Various bloggers, including Guido, Dizzy and Iain Dale*, have got their knickers in a twist over what the Government’s counsel said in a court case brought against the Government for breach of contract over a referendum on the EU Constitution. The barrister today told the court (as reported by blogger Trixy) that:
“manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation”
All four of the bloggers linked to so far have misconstrued this as an admission that the Government may break its manifesto pledges at will, but it does not. What the counsel in this case was saying, quite rightly, is that manifesto promises usually have to be implemented by primary legislation (an Act of Parliament), and as such are not subject to judicial review (the doctrine of legitimate expectation being a part of judicial review). As James Graham pointed out last week, a contrary position would overturn the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, which has lain at the foundation of our system of government since at least 1688 and the Bill of Rights.
Now, this is not to say that manifesto pledges may be broken at will, but rather than the remedy for their breach lies essentially in the political, rather than legal, sphere, first through Parliamentary accountability and then through the ballot box.
* Hmm… Do I sound too much like Tim Ireland when I say that?
Loading ...
2 responses so far ↓
1 James Graham // Feb 7, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I’m willing to bet that Guido, Dizzy and Dale will be the first to cry foul if Labour’s oft-repeated intent to place the Salisbury Convention on a statutory footing was ever carried out.
Oh, the irony.
2 bernard // Feb 7, 2008 at 8:15 pm
I don’t know the background to this case but surely the point turns on the fact that manifestos are not Government documents but publications by political parties. Therefore they are not subject to judicial review.
In terms of means of implementation, I can’t think of any off the top of my head but there must have been pledges in the last Labour manifesto that were implemented through secondary legislation. Which, is, of course, reviewable.
In terms of placing the Salisbury Convention on a statutory footing, that would be hours endless fun in the courts arguing whether any legislation forced through was within vires.
Leave a Comment