Former law chief warns over 'scrambled' Home Office split
By Andrew Woodcock, PA
Published: 24 April 2007
Reforms to split the Home Office in two and create a new Ministry of Justice are being rushed through too quickly, the former head of the judiciary in England and Wales warned today.
The former Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf said that the Whitehall shake-up represented a major change in the constitution and should be carefully considered rather than "scrambled" through.
The reform, due to come into effect next month, will move Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer into a new Ministry of Justice with responsibility not only for the judiciary but for prisons, probation and preventing reoffending.
The Home Office, under Home Secretary John Reid, will focus on fighting crime, handling immigration and counter-terrorism.
Lord Woolf told BBC Radio 4's Today programme, in an interview broadcast this morning: "We should work it out beforehand and not wait until we have created the change and then somehow or other try to scramble to get it into place.
"This is a very big change for our constitution."
Lord Woolf's comments come shortly after he warned the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee that the division of the Home Office should be planned carefully to avoid repeating old problems in the new department.
Lord Woolf said that Britain's unwritten constitution, which was the guarantor of individual liberties, was being changed without public consultation.
This left him "concerned for our well-being as a nation", he said.
He told Today that the creation of the new Ministry of Justice threatened relations between the Lord Chancellor and the judiciary.
"My concern in relation to this new Ministry of Justice is that it might, if it is absorbing what was previously the bulk of matters that the Home Office dealt with, be unable to have the sort of relationship we hitherto have had with the Lord Chancellor.
"There is close cooperation on matters where this is appropriate between the Lord Chancellor of the day and the judiciary.
"This arises from what is now history, but is still an important influence - the fact that the Lord Chancellor was head of the judiciary, so it is natural that the judiciary should listen to what he has to say and talk to him in confidence about their concerns.
"If the Lord Chancellor is watered down as to his traditional roles because of these new responsibilities he is being given, that would be worrying from this regard."
Asked if he felt the changes were being introduced too quickly, Lord Woolf replied: "Yes. There has been no debate. Parliament has not considered this, but it is going to apparently happen on May 9.
"I really think with our constitutional arrangements, we should be more careful about how these matters are dealt with.
"We have no written constitution which is entrenched and our constitution works through checks and balances and it is very important that if we are starting to alter the framework of checks and balances, that the matter is looked at carefully.
"I am not saying that it can't be made to work satisfactorily. What I am saying is that we should work it out beforehand and not wait until we have created the change and then somehow or other try to scramble to get it into place.
"This is a very big change for our constitution and I say this for no reason other than that I am concerned for our well-being as a nation."
Lord Woolf warned: "Our constitution protects our individual liberties - and these are not matters of concern of a financial nature, they are concerns about our liberty.
"Furthermore, I would suggest that if you are going to make constitutional changes, they shouldn't come in the form of a press announcement, as has happened in the past, nor should they come in the form of a ministerial announcement without a consultation process with the public taking place before it."
Lord Woolf repeated earlier calls for sentencing policy to be shaped to reflect the availability of prison places, in order to prevent overcrowding.
He suggested that the Sentencing Guidelines Council should be given a similar remit to the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, which is given an inflation target and then allowed to use interest rate levels as it sees fit in order to meet it.
Lord Woolf said: "Each Government should determine how much of its resources it can afford to give to the question of incarceration.
"It can't be unlimited amounts, because there are so many burdens on the Government from other directions.
"I suggest the Sentencing Guidelines Council should be told 'These are the resources we have available for imprisoning people over the next five years. You give guidelines to ensure that the prison population fits in with the resources we have available'.
"In that way, we could immediately inject common sense into our approach to sentencing. We have to be brave enough to say what we are doing now is not realistic.
"We aren't frank with the public. We don't say we can't afford to imprison everyone they would like to see in prison for the time they want to see them imprisoned."
Grauniad view here.
I think that the picture of Lord Woolf is very sexy, especially in that wig. I have, in fact printed off said picture and drawn upon it a huge moustache. My wife and I use it for stimulation when the children are in bed.
ReplyDeleteApart from that I think he may have his head screwed on right, if what he says is true to his line of thought. Pity that Johnny boy Reid rushed all this shite through parliament withoot thinkin' aboot it forst, Y'knaw whit ah mean Jimmy"
Oor Wullie whid turn in his early grave...