Abstract/Summary

New public management was coined in the late 1980s to highlight a managerialist movement by the executive function of government. Decentralisation and a streamlined hierarchy akin to Taylorism was sought. The movement emphasised free market economics and resulted in a number of Parliamentary Acts being passed eroding the governments overt control over a number of functions. For instance, inline with argumentsforspurring competition, British Rail, British Gas, and British Telecommunications were let to the private sector. Subsequently, there continued to be a key interest in encouraging private healthcare, education and even welfare. Following thistrend, there has been an emphasis on privatising legal functions. This hasresulted in allowing some services historically reserved for lawyers only being available on the open market, accountants becoming legal partners, cuts to legal aid, and the privatisation of prisons for example. In 2005 the Constitutional Reform Act was passed which removed the (then) Law Lords from Parliament, and there were heavy reforms to decentralise the functions of the Lord Chancellor. Despite having sat in Parliament since 1399, the Law Lords became Supreme Court Justices and since 2009 now sit in a new building – Middlesex Guildhall. This paper conducts a qualitative study with current/former Lord Chancellors, Lord Chief Justices, United Kingdom Supreme Court Justices, Queens Council, as well as the newly appointed United Kingdom Supreme Court executive and non-executive team.The purpose of the study isto ascertain how new public management initiatives have impacted on the role of the United Kingdom Supreme Court Justices as well as the theoretical implications that this may have to social stability.