UK Constitution: Oversight and Responsibility (Report from the Constitution Committee)

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Friday 4th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I congratulate all the members of the committee and the chair for the report they have produced and their success in getting this debated. It is always a good idea to debate our constitution, and I regard today’s debate as a welcome chance to take the temperature of the health of our democracy.

Mind you, it is not the only debate on the constitution this week; Members present on Wednesday will have heard the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Belgravia, tell us that the word “historic”—much overused—nevertheless applied to the Bill under consideration on Wednesday. I say Wednesday but, actually, as I was on the Woolsack until well past midnight, I regard it as yesterday’s debate. But many interesting speeches were made then, some of which touch on today’s issues. Of course, this is the type of debate where I would rather like to see Walter Bagehot sitting in the Gallery or, if not, then perhaps a more modern equivalent: my noble friend Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield.

The Select Committee on the Constitution is one of the House’s most important committees. If that looks to the Whips like an application to join it, then I am afraid it probably is. As the House knows, over the centuries we have been engaged in a constant struggle between the Executive and the legislature. The powers of the King have gradually been replaced by the powers of the Prime Minister, and it is the position of the Prime Minister which is at the centre of this report. It is important that whatever arrangements we make for safeguarding our constitution are robust and flexible, just like the constitution itself. The report rightly states that the Prime Minister remains the monarch’s principal advisor and has

“ultimate responsibility within government for safeguarding the constitution”.

I sometimes think that we forget the role that oaths of office play in our political life. After all, each of us as a Member has to swear or affirm an oath of office before we are allowed to take our seat. The current Oath of Allegiance—not so much feudal—dates back to the 15th to 17th centuries. At one stage, Members of Parliament had to take three oaths: of supremacy, of allegiance and of abjuration. At various stages, oaths took on political and religious characteristics which were tailor-made for the political circumstances of the time. It was only in 1858 with the oaths of allegiance Act and in 1866 with the Parliamentary Oaths Act that the modern parliamentary oath crystallised into the form it exists today. There have been several updates and consolidations, the most recent of which I think was in 1978.

The point of my digression is this: I am one of those who think that there is a case for requiring the Prime Minister to take a special oath of office that would incorporate a requirement to uphold the constitution of the country. I make this suggestion because as the Prime Minister has replaced the King as the fount of political power and it is, in practice, the Prime Minister who has the ultimate responsibility for the constitution, a special oath might be appropriate.

I was interested in the evidence the noble Lord, Lord Gove, gave to the committee, when he said that he was

“very conscious of having sworn an oath”

in his role as Lord Chancellor. I think this indicates that there is merit in considering the role of an oath for the Prime Minister. If it weighed on the noble Lord’s mind then, all the more would an oath of office weigh upon a Prime Minister’s, especially when considering action that would have a constitutional significance. I hardly need add that it would cost virtually nothing.

The position of the Cabinet Secretary is the modern “buckle” that connects the Civil Service to the Prime Minister, and it is a crucial role. Again, I was interested to read the evidence submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Gove, where he said that the Cabinet Secretary’s capacity to “constrain” the actions of a Prime Minister was “pretty significant”. I am bound to say that I did not see this reflected in the events of 2019 and the attempted Prorogation of six weeks. We all know what happened as a result.

On the increasing importance of the law officers, which the noble Lord, Lord Beith, referred to, we know that an oath applies to them. Although the Lord Chancellor is required to take one, we heard earlier this week that the Attorney-General has chosen to take one voluntarily, which is a good thing.

Turning to some of the other elements of the committee’s report, I think it asks some pertinent questions. First, how active is the Union and Constitution Cabinet Committee? I am not convinced that it meets very often. The suggestion is made for it to have an annual meeting with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. For all I know, it might be the only time that committee meets at all.

Secondly, how often does the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee really reject skeleton Bills or Bills with excessive delegated powers? I do not claim to know but there is no doubt that over the past few years we have seen far too many examples of both; indeed, we had a debate a few years ago on skeleton Bills.

Thirdly, there is the suggestion that there is a role for statute in consolidating the protection of our constitution. When it comes to HOLAC, there is a case for putting it on a statutory basis, and I supported the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, in his Bill, although I do not believe that its advice to the Prime Minister, however important, should be binding.

Fourthly, I come to the committee’s conclusion that a Minister should be allocated specific responsibility for the constitution. Here I part company with the committee. I am not sure that a role as important as that of being responsible for the constitution can or should be formally devolved to another Minister. It would fetter the discretion of the Prime Minister and I am not sure that any Prime Minister would wish to be constrained in this way. I do not really think that would work.

I have one final point to make. When about 15 years ago the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown authorised the publication of the Cabinet Manual, it immediately made its mark. It was described as

“a guide to the laws, conventions and rules on the operation of government”.

In my view, its very existence helped us to understand better the way in which in our system of government works—or did then. It shed light on the mixture of things that make up our unwritten constitution and hence made it easier for us to understand how its conventions, customs and practices could and should be protected.

The Cabinet Manual owed its existence to the support of the Prime Minister and the genius of the noble Lords, Lord O’Donnell and Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, but where is it now? My noble friend the Minister said in reply to my most recent Parliamentary Question on the subject:

“The Government takes the function of the Cabinet Manual seriously and we will keep it under review”.


Is there anything more that my noble friend can tell us? I hope that the whole House would be interested to know whether there has been any progress.

For my part, I remain to be convinced that there is neither an appetite for nor an interest in No. 10 in tackling it at the moment. Mind you, the previous Government originally promised to produce an updated version by Christmas 2023 and nothing came of that. But there are obviously several major areas where it needs updating, such as the impact of Brexit and leaving the EU, the Supreme Court decision of 2019, the development of devolution, and the modern operation of a peacetime coalition Government. It would be in the spirit of the Constitution Committee’s report if a valuable document such as this was redrafted for the current age. If I succeed in being selected for the committee, I shall bring my suggestion with me.