MPs condemn “rushed and piecemeal” constitutional reform

July 29, 2009 at 12:32 pm Leave a comment

parliamentsnow
A committee of MPs has criticised the government’s constitutional reform agenda.

The Justice Select Committee’s report also condemned the number of unelected peers working as ministers and said the Commons needs fundamental reform.

The report said the recent Parliamentary Standards Bill, while a laudable attempt at restoring confidence, “should serve as a warning about the dangers of undertaking reform too quickly, and without adequate consultation to enable a full and thorough investigation of the constitutional implications.”

Reform must be underpinned by a set of constitutional principles and that individual reforms cannot be treated in isolation.

For example, the possibility of a written constitution, mooted by the Prime Minister, involves fundamental issues about the sovereignty of Parliament, the nature of the monarchy, the role of the judiciary and the rights of the citizen.

These issues require thorough debate.

The Committee said the experience of the passage of the Parliamentary Standards Bill offers broader lessons in terms of parliamentary and constitutional reform.

“The inappropriate handling of bills and proposals for reform specifically designed to restore public trust may further undermine that trust.”

The Committee said local government in England remains “relatively weak” with central government free to make major changes to local authorities without constitutional restraint – as illustrated by the abolition of the Greater London Council and metropolitan counties under a previous government and the imposition of unitary authorities by the present government.

This raises the question of whether the powers and structures of local government should be safeguarded in a written constitution.

The Committee drew attention to the eleven life peers appointed by the Prime Minister in order for them to become ministers, which, together with the phasing out of hereditary peers “accentuates the trend” toward an appointed second chamber, contrary to the view expressed by the three main parties and the House of Commons.

It said this is likely to lead to an “unsustainable” continuous trend in future governments to appoint peers in order to rebalance the numbers.

On reforming the House of Commons the Committee says the three key areas to consider are:

* The near total control of the Order Paper which determines the House’s business each day;

* The dual role of the Leader of the House as the main channel for all House business and as a member of the executive;

* The fact that the House itself has no mechanism for introducing effective motions relating to business and timing other than through the Leader of the House.

The Committee said the House of Commons needs its own ‘voice’.

It expects that the new committee on commons reform will examine the case for a business committee – without an automatic government majority – to carry out this function.

Chairman of the Justice Select Committee, Sir Alan Beith, said:

“While we welcome the Government’s interest in constitutional reform and renewal, and its desire to restore public trust in Parliament and the political process, we cannot have rushed and piecemeal changes which will affect the way our country is governed for generations to come, and we need a process in which the public is genuinely involved.

“The Parliamentary Standards Bill, as first presented, illustrated the dangers of party leaders, in an understandable response to public anger, getting involved in a “bidding war” on constitutional change.

“Issues like a written constitution, reform of the electoral system, how England should be governed following devolution, and the relationship of Parliament and the Executive, require wide consultation and careful consideration.

“Instead we are seeing a rush to legislate, and other changes – for example through the appointment of so many life peers to serve as Ministers – which run counter to the direction of reforms which had already been widely agreed.”

Click here to read the report.

Advertisements

Entry filed under: Committees, Commons, Lords, Procedure. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Lords claim government was under-prepared for swine flu epidemic Interview: Alberto Nardelli, creator of Tweetminster.co.uk

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Follow us on Twitter!

July 2009
M T W T F S S
« Jun   Aug »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

%d bloggers like this: