It must be autumn: the House of Lords resumed the Committee stage of the Constitutional Reform Bill on 11 October 2004 (see for the proceedings

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds04/text/41011-04.htm#41011-04_head2).  The discussion focused first on the saved (at least for the time being) post of Lord Chancellor, before turning again to the Supreme Court.  Nothing really new in the arguments, alas; and about the only thing that is clear is that the Government still doesn’t know where any Supreme Court would end up living, and how much it would cost to move there.  It looks as though court fees from Scotland will contribute to the costs, despite valiant efforts against this by the Law Society of Scotland; discussions on the subject are under way between the Government and the Scottish executive.  Noble Lords made many unkind references to Lord Falconer’s track record as the Minister in charge of the Millennium Dome, while Lord Fraser’s report on the Scottish Parliament was said to be a masterly guide on how to avoid cost debacles in public building projects.  The debate also contains the fascinating information that the construction of the Westminster Parliament building was budgeted at £500,000, and came in at £2 million (see col 64, the Earl of Onslow).  Unmentioned is the fact it took thirty years to build as well.  But as the Earl elegantly concludes, There is nothing new in governments of all political persuasions