Conclusions from a Lords Revolt

Many of you may know that for the last quarter century I have taught Constitutional Law (though shortly going into enforced early retirement) - and have been a close observer of constitutional affairs in both the UK & USA.

We hear today that we are now in the midst of a major constitutional crisis, as a result of the House of Lords asking the Commons to think again about measures not set out in the Government's manifesto (and which they denied in the election that they would do), set out in secondary legislation - rather than in a Bill which had been subject to detailed scrutiny.

It is with great reluctance that I have come to the conclusion that we need now to address the weaknesses of the British Constitution. I've always treasured the flexibility that our unwritten constitution has given us. But that depended upon respect for the rules and conventions of that constitution. It was based on the British idea of 'fair play'. The trouble is we have seen in recent years the adoption of bankers' morality that winning is everything, and traditional practices can be abandoned if they don't aid the goal of the day.

We've seen legislation rammed through the Commons, with little scrutiny and little thought of the consequences. The Fixed Term Parliament's Act is a case in point - elections are now to be less frequent. By the next election the size of the Commons may have been slashed - with less representation - and we've also seen the loss of many from the electoral roll.

The problem is NOT an over-powerful House of Lords. The problem is within the House of Commons. Once the election results are in, power is handed to a minority of a minority. Whips ensure that this minority can get its business through. Some MPs may be too sheepish to challenge the whips - but the real problem is that MPs have too little power - in our system, to have power you need to become a minister. Rebels are not likely to get that opportunity.

In the last week the Health Secretary refused the Health Committee access to the data, and a report, which was considered in preparing an obesity strategy. It wasn't refused because of national security, or to protect legitimate commercial secrecy - but because the government didn't want the select committee "interfering" with what the Government wanted. I'm a great fan of select committees - but withholding information is NOT ACCEPTABLE. I urge you to visit the Health Committee's webpage to get the full background. Over the effects of the tax credit proposals, the government failed to supply the scrutinising committee with the full figures.

It is now common for Parliamentary Question Time to descend into Ministers not answering questions about their responsibilities, but just challenging the opposition. Cameron is a master of this. Last week, Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan got ticked off by the Speaker for doing the same thing.

Whether the accountability is sought in select committees or in oral questions, it is being sabotaged by Ministers.

The ruse which provoked last night's debacle involved severely limiting parliamentary time for scrutiny in the Commons, by using secondary legislation, then threatening the House of Lords.

Last night convinced me we need a written constitution, with effective checks & balances, and greater separation of powers.

All comments gratefully received.