Profession doubtful over Gove as successor to Grayling

Lawyers in England & Wales have reacted cautiously to the appointment of Michael Gove as Justice Secretary, and Lord Chancellor, in the new Conservative administration, amid concerns that he may prove as controversial as his predecessor, Chris Grayling.

Under Mr Grayling, the profession endured severe cuts to the legal aid budget, and massive rises in court fees, along with reorganisations in court administration that led many to complain that the justice system was breaking down. He also suffered a series of reverses in judicial review actions in which the Ministry of Justice was, ironically, found to have acted unlawfully.

Mr Gove also proved a controversial figure in the coalition Government. As Education Secretary he pushed through wide ranging reforms to schools, which led to four teaching unions passing votes of no confidence in him at their annual conferences in 2013. He was moved to Government chief whip in a cabinet reshuffle the following year.

Like Mr Grayling, Mr Gove is not a lawyer. Born in Edinburgh and brought up in Aberdeen, he studied English at Oxford University and went on to become a journalist and author. His books include a biography of Michael Portillo and a critical study of the Northern Ireland peace process. He entered Parliament in 2005 for the Surrey Heath constituency.

One of the first policies the Government is likely to seek to advance is the Conservatives' commitment to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. However this will not be a simple matter, as the Act is written into the devolution settlements for the UK's devolved legislatures, including the Scottish Parliament, as one of the controls on their powers. A draft bill of rights was promised ahead of the election but failed to appear.

In a report published last December, the House of Lords Constitution Committee concluded that it was not essential, on balance, for the Lord Chancellor to be a qualified lawyer, but a legal or constitutional background was a distinct advantage. It also recommended strengthening the Lord Chancellor's statutory oath of office to require him explicitly to respect and uphold the rule of law in addition to judicial independence. (Click here for report.)