntOing -ith dogs. It +assed in the Commons (by :'G to ')1 on a c#ree vote; , but the Lords re<ected the +o"icy, amending the ,i"" to a""o- hunting under "icence. The government #ound this +ro+osa" unacce+tab"e and "et the ,i"" "a+se. T2E &AT2 T> R>=AL ASSENT In the #o""o-ing /00:%0) session, the government reintroduced the ,i"" to ban hunting. This -as again +assed by the Commons and again amended by the Lords in a -ay that -as unacOce+tab"e to the government. >n '@ November /00).the #ina" day o# that +ar"iamentary session.the government sought to bring an end to the +ing%+ong +rocess -ith the Lords and to invo4e the &ar"iament Acts. 2ouse o# Commons 2ansard, '@ November /00), co". '1'@ 2unting ,i"" (.0' +m Ir. S+ea4er9 I have to in#orm the 2ouse that a message has been brought #rom the Lords as #o""o-s9 FThe Lords insist on their

amendments to the 2unting ,i"", to -hich the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, #or -hich insistence they assign their reaOsons. They insist on their amendments to -hich the Commons have disagreed, #or -hich insistence they assign their reasons, and they disagree to the amendment +ro+osed by the Commons in "ieu o# the Lords amendments, #or -hich disagreement they assign their reason.F 2on. Iembers9 E7+"ain. Ir. S+ea4er9 I read these messages5 I donKt understand them. It -as not a E"asgo- man -ho -rote that one, any-ay.'/ As the Iinister made c"ear to the 2ouse in his remar4s ear"ier today, a re<ection on these "ines has brought us to the end o# the road. I am satis#ied that a"" the +rovisions o# the &ar"iament Acts have been met. C2on. Iembers9 F2ear, hear.FD According"y, I have to te"" the 2ouse that I have certi#ied the 2unting ,i"" under section / o# the &ar"iament Act '('', as amended by the &ar"iament Act '()(. The ,i"" endorsed by me -i"" be sent #or Roya" Assent at the time o# +rorogation in com+"iance -ith the +rovisions o# the &ar"iament Acts.

At (.0/ +.m., the S+ea4er sus+ended the sitting o# the Commons. An o##icia" -a"4ed to the Lords and handed to a Lords o##icia" the 2unting ,i"", as a++roved by the Commons, tied u+ in +in4 ta+e. 2e bo-ed and "e#t the Lords. At (.:0 +.m., the Lords resumed their sitting and there #o""o-ed a #ami"iar ceremony -hereby roya" assent is given to ,i""s. Contrary to +o+u"ar myth, roya" assent does not actuOa""y invo"ve the Pueen +ersona""y. 2ouse o# Lords 2ansard, '@ November /00), co"s '?1@%( Roya" Commission The Lord Chance""or (Lord Aa"coner o# Thoroton 9 Iy Lords, it not being convenOient #or 2er Ia<esty +ersona""y to be +resent here this day, she has been +"eased to cause a Commission under the Ereat Sea" to be +re+ared #or +roroguing this +resent &ar"iament. Then the Lords Commissioners (being the Lord Chance""or, the Lord &resident o# the Counci" (,aroness Amos , the ,aroness ,"atch, the Lord *ona"dson o# Lymington and the ,aroness 3i""iams o# Crosby being +resent and the Commons being at the ,ar, the Lord Chance""or said9 Iy Lords and Iembers o# the 2ouse o#

Commons, 2er Ia<esty, not thin4%ing #it +ersona""y to be +resent here at this time, has been +"eased to cause a Commission to be issued under the Ereat Sea", and thereby given 2er Roya" Assent to divers Acts, the Tit"es -hereo# are +articu"ar"y mentioned, and by the said Commission has commanded us to dec"are and noti#y 2er Roya" Assent to the said severa" Acts, in the +resence o# you the Lords and Commons assemb"ed #or that +ur+ose5 and has a"so assigned to us and other Lords directed #u"" +o-er and authority in 2er Ia<estyKs name to +rorogue this +resent &ar"iament. 3hich Commission you -i"" no- hear read. A Commission #or Roya" Assent and &rorogation -as read. The Lord Chance""or9 In obedience to 2er Ia<estyKs Commands, and by virtue o# the Commission -hich has been no- read, 3e do dec"are and noti#y to you, the Lords S+iritua" and Tem+ora" and Commons in &ar"iament assemb"ed, that 2er Ia<esty has given 2er Roya" '/ Ir S+ea4er Iartin re+resented a E"asgo- constituency. Assent to the severa" Acts in the Commission mentioned5 and the C"er4s are re8uired to +ass the same in the usua" Aorm and 3ords.

Roya" Assent The #o""o-ing Acts received Roya" Assent9 o Armed Aorces (&ensions and Com+ensation Act, o Civi" &artnershi+ Act, o 2ousing Act, o &ensions Act, o Civi" Contingencies Act. The #o""o-ing Act, +assed in accordance -ith the +rovisions o# the &ar"iament Acts '('' and '()(, received Roya" Assent9 o 2unting Act. An o##icia" then -a"4ed to the Commons and handed Ir S+ea4er a document. At (.1( +.m., a minute be#ore the 2ouse -as due to rise #or the end o# the /00:%0) Session, Ir S+ea4er announced to the Commons that roya" assent had been granted to those Acts.

2unting Act +ass -ithout 2>L assent T%e H"ntin) Act1! '$r#! $( enactment re(lect t%e (act t%at t%e H$"!e $( L$r#! #i# n$t a!!ent t$ it bein) pa!!e#. H"ntin) Act F::@, Preamble o ,e it enacted by T%e K"eenB! m$!t E2cellent Ma/e!t , b an# 'it% t%e a#&ice an# c$n!ent $( t%e C$mm$n! in this +resent &ar"iament assemb"ed, in accordance -ith the +rovisions o# the &ar"iament Acts '('' and '()(, and by the authority o# the same, as #o""o-s C...D

-. LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THE HUNTING ACT The grant o# roya" assent can hard"y have been a sur+rise to those -ho had "ong camO+aigned to 4ee+ hunting -ith dogs "a-#u". The Countryside A""iance, a +ressure grou+ #ormed in '((G to "obby on rura" issues, rea"iBed that it -as time to move #rom demonOstrations in the streets and to the courtroom. Their team o# distinguished "a-yers -as "ed by the @:%year%o"d Sir Sydney 6entridge PC, -ho, -hi"e at the South A#rican ,ar, had de#ended Ne"son Iande"a and others in the in#amous '(1G KTreason Tria"; (see ,o7 ':.) . Rather than bring the cha""enge in its o-n name, the Countryside A""iance identi#ied three su++orters -ho -ou"d act as the c"aimants. Ir Hac4son -as the chairOman o# the Countryside A""iance and o-ned "and on -hich hunting too4 +"ace. Ir Iartin -as a +ro#essiona" huntsman, -hose income de+ended on the "ega"ity o# huntOing5 he a"so "ived in tied accommodation and this too de+ended on the "ega"ity o# huntOing. Irs 2ughes and her #ami"y had a

business that -as de+endent on hunting5 she a"so hunted. ,>Q ':.) LA3=ERS INL>LLE* IN T2E HAC6S>N CASE Aor c"aimants Aor the de#endant Aor the interested +arty (League Against Crue" S+orts Sir Sydney 6entridge PC Richard Lissac4 PC Iartin Chamber"ain Iarcus 2ay-ood (Instructed by A""en R >very LL& Lord Eo"dsmith PC (the Attorney Eenera" himse"# C"ive Le-is (Instructed by the Treasury So"icitor *avid &annic4 PC Eordon Narde"" (Instructed by Co""yer%,risto-

C"aimant cha""enge the Act '()( is not Act o# &ar"iament and there#ore 2unting Act has no "ega" e##ect The claimant! a!3e# ($r #eclarati$n! that9 (' the Parliament Act >?@? i! n$t an Act $( Parliament and is conse8uent"y o# no "ega" e##ect5 and (/ according"y, t%e H"ntin) Act F::@ i! n$t an Act $( Parliament an# i! $( n$ le)al e((ect. The de#endant in the case -as to the Attorney Eenera", the +rinci+a" "ega" adviser to &ar"iament, the government, and 2er Ia<esty.

C. ADMINISTRATIEE COURT The #irst court to hear the <udicia" revie- c"aim -as the Administrative Court (Iaurice 6ay LH and Co""ins H . R H5ac3!$n an# $r!6 & Her Ma/e!t B! Att$rne General C/001D Iaurice 6ay LH 'st argument% '('' Act cannot be used to achieve amendment o# itse"#, but re<ect due to '('' Act mentioned that $any &ub"ic ,i""; The C"aimantsK Arguments C(D C...D The grounds o# cha""enge mount the attac4 on the '()( Act on three bases. =ir!t, it is said that, a! a matter $( c$n!tr"cti$n, the >?>> Act cann$t be "!e# t$ ac%ie&e amen#4ment! t$ it!el( an# t%at, acc$r#in)l , it 'a! "nla'("l ($r t%e >?@? Act t$ reac% t%e !tat"te b$$3 'it%$"t t%e appr$&al $( t%e H$"!e $( L$r#!. Third"y, even i# "egis"ation +assed under the '('' Act is not de"egated

"egis"ation in the strict sense, it neverthe"ess emanates #rom a subordinate "egisO"ature -hich, in the absence o# an e7+ress +o-er, cannot modi#y or amend the conditions u+on -hich its +o-er to "egis"ate -as granted. There is an inevitab"e over"a+ bet-een these three grounds. IMa"rice +a L5 re/ecte# t%e (ir!t ar)"ment $n t%e )r$"n# t%at it c$n(lict! 'it% t%e Bclear lan)"a)eB $( t%e >?>> Act.J C'GD C...D Secti$n FH>6 e2pre!!l re(er! t$ Oan P"blic -illC (other than the s+eci#ica""y e7c"uded Ioney ,i"" and a ,i"" to e7tend the ma7imum duration o# &ar"iament .

This has t-o#o"d signi#icance. The -ord FanyF is de"iberate"y -ide and the e7istence o# e7+ress e7c"usions mi"itates against the im+"ication o# additiona" e7c"uded categories. In these circumstances, I acce+t the submission o# the Attorney Eenera" that there is no sco+e #or inter+reting s / as containing an e7c"usion in re"ation to any ,i"" to amend the +roviOsions o# the '('' Act. I a"so derive some assistance #rom a submission made by Ir *avid &annic4 PC on beha"# o# the League Against Crue" S+orts. 2e +oints to s /(/ and the ob"igation +"aced on the S+ea4er to sign a certi#icate that Fthe +rovisions o# this section have been du"y com+"ied -ithF. It -ou"d be an undu"y onerous ob"igation i# there -ere considered to be such +rovisions -hich are not mani#est #rom the -ords o# s /(' .

/nd Argument9 '()( Act is de"egated "egis"ation -hich cannot be used to en"arge the sco+e, but re<ected due to it is rede#ining but not de"egated and s./(' itse"# stated as $Act o# &ar"iament; Second"y, the Claimant! !ee3 t$ c%aracteri!e t%e pr$ce#"re pre!cribe# b t%e >?>> Act a! $ne $( #ele)ate# le)i!lati$n, such that it 'a! "nla'("l ($r t%e #ele)ate# b$# , name"y the Sovereign and the 2ouse o# Commons, to enlar)e t%e !c$pe $( it! $'n a"t%$rit 'it%$"t t%e appr$&al $( t%e parent b$# , '%ic% incl"#e! t%e H$"!e $( L$r#!. C=ou -i"" notice that the second argument is that used by 3ade and his su++orters. Iaurice 6ay LH ac4no-"edged the $very res+ectab"e academic +edigreeK o# this arguOment, but conc"uded as #o""o-s.D C/:D C...D the "abe" o# de"egated "egis"ation is ina++osite. I acce+t the submission o# the Attorney Eenera" that the '('' Act is a s+ecia" case

-hich arose in a s+eci#ic conte7t -hich bore "itt"e or no resemb"ance to de"egated "egis"ation as that conce+t is genera""y understood. The +ur+ose o# the '('' Act -as to change the re"ationshi+ bet-een the 2ouse o# Commons and the 2ouse o# Lords in the +rocess o# enacting "egis"ation (save in the e7+ress"y e7c"uded areas . To that e7tent, the lan)"a)e $( Cre#e(initi$nC $r Crem$#ellin)C (the "atter being the -ord used by Arancis ,ennion in his he"+#u" artic"e KIs the Ne- 2unting Act La"id!K Hustice o# the &eace, /G November /00), (/@ i! m$re appr$priate t%an t%at $( C#ele)ati$nC. Ioreover, one on"y has to "oo4 at the +roduct o# the +rocess #or the +osition to become c"ear. 3hat emerges -hen a ,i"" is enacted +ursuant to s. / o# the '('' Act is itse"# an Act o# &ar"iament.nothing "ess. Secti$n FH>6 it!el( e2pre!!l pr$&i#e! that the ,i"" Fsha"" C...D bec$me an Act $( Parliament on

the Roya" Assent being signi#ied theretoF. C...D C/)D In my <udgment, the correct -ay to describe the '('' Act is as a statute -hich rede#ined or remode""ed the "egis"ature in such a -ay that there -ere thence#orth t-o routes through -hich Acts o# &ar"iament cou"d be enacted . the traditiona" -ay invo"ving the Sovereign, the 2ouse o# Commons and the 2ouse o# Lords and the '('' Act -ay emanating #rom the Sovereign and the 2ouse o# Commons, +rovided that the conditions im+osed by the '('' Act are met. C...D C/1D It has been a +"easure to engage -ith a debate -hich has divided constitutiona" e7+erts #or ha"# a century. 2o-ever, I have come to the conc"usion that &ro#essor 3adeKs theory.i# I may so term it.does not #it the matri7 o# the '('' Act. I re<ect the de"egated "egis"ation argument. C...D

:rd argument9 subordinate "egis"ation cannot a"ter the +o-er in -hich is being used under to "egis"ate un"ess has the e7+ress +o-er but re<ected due to contrary to s./(' Iaurice 6ay LH al!$ re/ecte# t%e t%ir# ar)"ment, t%at a !"b$r#inate le)i!lat"re cann$t alter t%e c$n#iti$n! "n#er '%ic% it! p$'er t$ le)i!late 'a! )i&en, "nle!! it %a! been )i&en e2pre!! p$'er to do so. This argument -as a"so re<ected beca"!e it 'a! c$ntrar t$ t%e '$r#in) $( !. FH>6 $( t%e Parliament Act >?>>, -hich $i! 'i#e en$")% t$ embrace a -ill '%ic% amen#! !. F it!el( (at C/GD .

Erant the a++ea" to so"ve the contesting issues over the years but not +ros+ect o# success Co""ins H de"ivered a se+arate <udgment agreeing that the c"aim shou"d #ai". The AdminiOstrative Court granted +ermission to a++ea" to the Court o# A++ea". R H5ac3!$n an# $r!6 & Her Ma/e!t 1! Att$rne General C/001D C1'D We )rant it n$t $n t%e ba!i! $( a real pr$!pect $( !"cce!!, b"t $n t%e ba!i! $( $t%er c$mpellin) rea!$n!, those com+e""ing reasons being obvious in the circumstances. T%i! i! an i!!"e t%at %a! been ar$"n# in t%e literat"re ($r man ear!. It %a! been rai!e# at (ir!t in!tance $n $ne pre&i$"! $cca!i$n. It '$"l# be 'r$n) i( t%e matter 'ere t$ en# !impl at (ir!t in!tance.

D. COURT O= APPEAL The Court o# A++ea" inc"uded both the Lord Chie# Hustice and the Iaster o# the Ro""s, indicating the great im+ortance attached to the case. In a sing"e <udgment, the C$"rt $( Appeal #i!mi!!e# t%e appea".but, in doing so, e2pl$re# t'$ i!!"e! t%at are $( c$n!i#erable imp$rtance an# intere!t. The #irst re"ated to the <urisdiction o# the courts to consider a cha""enge to the "ega"ity o# Acts o# &ar"iament. The second concerned the 8uestion o# -hether the &ar"iament Act '('' +rocedure cou"d be used to achieve #undamenta" constitutiona" change, such as to abo"ish the 2ouse o# Lords. >n this matter, the Court o# A++ea" disagreed -ith the vie- o# the Administrative Court that the &ar"iament Act +rocedure cou"d be used in re"ation to any +ub"ic ,i"" e7ce+t those s+eci#ica""y e7c"uded, such as a ,i"" see4ing to e7tend the "i#e o# a &ar"iament.

These t-o issues are considered in the #o""o-ing e7tracts #rom the Court o# A++ea";s <udgment. Court had the <urisdiction to consider -hether the Act is va"id due to this is matter o# SI in the Act '(''N'()( itse"# C''D It is unusua", and in modern times +robab"y un+recedented, #or the courts to have to ru"e on the va"idity o# "egis"ation that has received the Roya" Assent. (,ut as to ear"ier +eriods in our history see The &rinceKs Case @ Co Re+ ' A. 2o-ever, the Attorney Eenera" did not disO+ute that the courts cou"d +ro+er"y ad<udicate on this issue and in the court be"o-, Iaurice 6ay LH remar4ed (+aragra+h ') Fthe Attorney Eenera" -ise"y ta4es no +oint on <usticiabi"ityF. *es+ite these e7changes, -e -ere concerned to satis#y ourse"ves that the issue be#ore us -as <usticiab"e. 3e as4ed the Attorney Eenera" ho- this -as. It -as a 8uestion to -hich he gave us no convincing ans-er. 2e said that no +oint -as ta4en on <usticiabi"ity because it -as recognised that it -as desirab"e that the courts shou"d decide the issue.

3hen -e suggested that this might not be a va"id basis #or assuming <urisdiction, %e a!!erte# t%at t%ere 'a! n$ ab!$l"te r"le t%at t%e c$"rt! c$"l# n$t c$n!i#er t%e &ali#it $( a !tat"te. Here t%e c$"rt! %a# /"ri!#icti$n beca"!e t%e i!!"e 'a! $ne $( !tat"t$r interpretati$n an# beca"!e t%e Appellant! 'ere c$nten#in) t%at t%e >?@? Act 'a! n$t a !tat"te at all. C'/D The rea"ity is that the '('' Act -as a most unusua" statute. ,y that statute the 2ouse o# Lords, the 2ouse o# Commons and the 6ing used the machinery o# "egis"ation to ma4e a #un%damenta" constitutiona" change. Near"y '00 years a#ter the event, the court has been invited to ru"e on the +recise nature and e7tent o# that change. 3e have decided that it -as right #or the Administrative Court to acce+t that invitation. The authority o# the '()( Act +ur+orted to be derived #rom the '('' Act The "atter Act, by s. : C-hich +rovides the certi#icate o# the S+ea4er that the +rovisions o# the &ar"iament Act '(''

have been com+"ied -ith, sha"" be $conc"usive #or a"" +ur+oses and sha"" not be 8uestioned in any court o# "a-KD, e7+ress"y envisOaged the +ossibi"ity that the va"idity o# subse8uent Acts enacted +ursuant to its +rovisions might be sub<ected to <udicia" scrutiny. The e##ect o# the '('' Act -as undoubted"y susce+Otib"e to <udicia" ana"ysis. 2o-ever, in considering that e##ect, the Administrative Court -as acting as a constitutiona" court. There -as no +recise +recedent #or the <urisdiction that it -as e7ercising. C':D The conc"usion to -hich -e have come is that Lord Eo"dsmith -as correct to ma4e the conOcession that he did. The determination o# 8uestions o# inter+retation and ascertaining the e##ect o# "egis"ation is +art o# the norma" diet o# the courts. 3hi"e -e -i"" re#er to -hat has ha++ened in debates in &ar"iament concerning the issue be#ore us, -e -i"" not be ad<udicating u+on the +ro+riety o# -hat occurred in &ar"iament. The circumstances in -hich it -i"" be a++ro+riate #or the courts to become invo"ved in issues o# this nature are "imited, but in this case it is +er#ect"y a++roO+riate #or the courts to be invo"ved. I# the

courts did not ad<udicate on the issue, there -ou"d be great uncertainty as to the "ega" situation, -hich cou"d have most un#ortunate conse8uences a#ter '( Aebruary /001, -hen the 2unting Act is meant to come into #orce. In e7ercising this ro"e, the Administrative Court and this court on a++ea" are see4ing to assist &ar"iament and the +ub"ic by c"ari#ying the "ega" +osition -hen such c"ari#ication is obvious"y necessary.

The Act cannot be used to abo"ish 2>L C#undamenta" constitutiona" changesD as it is against intention o# &ar"iament -hich on"y intent to "imit the 2>L "egis"ation +o-er but not abo"ish them, and +reamb"e +rovided no su++ort the Act shou"d be used to achieve #undamenta" changes The C$"rt $( Appeal 'ent $n t$ c$n!i#er '%et%er t%e Parliament Act >?>> c$"l# be "!e# t$ ma3e ("n#amental c$n!tit"ti$nal c%an)e!. C:(D The argument o# the Attorney Eenera", that once "egis"ation has been created by the '('' Act it is no di##erent #rom "egis"ation created in the traditiona" -ay -ith the consent o# both 2ouses, is one -hich -e 8uestion. C...D C)0D The main reason #or our reservations as to this outcome is that it invo"ves it being acce+ted that the '('' Act cou"d be used to e7tend the "i#e o# &ar"iament contrary to the e7+ress "anguage o# s. /(' o# the '('' Act #or such +eriod as the Commons determines. A"" that -ou"d be re8uired -ou"d be #or &ar"iament,

in the sha+e o# the Commons, to +ass "egis"ation de"eting the -ords F,i"" containing any +rovision to e7tend the ma7imum duration o# &ar"iament beyond #ive yearsF and then to +ass #urther "egis"ation e7tending the "i#e o# &ar"iament. This -ou"d be 8uite contrary to the e7+ress "imitation on e7tending the duration o# &ar"iament contained in s. /(' , and -e are not +re+ared to acce+t that this is the +osition. C)'D 3e a++reciate that it i! m$!t "nli3el t%at t%e C$mm$n! '$"l# e&er c$ntemplate !ee3in) t$ "!e t%e >?>> Act C...D to enact "egis"ation to -hich the 2ouse o# Lords had not consented, in order to e7tend the duration o# &ar"iament or, #or that matter, t$ ab$li!% t%e H$"!e $( L$r#!. H$'e&er i( I...J it #i# c$ntemplate !"c% acti$n, -e -ou"d regard t%i! a! bein) c$ntrar t$ t%e intenti$n $( Parliament '%en enactin) t%e >?>> Act. So, here -e disagree -ith the vie-s to the contrary e7+ressed by the Administrative Court.

C)/D T%e p"rp$!e $( t%e >?>> Act 'a! t$ e!tabli!% a ne' c$n!tit"ti$nal !ettlement that limite# t%e peri$# #"rin) '%ic% t%e L$r#! c$"l# #ela t%e enactment $( le)i!lati$n #irst introduced to the Commons b"t -hich pre!er&e# t%e r$le $( t%e L$r#! in t%e le)i!lati&e pr$ce!!e!. In our vie- it -ou"d be in con#"ict -ith the '('' Act #or it to be used as an instrument #or abo"ishing the 2ouse o# Lords. This -ou"d be so -hether or not there -as initia""y an attem+t to use the '('' Act +rocess to amend the '('' Act to +rovide an e7+ress +o-er to abo"ish the Lords. 3e -ou"d vie- such an endeavour in the same -ay as an attem+t to de"ete the +rohibition on e7tending the "i#e o# &ar"iament.

The +reamb"e o# the '('' Act is inconsistent -ith the Attorney Eenera"Ks contention. T%e preamble in#icate! t%at t%e >?>> Act 'a! t$ be a tran!iti$nal pr$&i!i$n pen#in) ("rt%er re($rm. It pr$&i#e! n$ !"pp$rt ($r an intenti$n t%at t%e >?>> Act !%$"l# be "!e#, direct"y or indirect"y, to enable m$re ("n#amental c$n!tit"ti$nal c%an)e! to be achieved than had been achieved a"ready. C):D T%"!, it #$e! n$t nece!!aril ($ll$' t%at beca"!e t%ere i! c$mpliance 'it% t%e re*"ireLment! in t%e >?>> Act, t%e re!"lt i! a &ali# Act $( Parliament. Ao""o-ing the reasoning in the +revious +aragra+h, i#, -ithout amending the '('' Act #urther, the Commons attem+ted to e7tend the "i#e o# &ar"iament in e7cess o# #ive years -ithout the consent o# the Lords, the attem+t -ou"d be

ine##ective and, i# necessary, the courtKs <urisdiction that -e are noe7erOcising cou"d be invo4ed. The Attorney Eenera" in #act recognises this because, -hi"e he conOtends this cou"d be done, he acce+ts it -ou"d be necessary #or the '('' Act to be amended #irst to remove the e7+ress e7ce+tion to e7tending the "i#e o# &ar"iament. C))D This concession recognises that there are di##erences bet-een the traditiona" +o-ers o# &ar"iament -hen "egis"ating, and its +o-ers -hen "egis"ating under the '('' Act. 3ith the consent o# the Lords and Commons, &ar"iament cou"d e7tend the "i#e o# &ar"iament #or say t-o years -ithout having to amend the '('' Act. Indeed, it did so during the Second 3or"d 3ar. (3e de"iberate"y con#ine the e7tension #or a "imited +eriod because there cou"d be di##erent arguments i# &ar"iament attem+ted to e7tend its "i#e inde#inite"y. C)1D >nce it is acce+ted that the use to -hich the '('' Act cou"d be +ut is "imited, the 8uesOtion arises as to the e7tent o# the "imitation. It is -hen -e reach this stage that it becomes im+ortant to recognise that -hat cou"d be suggested here is the +o-er to ma4e #undamenta" constitutiona"

changes. I# &ar"iament -as intending to create such a +o-er, sure"y it is right to e7+ect that the +o-er -ou"d be unambiguous"y stated in the "egis"ation. This is not the case -ith s. / o# the '('' Act. C...D

E. APPELLATE COMMITTEE O= THE HOUSE O= LORDS In mid%Hune /001, si7 months a#ter the Court o# A++ea" de"ivered its <udgment, a #urther a++ea" -as heard by the A++e""ate Committee o# the 2ouse o# Lords at a t-o%day hearing. Nine La- Lords sat in the 2ouse o# Lords, rather than the norma" #ive. again rein#orcing the im+ortance o# the case. The o+inions that they de"ivered in >ctober /001 covered a broad range o# issues. The 2ouse -as unanimous in dismissing the a++ea". but in stateOments that -ere "arge"y obiter, the, La- Lords dea"t -ith a range o# im+ortant issues.

WHAT THE LAW LORDS DECIDED Unanimous9 T%e c$"rt! %a&e /"ri!#icti$n t$ c$n!i#er '%et%er t%e Parliament Act >?@? i! &ali# G out o# (9 The c$"rt! '$"l# n$t rec$)niAe a! &ali# an 7Act1 pa!!e# "n#er t%e Parliament Act >?>> to e2ten# t%e li(e $( Parliament be $n# (i&e ear! 1 out o# (9 The c$"rt! '$"l# n$t rec$)niAe as va"id an $Act; +assed under the Parliament Act >?>> t%at p"rp$rte# t$ amen# !. FH>6 $( t%e Parliament Act >?>> in $r#er t$ permit t%e "!e $( t%e Parliament Act pr$ce#"re t$ e2ten# t%e li(e $( Parliament be $n# (i&e ear!

Hurisdiction to consider the va"idity o# an Act o# &ar"iament% on : reasons% to consider whether the Act is enacted law, to resolved issue which Parliament cannot be resolved and it is matter of SI Lord ,ingham said that, "i4e the Court o# A++ea", he #e"t a $some sense o# strangeness at the e7ercise -hich the courts have C...D been invited to underta4e in these +roceedingsK.': 2e noted, that $the authority o# &ic4in v ,ritish Rai"-ays ,oardC')D is un8uestioned, and it -as there very c"ear"y decided that Sthe courts in this country have no +o-er to dec"are enacted "a- to be inva"idT (Lord Simon o# E"aisda"e at G(@ J Lord ,ingham -as, ho-ever, +ersuaded that the court had <urisdiction in this case #or t-o reasons.

Lord ,ingham9 C/GD C...D Airst, in &ic4in, un"i4e the +resent case, it -as sought to investigate the interna" -or4ings and +rocedures o# &ar"iament to demonstrate that it had been mis"ed and so had +roceeded on a #a"se basis. This -as he"d to be i""egitimate C...D 2ere C...D CtDhe issue concerns no 8uestion o# +ar"iamentary +rocedure such as -ou"d, and cou"d on"y, be the sub<ect o# +ar"iamentary in8uiry, but a *"e!ti$n '%et%er, in L$r# Sim$nB! lan)"a)e, t%e!e Act! are Cenacte# la'C.

Iy !ec$n# rea!$n is more +ractica". The appellant! %a&e rai!e# a *"e!ti$n $( la' '%ic% cann$t, a! !"c%, be re!$l&e# b Parliament. ,ut it -ou"d not be satis#actory, or consistent -ith the ru"e o# "a-, i# it cou"d not be reso"ved at a"". S$ it !eem! t$ me nece!!ar t%at t%e c$"rt! !%$"l# re!$l&e it, an# t%at t$ #$ !$ in&$l&e! n$ breac% $( c$n!tit"ti$nal pr$priet .

L$r# Nic%$l!: Lord Nicho"s a"so thought the +roceedings to be Khigh"y unusua"K, C)(D At #irst sight a cha""enge in court to the va"idity o# a statute seems to o##end the #un%damenta" constitutiona" +rinci+"e that courts -i"" not "oo4 behind an Act o# &ar"iament and investigate the +rocess by -hich it -as enacted. Those are matters #or &ar"iament, not the courts. C,ut he -ent on to say that the c"aimants Kdo not dis+ute this constitutiona" +rinci+"eK5 t%eir c%allen)e, %e !ai#, i! ba!e# $n 7t%e pr$per interpretati$n $( !. FH>6 $( t%e >?>> ActB.D C1'D On t%i! i!!"e t%e c$"rtB! /"ri!#icti$n cann$t be #$"bte#. T%i! *"e!ti$n $( !tat"t$r interLpretati$n i! pr$perl c$)ni!able b a c$"rt $( la' e&en t%$")% it relate! t$ t%e le)i!lati&e pr$cLe!!.

Statutes create "a-. The +ro+er inter+retation o# a statute is a matter #or the courts, not &ar"iament. This +rinci+"e is as #undamenta" in this countryKs constitution as the +rinci+"e that &ar"iament has e7c"usive cognisance (<urisdiction over its o-n a##airs.

Lord 2o+e a"so acce+ted that there -as $no breach o# constitutiona" +ro+riety in the courts entertaining the cha""enge. This -as because, in the &ar"iament Act '('', &ar"iament had itse"# $a++reciated that the 8uestion -hether a ,i""+assed by the 2ouse o# Commons a"one -as to receive e##ect as an Act o# &ar"iament -as in the #ina" ana"ysis one #or the courts0. 2is +oint is that since s. : +rovides that a certi#icate o# the s+ea4er sha"" not be 8uestioned in any court, &ar"iament must have assumed the +ossibi"ity o# "ega" +roceedings. Lord Cars-e"" agreed that the case #e"" -ithin the sco+e o# the regu"ar #unction o# the courts.

Is "egis"ation enacted under the &ar"iament Act '('' de"egated "egis"ation!% NO! the clear word in Act show it is Act of Parliament which indicate Primary legislation The argument is that "egis"ation enacted under the &ar"iament Act di##ers #rom norma" Acts o# &ar"iament in that $it is de"egated or subordinate in the sense that its va"idity is o+en to investigation in the courts;. L$r# -in)%am re/ecte# t%i! ar)"ment $n t'$ )r$"n#!9 #irst, because %e !ai# t%at t%e '$r#in) $( !. FH>6 $( t%e >?>> Act i! clear .that "egis"ation made under the +rovisions o# the Act sha"" $bec$me an Act $( ParliamentB, -ording that is not $doubt#u", ambiguous or obscure and '%ic% can $nl 7#en$te primar le)i!lati$n Hac4son and ors - 2er Ia<estyKs Attorney Eenera" C/001D U62L 1? (': >ctober /001 Lord ,ingham C/)D C...D The '('' Act did, o# course, e##ect an im+ortant constitutiona" change, but the change "ay not in authorising a ne- #orm o# sub%

+rimary +ar"iamentary "egis"ation but in creOating a ne- -ay o# enacting +rimary "egis"ation. C2e a"so re<ected the argument that the '('' Act de"egated "egis"ative +o-er or authority to the 2ouse o# Commons.D C/1D C...D Section ' Cdea"ing -ith money ,i""sD o# the '('' Act invo"ved no de"egation o# "egis"aOtive +o-er and authority to the Commons but a statutory recognition o# -here such +o-er and authority in re"ation to su++"y had "ong been understood to "ie. It -ou"d be hard to read the very simi"ar "anguage in s / as invo"ving a de"egation either, since the overa"" ob<ect o# the Act -as not to en"arge the +o-ers o# the Commons but to restrict those o# the Lords. Lord Nicho""s,/0 Lord Steyn,/' Lord 2o+e,// and Lord ,ro-n/: a"" agreed.

Use o# the &ar"iament Act '('' to +ush through #undamenta" constitutiona" change% divided view by the udges A second main +"an4 in the a++e""ants; case -as their argument that the +rocedure in the &ar"iament Act '('' cou"d not be used to ma4e substantia" constitutiona" changes, inc"udOing the #urther en"argement o# the +o-er o# the 2ouse o# Commons that -as +ur+orted to be achieved by the &ar"iament Act '()(. In essence, they said that the e7+ress "imits set out in the '('' Act (+roviding that the &ar"iamentary Act +rocedure is not a++"icab"e to money ,i""s, ,i""s see4ing to e7tend the "i#e o# a &ar"iament, or +rovisiona" con#ormation ,i""s are not the on"y restrictions on its use. As -e"" as these e7+ress restrictions, there are other im+"ied restrictions. 2ere, they re"ied on the Court o# A++ea"s <udgment to argue that the &ar"iament Act +rocedure cannot be used to ma4e signi#icant constitutiona" changes. Changes such as the abo"ition o# the 2ouse o# Lords (in this conte7t, the second chamber o# &ar"iament cou"d, they argued, be made on"y -ith the assent o# the 2ouse o# Lords.

T%e La' L$r#! 'ere #i&i#e# in t%eir re!p$n!e t$ t%i!.

Su!!orting view" Act can be used for any #ill even fundamental changes save for the e$ce!tion% due to clear words in Act and there is e$am!le fundamental constitutional Act !assed before, and !rovision of limitation of Parliament is amendable by successor Parliament In the ne7t e7tract, you -i"" see Lord ,inghams ana"ysis. It sets out -hy he disagreed -ith the Court o# A++ea". In his vie-, the Parliament Act pr$ce#"re can be "!e# ($r an -ill e2cept t%$!e (allin) 'it%in t%e !peci(ic e2cepti$n!. L$r# -in)%am: C/@D Sir Sydney C6entridge PC, counse" #or Hac4sonD submits that, in accordance -ith "ong% estab"ished +rinci+"es o# statutory inter+retation, the courts -i"" o#ten im+"y 8ua"i#ications into the "itera" meaning o# -ide and genera" -ords in order to +revent them having some unreasonab"e conse8uence -hich &ar"iament cou"d not have intended. C...D 2e re"ies on these authorities as estab"ishing (as it is +ut in the a++e""antsK +rinted case

Fthat genera" -ords such as section /(' shou"d not be read as authorising the doing o# acts -hich adverse"y a##ect the basic +rinci+"es on -hich the "a- o# the United 6ingdom is based in the absence o# c"ear -ords authorising such acts. There is no more #undaOmenta" +rinci+"e o# "a- in the U6 than the identity o# the sovereign body. Section /(' shou"d not be read as modi#ying the identity o# the sovereign body un"ess its "anguage admits o# no other inter+retation.F C...D C/(D The Attorney Eenera" does not, I thin4, ta4e issue -ith the genera" +rinci+"es re"ied on by the a++e""ants, -hich are indeed #ami"iar and -e""% estab"ished. ,ut he invites the 2ouse to #ocus on the "anguage o# the '('' Act, and in this he is right, since a care#u" study o# the statutory "anguage, read in its statutory and historica" conte7t and -ith the bene#it o# +ermissib"e aids to inter+retation, is the essentia" #irst ste+ in any e7ercise o# statutory inter+retation. Here, !. FH>6 ma3e! pr$&i!i$n, !"b/ect t$ t%ree e2cepti$n!, ($r

an p"blic bill '%ic% !ati!(ie! t%e !peci(ie# c$n#iti$n! t$ bec$me an Act $( Parliament 'it%$"t t%e c$n!ent $( t%e L$r#!. Sub<ect to these e7ce+tions, s. FH>6 applie! t$ Can C p"blic bill. I cannot thin4 o# any broader e7+ression the dra#tsman cou"d have used. C...D C:0D Sir Sydney is o# course correct in submitting that the "itera" meaning o# even a very #ami"Oiar e7+ression may have to be re<ected i# it "eads to an inter+retation or conse8uence -hich &ar"iament cou"d not have intended. ,ut in this case it is c"ear #rom the historica" bac4ground that &ar"iament did intend the -ord FanyF, sub<ect to the noted e7ce+tions, to mean e7act"y -hat it said. C...D *uring the +assage o# the ,i"" through &ar"iament, there -ere C...D re+eated attem+ts to en"arge the c"asses o# bi"" to -hich the ne- +rocedure -ou"d not a++"y, but save #or the amendment re"ated to bi""s e7tending the ma7imum duration o# &ar"iament they -ere uni#orm"y re<ected C...D The

suggestion that &ar"iament intended the conditions "aid do-n in s. /(' to be inca+ab"e o# amendment by use o# the Act is in my o+inion contradicted both by the "anguage o# the section and by the historica" record. This -as certain"y the understanding o# *icey, -ho -as no #riend o# the '('' Act. In the #irst edition o# his Introduction a#ter '('' (the @th edition, '('1 , he -rote at +. 77iii9 FThe sim+"e truth is that the &ar"iament Act has given to the 2ouse o# Commons, or, in +"ain "anguage, to the ma<ority thereo#, the +o-er o# +assing any ,i"" -hatever, +rovided a"-ays that the conditions o# the &ar"iament Act, section /, are com+"ied -ith.F

C:' D The C$"rt $( Appeal c$ncl"#e# C...D that there -as +o-er under the '('' Act to ma4e a Fre"ative"y modest and straight#or-ard amendmentF o# the Act, inc"uding the amendment made by the '()( Act, b"t n$t t$ ma3in) Cc%an)e! $( a ("n#amentall #i((erent nat"re t$ t%e relati$n!%ip bet'een t%e H$"!e $( L$r#! an# t%e C$mm$n! #rom those -hich the '('' Act had madeF. T%i! 'a! n$t a !$l"ti$n '%ic% an part a#&$cate# in t%e C$"rt $( Appeal, and none su++orted it in the 2ouse. I do not thin4, -ith res+ect, that it can be su++orted in +rinci+"e. T%e 3n$'n $b/ect $( t%e Parliament -ill, strong"y resisted by the Conservative +arty and the source o# the bitterness and intransigence -hich characterised the strugg"e over the ,i"", -as to !ec"re t%e )rant $( H$me R"le t$ Irelan#. IG$&t $( Irelan# ActJ

T%i! 'a!, b an !tan#ar#!, a ("n#amental c$n!tit"ti$nal c%an)e. So -as the disestab"ishment o# the Ang"ican Church in 3a"es, a"so -e"" 4no-n to be an ob<ective o# the government. Attem+ts to ensure that the '('' Act cou"d not be used to achieve these ob<ects -ere re+eated"y made and re+eated"y de#eated. C...D 3hatever its +ractica" merits, the Court o# A++ea" so"ution #inds no su++ort in the "anguage o# the Act, in +rinci+"e or in the historica" record. 2ad the governOment been -i""ing to e7c"ude changes o# ma<or constitutiona" signi#icance #rom the o+eration o# the ne- "egis"ative scheme, it may very -e"" be that the constitutiona" Con#erence o# '('0 -ou"d not have bro4en do-n and the '('' Act -ou"d never have been enacted.

C:/D It is unnecessary #or reso"ution o# the +resent case to decide -hether the '('' (and no- the '()( Act cou"d be re"ied on to e7tend the ma7imum duration o# &ar"iament beyond #ive years. It does not seem "i4e"y that such a +ro+osa" -ou"d command +o+u"ar and +ar"iamentary su++ort (save in a nationa" emergency such as "ed to e7tensions, by consent o# both 2ouses, during both -or"d -ars , 4no-"edge o# +ar"iamentary tyranny during the Long &ar"iament -ou"d -eigh against such a +ro+osa" and art. : o# the Airst &rotoco" to the Euro+ean Convention on 2uman Rights no- re8uires e"ections at reasonab"e interva"s. The Attorney Eenera", ho-ever, submits that the '('', and no- the '()(, Act cou"d in +rinci+"e be used to amend or de"ete the re#erence to the ma7imum duration o# &ar"iament in the +arenthesis to s. /(' , and that a #urther measure cou"d then be introduced to e7tend the ma7imum duration.

Sir Sydney contends that this is a +rocedure -hich s. /(' very c"ear"y does not +ermit, stressing that the timetab"e in s. /(' -as very c"ose"y "in4ed to the ma7imum duration o# &ar"iament -hich the Act "aid do-n. It is common ground that s. /(' in its unamended #orm cannot -ithout more be re"ied on to e7tend the ma7imum duration o# &ar"iament, because a +ub"ic bi"" to do so is outside the e7+ress terms o# s. /(' , -"t t%ere i! n$t%in) in t%e >?>> Act t$ pr$&i#e t%at it cann$t be amen#e#, and e&en i( t%ere 'ere !"c% a pr$&i!i$n it c$"l# n$t bin# a !"cce!!$r Parliament. >nce it is acce+ted, as I have acce+ted, that an Act +assed +ursuant to the +rocedures in s. /(' , as amended in '()(, is in every sense an Act o# &ar"iament having e##ect and entit"ed to recognition as such, I see no basis in the "anguage o# s. /(' or in +rinci+"e #or ho"ding that the +arenthesis in that subsection, or #or that matter s. G, are

unamendab"e save -ith the consent o# the Lords. It cannot have been contem+"ated that i#, ho-ever im+robab"y, the 2ouses #ound themse"ves in irreconci"%ab"e dead"oc4 on this +oint, the government shou"d have to resort to the creation o# +eers. 2o-ever academic the +oint may be, I thin4 the Attorney Eenera" is right.

&isagree% Parliament cannot !ass a bill to re!eal the !rovision that cannot e$tend the life of Parliament as it will against the intention of Parliament in the Act 'it seem entrenched the future Parliament which against PS( The other La- Lords agreed -ith Lord ,ingham in re"ation to -hat he said about the Court o# A++ea"s a++roach. ,ut the ma/$rit #i# n$t a)ree t%at t%e Parliament Act pr$ce#"re c$"l# be "!e# t$ intr$#"ce an -ill, !a&e t%$!e e2pre!!l e2cl"#e#. In the ne7t e7tract, Lord Nicho""s considers it im+"icit that the &ar"iament Act cou"d not be used in order to remove the e7c"usion re"ating to ,i""s e7tending the "i#e o# &ar"iament, because this -ou"d be c"ear"y contrary to the intention o# &ar"iament -hen enacting the &ar"iament Act '(''.

L$r# Nic%$ll!: C1GD C...D The -ording o# s. /(' o# the '('' Act ma4es c"ear beyond a +eradventure that -hen enacting t%i! !tat"te Parliament inten#e# t%e C$mm$n! !%$"l# n$t be able, b "!e $( t%e ne' !. F pr$ce#"re, "nilaterall t$ e2ten# t%e #"rati$n $( Parliament be $n# t%i! ne'l 4 re#"ce# limit $( (i&e ear!. The +o"itica" +arty current"y in contro" o# the 2ouse o# Commons, -hichever it might be, cou"d not use its ma<ority in that 2ouse as the means -hereby to +ost+one accountabi"ity to the e"ectorate. T%e )$&ernment c$"l# n$t, $( it!el(, pr$l$n) it! peri$# in $((ice be $n# a ma2im"m $( (i&e ear!. De!pite t%e >?>> Act, !"c% an e2ten!i$n '$"l# !till re*"ire t%e appr$&al $( t%e H$"!e $( L$r#!.

C1@D So much is a++arent #rom the e7+ress "anguage o# the Act. ,ut -ou"d it be o+en to the 2ouse o# Commons to do indirect"y by t-o stages -hat the 2ouse cannot do direct"y in one stage! In other -ords, c$"l# t%e !. F pr$ce#"re be "!e# t$ ($rce t%r$")% a -ill #eletin) (r$m !. F t%e '$r#! B$r a -ill c$ntainin) an pr$&i!i$n t$ e2ten# t%e ma2im"m #"rati$n $( Parliament be $n# (i&e ear!B0 I( t%i! 'ere p$!!ible, t%e C$mm$n! c$"l# t%en "!e t%e !. F pr$ce#"re t$ pa!! a -ill e2ten#in) t%e #"rati$n $( Parliament. C1(D In m &ie' t%e an!'er t$ t%e!e *"e!ti$n! i! a (irm Bn$B. The Act setting u+ the ne- +rocedure e7+ress"y e7c"udes its use #or "egis"ation e7tending the duration o# &ar"iament.

That e7+ress e7c"usion carries -ith it, by necessary im+"ication, a "i4e e7c"usion in res+ect o# "egis"ation aimed at achieving the same resu"t by t-o ste+s rather than one. I( t%i! 'ere n$t !$ t%e e2pre!! le)i!lati&e intenti$n c$"l# rea#il be #e(eate#. C?0D Thus #ar, there#ore, it is a++arent that in one signi#icant res+ect there is to be #ound in s. / an im+"ied restriction on the ty+e o# "egis"ation #or -hich the ne- +rocedure may be em+"oyed. The crucia" 8uestion #or the +ur+oses o# this a++ea" is -hether any other restriction is im+"icit in s. /.

C?'D I consider there is none. Secti$n F !peci(icall e2cl"#e! (r$m it! !c$pe le)i!lati$n e2ten#in) t%e #"rati$n $( Parliament. The im+"ied e7c"usion, or restriction, discussed above is based on the e7istence o# this e7+ress e7c"usion. This im+"ied restriction is necessary in order to render the e7+ress restriction e##ectua". It is anci""ary to the e7+ress e7c"usion. Section / contains no other signi#icant e7+ress restriction on the ty+es o# "egis"ation #or -hich the ne- +rocedure may be em+"oyed. I can see no -arrant #or im+"ying into s. / any #urther restriction in this regard.

The idea advanced by Lord Nicho""s and su++orted by a ma<ority.t%at !. F $( t%e Parliament Act >?>> cann$t be amen#e# "!in) t%e >?>> Act pr$ce#"re t$ rem$&e t%e re!tricti$n on its use to e7tend the "i#e o# &ar"iament.raises +ro#ound 8uestions. D$e! it mean t%at !. F i! 7entrenc%e#10

&ar"iament bound mot mere"y due to Act itse"# C"ega" as+ectD and a"so changes in ru"e o# recognition C-ith +o"itica" as+ect% as constitutiona" crisis ha++enedD, so it does not cha""enge the continuing "egis"ative su+remacy, as Act does not bound the #uture +ar"iament but on"y ru"e o# recognition Ali!$n L Y$"n): C...D Lords 2o+e, Nicho""s and Cars-e"" +rovide an C...D e2planati$n t%at #$e! n$t c%allen)e c$ntin"in) parliamentar le)i!lati&e !"premac . The >?>> Act m$#i(ie# t%e 'a in '%ic% &ali# le)i!lati$n can be enacte#. In doing so it claim! t$ m$#i( t%e r"le $( rec$)niti$n, the r"le "!e# t$ #e(ine &ali# le)al enactment!. The r"le $( rec$)niti$n i! b$t% a le)al r"le an# a p$litical (act.

As a le)al r"le, c$"rt! are b$"n# t$ appl the ru"e o# recognition. 2o-ever, as a p$litical (act, it cann$t be m$#i(ie# an# c%an)e# b Parliament al$ne. W%en rec$)ni!in) a c%an)e in t%e r"le $( rec$)niti$n, c$"rt! are ac3n$'le#)in) a c%an)e in p$litical (act.

The Parliament Act >?@?, #or e7am+"e, is acce+ted as &ali# n$t merel beca"!e it !ati!(ie! t%e le)al re*"irement! $( !. FH>6, but al!$ beca"!e it! &ali#it i! rec$)ni!e# a! a p$litical (act, im+"ying that the change in the ru"e o# recognition instigated by the &ar"iament Act '('' is a"so recognised as a +o"itica" #act. Parliament i! b$"n# b t%e pr$&i!i$n! $( t%e Parliament Act >?>>. ,ut it is !$ b$"n# n$t merel beca"!e t%e Parliament Act >?>> is a va"id Act o# &ar"iament, b"t al!$ beca"!e t%e c%an)e in t%e r"le $( rec$)niti$n, #eri&e# (r$m t%e c$n!tit"ti$nal cri!i! re!$l&e# b t%i! Act, has been rec$)ni!e# a! a p$litical (act. Conse8uent"y the Parliament $( >?>> 'a! n$t able t$ bin# ("t"re Parliament! in and o# itse"#.

I( ("t"re Parliament! are b$"n#, t%e are b$"n# b t%e r"le $( rec$)niti$n, -hich -as changed #"e t$ t%e ne' pr$&i!i$n! bein) accepte# internall by at "east a core o# o##icia"s administering the "ega" system. C$ntin"in) parliamentar le)i!lati&e !"premac i! pre!er&e#.

% &S is based on the +rocedure o# "egis"ate and there#ore it cannot be determined on"y by &ar"iament a"one Ali!$n L Y$"n): As 3ade recognised, the #e(initi$n $( a &ali# la'4ma3in) a"t%$rit an# t%e pr$ce#"re! re8uired to ma4e va"id "a- are l$)icall pri$r r"le!. *icey a##ords parliamentar le)i!lati&e !"premac to a +articu"ar de#inition o# &ar"iament +assing "egis"ation acc$r#in) t$ a partic"lar pr$ce#"re. T%i! partic"lar #e(initi$n an# pr$ce#"re cann$t be ma#e b Parliament al$ne i( c$ntin"in) parliamentar le)i!lati&e !"premac i! t$ be pre!er&e#.

% Entrenchment can be achieved at the same time +reserve the continuing &S as the issue o# -hether +ar"iament is su+reme is based on "egis"ation +rocedure but not entrenchment Ali!$n L Y$"n): It i! p$!!ible t$ ac%ie&e t%e !ame practical e((ect a! entrenc%ment '%il!t pre!er&in) c$ntin"in) parliamentar le)i!lati&e !"premac . Iodi#ications o# the de#inition o# &ar"iament or the -ay in -hich "egis"ation is +assed occur through a change in the ru"e o# recognition. A change in the ru"e o# recognition cannot be enacted by &ar"iament a"one5 it needs to be interna""y acce+ted by o##icia"s o# the U6 constitution, -hich inc"udes the courts.

The #e!irabilit $( entrenc%ment !%$"l# n$t #etermine '%et%er t%e Unite# +in)#$m a#$pt! a !el(4embracin) t%e$r $( parliamentar le)i!lati&e !"premac . [as opposed to continuing PS] o That mean it is argued that if it is entrench then continuing become self-embrace PS Nor shou"d it de+end u+on -hether one acce+ts the c"aims o# common "a- constitutiona"ism that em+o-er the courts to cha""enge "egis"ation -hich overturns #undamenta" +rinci+"es o# the constitution. O"r #e!cripti$n $( t%e nat"re $( parliamentar le)i!lati&e !"premac #epen#! u+on our assessment o# the #undamenta" constitutiona" ru"e that determines the i#entit $( t%e !$&erei)n la'4 ma3in) b$# an# t%e pr$ce#"re! "!e# t$ enact &ali# le)i!lati$n and, more +recise"y, t%e 'a in '%ic% t%i! can be m$#i(ie#.

4 i# +rinci+"e invo"ved continuing &S, then it have to be acce+ted by -ho"e actors under constitution, i# invo"ved se"#%embrace &S, then &ar"iament can change it a"one C$ntin"e#: C$ntin"in) parliamentar le)i!lati&e !"premac re*"ire! t%at m$#i(icati$n cann$t be ac%ie&e# b Parliament actin) al$ne. I#, #or e7am+"e, -e identi#y this #undamenta" +rovision as +art o# the ru"e o# recognition, it! m$#i(icati$n re*"ire! internal acceptance b at lea!t !$me $( t%e $((icial! $( t%e le)al ! !tem.

Sel(4embracin) parliamentar le)i!lati&e !"premac re)ar#! t%e ("n#amental r"le as one that can be m$#i(ie# b Parliament al$ne. 5ennin)!, ($r e2ample, re)ar#e# t%i! r"le a! part $( t%e c$mm$n la'. As !tat"t$r pr$&i!i$n! c$"l# $&erri#e t%e c$mm$n la', Parliament c$"l# m$#i( t%e c$mm$n la' pr$&i!i$n! )$&ernin) t%e i#entit $( t%e !$&erei)n an# it! ("ncti$n!.

D$e! 5ac3!$n $pen t%e #$$r t$ c$n!tit"ti$nal re&ie' $( $t%er Act! $( Parliament0 % In strict "ega"ism, &ar"iament can enact any ,i"" by using the Act but some issue -i"" test the merit o# strict "ega"ism and constitutiona" "ega" +rinci+"e, Court create the &S, and in unthin4ab"e circumstances, court -i"" 8ua"i#y the +rinci+"e Lord Steyn acce+ted that, as a matter o# $strict "ega"ism;, the Attorney Eenera" may be right that the -ording o# s. /(' a""o-s use o# the &ar"iament Act +rocedure #or any ,i"" that is not e7+ress"y e7c"uded. ,ut he said that i# the &ar"iament Act -ere ever used to ma4e #undamen%ta" changes to the constitutiona" system, this cou"d test $the re"ative merits o# strict "ega"ism and #undamenta" constitutiona" "ega" +rinci+"e in the courts at the most #undamenta" "eveL.

Hac4son and ors v 2er Ia<estyKs Attorney Eenera" L$r# Ste n: I$biterJ C'0'D The +otentia" conse8uences o# a decision in #avour o# the Attorney Eenera" are #ar% reaching. T%e Att$rne General !ai# at t%e %earin) t%at t%e )$&ernment mi)%t 'i!% t$ "!e t%e >?@? Act t$ brin) ab$"t c$n!tit"ti$nal c%an)e! such as a"tering the com+osition o# the 2ouse o# Lords. The "ogic o# this +ro+osition is that the pr$ce#"re $( t%e >?@? Act c$"l# be "!e# b t%e )$&ernment t$ ab$li!% t%e H$"!e $( L$r#!. Strict le)ali!m !"))e!t! t%at t%e Att$rne General ma be ri)%t.

,ut I am dee+"y troub"ed about assenting to the va"idity o# such an e7orbitant assertion o# government +o-er in our bi%camera" system. It ma be t%at !"c% an i!!"e '$"l# te!t t%e relati&e merit! $( !trict le)ali!m an# c$n!tit"ti$nal le)al principle in t%e c$"rt! at t%e m$!t ("n#amental le&el. C'0/D ,ut the im+"ications are much -ider. I# the Attorney Eenera" is right the '()( Act cou"d a"so be used to introduce o++ressive and -ho""y undemocratic "egis"ation. Aor e7am+"e, it cou"d theoretica""y be used to abo"ish <udicia" revie- o# #"agrant abuse o# +o-er by a governOment or even the ro"e o# the ordinary courts in standing bet-een the e7ecutive and citiBens. This is -here -e may have to come bac4 to the +oint about the su+remacy o# &ar"iament. 3e do not in the United 6ingdom have an uncontro""ed constitution as the Attorney Eenera" im+"ausib"y asserts. In the Euro+ean conte7t the second Aactortame decision made that c"ear9 C'(('D ' AC ?0:. The sett"ement contained in the Scot"and Act '((@ a"so +oint to a divided sovereignty. Ioreover, the

Euro+ean Convention on 2uman Rights as incor+orated into our "a- by the 2uman Rights Act, '((@, created a ne- "ega" order. >ne must not assimiO"ate the EC2R -ith mu"ti"atera" treaties o# the traditiona" ty+e. Instead it is a "ega" order in -hich the United 6ingdom assumes ob"igations to +rotect #undamenta" rights, not in re"ation to other states, but to-ards a"" individua"s -ithin its <urisdiction. T%e cla!!ic acc$"nt )i&en b Dice $( t%e #$ctrine $( t%e !"premac $( Parliament, +ure and abso"ute as it -as, can n$' be !een t$ be $"t $( place in t%e m$#ern Unite# +in)#$m. Ne&ert%ele!!, t%e !"premac $( Parliament i! !till t%e )eneral principle $( $"r c$n!tit"ti$n. It i! a c$n!tr"ct $( t%e c$mm$n la'. T%e /"#)e! create# t%i! principle.

I( t%at i! !$, it i! n$t "nt%in3able t%at circ"m!tance! c$"l# ari!e '%ere t%e c$"rt! ma %a&e t$ *"ali( a principle estab"ished on a di##erent hy+othesis o# constitutiona"ism. In e7ce+tiona" circumstances invo"ving an attem+t to abo"ish <udicia" revie- or the ordinary ro"e o# the courts, the A++e""ate Committee o# the 2ouse o# Lords or a neSu+reme Court may have to consider -hether this is a constitutiona" #undamenta" -hich even a sovereign &ar"iament acting at the behest 5 o# a com+"aisant 2ouse o# Commons cannot abo"ish. It is not necessary to e7+"ore the rami#ications o# this 8uestion in this o+inion. No such issues arise on the +resent a++ea".

% &S is being 8ua"i#ied, EC2R +rotect ++" #rom arbitrary govt and Constitution is based on R>L, court -i""ing to "imit &S L$r# H$pe: CLord 2o+e a"so considered the issue o# the su+remacy o# &ar"iament.D C'0)D I start -here my "earned #riend Lord Steyn has <ust ended. O"r c$n!tit"ti$n i! #$minate# b t%e !$&erei)nt $( Parliament. -"t Parliamentar !$&erei)nt i! n$ l$n)er, i( it e&er 'a!, ab!$l"te. It is not uncontro""ed in the sense re#erred to by Lord ,ir4enhead LC in IcCa-"ey v The 6ing C'(/0D AC ?(', G/0. It is no "onger right to say that its #reedom to "egis"ate admits o# no 8ua"i#ication -hatever. Ste+ by ste+, gradua""y but sure"y, the Eng"ish +rinci+"e o# the abso"ute "egis"ative sovereignty o# &ar"iament -hich *icey derived #rom Co4e and ,"ac4stone is being 8ua"i#ied. C...D

C'0GD Nor shou"d -e over"oo4 the #act that one o# the guiding +rinci+"es that -ere identi#ied by *icey at +. :1 -as the universa" ru"e or su+remacy throughout the constitution o# ordinary "a-. C...D In it! m$#ern ($rm, n$' rein($rce# b t%e E"r$pean C$n&enti$n $n H"man Ri)%t! an# t%e enactment b Parliament $( t%e H"man Ri)%t! Act >??G, this +rinci+"e pr$tect! t%e in#i&i#"al (r$m arbitrar )$&ernment. The r"le $( la' en($rce# b t%e c$"rt! i! t%e "ltimate c$ntr$llin) (act$r $n '%ic% $"r c$n!tit"ti$n i! ba!e#. The #act that $"r L$r#!%ip! %a&e been 'illin) t$ %ear t%i! appeal an# t$ )i&e /"#)ment "p$n it i! an$t%er in#icati$n t%at t%e c$"rt! %a&e a part t$ pla in #e(inin) t%e limit! $( ParliamentB! le)i!lati&e !$&erei)nt .

4 &S -ithout higher authority is created by common "a- is bui"t u+on assum+tion that &ar"iament re+resent +eo+"e, #ina" <udgment "eave to Common to decide to do -hat they -ant i# they -i""ing to destroy the trust by the +eo+"e CL$r# H$pe conc"uded his <udgment as #o""o-s.D C'/?D C...D The +rinci+"e o# parliamentar !$&erei)nt '%ic% in t%e ab!ence $( %i)%er a"t%$rit , has been create# b t%e c$mm$n la' i! b"ilt "p$n t%e a!!"mpti$n t%at Parliament repre!ent! t%e pe$ple '%$m it e2i!t! t$ !er&e. C'/GD Li4e others o# your Lordshi+s I am unab"e to acce+t the distinction -hich the Court o# A++ea" drebet-een -hat it described C...D as re"ative"y modest changes and changes C...D o# a #undamenta""y di##erent nature. The -ording o# s. /(' does not invite such a distinction.

It raises 8uestions o# #act and degree about the e##ect o# "egis"ation -hich are 8uite unsuited #or ad<udication by a court. The argument that some +rovisions o# the Acts o# Union o# 'G0G are #undamenta" "a- as they -ere based on a treaty -hich +receded the creation o# the United 6ingdom &ar"iament is a di##erent argument. ># course, as Dice at +. G( recognised, the !$&erei)nt $( Parliament i! limite# b t%e p$!!ibilit $( p$p"lar re!i!tance t$ it! e2erci!e. Tr"!t 'ill be er$#e# i( t%e !. FH>6 pr$ce#"re i! "!e# t$ enact mea!"re! -hich are, as Lord Steyn +uts it, e2$rbitant $r are n$t pr$p$rti$nate. Neverthe"ess the (inal e2erci!e $( /"#)ment $n t%e!e matter! m"!t be le(t t$ t%e H$"!e $( C$mm$n! as the e"ected chamber.

It i! ($r t%at c%amber t$ #eci#e '%ere t%e balance lie! '%en t%at pr$ce#"re i! bein) re!$rte# t$. Hac4son case ma<ority sho- there is constitutiona" "imit on the &ar"iament, no +o-er is unconstrained is com+e""ing democratic +rinci+"e Cthe right is inheritedD, it cannot de+end on -hether or not -i"" be sanctioned by the +eo+"e does not +revent tyranny As -e sa- in Cha+ter /, some constitutiona" e7+erts ho"d the viethat it is +ossib"e. indeed, desirab"e .#or the ,ritish courts to reconsider their ro"e in ad<udicating on Acts o# &ar"iament. Aor them, parliamentar !"premac i! an $"tm$#e# c$ncept t%at n$ l$n)er re(lect! t%e 7tr"e1 meanin) $( #em$crac . Pr$(e!!$r 5e((re 5$ 'ell i! $ne $( t%em. C$n!i#er '%at %e %a! t$ !a ab$"t t%e 5ac3!$n ca!e in t%e ($ll$'in) e2tract.

5e((re

5$'ell

3ho s+ea4s #or the constitution! In the absence o# any -ritten constitutiona" order o# a F"ogica""y +riorF nature, by -hat authority cou"d the courts +rohibit #undamenta" vio"ations o# the ru"e o# "a- and other rights inherent in this changed hy+othesis o# constitutiona" democracy! I# -e -ere "oo4ing #or a"tered ru"es o# recognition, -e cou"d dra- su++ort #rom the #act that in Hac4son the 2ouse o# Lords did indeed revie- Acts o# &ar"iament (a"beit -ithout needing to im+ugn their va"idity . T%e re&ie' 'a! /"!ti(ie# "n#er t%e )"i!e $( !tat"t$r interpretati$n. =et the ma<ority o# the La' L$r#! en)a)e# in e7act"y the 4ind o# e7ercise that characterises revie- in countries -ith -ritten constitutions, in +articu"ar -hen they c$n!i#ere# '%et%er an c$n!tit"ti$nal limit! H!"c% a! pr$l$n)in) t%e li(e $(

Parliament6 !t$$# in t%e 'a $( an amen#ment t$ t%e >?>> Act. Iost -ritten constitutions contain genera"ised standards -hich do not su++"y cut%and%dried ans-ers and need im+"ications to be made about contem+orary constitutiona" standards. The +recedentia" #orce o# Hac4son -as ac4no-"edged by Lord 2o+e -hen he said9 FThe #act that your Lordshi+s have been -i""ing to hear this a++ea" and to give <udgment u+on it is another indication that the courts have a +art to +"ay in de#ining the "imits o# &ar"iamentKs "egis"ative sovereignty.F Even Lord ,ingham, -ho #irm"y endorsed +ar"iamentary sovereignty, <usti#ied the <udicia" revie- on the ground that other-ise the +oints raised by the a++e""ants cou"d not be raised at a"", -hich he considered F -ou"d not be C...D consistent -ith the ru"e o# "a-F U >ne o# the most im+ortant statements o# constitutiona" +rinci+"e -as made right at the outset o# the

more intrusive <udicia" revie- o# administrative action. In t%e (am$"! Pa#(iel# ca!e, the 2ouse o# Lords re<ected the IinisterKs contention that the -ide +o-er con#erred u+on him amounted to Fun#ettered discretionF. Lord U+<ohn had no truc4 -ith the notion o# any discretion being so broad. E&en i( t%e p$'er 'ere e2pre!!l #e(ine# b t%e term C"n(ettere#C, he said that9 F CTDhe use o# that ad<ective, HB "n(ettere#B 6 e&en in an Act $( Parliament, can #$ n$t%in) t$ "n(etter t%e c$ntr$l '%ic% t%e /"#iciar %a&e $&er t%e e2ec"ti&e, name"y that in e7ercising their p$'er! t%e latter m"!t act la'("ll and that is a matter to be determined by "oo4ing at the Act and its sco+e and ob<ect in con#erring a discretion u+on the Iinister rather than by the use o# ad<ectives C...DF. I# e2ec"ti&e p$'er ma n$t be "n(ettere#, or #ree #rom <udicia" revie-, '%at principle permit! t%e le)i!lat"re t$ be "nb$"n#e#, or untroub"ed by any <udicia" oversight!

T%e n$ti$n t%at n$ p$'er ma be "nc$n!traine# i! c$mpellin) a! a )eneral #em$cratic principle. Lord Steyn in Hac4son dre- su++ort #or the notion o# a Fne- constitutiona" orderF #rom the inc$rp$rati$n int$ $"r la' $( t%e E"r$pean C$n&enti$n $n H"man Ri)%t! by -ay o# our 2uman Rights Act '((@. That Act #$e! create ne' c$n!tit"ti$nal e2pectati$n!, name"y, t%at b$t% Parliament an# )$&ernment 'ill re!pect t%e ri)%t! #e!i)nate# in t%e E"r$pean C$n&enti$n $n H"man Ri)%t!.

H$'e&er, t%e )reat t rannie! $( t%e F:t% cent"r %a# alrea# #em$n!trate# t%e #an)er! $( "nc$n(ine# p$'er, re)ar#le!! $( '%et%er it 'a! !ancti$ne# b p$p"lar c$n!ent. As Lord Coo4e has +ut it9 FT%e tr"t% i! I...J t%at !$me ri)%t! are in%erent an# ("n#amental t$ #em$cratic ci&ili!e# !$ciet . Conventions, constitutions, bi""s o# rights and the "i4e res+ond by recognising rather than creating them.F It can n$ l$n)er be #$"bte# that one o# the +reconditions o# any constitutiona" democracy, +ro+er"y so%ca""ed, is res+ect #or certain rights that neit%er t%e e2ec"ti&e n$r t%e le)i!lat"re, repre!entati&e a! it ma be, !%$"l# be able t$ #en 'it% imp"nit .

% It does not mean +o-er tota""y trans#er to Court, &ar"iament sti"" "egis"ate about socia" +o"icy -hich out o# Court;s <urisdiction -hi"e Court on"y con#ined to the inherent e"ement o# democracy C$ntin"e#: ,ut %$' c$n&incin) is the c"aim o# the su++orters o# +ar"iamentary sovereignty that its demise -ou"d have the e((ect $( !impl tran!(errin) "n(ettere# p$'er (r$m t%e electe# le)i!lat"re t$ t%e "nelecte# /"#iciar ! T%at claim i! mi!lea#in). It i)n$re! t%e (act t%at t%e !p%ere! $( t%e /"#iciar an# t%e le)i!lat"re are #i!tinct. Aor a start, even under the mode" o# a rights%based democracy, le)i!lati&e a"t%$rit ine&itabl c$ntain! a 'i#e area $( #i!creti$n t$ ma3e !$cial an# ec$n$mic p$lic , $&er '%ic% t%e c$"rt! %a&e n$ #$mini"m.

It i! n$t ($r t%e /"#)e! t$ !ec$n#4 )"e!! t%e le)i!lat"re $n "tilitarian calc"lati$n! $( t%e !$cial )$$#. T%eir r$le i! !trictl c$n(ine# t$ t%e limite# i!!"e $( '%et%er t%e &ari$"! in%erent element! $( #em$crac have been in#ringed by other branches o# government and there#ore cannot be sustained.

% Court and &ar"iament -or4 together to bui"d +ub"ic "a- right even in the &S E&en 'it%in t%e b$"n#! $( parliamentar !$&erei)nt , as -e have seen, t%e c$"rt! alrea# e2erci!e t%i! r$le t$ !$me #e)ree. The %i!t$ric #ial$)"e an# pr$ce!! $( iterati$n an# !el(4c$rrecti$n bet'een Parliament an# t%e c$"rts has all$'e# t%e #e&el$pment $( p"blic la' ri)%t! an# #"tie! to -hich both the le)i!lat"re an# /"#iciar %a&e c$ntrib"te#.

% Last -ord go to <udiciary -hen Legis"ature beyond the democratic "ine, Hudiciary shou"d not overreach the "ine o# socio%economic issue, but &ar"iament shou"d not itse"# determine -here the "ine is "ying. I# +ar"iamentary sovereignty -ere to be discarded as our +rime constitutiona" +rinci+"e, it is true that Ft%e la!t '$r#C '$"l# pa!! (r$m t%e le)i!lat"re t$ t%e c$"rt!.but $nl $n t%e *"e!ti$n '%et%er t%e le)i!lat"re %a! !tra e# be $n# t%e line $( it! #em$cratic c$n(ine!. The assertion o# this authority -ou"d re8uire o# the c$"rt! a b$l#ne!! t$ interpret c$n!tit"ti$nal principle! as they ought to be. 2o-ever, it 'ill al!$ re*"ire a m$#e!t appreciati$n $( t%eir $'n limitati$n!. There -i"" be issues on the mar)in! $( le)al principle an# !$ci$4 ec$n$mic p$lic '%ic% 'ill ine&itabl in&ite t%e c%ar)e $( /"#icial $&erreac%.

Parliament, %$'e&er, i! n$t in a p$!iti$n t$ /"#)e t%e!e matter! in it! $'n ca"!e. And there is much to be said #or having these decisions made by those -ho are insu"ated #rom the necessity to res+ond to the +erceived o+inion o# the moment.

% Court sti"" have no right to stri4e it do-n even &ar"iament in#ringed the constitutiona" +rinci+"e ho-ever &S "ied in "egitimate #actors Cuncertain and un#oreseen resu"tD C$ntin"e#: I( a ("t"re Parliament 'ere t$ pa!! a la' '%ic% in(rin)e# t%e r"le $( la' $r $t%er c$n!tit"ti$nal ("n#amentals, it may be that $"r /"#)e! 'ill (eel t%at t%e !till lac3 !"((icient a"t%$rit t$ !tri3e it #$'n on the ground that it subverts the im+"ied conditions.the essentia" #eatures.o# our constitutiona" democracy. H$'e&er, !$me $( t%$!e c$n#iti$n!, such as free and regular elections, "n#erlie t%e le)itimac $( t%e principle $( parliamentar !$&erei)nt it!el(. Ot%er!, !"c% a! acce!! t$ /"!tice, are nece!!ar re*"irement! $( a m$#ern % p$t%e!i! $( c$n!tit"ti$nali!m.

S$me $( t%e #icta in 5ac3!$n c$n(irm t%e real p$!!ibilit that, in the -ords o# Lord 2o+e9 FT%e r"le $( la' en($rce# b t%e c$"rt! i! t%e "ltimate c$ntr$llin) (act$r $n '%ic% $"r c$n!tit"ti$n i! ba!e#C.