Constitutional Reform Bill [Lords] — 17 Jan 2005 at 21:48

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am pleased that, after much debate and discussion in the other place, the Bill has at long last come to the House of Commons. I shall address the details of the Bill in due course, but we must not neglect the fundamental principles driving the reform, namely, the need to modernise our constitution so that our institutions can serve the public in a clearer, more transparent and more effective manner; so that our courts and justice system can be administered by a full-time Minister clearly accountable to Parliament; and so that the relationship between the three arms of the state-Parliament, the judiciary and the Executive-is settled, clarified and easier to understand, in turn making each better fitted to carry out its vital roles in a modern democracy.

I beg to move,

That this House declines to give the Constitutional Reform Bill a second reading because it creates a costly and unnecessary Supreme Court exercising the same functions as the current Law Lords; is based on the false premise that the separation of powers between the judiciary and legislature requires the physical removal of the Law Lords from Parliament; fails to demonstrate how the proposed Supreme Court would exercise its functions with any greater degree of impartiality, independence and integrity than the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords; will deny Parliament the experience and expertise that the Law Lords bring to debates and legislation; and notwithstanding the benefits of a Judicial Appointments Commission, offers no convincing justification for replacing a system that works well.

Question put, That the amendment be made:-

The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 329.

Debate in Parliament | Historical Hansard | Source |