Read on Twitter
This is an excellent thread. Does the Law Commission need to be abolished? There are good reasons for saying yes, in addition to those set out in the thread, but some reasons for saying no. 1/ https://twitter.com/prestonjbyrne/status/1339684188321144832
The Law Com won't serve the public if it interprets its extremely broad statutory remit - 'reform of all the laws' - literally. Some reform is beyond its technocratic competence, and must be reserved to ministers. 2/
The Commission's hate crime proposals are a case in point. They concern our political ethics - how we balance the competing values of free speech, & prevention of harm. They need sensitivity to where public thinking is, & how far legislation could nudge it in a new direction. 3/
This is far beyond the Commission's competence. It is a classically political skill. There is no public benefit in paying the LC to address questions it can't competently answer. No public benefit in the Commission writing long sociology essays any sane minister would just bin.4/
Just as important, these are questions on which ministers should never be able to pass the buck. Any govt proposing to criminalise citizens' speech should take the political cost on the chin. There should be no question of saying 'we're just doing what the boffins recommended.'5/
I don't think rectifying these blunders requires abolition. The Com can still give valuable advice on reform of 'lawyers' law'. The govt can use the Protocol between it & the LC to deliver, one hopes, a fearsome & richly deserved bollocking. 6/
https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2015/06/lc321_Protocol_web.pdf
https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2015/06/lc321_Protocol_web.pdf
Viz. 'serving up ministers the dross of critical theory is not public money well spent. Belt up.' The Commission wouldn't like this. Its recent papers suggest an activist approach to law. Returning to lawyers' law might strike them as dull (& certainly not very fashionable). 7/
The Commission can also be testy about its independence from govt. James Munby's angry Denning lecture of 2011 is quite extraordinary. One might almost think the Commission feels entitled to say what the law should be. 8/
http://www.bacfi.org/files/Denning%20Lecture%202011.pdf
http://www.bacfi.org/files/Denning%20Lecture%202011.pdf
Well, it isn't. Parliament is, & elected ministers decide, for the most part, what bills are put before it. Technocrats like the Law Commission have a legitimate, valuable place in our politics. Ministers should remind them, firmly, what it is. End
