Login FormClose

The justice secretary, Chris Grayling, has suffered a defeat in a key House of Lords vote on his plans to curtail access to judicial review, which would have made it harder to challenge government decisions in court.

Peers voted by 247 to 181, a majority of 66, to ensure that the judges keep their discretion over whether they can hear judicial review applications after a warning from a former lord chief justice, Lord Woolf, that the alternative amounted to an ‘elective dictatorship’.

“It’s dangerous to go down the line of telling the judges what they have to do,” he told peers.

Peers who voted against the government included the former Conservative cabinet minister John Selwyn-Gummer, who sits as Lord Deben, the former Tory chancellor Lord Howe, and 17 Liberal Democrat peers, including the former party leader, Lord Steel, and Baroness Williams, who said they were very troubled by the proposals.

Read the full story in the Guardian

 

Comments  

+1 #7 Paul Richards 2014-10-31 21:40
Hi all,
On a 'lighter' note for the New Year - I've found out this evening that Channel 4 are hoping to screen a spoof documentary called something like '100 days at No.10 with Nigel Farage'
It assumes that UKIP has won the Gen. Election and he is now the Prime Minister (oh, the very thought of that!!) and it promises to be quite inventive, using previous clips & dramatized situations etc.
It should be quite interesting to watch eventually!
#6 Paul Richards 2014-10-30 22:24
Hi all,
And, while we are at it - wouldn't it be a really good idea also, if the so called 'Deputy Prime Minister' Nick Clegg, the obvious Tory that he is, should resign his 'Liberal Democrat' leadership and join the Tories. What an absolutely wonderful Conservative he would be.
He, after all loves the Tories and (most) of their terrible policies.
He would make a very good 'Conservative' Prime Minister - he, (like David Cameron too), loves to purport most of Cameron's detested views - he loves (like Cameron!) all of the POWER and most of the £148 thousand per year (or so) in salaries, perks, etc.
What a superb leader of the Tories he would make!
And, too boot, he has already destroyed his Lib. Dem. Party!!
+1 #5 Matata2011 2014-10-29 11:15
Jim that blocking is better than nothing, for now we can breath they have enough election stress problems of their own to solve because so far they are nearing the fire pit of politics with attacks from all corners, from EU, at home & others
+2 #4 Jim Allison 2014-10-28 18:31
The problem is that the House of Lords cannot block new legislation, they can only delay it for up to two years.

The powers of the House of Lords are limited by a combination of law and convention.

The Parliament Acts, although rarely used, provide a way of solving disagreement between the Commons and the Lords.

See The
Parliament Acts
+2 #3 Blackcat 2014-10-28 17:52
Hi

I think Grayling might possibly try to use the 1911 Parliament Act to overule the HoL. It would need a very highly qualified lawyer to confirm one way or the other if this was possible.
Rest assured Grayling will not go away. :cry:
+6 #2 carruthers 2014-10-27 23:49
Presumably Chris Grayling will now huff and puff about "unelected peers over-riding the will of the electorate." And more such which says that the HoL is supposed to do exactly what the HoC tells it to do.

There is a curious notion about that "in a democracy" what the current Prime Minister can persuade his backbenchers to support should be the only limit on what a government can do. I suspect that a new "Bill of Rights" would amount to, "you can do anything you want - unless we don't like it."

Our - admittedly unwritten - constitution is supposed to have a system of checks and balances and one of those is the notion the government, in its executive function, is not above the law. Even acting as a legislature, the House of Commons is not supposed to grant itself or the government of the day limitless authority, except in times of grave national peril, such as a major war.

The need to let George Osborne and IDS save money to give to the rich and take money away from the poor is not an adequate excuse for that telling phrase, "elective dictatorship".

The 25% who voted for David Cameron did not so vote in order to make IDS deputy Fuhrer.
+6 #1 Paul Richards 2014-10-27 22:01
Hi all,
This is very good news! I was very afraid that they might vote with this proposal and thus give this 'unelected Coalition Government' the 'right' to bulldoze through the rights of British people.
How dare the likes of this jumped up prat, Chris Grayling, try to push this through in the first place. I did not realise that it was him that was behind it all - the right wing Media - as usual, kept it quiet.
He was once also, a VERY unpopular 'Employment Minister'. These people have no experience of anything that they are actually put into. It's like dropping me, an ex - R.N Officer into being a top brain surgeon, - with no training whatsoever!! It is madness.
But, they make out that ALL of the electorate have voted for them and also for all of their crazy ideas - their ego's say so, so as far as they are concerned, they are right - I say NO!
However, it would be very advisable to watch further as the majority of 66 only is small - if, (for instance) many of these (also un-elected!) peers were Tories, it could have been conceivably been seen through. 'Democracy' has been saved, for the present at least! We have all been lucky - so far!!

You need to be logged in to comment

Free, fortnightly PIP, ESA and UC Updates

Our fortnightly bulletin, with over 80,000 subscribers, is the UK's leading source of benefits news. Find out what's changing, how it affects you and how to prepare. Our mailing list is securely managed by icontact in the US.

Form Heading