When talking about the Justice Committee, I tend to subsume our previous existence as the Constitutional Affairs Committee, having been Chairman throughout, as the changes of departmental name and structure were reflected in what we were doing. However, the hon. Gentleman is quite right to refer to the other bodies that have taken the same view. Those on the Joint Committee who argued very strongly for that view were perplexed by anyone drawing a different conclusion from the evidence with which they were presented.
To return to the overall theme, the Prime Minister has announced grand aspirations. Clearly, this is a time when we need to offer people a basis on which they can have greater confidence that they have a system of government that can respond to their concerns and govern the country efficiently, and in which nobody has too much power. That requires a lot a fundamental constitutional change.
The Government's approach to constitutional reform, the Committee has argued, has been ad hoc and piecemeal. The reforms that we have been talking about will determine the direction and nature of our institutions for generations to come, so we must get it right and it must be done properly. Therefore, we need an underpinning set of constitutional principles based on a proper understanding of the position and role of Parliament in relation to other institutions of state. The reforms cannot be taken in isolation: one affects another.
I do not think we have had a process that best achieves that; nor do I think that the roadshow will achieve it. As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase indicated earlier, there is a case for some form of constitutional convention or commission to take on a wider responsibility for ensuring that good, underlying principles are carried through into sound constitutional reforms.
That is one of the lessons of devolution in Scotland and Wales. It was much more difficult to persuade people that constitutional change should take place in Wales, because there had not been the same process of constitutional convention as there was in Scotland. Now that devolution has happened in Wales, I would not advise anyone to put money on people voting in future to reverse the constitutional changes that created an Assembly and Government there. In Scotland, the process was made much easier by the fact that there was a substantial amount of agreement by a wide range of bodies, parties, and community institutions and organisations, about the direction of travel. Constitutional change needs to be properly underpinned, widely discussed and more ambitious than the Bill.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Beith
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 20 October 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
497 c849-50 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:31:52 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_586211
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_586211
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_586211