CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 371-v HOUSE OF COMMONS ORAL EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE POLITICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM COMMITTEE DO WE NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE UK? THURSDAY 18 OCTOBER 2012 LORD MACLENNAN OF ROGART and CANON KENYON WRIGHT Evidence heard in Public Questions 296 - 343 USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT 1. This is a corrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others. 2. The transcript is an approved formal record of these proceedings. It will be printed in due course. 1 Oral Evidence Taken before the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on Thursday 18 October 2012 Members present: Mr Graham Allen (Chair) Mr Christopher Chope Sheila Gilmore Fabian Hamilton Simon Hart Tristram Hunt Mrs Eleanor Laing Stephen Williams ________________ Examination of Witness Witnesses: Lord Maclennan of Rogart, Co-Chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party Committee, gave evidence. Q296 Chair: Good morning. I saw you performing in the House of Lords, Bob, leading your debate, so you are well warmed up for today’s session. Welcome. Would you like to say a few words before we ask you questions? Lord Maclennan of Rogart: First of all, I think this Committee has taken a most important step in promoting a discussion about a nationwide constitutional convention because my view is that piecemeal reform is showing no signs of leading to the sort of changes that might be desirable, and, furthermore, it is a matter for you to look at these issues in the round because change in one part can have unexpected consequences in another part of the constitution. So I think this is a most valuable study. Q297 Mrs Laing: I think the Committee all agree that the piecemeal approach is a fact and given the drawbacks to it that you have just outlined—and have previously mentioned in other fora—do you consider there is a case for establishing a constitutional convention for the UK as a whole in advance of the referendum that is going to take place in Scotland in 2014? Lord Maclennan of Rogart: Yes, I do. I strongly support that notion because I believe that it is important that the Scots, in casting their votes in the referendum, are not persuaded that there is nothing between separation and the status quo. They need to be clear that serious thought is being given to alternatives. To me, that is highly desirable, and I think that having a discussion about alternatives as a back drop to the referendum would be very valuable. Q298 Mrs Laing: Thank you for that. Taking that forward and given the piecemeal reform to which you referred and that this Committee has been looking at, do you consider that there is a need for a convention to clarify the way in which our unwritten constitution has evolved and developed over the last 15 years of piecemeal changes? Lord Maclennan of Rogart: We have lived with an unwritten constitution for a long time. Where there is legal dubiety it can usually be resolved by the courts. I think the time has 2 come to recognise that we need equitable treatment of all the nations of the United Kingdom but that the English question is very important. To answer your question more specifically, yes I think it would make sense to try to rationalise and relate the different changes that have been made. Decentralisation has come and gone; localisation is in a bit of a mess. We need to do this as soon as possible because it will take a long time. I also think that politicians must play their part in this, but if the public is to be convinced and to move towards a consensus on the whole, it would be highly desirable for them to play a part and to look at what has been done, and where there is a consensus that it is not right, then to move on. Q299 Mrs Laing: Would you draw a distinction between the process that was known as the constitutional convention in Scotland in the late 80s and early 90s—in which I know you are well versed because you lived through Scottish politics in that time, as did some of us here—and the kind of constitutional convention that might now look at the development of the unwritten constitution? Lord Maclennan of Rogart: Yes, I would draw a difference. Canon Kenyon Wright is giving evidence later and he will perhaps speak with more authority on this, but I think the Scottish convention was most clearly directed towards the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. We have a much wider agenda for the United Kingdom constitution. We have to consider how to ensure that the best, or at least the possibility of the best, applies across the board to all citizens. It seems to me that some of the changes conform with a modern constitution, such as the Constitution Reform Act 2005, which separated legal decision makers from legislators. That seems to me to be a modern move. We need to bring it all into the spectrum of discussion. It is unsatisfactory—and this is something we consider in other fora—that our constitutional law is not clearly distinguished from other law, so that we have no procedures for amendment which are inherent in making those changes. We sometimes have debates in Committee and sometimes in a Committee of the whole House, but it seems to me that that decision is not taken with an eye to any objective criteria. It is worth considering whether, if we get it right, we want stability that would perhaps make it necessary to have rather larger majorities for a constitutional change, for example. Q300 Mrs Laing: This is a question that the Committee has been exploring and various witnesses have helped us with. Do you consider there ought to be a laid-down, agreed mechanism for distinguishing between constitutional legislation and other legislation? Lord Maclennan of Rogart: Yes I do, and there could be several ways of approaching that. As things stand, the conformity of the legislation with the Human Rights Act is declared on the face of a bill. I am not sure that letting the Government decide—whoever the Government are—whether legislation is a constitutional measure is necessarily the right way to approach it. We could look at the possibility of having advisory committees; we have constitutional advisory committees in Parliament and we could perhaps strengthen those with the addition of senior judges. Q301 Mrs Laing: Right. Would you like to elaborate on that? You mentioned a moment ago that it might be that the constitutional legislation requires more than a mere simple majority to pass. Lord Maclennan of Rogart: It is one way of ensuring that there is closer to a consensus in the country. To me, it is extremely important that, in terms of constitutional matters, people should feel that they own this, that it is theirs and take pride in their constitutional settlement, as is the case in some other countries. 3 Q302 Mrs Laing: That is a salient point that goes to the very heart of what we have been talking about, so I am merely asking this again for the sake of emphasis to get it on the record. You consider that for constitutional matters—rather than simply one side having so many votes and the other side having fewer votes, therefore this is the law that is passed— there should be a mechanism, even within Parliament itself, to try to reach more of a consensus so that most people will go along with it and feel pride in the new settlement? Lord Maclennan of Rogart: Yes, I agree with that completely. Mrs Laing: That is very helpful. Thank you very much. Q303 Tristram Hunt: Is the end point a written text or document, which would then have to be subscribed to by the different assemblies and parliaments? Lord Maclennan of Rogart: That would be an end point quite far down the track I suspect, but nonetheless I think a desirable one. Q304 Tristram Hunt: But even if the process is part of the end point in itself, that would be the finality to be agreed via a referendum, for example. Lord Maclennan of Rogart: Yes. The referendum is a separate question, but yes perhaps. Q305 Tristram Hunt: In a sense the question is, is it a credible process within the parameters of the modern Union? The difference with the Scottish convention was that there seemed to be a degree of corporate consensus about elements of it. Within the Union, it strikes me as far more of a zero sum game within the competing parts. There is certainly some academic literature that suggests that you simply would not be able to square some of the circles, but I suppose the answer is, if we had enough time, you would simply get around that problem. Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I think that it is desirable to try to get around that problem. I think there is far more interest now in England in the shape of our constitution. There is a great deal of interest and discussion about how we relate to the European Union, and how we should relate, as well as about why the Scots are getting so much more out of the Barnett formula, and could we not find a better way of doing it.