Sumption Challenges Burnham’s Proposed Constitutional Overhaul

Lord Sumption has challenged the feasibility of the constitutional reform plans proposed by Burnham, arguing that the scope of such reforms would be too vast to achieve consensus or pass a referendum. Burnham has signalled a need for major constitutional reform as part of a 'circuit breaker' philosophy, suggesting that the current framework requires fundamental restructuring to address systemic issues. The latest pronouncement from No10 North reinforces this stance, stating that Britain needs major constitutional reform as part of Burnham’s ‘circuit breaker’ philosophy and noting an attempt to style himself as the new Blair.

Sumption contends that a written constitution would necessitate addressing the entire machinery of the state. This would encompass the role and procedures of Parliament, the recruitment and functions of the second chamber, and the powers and duties of ministers. It would also extend to the appointment and functions of judges, the civil service, the management of elections, human rights considerations, and international law. He characterises these specific areas as 'hot potatoes' due to their historical controversy. According to Sumption, it would be almost impossible to reach agreement on all of these elements, let alone secure approval in a national referendum. He observes that the British public is notoriously indifferent to radical constitutional experiments when there is no obvious need, and he questions where such a need for a written constitution actually exists.

Even if consensus were somehow achieved on the individual components, Sumption suggests that the resulting document would still face the significant hurdle of a referendum, which he deems improbable given the complexity and divisiveness of the issues involved. He argues that the sheer breadth of topics that would need to be settled makes a successful vote unlikely.

Burnham entered office with broad approval and relief from the legal establishment, a situation that contrasts with the scrutiny faced by Keir Starmer despite his background as a King's Counsel and former Director of Public Prosecutions. Critics warn that initiating a conflict with the upper echelons of the judiciary over constitutional matters constitutes a high-risk strategy. Such a confrontation would also consume substantial parliamentary time, diverting resources from other legislative priorities. The notion that picking a fight with the senior judges over a written constitution is a crazy idea is echoed in the notes, which also highlight the parliamentary time such a debate would absorb.

It remains uncertain whether Burnham intends to implement these radical ideas or whether the proposals are merely a preliminary rhetorical stance. The notes pose the question: Is Burnham just shooting from the hip or does he actually want to implement any of his more radical ideas? This uncertainty leaves open the possibility that the 'circuit breaker' philosophy may remain more aspirational than operational.

The tension between the government's push for constitutional overhaul and the existing legal establishment continues to be a central point of political friction. If the government proceeds with these reforms, it will likely encounter a protracted legislative battle. The interplay of judicial independence, parliamentary sovereignty, and public sentiment will ultimately determine the viability of the plan. For now, the proposal remains a point of contention between political leadership and the judiciary.

Adding further colour to the discourse, Lord Khan offered a reflective comment in the Telegraph, stating: “I hope, and I say this in a non-pompous way, that the public service I do will bring rewards in this world and the hereafter,” he says. “I’m hoping the work I do is earning me Brownie points.” This remark, while not directly addressing the constitutional debate, illustrates the broader context of public service motivations that surround the ongoing discussion.