The Constitution Society: Working to promote informed debate about constitutional reform

There is little understanding of the concept of Parliamentary privilege outside Westminster. The term tends to arouse suspicion: privilege is against the spirit of the times – it smacks of unfairness and elitism. It did not help when some of the MPs prosecuted for fiddling their expenses a couple of years ago tried to base their defence on the doctrine of privilege (the Supreme Court gave that argument very short shrift [1] ). So why should MPs be exempted from laws which apply to everybody else?

The most important aspect of Parliamentary privilege is freedom of speech in Parliament which derives from the 1689 Bill of Rights. It is a right which can be justified on simple functional grounds: MPs cannot do their job unless they can speak freely without fear of being prosecuted or dragged through the courts by wealthy litigants. For that reason it is essential to maintain Parliamentary privilege, something that is recognised in all modern, democratic constitutional systems.

Read more ›

The Constitution Society is pleased to announce the launch of our latest paper – Parliamentary Privilege: Evolution or codification.

Written by eminent barrister, Richard Gordon QC, and Sir Malcolm Jack, former Clerk of the House of Commons (2006-2011), the paper looks at the critical constitutional issue of Parliamentary privilege from a number of interesting angles.

A formal launch on Thursday 9th May will be attended by parliamentarians, journalists and academics for a discussion on the paper’s key findings.

Until then, the paper is embargoed but a preview can be found from Joshua Rozenberg on the Guardian Law website.

Once the paper has been distributed a PDF copy will be available from the website. 

For any queries on the paper or the launch please email James Hallwood via james@constitutionsoc.org.uk

It’s been a furiously busy two years of constitutional news: from the AV referendum and failed Lords reform to elected Police Commissioners and fixed-term parliaments. But now with the Coalition reaching mid-point in this parliament what constitutional issues will be raised in the run-up to 2015?

The downgrading of Chloe Smith’s role from that of her predecessor’s indicates that the Coalition will be placing less priority on parliamentary and constitutional reform, but there still remain huge constitutional matters that will be addressed before the end of this parliament.

Read more ›

Further to the last post, The Constitution Society has finally been informed that Chloe Smith is to be the minister replacing Mark Harper in the Cabinet Office. Unlike Mr Harper, Ms Smith’s brief appears to incorporate a far wider portfolio – “public sector efficiency and reform, political and constitutional reform and a range of other topics” according to her official website.

Previously Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Ms Smith will take on the newly constituted position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office. 

We welcome Ms Smith to her new role and look forward to engaging with her in the future. Issues surrounding party funding, lobbying and the ongoing debates over Scotland and Europe will require her full attention.

Despite the government’s re-shuffle taking place almost two weeks ago, the Cabinet Office is yet to announce a replacement for Mark Harper, former Parliamentary Under Secretary for Constitutional and Political Reform.

During the re-shuffle Mr Harper was appointed to the position of Minister of State for Immigration in the Home Office. However, the Cabinet Office has kept his photograph and biography on their website and continue to describe him as being in his former role. Upon phoning the Cabinet Office and House of Commons Information Office neither could shed any light on who his replacement was – both suggesting the other should know. 

The recent withdrawal of the bill pushing for an elected House of Lords and the effective concession of maintaining current constituency boundaries seems to indicate that the majority of this government’s constitutional agenda is over. The lack of a replacement for Mr Harper indicates the low priority the Coalition is now placing on these issues. 

Nevertheless it is unusual that so far after a re-shuffle no appointment has been made to replace Mr Harper. With issues surrounding Scottish independence and ‘devo max’ as well as continued debate on Europe it seems odd not to have found a suitable replacement.

The Constitution Society wishes Mr Harper all the best for his new portfolio and thanks him for his contribution to the constitutional debates of this parliament. We look forward to working with his successor, as and when he or she is announced.

The latest Coaltion fall-out over Lord’s reform has highlighted the way in which constitutional issues can easily turn into a game of political football. Booted between the Coalition partners, a decision of crucial importance on how we run our democracy has descended into short-term politicking.

A turnaround from a principled stand in favour of boundary changes to opposition marks a new low in how constitutional issues are addressed. The debate on whether AV or Lord’s reform was the price of reducing the size of the Commons misses the point entirely – constitutional changes require scrutiny and well-thought out legislation, not horse-trading and tit-for-tat.

While there are principled reasons for and against specific changes on either side of constitutional debates it is frankly depressing how these have often been quieter than discussion of partisan advantage. From arguments within Labour as to whether AV would benefit them or not to the quid pro quo agreement in the Coalition that AV would benefit the Liberal Democrats and boundary changes would benefit the Tories. 

Read more ›

This year’s Queen’s Speech is the second under the Coalition and the 57th of Her Majesty’s reign, the full text of which can be found here. While the emphasis of the government programme appears to be to ‘reduce the deficit and restore economic
stability’ this is a speech that outlines some potentially monumental constitutional changes. 

Succession

The speech notes that the  ‘…government will continue to work with the 15 other Commonwealth realms to take forward reform of the rules governing succession to the crown’. Building upon the Perth agreement between Commonwealth Realms in 2011, the speech alludes to the plans to end male preference primogeniture, allow those who marry Roman Catholics to remain in the line of succession and reduce the need to ask permission of monarch for a marriage to only the six closest in line to the throne. 

While relatively uncontroversial, such moves will require the amending of several key constitutional laws such as the 1689 Bill of Rights and the 1701 Act of Succession. 

Read more ›

A few weeks ago David Cameron attempted to seize the initiative over the question of Scottish independence by suggesting that the SNP should hold a referendum on this question sooner rather than later. Several reasons have been offered for Cameron’s actions, including the argument that the political and economic uncertainty surrounding Scotland’s place in the Union is bad for business and foreign investment.[1] Perhaps the most intriguing rumour doing the rounds at Westminster, however, is that several senior Tories, including George Osborne, favour an early referendum because they believe it offers the Conservatives a ‘win-win’ situation.

Behind this argument lies a belief that an early referendum is likely to favour the unionists. Polls suggest that support for independence in Scotland is currently low.[2] A referendum held in the near future would therefore probably result in a ‘no’ to Scottish independence. Read more ›

UCL Public Seminar Summary – Parliamentary Boundaries Review

This seminar was conducted by Prof Ron Johnston, Prof Charles Pattie and David Rossiter who presented the findings of their audit of the public consultation phase of the boundary review. All commissions must present their Final Report to the Secretary of State by 1 October 2013.

What fundamental changes were made?

The criteria for determining the boundaries changed from an organic one to an arithmetic one and this fact dominates the kind of transformation that will be seen. In the past the drawing up of constituency boundaries took into account a sense of community and historical connections between places, the new system laid out in The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 is defined by mathematical rules. These rules require that all UK Constituencies (with the exception of four) have electorates within -/+5% of the national quota of 76,641. The effects of this mean that it has often been impossible for the Boundary Commissions to keep historically and socially connected areas together.

Read more ›

MPs guilty of serious wrongdoing could be forced to stand down and face a by-election if enough constituents want them “recalled” under new proposals.

Under government plans, 10% of an MP’s constituents would have to sign a petition for a by-election to happen.

Read it at BBC News ›