Under the modestly improved system that might be introduced, much reliance will continue to be placed on the fact that UK judges are independent of government and on the view that while they hold their own beliefs and opinions, they are not partisan and they are as fitted as any parliamentarian to reflect broad trends in public opinion.Yes, the entire British human rights system, when it arrives, will be imperfect and something of a fudge But it is no bad development for all that. Why isn’t it then a matter of public concern as to whether you appoint a judge of one view or another?”It is, of course, a matter of public concern and this one reason why the Government is considering the creation of a judicial appointments commission to help advise on who should be given high judicial office. But contrary to the clamour about judges getting above themselves, they are playing a cautious hand in relation to their future role.Lord Hoffmann raises an acute question, saying: “If your bill of rights contains abstract political rules to be interpreted according to judges’ notions of what a democratic society requires, there could be a difference of opinion between judges who take a more or less authoritarian view. It was a special five-judge Court of Appeal that made marital rape a crime, for example. Should judges lay down a balance in the arena of freedom of speech, producing a new set of definitions for a democratic society in the late 20th century? The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, has been criticised for saying as much; but if Parliament will not act, the answer must be yes.It is not as though judges have not already laid down similar rules – such as the one stopping councils suing for libel – and made numerous rulings in the field of social policy. Lord Hoffmann, a law lord himself, cites the relationship between freedom of the press and personal privacy as an issue that is likely to be an early candidates for challenges under articles 8 and 10 of the convention.Important questions are at stake because the press, in the view of a great many, is hampered by too many restrictions favouring public figures and corporations (like the plaintiff-friendly libel laws), while the private lives of individuals have too little protection.

In future, our own “supreme court” will have to decide what to make of them. All the so-called “margin of appreciation” cases – those raising questions of morality, religion or social policy – have traditionally been remitted back by the Strasbourg court for nation states to decide for themselves. But under the model the Government is most likely to adopt, judges would not be given the power to strike down a provision in primary legislation passed before incorporation or since. It would be for Parliament to change statute law once a violation was found. But will it get round to doing so, especially where “unpopular” groups such as gypsies, protestors or terror suspects are the proposed beneficiaries?In any event, whatever the precise form that incorporation of the convention takes, there are controversial arenas into which the judges will be drawn.

Alongside that, for good measure, they could find themselves presiding over novel demarcation disputes about the jurisdictions of the Westminster and Scottish and Welsh parliaments.A furious argument on the form that incorporation of the convention should take is now under way. Incorporation of the convention into UK law now puts them firmly in the controversial arena of reaching decisions on political and social issues. The truth is more complex, even though the present set of law lords is probably the most “liberal” in recent history.Law lords have already come under fire (or earned praise, depending on your standpoint) for drawing on sources beyond parliamentary statutes and the common law (the body of court rulings built up over the years), such as the European Convention and American or Commonwealth rulings when setting out what the law now is. In times past they were castigated for being too “conservative” and mostly reckoned, probably wrongly, to vote Conservative as well. They had suddenly become too “liberal”and despotic and undemocratic to boot. But even the limited new judicial powers and responsibilities envisaged by the Lord Chancellor are giving the most interventionist judges food for thought.The received wisdom among the Conservative-leaning media during the last Conservative administration was that unelected judges were too prone to interfere with political decisions. But for the current line-up of a dozen Lords of Appeal in Ordinary – the latest appointment, of the Court of Appeal judge Lord Justice Saville, was announced recently – judicial life will never be the same again.The notion that the House of Lords, the highest court in the land, will thus be transformed into a US-style Supreme Court, boldly laying down the law where legislatures have failed to tread, after lengthy confirmatory hearings into candidates’ backgrounds, politics and personal beliefs, is fanciful.

But the effects of this belated constitutional change are no less momentous for that.
The late Lord Devlin, one of the most brilliant jurists of his generation, retired prematurely at 57 after just a few years as a law lord, bored with the job and the focused, restricted sort of life that went with it. Patricia Wynn Davies looks at how the highest court in the land might exercise its new-found powers

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, signalled on Wednesday night that when the European Convention on Human Rights is made part of British law, judges’ powers will still be limited, in the sense that they will not be able to “strike down”, as the saying goes, Acts of Parliament. British judges will soon be applying the European Convention on Human Rights to court cases in the United Kingdom. A majority of the panel, 54, supported the Dome decision, despite doubts about what the Millennium Exhibition, now renamed the Experience, might consist of. And 40 disagreed “strongly” with the suggestion that the Dome decision was the Government’s “first big mistake”.The panel was even more emphatic in its support for Mr Blair’s strict disciplinary regime for his MPs, despite accusations of rigid centralisation of power, with 71 agreeing and 48 agreeing “strongly” that the discipline applied to Labour MPs is “reasonable and necessary”.But the panel sees some hurdles for the new administration, with half (47) predicting there will be “problems” when it comes to keeping the promise of higher ethical standards in public life.Downing Street has brushed aside newspaper stories about the private lives of two Cabinet ministers, pointing out that swift action has been taken in the cases of Mohammed Sarwar and Bob Wareing, where financial irregularities have been alleged.And most of the panel see the Commons vote on foxhunting as a potential trouble spot.Poison dome, page 19Poll results”The go-ahead for the Millennium Dome was the new Government’s first big mistake.”Agree 35%Disagree 54%”The discipline applied to Labour MPs is both reasonable and necessary.”Agree 71%Disagree 23%”The Labour government will have no problems keeping its promise of higher ethical standards in public life.”Agree 36%Disagree 47%”The Government should support the Private Member’s Bill to enact an immediate ban on foxhunting.”Agree 35%Disagree 54%. The most recent Gallup poll of the general public found that, two months after the election, an unprecedented 83 per cent were “satisfied” with the Prime Minister, while 74 per cent approved of the Government’s record.Opinion Leader Research interviewed 100 business leaders, trade unionists, civil servants, politicians, media editors and think-tank chiefs last week.

And the panel of 100 opinion leaders rejects two of the main criticisms of the new government; giving the thumbs up to the Prime Minister’s go- ahead for the Millennium Dome, and strongly backing the tight discipline enforced on Labour MPs.
More than half the panel, 55, expect the new government to bask in public approval for six more months, while another quarter, 26, think the honeymoon will last a year. Only 10 take the harsh view that it will only last for another month, while the remaining 9 take the view that Mr Blair’s buoyant ratings will last a full parliamentary term, until the next election. Tony Blair’s honeymoon with the voters is set to last for at least another six months, according to an Independent poll of opinion formers designed to pick up early trends in public attitudes. They wanted to know if I had 100 per cent commitment.Mr Lewis said: “We get lots of visitors coming to see what we do, but they go away and can’t seem to do it themselves It does invoke bravery The point is we are beating the competition .. This is absolutely the way ahead.”. “It’s like a little factory.”Dave Beech, 18, has never known anything different and was taken on by a firm which recruits on “attitude, attitude, attitude” He said: “They didn’t ask me what I was like at metalwork.