The Sketch: Culture from the Other Place is found alive in the Lords

Simon Carr
Tuesday 15 March 2005 20:00 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

The Lords was debating a Commons amendment that would allow the Lord Chancellor to be an MP rather than a peer. And why not, you say? It's a modernising initiative. Obvious. Sensible. It would allow a Roy Jenkins to be made Lord Chancellor rather than some second-rate party hack with a law degree lawyer (none springs to mind just now).

The Lords was debating a Commons amendment that would allow the Lord Chancellor to be an MP rather than a peer. And why not, you say? It's a modernising initiative. Obvious. Sensible. It would allow a Roy Jenkins to be made Lord Chancellor rather than some second-rate party hack with a law degree lawyer (none springs to mind just now).

The Lord Privy Seal can sit in the Commons, Charlie Falconer told them. And the Deputy Prime Minister exercises quasi-judicial functions in planning - "I hear no one question whether he's fit to carry out that work" (he must be deaf) "because he's a member of the Other Place (oh, have it your own way).

Charlie told us that the Lord Chancellor needed to have judgement, courage, stature and independence (which he pronounces "dependence"). Without wanting to be rude - which isn't to say I don't want to be rude - it is by no means clear how much or how many of these qualities Charlie has himself. "It is the person who holds the office that is important, not the place," he said, with the sort of cheerful vulgarity you expect from the Other Place, as they call it here.

The fact is, culture draws out certain sorts of behaviour, and that in turn creates character. The culture of the Commons is not one that encourages the superlunary poise we expect of a Lord Chancellor. During the terror Bill last week we saw, in the early hours of Friday morning, MPs shouting, bellowing, boozing, busking, barking at the Health Secretary and oinking at the Labour chief whip. Culture creates the company ("then the pig got up and slowly walked away"). The culture of the Commons has created, for instance, David Lammy, the Lord Chancellor's representative down there. He is, everyone agrees, the single most over-promoted of all the junior ministers (and believe me there is competition for that award). We'll attend to him in more detail at a later date. For the time being: "There is no doubt about the status of the office when we look at the current Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs," Lord Kingsland said. "It is rather ... lowly."

Kingsland went on to an impossible win. In his view there was a fundamental conflict between an MP's electoral requirement to do the will of the majority, and the Lord Chancellor's duty to uphold the rule of law. He said that a proper Lord Chancellor would never have allowed the proposal to suspend habeas corpus to have emerged from the cabinet room.

I thought he was calling the Lord Chancellor, in the nicest possible way, a snivelling wretch. Looking at the text, I'm sure of it.

Age and experience - the two don't always go together - prevailed over Charlie's youthful enthusiasm. The Lords voted to retain their exclusive right to the highest legal office in the land. Well, they should, shouldn't they?

simoncarr75@hotmail.com

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in