Sir John Major on the need for the rule of law

Sir John Major

Our way of life is built around the maintenance of law. The public expects our government to work within the law and the accepted rules of public life.

It was unprecedented when this government broke the law by proroguing Parliament, to avoid debates on Brexit that might not have gone as they wished.

I had promised, in a BBC interview, that if the government attempted to muzzle Parliament I would challenge their action in court.

So I did — though not as swiftly as the civil rights campaigner, Gina Miller. Lawyers presented our cases separately but they were, in essence, identical.

Both our challenges were upheld unanimously by the Supreme Court, who ruled that the government’s actions were unlawful.

“It was,” the court said, “impossible to conclude there was any reason, let alone a good reason” for proroguing Parliament for five weeks in the run up to Brexit.

The prime minister said he “disagreed” with the court, and the then Leader of the House accused the Supreme Court judges of “a constitutional coup”.

The government accepted the verdict, but in bad faith. It did not apologise – nor mend its ways.

It went on to introduce legislation, giving the government the power to break international law, albeit – as one minister conceded – “in a limited but specific way”. Fortunately, the issue fell away, but it was a proposal that should never have been put forward.

It cut overseas aid — which parliament had set at 0.7 per cent of GDP — without the prior approval of parliament (although this was obtained retrospectively).

And this is the government that fought a referendum to “protect the sovereignty of Parliament” and the sanctity of domestic law.

All of this is against the backdrop of the prime minister being investigated for several apparent breaches of the ministerial code.

He chose to ignore critical reports on his ministers; rejected advice from his independent adviser on ministerial standards – who resigned; and attempted – but failed – to overturn a unanimous standards select committee report that condemned the behaviour of a parliamentary colleague and friend.

It may be possible to find excuses for each of these lapses — and others — but all of them, taken together, tell a different tale.

The prime minister and our present government not only challenge the law, but also seem to believe that they — and they alone — need not obey the rules, traditions, conventions — call them what you will — of public life.

The charge that there is one law for the government, and one for everyone else is politically deadly — and it has struck home.

Our democracy requires that the truth and the law should be respected and obeyed — above all, by the government. But, sometimes, it seems that — even if it is obeyed — it is not always respected.

When a leading tabloid labelled judges “enemies of the people” the justice secretary did not leap to their defence. Other cabinet ministers publicly disparaged “leftie lawyers”, “activist lawyers”, and attacked judges for “exceeding their authority”.

Public denunciation of judges and lawyers gives credence to the belief that the government wishes to usher in a compliant judiciary.

It should back off.

The late Lord Bingham, one of our greatest judges, once remarked that there “are countries where the judges always agree with the government — but they are not countries in which any of us would like to live”. That was true then — and is true today.

There have also been attempted assaults on civil rights — not all of them successful. The government briefed, but rowed back from, a serious attack on judicial review: but the intent was there and may return.

It proposed legislation to allow the police to “stop and search” anyone at a protest meeting “without any cause for suspicion”.

It attempted to legislate to allow the police to impose conditions on protest marches likely to be “noisy”. These are not the only examples.

Apart from being unworkable, such proposals would have alienated the public from the police. I recall anti-poll tax marches, anti-war marches and anti-Brexit marches which attracted huge numbers — and were certainly noisy. Would these have been banned?

The intent of these protestors was not to prevent the public from going about their normal lives. These protestors were the public, expressing deeply-felt opposition to government policy.

But — although they may be uncomfortable for any government — protest marches are a safety valve for free speech. Democracy should treat them with care.

The government was lucky that the House of Lords rejected these proposals, but there is no certainty they will not return in another bill.

Such a denial of civil rights is wrong in principle, and in practice.

If the power of the state grows, and the protections of the law diminish, then the liberties of the individual fall.

The Mother of Parliaments should not permit this.