Constitution Committee
Wednesday 4th November 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 13 hours, 1 minute ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:55
11:55
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Let me put it like this. It could it could be seen to elevate the authority of the code. It could also be seen to delegate the authority and it risks. Sorry, And it risks. Sorry. I don't want to take us down lines. You don't want to go. Chair. But but. examples of ways in which I think you might profitably as a.
constitutional safeguard in that respect. But I think there are two specific. Think whether whether you are fulfilling that ability or. And I'll give you one.
constitutional safeguard in that respect. But I think there are two specific. Think whether whether you are fulfilling that ability or. And I'll give you one.
12:05
12:05
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Which is a very broad example about engagement. And I think, you know, I often remind members at the other end of the corridor, I often remind them that in the same way that the opposite of, of love is not hate, it's indifference. And the opposite of trust is not suspicion, it's disengagement. And when young people think that if they want to change policy on the economy, the economy or foreign.
12:05
12:05
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
They're better off sitting down in motorways and bringing traffic to a standstill than by coming here or going to their local councils, wherever. Then we've got then we've got serious trouble in terms of the. constitutional safeguards that we're talking about this morning. Are there more opportunities for. engagement in the legislative. process that would. enhance that. constitutional safeguard. aspect of not just this House, but both Houses of Parliament in the face of a strong majority, to ensure that we don't tip from parliamentary democracy into parliamentary dictatorship. And I think there are opportunities. I think the if I may say so, because I haven't said anything at all provocative yet.
Chair, perhaps you will permit me to say one mildly provocative thing which is this I think.
Chair, perhaps you will permit me to say one mildly provocative thing which is this I think.
12:06
12:07
12:07
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
For example, that have. policy issues to raise, could have more direct, could be given more direct ways of engagement. I sense I have achieved my, my, my aim, but and I just leave that thought with you as part of my answer, you know, is, is Parliament a. constitutional safeguard in that respect? Yes it is. Are there ways in which you could enhance that? I think I think there are, and I think the the the other example I would I would offer in that.
respect is the the sort of the.
respect is the the sort of the.
12:07
12:07
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The, the, the testing of legislation. Are there additional ways we have, for example, we have a very strong, you know, joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which I served as a lawyer for many years. Are there ways you could enhance that? You could you could apply that kind of scrutiny? And it's very powerful scrutiny. I think many members of this committee have. personal knowledge as ministers that, you know, the reports of that committee are.
seriously influential. They're not they have no power, but but they have serious influence. Are there are there .
seriously influential. They're not they have no power, but but they have serious influence. Are there are there .
12:08
Lord Cryer
-
-
Lord Cryer
Increased opportunities for that? There might be. Yeah. Can I just please just briefly, I'm interested in what you said. I mean, I think when it comes to scrutiny, you could argue that the House of Commons, its ability to scrutinise any executive has been reduced for probably 40 or 50 years, but particularly with the Joplin proposals in report in 1994, which which which cut down a fair bit of scrutiny. And then about 4 or 5 years later, the Blair government introduced timetabling. That might have been a sensible thing to do, but but it's difficult to conclude anything other than it reduced the scrutiny.
What it does is it actually hands more power to the speaker because the speaker selects amendments. Backbench MPs now have very little role in selecting amendments and scrutinising bills, particularly when you've got a big majority. That role is still very much with the House of Lords, but in the House of Commons it's been reduced. And on statutory instruments. I mean, I agree with what you say, but at the same time, the amount of secondary legislation passing through this place has is enormously greater than it was, say, in the 1970s. I can't remember the figures because I've got them in front of me.
But it's something, you know, every year for for a number of years, it went up by a phenomenal amount, a number of statutory instruments. So on both those fronts where you've got scrutiny of primary legislation, which is reduced in the House of Commons and the the the explosion in secondary legislation on both those fronts, you could argue that that the House of Commons is .
What it does is it actually hands more power to the speaker because the speaker selects amendments. Backbench MPs now have very little role in selecting amendments and scrutinising bills, particularly when you've got a big majority. That role is still very much with the House of Lords, but in the House of Commons it's been reduced. And on statutory instruments. I mean, I agree with what you say, but at the same time, the amount of secondary legislation passing through this place has is enormously greater than it was, say, in the 1970s. I can't remember the figures because I've got them in front of me.
But it's something, you know, every year for for a number of years, it went up by a phenomenal amount, a number of statutory instruments. So on both those fronts where you've got scrutiny of primary legislation, which is reduced in the House of Commons and the the the explosion in secondary legislation on both those fronts, you could argue that that the House of Commons is .
12:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Is far less powerful than it used to be. Well, let me just strengthen your question, if I may, before I refuse to answer it, I would would strengthen it as follows. What about quasi legislation? What about. guidance in the report that I mentioned from the from our Covid, our special report, GSI from Covid, one of the things we drew attention to, and this is very much. constitutional safeguard area that that ministers thinking, well, let's not let's not even legislate by subordinate legislation, let's produce. guidance and say that we expect it to be followed. I mean, you know, which is in.
constitutional safeguard terms, that that's that's pretty seriously dangerous. So so I absolutely.
constitutional safeguard terms, that that's that's pretty seriously dangerous. So so I absolutely.
12:10
12:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And I think everybody would accept that all sorts of. developments in legislative. practice have changed the. nature of the challenge of scrutiny, of effective scrutiny. And as I say, you know, last time I was before you, I went away and wrote, well, it wasn't last time. One of the times I went away and wrote about the myth of line by line scrutiny. But the reason I'm not going to answer your question as to exactly what I think the answer is, because again, as I've said a number of times, this is for Parliament. I think you have lots of.
opportunities for. yourself to work out. How do we, as Parliament. enhance scrutiny of. legislation so that we become a more effective.
opportunities for. yourself to work out. How do we, as Parliament. enhance scrutiny of. legislation so that we become a more effective.
12:11
12:11
12:11
12:11
12:11
12:11
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
Lord Strathclyde
-
-
Lord Strathclyde
And everything then follows that. We've already said. I wanted to continue this a little bit. Your central thesis is the core is about consent. Consent is built on trust, a trust in the. institutions and the people that are within it. Hence, we get to Parliament. We've we've we had evidence some time ago. about Parliament and. constitutional knowledge.
And this takes me to what you were talking about.
And this takes me to what you were talking about.
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:13
Lord Strathclyde
-
-
Lord Strathclyde
Now, this is going much wider than your role as as commissioner, but you've had a lot of. experience on the legislative side and now the standards and ethics sides. Do you agree with that, that there is a lack of of, of knowledge? And what would you do to. enhance it and bring. parliamentarians in either House in all shapes and sizes with greater knowledge of how things work, which would also be part of your role as commissioner for standards.
12:13
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I mean, it's interesting because I think there's sort of there's less. interest in. constitutional matters in some ways than there once was. And there's also more interest in in other ways. There's sort of perhaps more interest in what you might call . politics and perhaps less interest in Constitution.
12:14
12:14
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I don't think it is anymore the case, but I remember when there was an annual Lord Robinson and Lord Simon of Glaisdale debate in this House about the quality of legislation. Now, obviously, it rested in large part on on those two those the. experience and the rent and report and all the rest of it. But it was I had to brief ministers for it on, on, on more than one occasion. And it was a really.
12:14
12:14
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Safeguard event because it was an update on how are we doing on scrutiny? How are we doing on quality, how, you know, so has the pressure. And I believe that you don't have that anymore. Yeah. So, so so that would be an. example that yes, there is. But can I say, I think that that and this appears to be going off even more of a tangent than your question is, but I think it isn't. I sense an. underlying change since I. started in what was then the Lord Chancellor's. Department decades ago in policy making, in the.
process of policy making and the pace of policy making. And the reason why I think that's relevant to to your question, chair, is that you didn't. need to have. parliamentarians who had individual.
process of policy making and the pace of policy making. And the reason why I think that's relevant to to your question, chair, is that you didn't. need to have. parliamentarians who had individual.
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:15
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
All the experts, people with great expertise from inside Parliament, from outside Parliament. And we still have you know, I've talked about the Constitution unit, and there are other you know, there are other very. valuable pockets of great expertise on. constitutional matters available. But I sense that the pace is such that you don't get the same, you don't get the same challenges. And, and, and care in building up, in building up the policy. So it's not, it's not exact. It's not the lack of knowledge of particular people. That's the problem. It's the lack of interest on part of the.
institution I.
institution I.
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:17
12:17
12:17
12:17
12:17
12:17
12:17
12:17
12:17
12:18
12:18
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
That it's really difficult to get people to sit on those committees and stay there and do the line by line. legislation as scrutiny of, of, of legislation. I wondered if you have. observed the you said there's a big difference from, say, 30 years ago, is part of that difference the pressure on members of Parliament to be doing other things, like being in their. constituencies in order to garner .
12:18
12:18
12:18
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
What I saw was that members did come in. I wouldn't use the word bored, but I would use the word. They came in. expecting not to be really needed very much. And as soon as I made it clear that there was, in some cases, a constitutional. Sometimes we had human rights implications. As soon as I made it clear that there was something under the surface that actually did.
12:19
12:19
12:19
12:19
12:19
12:19
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:20
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
-
-
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
To decide about. Thank you very much. Lord Waldegrave, I just want to take you to. wider angle for a moment. Another tangent. Trust central to all this. Trust. Quite a lot of some of the more. radical people have turned up for this committee have said that the reason there isn't any trust is that our system has been very poor in the last 20 years or so, delivering the sort of things that most. non-political people want, like steadily rising living standards. And if you flatline living standards for 20 years, people say the system isn't working, they don't trust it.
You could have everybody telling the truth and obeying being most wonderfully moral character, but still not delivering what people want. So do you do you think that we sometimes sort of concentrate a little bit on the. minutiae and not enough, perhaps, on whether the system is delivering what people. expect it to? And then there's a subsidiary question, which I shouldn't really ask, but I will. If you look back over history, some of the greatest of our leaders have not. always been those who would pass every one of the Nolan tests. I'm not going to mention any particular party or anything, but one could well, one could mention Churchill and Lloyd George, and Churchill once said to a young writing who wrote me a letter about this.
I've told many lies for my country, young man, and I will tell many more. So it's. It's quite difficult to run an effective system with very, very sort of pious values all the time, isn't it? But but that's a subsidiary question. The real question is, isn't the real problem .
You could have everybody telling the truth and obeying being most wonderfully moral character, but still not delivering what people want. So do you do you think that we sometimes sort of concentrate a little bit on the. minutiae and not enough, perhaps, on whether the system is delivering what people. expect it to? And then there's a subsidiary question, which I shouldn't really ask, but I will. If you look back over history, some of the greatest of our leaders have not. always been those who would pass every one of the Nolan tests. I'm not going to mention any particular party or anything, but one could well, one could mention Churchill and Lloyd George, and Churchill once said to a young writing who wrote me a letter about this.
I've told many lies for my country, young man, and I will tell many more. So it's. It's quite difficult to run an effective system with very, very sort of pious values all the time, isn't it? But but that's a subsidiary question. The real question is, isn't the real problem .
12:21
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Again. without without wanting to be unhelpful? I think the judgment on that is much more for you, of course, than it is to me. And I would say only two things about it. I think what what you say. accentuates the importance of. explaining what one is doing. I talked about policy making, part of the. value in a slow and open process for making. policy is you are more likely to bring people with you, even if not all of the outcomes or outcomes that they will necessarily welcome. Or they might wish you done more on something.
But if they can. understand some of the competing. policy issues that have. contributed to the to, to, to the legislation or the policy, whichever it is, you're more likely to take them with you if you.
But if they can. understand some of the competing. policy issues that have. contributed to the to, to, to the legislation or the policy, whichever it is, you're more likely to take them with you if you.
12:22
12:22
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Are you doing everything that you could to explain? I don't know, but I think one can always do more. It was a. modernisation committee now, which must be about 30 years ago now, that introduced explanatory notes for. legislation under Christopher Jenkins, who is the parliamentary first parliamentary counsel, who many of you remember. I'm not sure we've done anything since then and things have moved on a little bit. You know, there's a little social media and so on and so forth. Have we could you be thinking more about explaining? Yes, I think you could. And secondly, because I sense I can get away with one more.
provocative comment because I'll shortly be out the door and safe. Could you be doing better at listening? Because I think there is an issue here. You know, the mismatch that you describe, which I'm not going to comment on because it's not for me, but the mismatch between. expectations and. delivery is partly about explanation. But it could be that one of the things that has. changed in my time over nearly 40 years here is the way that ministers and others with with authority and power are spoken to the opportunity to access them. How you know, how well are you as an.
provocative comment because I'll shortly be out the door and safe. Could you be doing better at listening? Because I think there is an issue here. You know, the mismatch that you describe, which I'm not going to comment on because it's not for me, but the mismatch between. expectations and. delivery is partly about explanation. But it could be that one of the things that has. changed in my time over nearly 40 years here is the way that ministers and others with with authority and power are spoken to the opportunity to access them. How you know, how well are you as an.
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:25
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Trust being part of the whole picture? So on the first part, yes, absolutely. I agree, and I have a school visit tomorrow, which I'm looking forward to very much. And yes, I find that students at school are very. interested in, in. politics and they can be made to be interested in Constitution. And, and I agree with you that they have a very sound grasp .
12:25
12:26
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Shift system in Parliament? Yeah, yeah. Yes. Well, they do, they, I think they certainly, they certainly bring you down to earth in, in reminding you that these things do matter to people. They and they matter to young people as well, very much on, on engagement. And do I have specific examples? Look, I mean, I've sort of skirted around it, but you since you sort of demanding something practical, why couldn't, for example, and this is an example thrown out and there are lots of reasons against it, lots of reasons for it, something to think about. Why could not third sector.
organisations table their own amendments in either House and not move them because they're not there, but, but table them and feel that they had a place at the, you know. directly being able to bring their. expectations to go back to the to the question before being able to express those. directly and not through not not through a peer or a member. There are reasons why that might be a bad idea, but there might be .
organisations table their own amendments in either House and not move them because they're not there, but, but table them and feel that they had a place at the, you know. directly being able to bring their. expectations to go back to the to the question before being able to express those. directly and not through not not through a peer or a member. There are reasons why that might be a bad idea, but there might be .
12:27
12:27
12:27
12:27
12:27
12:27
12:27