Constitutional Reform under the Coalition

The panel:

• Lord (Andrew) Adonis, Director of the Institute for Government (in the chair)
• Professor Robert Hazell, Director of the Constitution Unit and Senior Fellow at the Institute for Government
• Mark Harper MP, Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, Cabinet Office
• Lord (David) Pannick QC, House of Lords Constitution Committee

Event Report:

The Institute held a joint seminar with the Constitution Unit on the status of the Coalition's constitutional reform agenda.

How has the Coalition done so far? Two perspectives

Professor Hazell put forward three main propositions: that the Conservatives are just as much a party of constitutional reform as the Liberal Democrats; that as lead minister for constitutional reform, Nick Clegg must deliver both Conservative and Liberal Democrat policies; and that by the next election, he will have delivered more Conservative reform items than those of his own party.

Professor Hazell examined 14 major constitutional reforms in the Coalition Programme for Government, their origins and the likely outcomes. His overall prediction was that of the 14 items, eight will be delivered and six will not. In particular, he was sceptical about the potential for success of House of Lords reform and moves towards a British Bill of Rights. Reforms such as a Commission on the West Lothian Question, all postal primaries and party funding reform were also predicted to fail. Of the reforms he thought would be delivered, five originate from the Conservative manifesto, whereas three originate from the Liberal Democrat manifesto and only one was featured in both parties' manifestos.

Lord Pannick spoke next, and emphasised the need for due Parliamentary process when undertaking constitutional reform. He echoed the Constitution Committee's criticism of how the Government had introduced the Fixed Term Parliament Bill and the Parliamentary Voting Systems and Constituencies Act. He saw the process followed as inadequate and rushed, with insufficient public consultation and no pre-legislative scrutiny, which he saw as vital for building public interest in and legitimacy of major constitutional changes. Lord Pannick proposed that Parliament should agree a set of conventions on the process the Government should follow when introducing legislation with constitutional implications. For instance, such legislation should be designated as ‘constitutionally significant' by ministers, and therefore subject to greater consultation and scrutiny during its passage through Parliament. This might involve both pre and post-legislative scrutiny for constitutionally significant bills, and a requirement that ministers will explain any decision made to hold a referendum or not on constitutional changes in legislation. Lord Pannick quoted Professor Jeffrey Jowell, who said when giving evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee that "the time has come to simply take a little more care with constitutional reform."

The minister's response

Mark Harper responded to the points raised and defended the Government's reforms. He stressed that the overarching theme of the Coalition's constitutional reform agenda is one of giving more power and control from the Executive to Parliament and the electorate. On the subject of Lords reform, he stated that the Coalition has gone further than any other government in his lifetime by publishing a White Paper and draft bill and establishing a Joint Committee to consider these proposals. Harper accepted that the passage of the Parliamentary Voting Systems and Constituencies Act was not the ‘most edifying experience of law making,' but rejected claims that the bill, and the Fixed Term Parliament bills, were not properly scrutinised.

Among the questions raised in a lively Q&A session were:

• How to decide on which issues should be subject to and whether a referendum should be held, and whether a referendum should be held before or after the passage of legislation.
• Whether the Conservatives' constitutional reforms were induced by the expenses scandal and should therefore be seen as ‘reactive' reform. 
• Whether the Coalition has a clear plan with a coherent philosophy for constitutional reform. 
• Who has the power to call a referendum on independence in Scotland, and when it could be held.
• Whether the need in a Coalition government to construct internal agreement over policies leaves less time for external consultation and fewer opportunities to change policy if necessary 

Event report by Rachel Heydecker

More information

• Read a report by Sam Macrory