Constitutional Reform Bill [HL]

Part of the debate – in the House of Lords at 3:30 pm on 21 March 2005.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland Shadow Lord Chancellor, House of Lords 3:30, 21 March 2005

My Lords, I would not have advanced that argument in your Lordships' House had our proposals been the law of the land; but they were not. At the time that I argued the point, two weeks ago, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sat—as he still sits—in this House as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. He is only Lord Chancellor because, owing to a slight oversight on 12 June 2003, the Government failed to realise that they could not abolish the Lord Chancellor overnight. The noble and learned Lord has made it clear that his primary responsibility is as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. Had we had a traditional Lord Chancellor two weeks ago, I would never have advanced that argument.

I mentioned 12 June. Your Lordships will recall that that was when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, left office; and that it was also when the Prime Minister decided to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor altogether. The Prime Minister had a disagreement with the noble and learned Lord, who departed. But the Prime Minister realised that, if the conventions of the job were to be respected, the noble and learned Lord's successor was likely to conduct himself precisely like the noble and learned Lord. Therefore, the post had to go as well as the man. That is the best reason for keeping the post the same. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1B, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Lord Kingsland.)