eurealist.co.uk

Lords and the Hunting Act
From Lord Donaldson of Lymington
Sir, Peter Riddell (Political Analysis, July 13) asserts that the Hunting Act appeal, at present before the judicial committee of the House of Lords, involves a struggle between the “greater activism” of the judiciary on the one hand and ministers seeking to uphold the principle of the legal sovereignty of Parliament on the other.

No so. The legal sovereignty of Parliament, that is to say of the two Houses of Parliament acting in agreement with each other, has never been in issue. Nor does anyone dispute that the two Houses, in enacting the Parliament Act 1911, intended to limit the powers of the House of Lords to delay the enactment of Bills for up to three sessions in order that the Commons should have a chance to reconsider.

The dispute concerns whether the 1911 Act made a once and for all limitation upon the delaying power of the Lords, or whether it also empowered the House of Commons unilaterally to reduce further this delaying power. By the Parliament Act 1949 the Commons asserted a right to reduce the delaying power from three sessions to two and passed the Hunting Act 2005 in reliance upon the validity of this assertion. The Countryside Alliance disputes this assertion, and accordingly claims that the Hunting Act is flawed.

The role of the judiciary is to interpret the 1911 Act. There is nothing novel about this. However, the dispute raises an issue of huge constitutional importance. It is whether, on the assumption that the 1949 Act is valid, there is any impediment to the Commons further reducing the delaying power of the Lords to one month. That would render the Lords powerless as a revising chamber and in effect produce a unicameral Parliament.

JOHN F. DONALDSON
House of Lords