Constitution Committee
Wednesday 16th September 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 1 month ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
10:34
Lord Strathclyde
-
-
Lord Strathclyde
Welcome to this meeting of the House of Lords Constitution Committee. Today we are holding the third and fourth evidence sessions of the committee's inquiry into the UK's constitutional safeguards. Later on, we'll be joined remotely by Lord case, but before that we are delighted to be joined by Lord Young of Old Windsor, former principal Private Secretary to the monarch, Lord young. You are most welcome to the committee and I look forward to hearing what you have to say.
And can I remind all members to declare any interest relevant to this inquiry or today's meeting the first time they speak? I have no relevant interests of my own to declare. So we're now in, in, in in public session. You worked at the palace for quite a long time, a major part of your career, which is one of the reasons why we've invited you here. How would you best describe the constitutional role of the monarch in the present day governance of the UK, and how relevant is it to the day to day practices of issues that come out that have constitutional significance?
And can I remind all members to declare any interest relevant to this inquiry or today's meeting the first time they speak? I have no relevant interests of my own to declare. So we're now in, in, in in public session. You worked at the palace for quite a long time, a major part of your career, which is one of the reasons why we've invited you here. How would you best describe the constitutional role of the monarch in the present day governance of the UK, and how relevant is it to the day to day practices of issues that come out that have constitutional significance?
10:35
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
-
-
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
Well, thank you, chair, and thank you for inviting me. I'm very pleased to be here. I'm delighted to to know that this this inquiry has been undertaken, particularly in these increasingly uncertain and troubling times. I suppose I don't know whether I should declare interest in, as shown in my register of interest, occasionally paid consultant to to the Royal Household, but otherwise no other relevant interests. I wonder if I might start by.
In order to answer your question, by painting a bit of a a narrative picture to help sort of distinguish the the theory from, from the, the actuality, the practice. I was very privileged during my nearly 20 years working for the royal household, for the late Queen, to have been literally in the room really during the appointment of six Prime ministers. Seven if if I stretch it to include the reappointment of Tony Blair in his final administration.
And it was remarkable from that very privileged first hand experience to observe the. What I'd say is the sort of core of that constitutional relationship, namely the. The weekly audience, the Prime Minister primarily, almost always at Buckingham Palace, occasionally during Covid, we held it down at Windsor, but primarily at Buckingham Palace, always during a 20 years. I was there always on a Wednesday, Wednesday after PMQs. It worked very well for the PM of the day, because not only were they on top of their brief, but they were relieved to have got PMQs out of the way and usually at a 6:15.
And the practice would be regardless of who it was, the practice would be the same. The principal private secretary, usually in my case, my two deputies would greet the Prime minister of the day at the garden entrance. The private secretary would then spend 5 or 10 minutes alone with the Prime Minister of the day before they'd go in and see the Queen. And at the end of my term, it was the King. But for these purposes, I just describe it as as the late Queen for the hours audience.
And meanwhile I, as private principal private secretary, would spend the most useful constitutional hour of the week downstairs with the principal private Secretary to the Prime Minister, two sides of the so-called Golden Triangle. And this was very, very important for me because I saw my number one duty. And I know I speak for my my predecessors and indeed my my successors as private sector, the sovereign, seeing this, the absolute number one duty to make sure that there was never a gap between the two ends of the park, as it were, between the head of state and head of government.
The most important to avoid anything which might turn into a perception of a constitutional crisis. And we'd normally have an hour's conversation over a sandwich, sometimes a glass of wine even. And an hour later, the prime minister of the day would come in into the private secretaries office and and give a little debrief. Sometimes they'd spot a glass of wine on the table and almost grab for it. Sometimes they'd just stick to water.
But the thing I observed with all those prime ministers, all of whom, as we know, are very different personalities, their own way, by definition, was that without exception, they'd all come in walking a bit taller. And that's not a surprise, really, when you think about it, because who wouldn't, as a leader, which of us wouldn't cherish the opportunity of having an hour's conversation a week with someone who is not going to put anything out on X, not going to gossip about it, not going to put it in their memoirs.
Not give a partial political view or pursue any self-interest, but to to exercise in, in the sovereign's case, the the budget. And of course, we're talking about a constitution which isn't written in the sense of being in one document, but exercising the accepted right to to be consulted and to encourage and to warn. And in, in the late Queen's case, even though those meetings were always entirely private, as they should be, encouragement might just sometimes simply be, well, you remember all those things you gave me to read out in the last Queen's Speech? How are you getting on with them? And a warning might sometimes be a raised eyebrow saying, are you sure? I remember Winston trying that and it not working, which is always a good leveller and or sometimes just based on the fact that she was touring the country every week saying, well, you know, the government's policy is, is this particular one on schools? But I was up visiting a school in Wigan or Arbroath last week, and I heard a very different story on the ground.
So, so that is a way of sort of painting a picture around what I see as the core element. Of course, we can go on to talk about prerogative powers and reserve powers, but that's how I saw it play out in practice, in the.
In order to answer your question, by painting a bit of a a narrative picture to help sort of distinguish the the theory from, from the, the actuality, the practice. I was very privileged during my nearly 20 years working for the royal household, for the late Queen, to have been literally in the room really during the appointment of six Prime ministers. Seven if if I stretch it to include the reappointment of Tony Blair in his final administration.
And it was remarkable from that very privileged first hand experience to observe the. What I'd say is the sort of core of that constitutional relationship, namely the. The weekly audience, the Prime Minister primarily, almost always at Buckingham Palace, occasionally during Covid, we held it down at Windsor, but primarily at Buckingham Palace, always during a 20 years. I was there always on a Wednesday, Wednesday after PMQs. It worked very well for the PM of the day, because not only were they on top of their brief, but they were relieved to have got PMQs out of the way and usually at a 6:15.
And the practice would be regardless of who it was, the practice would be the same. The principal private secretary, usually in my case, my two deputies would greet the Prime minister of the day at the garden entrance. The private secretary would then spend 5 or 10 minutes alone with the Prime Minister of the day before they'd go in and see the Queen. And at the end of my term, it was the King. But for these purposes, I just describe it as as the late Queen for the hours audience.
And meanwhile I, as private principal private secretary, would spend the most useful constitutional hour of the week downstairs with the principal private Secretary to the Prime Minister, two sides of the so-called Golden Triangle. And this was very, very important for me because I saw my number one duty. And I know I speak for my my predecessors and indeed my my successors as private sector, the sovereign, seeing this, the absolute number one duty to make sure that there was never a gap between the two ends of the park, as it were, between the head of state and head of government.
The most important to avoid anything which might turn into a perception of a constitutional crisis. And we'd normally have an hour's conversation over a sandwich, sometimes a glass of wine even. And an hour later, the prime minister of the day would come in into the private secretaries office and and give a little debrief. Sometimes they'd spot a glass of wine on the table and almost grab for it. Sometimes they'd just stick to water.
But the thing I observed with all those prime ministers, all of whom, as we know, are very different personalities, their own way, by definition, was that without exception, they'd all come in walking a bit taller. And that's not a surprise, really, when you think about it, because who wouldn't, as a leader, which of us wouldn't cherish the opportunity of having an hour's conversation a week with someone who is not going to put anything out on X, not going to gossip about it, not going to put it in their memoirs.
Not give a partial political view or pursue any self-interest, but to to exercise in, in the sovereign's case, the the budget. And of course, we're talking about a constitution which isn't written in the sense of being in one document, but exercising the accepted right to to be consulted and to encourage and to warn. And in, in the late Queen's case, even though those meetings were always entirely private, as they should be, encouragement might just sometimes simply be, well, you remember all those things you gave me to read out in the last Queen's Speech? How are you getting on with them? And a warning might sometimes be a raised eyebrow saying, are you sure? I remember Winston trying that and it not working, which is always a good leveller and or sometimes just based on the fact that she was touring the country every week saying, well, you know, the government's policy is, is this particular one on schools? But I was up visiting a school in Wigan or Arbroath last week, and I heard a very different story on the ground.
So, so that is a way of sort of painting a picture around what I see as the core element. Of course, we can go on to talk about prerogative powers and reserve powers, but that's how I saw it play out in practice, in the.
10:41
10:42
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
-
-
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
So this is absolutely the crux of the matter. And this is where there is an inevitable risk of friction between understandable desire, especially in the 21st century, for for openness, for transparency. And at the same time, a requirement really for, for, for the system I've described in some, some could argue that they prefer a different system. But if we are to have this, this constitutional system, then there is an absolute requirement for privacy in, in, in those conversations.
And actually the principle can be extended more broadly. I had quite a lot of quite a lot to do on the receiving end with Freedom of Information Act. Even though the royal household wasn't officially party to the Freedom of Information Act, we were sort of adjacently party to it. And there was a there is a principle established in the Freedom of Information Act and in other similar piece of legislation which respect the formulation of policy as opposed to the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the resultant policy as being protected as being something that that is not that is not open to, to, to, to scrutiny.
Because otherwise, how could people express views openly and candidly? Yeah. So yes, that the, the, the confidentiality I agree is absolutely core to the, to the smooth working of that system.
And actually the principle can be extended more broadly. I had quite a lot of quite a lot to do on the receiving end with Freedom of Information Act. Even though the royal household wasn't officially party to the Freedom of Information Act, we were sort of adjacently party to it. And there was a there is a principle established in the Freedom of Information Act and in other similar piece of legislation which respect the formulation of policy as opposed to the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the resultant policy as being protected as being something that that is not that is not open to, to, to, to scrutiny.
Because otherwise, how could people express views openly and candidly? Yeah. So yes, that the, the, the confidentiality I agree is absolutely core to the, to the smooth working of that system.
10:43
10:43
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
-
-
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
Thank you so much. Yes. You know, Wednesday evening hours conversation where encouragement and warnings can be given hugely significance in the everyday running of government. However, there could be occasions when the monarch should or would act as a constitutional restraint on a government. Beyond that, our. Can you imagine any circumstances like that?
10:44
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
-
-
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
Yes, I can, I think again, we have to we we have the sort of intellectual challenge of having to work through a constitutional document which doesn't exist in a in a pure form . And a great deal of what we're discussing has come up through centuries of common law. And so sometimes the you know, not only is there evolution in its development, but sometimes these things just can only get tested in the moment. And there are only so many scenarios you can work through because ultimately it all boils down to personalities.
But while on the one hand, I think it's it's now broadly accepted that while the sovereign is able certainly is entitled to to be consulted. And I must say, incidentally, that every government of whatever political colour has always taken that and continuing to this very day take taken that that duty very, very seriously indeed. And the the right to encourage and warn. Equally, I would argue, the Prime Minister of the day has a right to say, well, thank you very much, Your Majesty.
I've taken your your counsel very seriously. But at the end of the day, on reflection, I I'm choosing to do something different. And that, I think is the, the compact as it were. However, to, to, to answer your question specifically, Lord Murphy, there are, of course, occasions when the discretionary reserve powers could be exercised. So, for example, the appointment of a prime Minister, while while primarily is a arguably a prerogative power in that that usually a sovereign would be appointing the Prime Minister based, at least in part on the advice of the outgoing Prime Minister and the outgoing Prime Minister, of course, would be giving advice based on who he or she believes is most capable of forming a government, commanding the confidence of the House.
There might be occasions where it's not obvious who, who, who the next prime minister should be, where or perhaps a prime minister has given a piece of advice. I find this very unlikely, but it's possible, a piece of advice where there is actually a, you know, a counterfactual where the sovereign could use their discretionary powers, at the very least, to take a broader counsel, because by definition, that scenario an outgoing prime minister is, is no longer fully authorized to give prime ministerial advice.
Another example I can think of.
But while on the one hand, I think it's it's now broadly accepted that while the sovereign is able certainly is entitled to to be consulted. And I must say, incidentally, that every government of whatever political colour has always taken that and continuing to this very day take taken that that duty very, very seriously indeed. And the the right to encourage and warn. Equally, I would argue, the Prime Minister of the day has a right to say, well, thank you very much, Your Majesty.
I've taken your your counsel very seriously. But at the end of the day, on reflection, I I'm choosing to do something different. And that, I think is the, the compact as it were. However, to, to, to answer your question specifically, Lord Murphy, there are, of course, occasions when the discretionary reserve powers could be exercised. So, for example, the appointment of a prime Minister, while while primarily is a arguably a prerogative power in that that usually a sovereign would be appointing the Prime Minister based, at least in part on the advice of the outgoing Prime Minister and the outgoing Prime Minister, of course, would be giving advice based on who he or she believes is most capable of forming a government, commanding the confidence of the House.
There might be occasions where it's not obvious who, who, who the next prime minister should be, where or perhaps a prime minister has given a piece of advice. I find this very unlikely, but it's possible, a piece of advice where there is actually a, you know, a counterfactual where the sovereign could use their discretionary powers, at the very least, to take a broader counsel, because by definition, that scenario an outgoing prime minister is, is no longer fully authorized to give prime ministerial advice.
Another example I can think of.
10:47
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
-
-
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
In those circumstances, I would say the private secretaries role is more to to take soundings, to take to to take soundings of, of, of Cabinet Secretary to a lesser extent, in this particular example, to the principal private Secretary, to the Prime Minister, and quite possibly of political leaders, though my my preference would be that that would be done via via the Cabinet Secretary. So that would certainly be a role for the for the principal private Secretary.
Another example, of course, would be the question of whether it would be constitutionally possible for a sovereign to decline a request for prorogation, when it's apparent that a government is about to fall. You know, I either there's been a vote of no confidence. There'd be very obvious, or there's about to be a vote of no confidence or the cabinet is is evidently lost confidence in the their their own Prime Minister and perhaps a great number of resignations going on.
If in those circumstances, a Prime Minister came to the sovereign and said, look, I'd like to call a general election, then you could see a scenario where where a sovereign might decline that that request. And of course, it is really a request rather than an advice, because it's a reserve power. My argument is that if if things are working well, then it should never really come to that point. You know, if there was a a bit like The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has got Don't panic on the front cover.
I think if there were a similar guide to the Constitution, it would be no sudden moves or or something similar. No surprises. Because really, when the system is working well, all these conversations should be being had in advance. And I'd argue that one of the great powers of the sovereign is the perception of power. Is, is the the fear that they might say no. And from a political point of view, that's that's not not a good look.
Yeah. Thank you
Another example, of course, would be the question of whether it would be constitutionally possible for a sovereign to decline a request for prorogation, when it's apparent that a government is about to fall. You know, I either there's been a vote of no confidence. There'd be very obvious, or there's about to be a vote of no confidence or the cabinet is is evidently lost confidence in the their their own Prime Minister and perhaps a great number of resignations going on.
If in those circumstances, a Prime Minister came to the sovereign and said, look, I'd like to call a general election, then you could see a scenario where where a sovereign might decline that that request. And of course, it is really a request rather than an advice, because it's a reserve power. My argument is that if if things are working well, then it should never really come to that point. You know, if there was a a bit like The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has got Don't panic on the front cover.
I think if there were a similar guide to the Constitution, it would be no sudden moves or or something similar. No surprises. Because really, when the system is working well, all these conversations should be being had in advance. And I'd argue that one of the great powers of the sovereign is the perception of power. Is, is the the fear that they might say no. And from a political point of view, that's that's not not a good look.
Yeah. Thank you
10:49
10:49
10:49
Lord Burnett of Maldon
-
-
Lord Burnett of Maldon
Yes. You, Lord young, good morning. And you've just used a phrase which I think certainly strikes me if things are working well. And of course, the context of a lot of debate around the Constitution at the moment is a concern that things might not always work well. And so really, my question of you is whether you think it's actually rather beneficial for the sovereign to have residual powers, as you put it, which are shrouded in opacity, and therefore they can develop in response to novel situations.
I , I'm reminded of one of your predecessors, letters to the times. I can't now remember it's 60. It's before I was born.
I , I'm reminded of one of your predecessors, letters to the times. I can't now remember it's 60. It's before I was born.
10:50
10:50
Lord Burnett of Maldon
-
-
Lord Burnett of Maldon
1950, you long before I was born. Using the times to set out constitutional principles, which I think are have stood the test of time. But I'm just wondering, really, if we constitutionally, as a nation were facing something very novel, whether the uncertainty about the boundaries of the powers is actually a very good thing. Yes.
10:51
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
-
-
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
I agree, it's always worth when, when, when debating these issues, to look at the alternative. And I suppose the alternative would be something which is, you know, perhaps arguably a written constitution. But even then, how do you spell out every every eventuality? And I think of an example, which I, I do have Boris Johnson's permission to, to, to, to mention I have mentioned it in the past, which is again, a real sort of worked example of how I see how I, I saw it first hand, the what used to be called the the, the good chap theory of government.
I prefer the good, good faith theory because it just takes out slightly sort of dated and, and possibly sexist contexts. But certainly we all recall the time during, at the start of Covid when Prime Minister Boris Johnson was taken to hospital, there was a time for a few hours when it was believed that he was going to have to go on to a ventilator. And in fact, I was walking home in the pouring rain from Buckingham Palace.
The Queen was about to go down to Windsor for, as it would turn out, the duration of Covid, but hadn't hadn't quite left. She'd just done her broadcast to the nation, I think, and actually I've got that wrong. I think she'd just gone down, but I hadn't. And I remember reaching a bus shelter and it was pouring with rain and taking a call on my mobile. I think it might have been from Lord case as deputy Cabinet Secretary at the time, or it might have been from Mark Sedwill.
But anyway, the. Or the Prime Minister's principal private secretary. But the reason for the call was to say that the. In very sort of British way, the. The protection officers had overheard the consultants working out how to tell Carrie that her husband, I think he was then might have to go on to a ventilator. And there was, what, a 50/50 chance of survival. And and this was a real constitutional test because of all those constitutional books that surrounded my very grand office at the palace, none of them described what to do in the event.
It's fine. I don't mean fine for the individual, but it's fine if a prime minister dies. There's precedent for that. Think back to Spencer Perceval, who think of Bonar Law dying in office. You know, in a way there's plenty of precedent for that. But the question was, what happens if a prime minister who's been legitimately appointed is suddenly incommunicado for an indefinite amount of time during a national crisis, which undoubtedly was, and there's no deputy prime minister, which there wasn't at the time.
And I remember sitting on that bus shelter bench in sort of Battersea as more and more people joined the call, working out actually what the answer was, you know, what, what would we advise the sovereign to do if this event turned out as it happened? It didn't. But we didn't know that at the time. In in the event we worked out and I think I representing my, my, my friend and colleague Mark Sidwell's views accurately, or at least the recollection accurately, that in that circumstance, the cabinet secretary would summon the cabinet and say, well, I'm exercising my duty to summon the cabinet.
I'm not quite sure whether it was actually formally his duty, but that's what he'd say. And not not actually let them leave the room until they decided who should be recommended to the Queen as a Prime minister to appoint, perhaps on the understanding that that that Prime minister would only stay in place for a set period of time, either until Boris Johnson recovered or until a proper leadership election could be conducted. And as I understand it, while we're on this call through the usual channels, someone was getting hold of Jeremy Corbyn's office who, as I understand it, signalled that they'd be happy to, you know, sign up to this to to this plan.
Now, it never happened. But I think that's a worked example, quite a good worked example, I think, of how everyone coming together in a moment of, of potential constitutional crisis and working it through worked quite, quite effectively. Now, a lot of the reason it worked quite effectively was the was because the amount of effort we, we collectively all put in every time there was a change of one of those members of the so-called. I don't really like the phrase Golden Triangle, but you know, the those those three senior advisers we all of us made, you know, went to great, great lengths to make sure that that understanding and rapport was quickly built.
And of course, trust. But, but it is always the case that that relies on the holders of those roles , caring, understanding this rather specialist, niche niche topic and the consequences of what happens if it goes wrong, not being partisan, not being in any way sort of Spad like, or pursuing one's own agenda. And, and having a sort of understanding of the, the constitutional backstory and ramifications. Well, and in my experience to date that that has always happened.
But of course, there's a risk that in the future, there may be a, a time when when that doesn't happen.
I prefer the good, good faith theory because it just takes out slightly sort of dated and, and possibly sexist contexts. But certainly we all recall the time during, at the start of Covid when Prime Minister Boris Johnson was taken to hospital, there was a time for a few hours when it was believed that he was going to have to go on to a ventilator. And in fact, I was walking home in the pouring rain from Buckingham Palace.
The Queen was about to go down to Windsor for, as it would turn out, the duration of Covid, but hadn't hadn't quite left. She'd just done her broadcast to the nation, I think, and actually I've got that wrong. I think she'd just gone down, but I hadn't. And I remember reaching a bus shelter and it was pouring with rain and taking a call on my mobile. I think it might have been from Lord case as deputy Cabinet Secretary at the time, or it might have been from Mark Sedwill.
But anyway, the. Or the Prime Minister's principal private secretary. But the reason for the call was to say that the. In very sort of British way, the. The protection officers had overheard the consultants working out how to tell Carrie that her husband, I think he was then might have to go on to a ventilator. And there was, what, a 50/50 chance of survival. And and this was a real constitutional test because of all those constitutional books that surrounded my very grand office at the palace, none of them described what to do in the event.
It's fine. I don't mean fine for the individual, but it's fine if a prime minister dies. There's precedent for that. Think back to Spencer Perceval, who think of Bonar Law dying in office. You know, in a way there's plenty of precedent for that. But the question was, what happens if a prime minister who's been legitimately appointed is suddenly incommunicado for an indefinite amount of time during a national crisis, which undoubtedly was, and there's no deputy prime minister, which there wasn't at the time.
And I remember sitting on that bus shelter bench in sort of Battersea as more and more people joined the call, working out actually what the answer was, you know, what, what would we advise the sovereign to do if this event turned out as it happened? It didn't. But we didn't know that at the time. In in the event we worked out and I think I representing my, my, my friend and colleague Mark Sidwell's views accurately, or at least the recollection accurately, that in that circumstance, the cabinet secretary would summon the cabinet and say, well, I'm exercising my duty to summon the cabinet.
I'm not quite sure whether it was actually formally his duty, but that's what he'd say. And not not actually let them leave the room until they decided who should be recommended to the Queen as a Prime minister to appoint, perhaps on the understanding that that that Prime minister would only stay in place for a set period of time, either until Boris Johnson recovered or until a proper leadership election could be conducted. And as I understand it, while we're on this call through the usual channels, someone was getting hold of Jeremy Corbyn's office who, as I understand it, signalled that they'd be happy to, you know, sign up to this to to this plan.
Now, it never happened. But I think that's a worked example, quite a good worked example, I think, of how everyone coming together in a moment of, of potential constitutional crisis and working it through worked quite, quite effectively. Now, a lot of the reason it worked quite effectively was the was because the amount of effort we, we collectively all put in every time there was a change of one of those members of the so-called. I don't really like the phrase Golden Triangle, but you know, the those those three senior advisers we all of us made, you know, went to great, great lengths to make sure that that understanding and rapport was quickly built.
And of course, trust. But, but it is always the case that that relies on the holders of those roles , caring, understanding this rather specialist, niche niche topic and the consequences of what happens if it goes wrong, not being partisan, not being in any way sort of Spad like, or pursuing one's own agenda. And, and having a sort of understanding of the, the constitutional backstory and ramifications. Well, and in my experience to date that that has always happened.
But of course, there's a risk that in the future, there may be a, a time when when that doesn't happen.
10:57
Lord Jones of Penybont
-
-
Lord Jones of Penybont
Yes. Thank you, Lord chair. Good morning, Lord young. I was going to ask you what powers you think the monarch has to constrain a Prime Minister who risks undermining the Constitution? Are you yourself said quite rightly, we live in uncertain and troubling times. Let me put a scenario to you. Something that would have been outlandish a decade ago, but something we might face in the future. A government loses a vote of no confidence in Parliament but refuses to resign.
There is no request for prorogation of Parliament. There is no alternative figure who can command a majority in the House of Commons and there is deadlock. What happens then?
There is no request for prorogation of Parliament. There is no alternative figure who can command a majority in the House of Commons and there is deadlock. What happens then?
10:58
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
-
-
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
Well, of course, it's again one of the one of the joys and challenges of this Constitution that we have is that it's it's a pleasant exercise to theorize about events. But of course, it depends so much on the the personalities and political mood of the time. Now, we've seen previous occasions where ultimately there's been an attempt to, to involve the courts that can only go so far in a in a parliamentary system where where Parliament is, is, has primacy.
But in a in a system which had broken down to the extent that the. The Prime Minister was refusing to play ball, then. Then that I do see that there could be a scenario where the sovereign might want to exercise greater power. Now, whether that would ever come to a, as it were, a Gough Whitlam scenario, where where the sovereign would actually dismiss a Prime minister would rather depend on the events.
But there is that reserve power there. And as I was indicating earlier, that the the fear of that eventuality up to this point has been in itself quite a restrainer on on government behaviour, and I've seen plenty of evidence of that, of even a sort of ministerial level, the concern about a even a headline, you know, in implying that a particular minister had incurred the wrath of the palace was enough to to ensure that that didn't happen.
But yes, there are scenarios where the exercise of those discretionary reserve powers in what would be regarded, I think, as as a national emergency, could could in extremists be be considered?
But in a in a system which had broken down to the extent that the. The Prime Minister was refusing to play ball, then. Then that I do see that there could be a scenario where the sovereign might want to exercise greater power. Now, whether that would ever come to a, as it were, a Gough Whitlam scenario, where where the sovereign would actually dismiss a Prime minister would rather depend on the events.
But there is that reserve power there. And as I was indicating earlier, that the the fear of that eventuality up to this point has been in itself quite a restrainer on on government behaviour, and I've seen plenty of evidence of that, of even a sort of ministerial level, the concern about a even a headline, you know, in implying that a particular minister had incurred the wrath of the palace was enough to to ensure that that didn't happen.
But yes, there are scenarios where the exercise of those discretionary reserve powers in what would be regarded, I think, as as a national emergency, could could in extremists be be considered?
11:00
11:00
Baroness Hamwee
-
-
Baroness Hamwee
You've made me wonder whether we've missed a trick in not putting on our list of witnesses and protection officers and drivers doorkeepers. They always know everything for the rest of us, do I? You've been very helpful in describing how the weekly audience operates, but I wanted to ask you if you can talk a little more about transparency as the public requires it today. And I think that there we we've heard, inevitably heard the word trust quite a lot already in the.
And I . How does one encourage trust and trust in the establishment? I use that word quite deliberately because in a society which is becoming a more divided than I'd like to see it. The establishment is on one side and the people on the other, as some people would characterize it, are. Would you like to say something around encouraging trust in a situation which is by definition very dependent on discretion and confidentiality?
And I . How does one encourage trust and trust in the establishment? I use that word quite deliberately because in a society which is becoming a more divided than I'd like to see it. The establishment is on one side and the people on the other, as some people would characterize it, are. Would you like to say something around encouraging trust in a situation which is by definition very dependent on discretion and confidentiality?
11:01
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
-
-
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
Herein lies a paradox. There's no doubt in in that how can you have trust if you don't know what's going on? How can you have discretion and confidentiality if you're if you're putting everything out on social media as it happens. And so the advantage, I'd argue, of our system of monarchy is that. And this was something my late boss, the late Queen, used to, used to regard as a real core point, is that monarchy.
Whereas whereas government is about in old language, tomorrow's headlines. The next by election, the budget, the party conferences getting through, as it were, the midterms and so on, monarchy and state are about the next year, the next five years, the next ten years. Planning for the succession is about finding ways of convening groups who might not otherwise come together, of recognising service, of ensuring as broad a cross-section of people have interaction with with the head of state demographically, geographically, and I believe that and of course representing the UK on a on a global stage.
And even though that's not specifically related, that's more sort of almost head of nation activity rather than head of state, I think over time that that feeds into to the feeling that this is a king now, a queen previously, who is acting in a way that is in the national interest and is not, is not partial. And, and so I think the only way of, of squaring the circle of that paradox that you rightly identify is through other actions, as it were, especially in the role of, as it were, head of nation, representative of the nation, and doing that consistently over months, years, decades in, in the way that a politician just, just can't do by definition.
Whereas whereas government is about in old language, tomorrow's headlines. The next by election, the budget, the party conferences getting through, as it were, the midterms and so on, monarchy and state are about the next year, the next five years, the next ten years. Planning for the succession is about finding ways of convening groups who might not otherwise come together, of recognising service, of ensuring as broad a cross-section of people have interaction with with the head of state demographically, geographically, and I believe that and of course representing the UK on a on a global stage.
And even though that's not specifically related, that's more sort of almost head of nation activity rather than head of state, I think over time that that feeds into to the feeling that this is a king now, a queen previously, who is acting in a way that is in the national interest and is not, is not partial. And, and so I think the only way of, of squaring the circle of that paradox that you rightly identify is through other actions, as it were, especially in the role of, as it were, head of nation, representative of the nation, and doing that consistently over months, years, decades in, in the way that a politician just, just can't do by definition.
11:04
11:04
11:04
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port
-
-
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port
I'll speed up my question. Very good. Yeah. We have a monarch who's had a long time to prepare for becoming monarch, during which time he has publicly and openly championed a number of causes. That is, he's not on those causes being neutral. What how how is that managed when his change of status makes it necessary for him to be neutral, when everybody knows he's on the record in terms of climate change or architecture or the Commonwealth with policies of immigration, for example, how does the bit of the operation that you come from deal with the likely tensions in all of that?
11:05
11:05
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
-
-
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
It's been, I think, broadly accepted during especially during the long tenure of the now King's time as as Prince of Wales, that as heir to the throne, you can have you can pursue interests that as as long as there is a very clear understanding that when you take the top job, that those those interests are put to one side and indeed the. The then Prince of Wales, now the King. Some years ago in a in an interview, made that very clear that despite what everyone was, I mean, we'll all remember.
It's easy to forget it now, but we'll remember. There were years when the King was Prince of Wales, when there was this sort of drumbeat of a narrative. He'll be an interventionist king. He'll. He'll be rejecting bits of legislation. He'll he'll want to, you know, he'll be a mini revolution. Actually, none of that's happened. You know, the the I mean, certainly I have a sort of parochial view, but certainly my view is that the transition was as as as smooth as it could possibly have been expected to be hoped to be.
Yeah. And yes, I thank you. Thank you for your stop.
It's easy to forget it now, but we'll remember. There were years when the King was Prince of Wales, when there was this sort of drumbeat of a narrative. He'll be an interventionist king. He'll. He'll be rejecting bits of legislation. He'll he'll want to, you know, he'll be a mini revolution. Actually, none of that's happened. You know, the the I mean, certainly I have a sort of parochial view, but certainly my view is that the transition was as as as smooth as it could possibly have been expected to be hoped to be.
Yeah. And yes, I thank you. Thank you for your stop.
11:06
11:06
Lord Bellamy
-
-
Lord Bellamy
Yes. Thank you, Lord chair. And good morning, Lord young. We're theoretically, I think, trying to discuss situation where things are not working as they should. Supposing, for argument's sake, it's an unwritten principle of the Constitution that we have freedom of speech , and an elected government introduces censorship of the press and wants to close down newspapers and television and radio situations. In such a situation. What can the what what is the the the the role or the position of the monarchy? Some commentators have described the monarchy as the ultimate constitutional backstop.
Others have said that in a constitutional crisis, in a democracy, the monarchy would prove to be a broken reed because you simply can't as the monarch, interfere with the democratic process. So do you have any reflections on that kind of admittedly extreme and theoretical situation?
Others have said that in a constitutional crisis, in a democracy, the monarchy would prove to be a broken reed because you simply can't as the monarch, interfere with the democratic process. So do you have any reflections on that kind of admittedly extreme and theoretical situation?
11:07
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
-
-
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
I'm trying to work out how to answer the question succinctly, but but but but but helpfully, it would in that scenario, it would, I think, be dependent on a few other factors. For example, was, you know, is this a government that was elected on a manifesto commitment to to censor the press? That would be quite something. Is this something that actually was was legislated and went through both houses, which seems a little bit even less plausible, but we never know.
I think it would be in the modern age. I think if a if a democratically elected government with a majority was pursuing a manifesto commitment and that became law, I think it would be very difficult for either a sovereign as head of state or indeed any, any head of state in, in the sort of Westminster system as we know it, or indeed I outside my realm of experience, or quite possibly the courts to to be in a position to overturn that.
I think it would be in the modern age. I think if a if a democratically elected government with a majority was pursuing a manifesto commitment and that became law, I think it would be very difficult for either a sovereign as head of state or indeed any, any head of state in, in the sort of Westminster system as we know it, or indeed I outside my realm of experience, or quite possibly the courts to to be in a position to overturn that.
11:09
11:09
11:09
11:09
11:09
11:09
11:09
11:10
11:10
11:10
Lord Beith
-
-
Lord Beith
It could be said, could it not, that your predecessor, Sir Alan Lascelles, wrote part of the Constitution. Yes. In the slightly bizarre form of an anonymous letter to the times in 1950, which is my colleague referred to earlier. I mean, that's quite a serious role, which suggests that he at least thought he he did have a role to clarify what the Constitution was, what it meant in circumstances where a request for dissolution was being pursued.
Is that not evidence that unless it's changed, the role of principal private secretary is a constitutional guardianship role?
Is that not evidence that unless it's changed, the role of principal private secretary is a constitutional guardianship role?
11:10
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
-
-
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
Yes, I would agree. Part of the role of of many of these constitutional guardians, I think, is to do their best to work out what's the other side of the mountain. And Alan Lascelles in 1950, I think, was setting out a set of principles to protect against a situation which actually , in the end didn't arise but might have arisen. And so, so always to attempt to try and get ahead of what might end up being a constitutional difficulty or crisis is certainly part of part of that role.
11:11
11:11
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
-
-
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
I'm not sure that writing anonymous letter to the times these days would would quite do the trick, in that I suspect it would turn into a headline. So there might have to be more subtle methods of. I mean, what we all know, one of the arts of getting anything done is to make it make someone else think it was their idea. So that's probably a slightly better way of doing it these days.
11:12
Lord Beith
-
-
Lord Beith
Subtler methods. Now, can I just clarify a point about prerogative powers? The. There's not much public understanding around how prerogative powers work, and not much recognition that the monarch exercises very, very few such powers other than on the advice of ministers, the. Very few indeed. And. Do you think that is. It is necessary for that to be better understood, or that the ambiguity that surrounds it is, in some circumstances helpful?
11:12
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
-
-
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
I think both both things can be true at the same time. It does. I do feel a little bit depressed at times when I talk to Australians, for example, about the the famous dismissal that often I hear the phrase, oh, well, every constitutional lecturer and tutor in Australia knows these events off by heart and can quote the speech and so on. There isn't really such a thing, certainly in mainstream schooling, as a constitutional teacher in this country.
And it would be it. It would do the country a lot of good. I think if there was a greater understanding at an earlier age of, of, of our, our unique constitutional setup.
And it would be it. It would do the country a lot of good. I think if there was a greater understanding at an earlier age of, of, of our, our unique constitutional setup.
11:13
Lord Strathclyde
-
-
Lord Strathclyde
I was very interested by Lord Jones's intervention and his example of a Prime minister not resigning when he or she had lost a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, which I've always regarded as one of the firmest constitutional conventions that we have. But I suppose it is a convention. Do you think these conventions are too , too lax? Is there enough understanding about how conventions work in practice? Should we know more or, you know, is there a significant weakness here that one might point to it?
11:14
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
-
-
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
I think the the the conventions in this country have have the advantage of, as has been noted, of being able to evolve over time. It it in the scenario we're discussing, it's very hard to see how a Prime Minister who has lost the confidence of the House and is refusing to go would have any of his or her cabinet left. The whole thing would start to crumble. So even though it's an interesting intellectual question, in practice, a government who could get no prime minister, who could get no legislation through, didn't have a cabinet, is not really going to be lasting that long, regardless of of the sovereign's intervention or otherwise.
11:15
11:15
Lord Cryer
-
-
Lord Cryer
Well, first of all, sorry, I've got to declare an interest. I'm married to the the attorney general. I've got a question that I was going to ask, but just following on from that, if I can just ask a question. You've mentioned a couple of times the dismissal in 1975 of Gough Whitlam and and how that that still plays a role in Australian life. People are taught taught that. And we've always had the the the view in this country, I think.
Well, that couldn't . Although the the monarch has exactly the same reserve powers as the Governor general, that will never happen. But I think what made it more likely. And the Labor Party wasn't in government at the time, but Jeremy Corbyn had a vote, an overwhelming vote of no confidence in his leadership, which he just ignored. And he carried on. I had to deliver the figures to him because the chair of the PLP and you would have thought I was I was giving him the batting averages for last season.
So honestly, I mean, you just couldn't give a toss. Now, we were in opposition at that point, and we were a long way from being in government. Nevertheless, I wonder what worries me is that events like that make a that situation in government, which Lord Jones talked about perhaps more likely in the future.
Well, that couldn't . Although the the monarch has exactly the same reserve powers as the Governor general, that will never happen. But I think what made it more likely. And the Labor Party wasn't in government at the time, but Jeremy Corbyn had a vote, an overwhelming vote of no confidence in his leadership, which he just ignored. And he carried on. I had to deliver the figures to him because the chair of the PLP and you would have thought I was I was giving him the batting averages for last season.
So honestly, I mean, you just couldn't give a toss. Now, we were in opposition at that point, and we were a long way from being in government. Nevertheless, I wonder what worries me is that events like that make a that situation in government, which Lord Jones talked about perhaps more likely in the future.
11:16
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
-
-
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
Yes. We should never assume that just because there has been, as it were, good practice. Playing by the rules to date doesn't should never extrapolate that and assume that that will always be the case. I still go back to the thought that there are many structures that support our constitutional setup. The. The sovereign, one could argue, is the the arbiter of last resort. But but again, I can't, I can't see I mean, funnily enough, Sam Mostyn, the present Governor General of Australia, gave a an interesting speech last year to mark the anniversary of the dismissal, saying that she couldn't see today any Governor-General acting in that way because.
The, you know, the right to to to be consulted, to encourage in and warn is for the proper functioning of government, not not to exercise a political judgments and, and so I still struggle to envisage a scenario where a Prime Minister is acting so against accepted convention that he or she would still be supported by a working cabinet and be able to get get anything through. And remember, of course, in the Whitlam case, the problem was that the whole government had ground to a halt.
People were worried about getting getting paid.
The, you know, the right to to to be consulted, to encourage in and warn is for the proper functioning of government, not not to exercise a political judgments and, and so I still struggle to envisage a scenario where a Prime Minister is acting so against accepted convention that he or she would still be supported by a working cabinet and be able to get get anything through. And remember, of course, in the Whitlam case, the problem was that the whole government had ground to a halt.
People were worried about getting getting paid.
11:18
11:18
11:19
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
-
-
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
I don't want to sound complacent. No system is perfect. My personal feeling, having observed it close up and having been involved in it, close up, including through through some very testing times, is that I can't I can't see a better system, a less worse system, as it were. But but that doesn't for a moment mean that we shouldn't continue to be vigilant. I'd I'm conscious we're short of time, but I'd be delighted to see the cabinet manual updated.
I think the cabinet manual is a great sort of middle way, as it were, but if it's stuck in time in 2011, as it is at the moment, that's that's something I'd love to see changed. I'd like to see every Prime Minister who comes in have an opportunity to, to review and update the workings of of that. And that would give me quite a lot of additional comfort around the question of the system and the weaknesses within the system.
Yeah.
I think the cabinet manual is a great sort of middle way, as it were, but if it's stuck in time in 2011, as it is at the moment, that's that's something I'd love to see changed. I'd like to see every Prime Minister who comes in have an opportunity to, to review and update the workings of of that. And that would give me quite a lot of additional comfort around the question of the system and the weaknesses within the system.
Yeah.
11:20
11:20
11:20
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
-
-
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
I think it takes me back a little to the context. So if this was a this was a democratically elected government that is determined to pursue a radical manifesto commitment. And indeed, you know, does does that by virtue of having a majority in the Commons and and and either immediately or eventually that that that legislation gets through the Lords as well, then it would be very difficult to argue against that, because clearly, a majority of those who who voted, as it were, had voted for that for that government.
Of course, it becomes much harder if if there's a situation where actually more more voters voted for another party. But because of the the the quirks of the constituency system, a different result came out. But ultimately this is a parliamentary democracy. And if you've got a democratically elected parliament pursuing its manifesto commitments, then it's it's difficult to see how that could be judged as as as constitutionally improper.
Of course, it becomes much harder if if there's a situation where actually more more voters voted for another party. But because of the the the quirks of the constituency system, a different result came out. But ultimately this is a parliamentary democracy. And if you've got a democratically elected parliament pursuing its manifesto commitments, then it's it's difficult to see how that could be judged as as as constitutionally improper.
11:21
11:21
Lord Strathclyde
-
-
Lord Strathclyde
And that's really we get to the end of our, our public session and the meeting will continue in a few minutes time with the second evidence session of the day with Lord case. But in the meantime, I now draw this public evidence session to a close and pause the meeting briefly. Welcome to this meeting of the House of Lords Constitution Committee. Today we are holding the third and fourth evidence sessions of the committee's inquiry Sessions of the committee's inquiry into the UK's.
11:29
11:29
Lord Strathclyde
-
-
Lord Strathclyde
We are. joined by Lord case, and that follows on from the discussions we've had with Lord young earlier this morning. But we're now joined via Zoom by Lord case, former cabinet secretary and head of the Civil Service. Lord case, welcome to the committee. You are very welcome to be here, and we are. extremely pleased to see you. We have a number of questions. I think you probably know everybody who's who's who's here.
And we are looking to. investigate the the thoughts and ideas that we have on the Constitution. Let's just start off with a general one. How would you describe the constitutional role of the monarch in the present day. governance of the UK? That is not a question for you. The question I had for you is, what is the role of the Cabinet Secretary in the functioning of the UK Constitution? And would you describe the Cabinet Secretary as a constitutional guardian? That was a deliberate mistake because, of course, Lord young dealt with that question admirably.
And we don't need Lord Casey doing it as well. But just to repeat what I said, it's about the cabinet secretary. And how does the Cabinet Secretary operate in the functioning of the.
And we are looking to. investigate the the thoughts and ideas that we have on the Constitution. Let's just start off with a general one. How would you describe the constitutional role of the monarch in the present day. governance of the UK? That is not a question for you. The question I had for you is, what is the role of the Cabinet Secretary in the functioning of the UK Constitution? And would you describe the Cabinet Secretary as a constitutional guardian? That was a deliberate mistake because, of course, Lord young dealt with that question admirably.
And we don't need Lord Casey doing it as well. But just to repeat what I said, it's about the cabinet secretary. And how does the Cabinet Secretary operate in the functioning of the.
11:31
11:31
11:31
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
as a. constitutional guardian? Well, good morning, chair, and thank you very much for inviting me and arranging this so that I could follow Lord young, who he and I had many happy years working together. I managed to listen to some of his evidence and was reminded fondly of time spent on a Wednesday evening having a glass of something downstairs whilst our bosses were. discussing matters upstairs. I think for me, yes, the role of Cabinet Secretary is one of the.
11:32
11:32
11:32
11:32
11:32
11:32
11:32
11:32
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Sorry, let me not use the word constitutional. Their legal status of their own, separate from their bosses. You know, the serious. entities are their principals. PAL the sovereign and the Prime Minister. And these are the support. cast to those principal figures. So, I mean, you know, in terms of the role of the cabinet.
11:33
11:33
11:33
11:33
11:33
11:33
11:33
11:34
11:34
11:34
11:34
11:34
11:34
11:34
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, I suspect most of the lessons are to do with the internal operation of political parties and less to do with the actual Constitution. Yes. I mean, I was. reflecting on my. period earlier on this morning whilst talking to the dog on a walk. And yeah, I mean, during my time as cabinet secretary, we had rain change. We had four Prime ministers in quick succession. We had a global.
11:35
11:35
11:35
11:35
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Something that I know Lord Jones, I think would have very strong. views on. And so and. You know, a number of other things. So yeah, plenty , plenty going on constitutionally. I think, again, my my answer and sort of how we. navigated them is very similar to the answers that you heard from Lord young and others, which is at the heart of navigating these things is the is a trusting relationship with your key.
colleagues and access to your predecessors. And I was lucky enough to. Study under the likes of Lord Hennessy, so had some sort of academic training in thinking about the. Constitution as well. Probably the most. I'll give give you an. example of something that sort of flashed up. And I mentioned this simply because the. 1956 letter has already been mentioned in the earlier session with with Lord young, the on those couple of extraordinary days when Boris.
Johnson's cabinet ministers were resigning left, right and centre and his government was falling apart, some. Well, I'll leave them.
colleagues and access to your predecessors. And I was lucky enough to. Study under the likes of Lord Hennessy, so had some sort of academic training in thinking about the. Constitution as well. Probably the most. I'll give give you an. example of something that sort of flashed up. And I mentioned this simply because the. 1956 letter has already been mentioned in the earlier session with with Lord young, the on those couple of extraordinary days when Boris.
Johnson's cabinet ministers were resigning left, right and centre and his government was falling apart, some. Well, I'll leave them.
11:36
11:36
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Boris Johnson decided to float the idea of whether it would be time to call a general election as a way of. avoiding him being sort of brought down by his own party. And that was one of those very good examples where you sort of have to get. You have to get the lassalle's principles, and that's the next letter out of your desk and show it to them and say, here are all the reasons why. I don't think that's a very good idea and why the sovereign might be within their rights to refuse to allow you to call a general election.
So don't, don't, don't, don't pursue that line. But you do need you do need to be able to draw on your own experience, but also the interactions with your colleagues to navigate these things in this, in this, this. unwritten . And
So don't, don't, don't, don't pursue that line. But you do need you do need to be able to draw on your own experience, but also the interactions with your colleagues to navigate these things in this, in this, this. unwritten . And
11:37
11:37
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Many leadership roles can often be very lonely at times. And, you know, the judgment can key judgments can fall on your shoulders. So having the comfort of being able to consult your. predecessors and have sort of good. relationships with critical colleagues, like, you know, private secretary to the sovereign is absolutely essential. I mean, I was very lucky that on the. constitutional aspects of being cabinet.
11:39
11:39
11:39
11:39
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:40
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Which forms a guardianship of the Constitution. I would say so. I mean, I'm sort of declare a broader view now. I think I think it's inadequate. I threw my through my career, you know, I started off as a PhD student under Lord Hennessy, observing the glories of our unwritten. Constitution and celebrating them in that in that sort of budget and that Hennessy tradition. As time has gone on, I'm one of those people who've been on a rather long journey on this, becoming more and more convinced that we should be heading towards a more codified and written.
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
When you look at you look back at the history of this country, many of the people who've operated in these Guardian roles were in fact, I mean, they were nearly all chaps and probably chaps was a very good description of them, because many of them had been to school together. They'd been to university together, they'd come from the same social classes, they'd come from the same backgrounds. And, you know, I don't I personally, I don't think that is a.
11:41
11:41
11:41
Lord Strathclyde
-
-
Lord Strathclyde
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:42
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
You agree with that? Absolutely essential. Absolutely essential in exactly the same way that the Lord young. described the upstairs discussion going on between Prime Minister of the Day and Sovereign, and that high degree of. confidentiality and trust. Exactly the same has to be going on downstairs, in my view. And so no matter who the people are, no matter what their backgrounds, no matter their roles, they must have a.
11:43
11:43
11:43
11:43
11:43
11:43
11:43
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:44
11:44
11:44
11:44
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
That makes it you know, that that creates an inherent problem in the power dynamic. The Prime Minister is the boss. The cabinet secretary is an advisor to the Prime Minister. And if the Prime Minister ultimately doesn't like the advice and chooses to ignore it, the you know, the Prime Minister in extremis could dismiss a cabinet secretary said, bring me someone else who'll give me different.
11:45
11:45
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Or the cabinet secretary again, you know, in extremis says, well, I'm sorry, I you know, you're not listening. I think this is a this isn't a point of, you know, policy where it's judgment. You know, you can say, I think I think this is a critical point of almost. constitutional safety. And therefore . I I'm
11:45
11:45
Lord Strathclyde
-
-
Lord Strathclyde
imagine that you very much. And it would be a very powerful thing as well. I think it was Lord O'Donnell who said if something was illegal, that would be very helpful because you could say, oh, Prime Minister, don't do that. That is illegal. But where something was not illegal but. constitutionally extremely . Difficult. Then there was a final. position where the cabinet secretary could resign, and .
That in
That in
11:46
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
itself would lead to some form of constitutional crisis. I think that's I think that's right. Personally, though, I in in the modern cut and thrust of British politics, I'm not entirely sure that the resignation of a cabinet secretary would have that impact, perhaps in years gone by, that might be true, but cabinet secretaries these days are becoming a little bit like prime ministers and London buses, and that they come and go. And so I am the.
personalities and the .
personalities and the .
11:46
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
-
-
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
Context would determine it. Of course, in the end, that's always going to be the same. But there is a difference. between being sacked and saying, I'm going because I think you're doing the wrong thing, and then by making sure that the world knows about it, that's why you've got nothing private about it. I'm going because you are making a major.
11:47
11:47
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Mistake here. Wouldn't you think that would have an impact? I think it would entirely depend on personalities and context, but it is for one of. It is one of those. reasons why I have become more and more convinced that we need to head much further down the road of codifying these things, because leaving it to the chance of a cabinet secretary having to resign and making the right sort of fuss as he or she walks out of the door , feels to me like a rather.
unreliable way of bringing to the nation or to Parliament's attention that something . Very
unreliable way of bringing to the nation or to Parliament's attention that something . Very
11:47
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:49
11:49
11:49
11:49
11:49
11:49
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:50
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
circumstances. And I mean, although many, many things around the world lead us to have more concern about the fate of our nation, we're not in that extreme cases yet. So I think. pragmatic approach would be required. You suggest your sort of middle way of more codification. I mean, I, I look, for example, at something like the cabinet manual, which I mean, obviously is just .
Woefully out of
Woefully out of
11:51
11:51
11:51
11:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I think now for 3 or 4 prime ministers ago, and all of them have said, oh, yes, yes, we'll publish an updated draft. But it hasn't been it hasn't been done. It's absolutely sort of crazy. But but nevertheless, you . Know, It's it was a step forward to have a cabinet manual, but it but it still has absolutely no authority or effect. It just sits there as a public document, which maybe can be called upon in, you know, in parliamentary discussion and more broader discussion.
But it has no effect. And I'm not sure that that is. particularly I'm not sure that's particularly wise. There would be aspects of the cabinet manual that might, for example, be worth bringing forward into, into legislation. One very important thing. Example, which I know Lord young mentioned to give you a specific. Is the requirement to have a Deputy Prime Minister. So after the.
The. The the episode that Lord young mentioned with with with Boris Johnson, you know, potentially facing having to go on to a ventilator and that sort of thing. We, we looked after that at what we could do to. strengthen that sort of public, I suppose, order of precedence within within government. And I said to House of Commons Select Committee that we had put in place arrangements to make sure we always had a Deputy Prime Minister thereafter for exactly that incident, that sort of scenario, and others.
And actually, I think the Covid. inquiry took evidence on this and sort of agreed with that approach. But I note, I noticed the current prime minister hasn't appointed a deputy prime minister despite that, you know, we had sound. reason for now, saying it is very advisable to have a deputy Prime. Minister for these sorts of scenarios. It was still totally open to a new prime minister to say, well, actually, no thanks, I'm not going to do that.
And I'm, you . Know, For the for the safety and. certainty of managing the nation. I'm just not . Sure we
But it has no effect. And I'm not sure that that is. particularly I'm not sure that's particularly wise. There would be aspects of the cabinet manual that might, for example, be worth bringing forward into, into legislation. One very important thing. Example, which I know Lord young mentioned to give you a specific. Is the requirement to have a Deputy Prime Minister. So after the.
The. The the episode that Lord young mentioned with with with Boris Johnson, you know, potentially facing having to go on to a ventilator and that sort of thing. We, we looked after that at what we could do to. strengthen that sort of public, I suppose, order of precedence within within government. And I said to House of Commons Select Committee that we had put in place arrangements to make sure we always had a Deputy Prime Minister thereafter for exactly that incident, that sort of scenario, and others.
And actually, I think the Covid. inquiry took evidence on this and sort of agreed with that approach. But I note, I noticed the current prime minister hasn't appointed a deputy prime minister despite that, you know, we had sound. reason for now, saying it is very advisable to have a deputy Prime. Minister for these sorts of scenarios. It was still totally open to a new prime minister to say, well, actually, no thanks, I'm not going to do that.
And I'm, you . Know, For the for the safety and. certainty of managing the nation. I'm just not . Sure we
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
. Making on. Constitutional issues? I think I think I think this is a . I think this is probably the least. understood sort of corner of the Golden Triangle, actually, but. probably in terms of the interaction in my. experience between, as Lord young put it, the two ends of Saint James's Park, actually the principal private secretary to the Prime Minister. So it is the much more frequent conduit of the exchange of.
11:54
11:54
11:54
11:54
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I would be talking to Lord young in his role and his. predecessors several times a week about what was going on, all on that principle of trying to manage, of trying to deliver the no surprises approach to the Constitution. It would be, of course, that's that's not to suggest we had multiple times a week to be talking about some grand.
11:55
11:55
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Not that at all. It is just part of the important flow of. information between both ends of the park about what's going on, what's on the Prime Minister's mind, what's happening in the conduct of a military. campaign somewhere in in the armed forces, operating in the sovereign's name and all that sort of thing. What's going on in Parliament? And a lot of those a lot of those interactions are going through private secretary to private.
11:55
11:55
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
cabinet secretary. I think. interactions are much less, and usually only when you really are starting to cross across the threshold of a, of a, of a serious sort of. constitutional issue coming in. Then the cabinet secretary comes into the conversation. But the PPS to the Prime Minister is critical for that . For for the operation of the. No . Surprise
11:56
11:56
11:56
Lord Cryer
-
-
Lord Cryer
Surprises approach to the Constitution. I just on the on the no surprises element, you talked about how you thought that the system had been established to make sure that Prime Ministers would appoint a deputy Prime Minister, and that hasn't happened. It's . My understanding was that historically the. This wasn't set in stone, but there was an understanding that the leader of the House of Commons was sort of the number two.
So I'm talking 40, 50 years ago. So it's up to the Prime Minister. The leader of the House of Commons will take over. Since we haven't had the Deputy Prime Minister, we've now got the title changes, but we've got a First Secretary, Louise Hague. So you assume that if anything happened to the Prime Minister, then the First Secretary would take. But it's still in doubt. So I suppose we're still in the position that you described as everybody would have to get together and come up if anything happened,
So I'm talking 40, 50 years ago. So it's up to the Prime Minister. The leader of the House of Commons will take over. Since we haven't had the Deputy Prime Minister, we've now got the title changes, but we've got a First Secretary, Louise Hague. So you assume that if anything happened to the Prime Minister, then the First Secretary would take. But it's still in doubt. So I suppose we're still in the position that you described as everybody would have to get together and come up if anything happened,
11:57
11:57
11:57
11:57
11:57
11:57
11:57
11:57
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:58
11:58
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
11:59
11:59
11:59
11:59
11:59
11:59
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And, you know, just. recognise that you you have to consider yourself ultimately. secondary to any government that is elected. I mean, I mean, as you sort of explored with with Lord young, there are a whole. range of. scenarios which which would, would, would test and, and perhaps the most extreme ones are where the sovereign's prerogative powers would, would be called into question, but also it might be called into effect.
But for the sovereign to do that, on the. advice of before doing that, an. unelected figure, whether sovereign or not, would would need to be very sure of the ground that they stood on, that the breadth of advice that you would need to take to make sure that if you were starting to. operate and, you know. influence matters of democracy, that you were very sure of the ground that you were standing on and that you would have the.
support of, you . Know, of,
But for the sovereign to do that, on the. advice of before doing that, an. unelected figure, whether sovereign or not, would would need to be very sure of the ground that they stood on, that the breadth of advice that you would need to take to make sure that if you were starting to. operate and, you know. influence matters of democracy, that you were very sure of the ground that you were standing on and that you would have the.
support of, you . Know, of,
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:01
Lord Burnett of Maldon
-
-
Lord Burnett of Maldon
Had a question, I think, on the the Golden Triangle. Well, I think one of the one one of the issues we're interested in is your view about the. importance of the Golden Triangle as safeguarding the Constitution. And many of your answers thus far have have begun to. illuminate that, but they've largely been in the context of what seems to me to be the Golden.
12:01
12:01
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:02
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
It it operated in practice by walks round Saint James's Park. So. And I'm, I think there would be more than one occasion I can remember having a walk round Saint James's Park with with Lord young. So walks round the park continue to be an important part of the operation. I think of the. Of the Golden Triangle more seriously. So let me give you an.
12:02
12:02
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
A concrete. example which I've already referred to. So there's a couple of days when, at the end of Boris Johnson's time where people were thinking of, you know, could we call a general election to save his premiership? I mean, as soon as that as soon as that came to me as a question, even though I had pretty quickly dealt with it, of course, I immediately be on the on the phone discussing that with other members of the Golden Triangle to say, look, you know, there's something that might be happening here that you know, that we need to know about.
We need to be, we need to sort of step up our golden triangle Defcon level. We need to be. communicating with each other a lot, you know, time to stand on alert because there are sort of significant. constitutional things being discussed. So, you know, in the end, the primary goal is the primary task between that group of people is the exchange of.
We need to be, we need to sort of step up our golden triangle Defcon level. We need to be. communicating with each other a lot, you know, time to stand on alert because there are sort of significant. constitutional things being discussed. So, you know, in the end, the primary goal is the primary task between that group of people is the exchange of.
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:04
12:04
12:04
12:04
12:04
12:04
12:04
12:04
Lord Strathclyde
-
-
Lord Strathclyde
principles of themselves in and of themselves. I mean, I thought you described very well the idea of a tier one and a tier two earlier on in your evidence. But you also said a moment ago, in answer to Lord Cryer, that you thought the that the the monarch, as a. constitutional safeguard was was on the weaker side of that. Would you choose to strengthen it? And if so, how? Or do you think it's it's right that it is a.
relatively weak . Safeguard. And the real constitutional. backstops and in. Whitehall or.
relatively weak . Safeguard. And the real constitutional. backstops and in. Whitehall or.
12:05
12:05
12:05
12:05
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:06
12:06
12:06
12:06
12:06
12:06
12:06
12:06
12:07
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
-
-
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
Existence and role of the, of, of the monarchy. But I, I ask a question a little bit about what I see as a contradiction in what you've said is that, on the one hand, you argue for a written. constitution where I would suspect the role of the monarch would be much more. defined in writing, whereas the strength of the present. situation is that it isn't . Defined
12:07
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We haven't had the I mean, this is this is this is a wonderful essay question, which is hammered out in many seminar rooms all around the country. And I mean, I, as I say, I, I sort of learnt all my sort of. constitutional thinking originally under Peter Hennessy and I said we, on a week by week basis celebrated the glories of our unwritten. constitution and the how the. flexibility and .
That.
That.
12:08
12:08
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The more I've seen it up close, the more I think. particularly as it fits with points that I know come up in the sort of in the committee's previous sessions, which is around. transparency of how our. Constitution operates and that, you know, the fundamental. question of who in this country wields power and in whose interests are they wielding that power, you know, who put them in place and how do you get rid of them? If you, you know, if if they're not acting in the interests of, of the.
12:08
12:08
12:08
12:08
12:08
12:08
Lord Jones of Penybont
-
-
Lord Jones of Penybont
answer for this country. Lord Jones thank you, Lord chair. Well, given that you name checked me, I feel I should say something. As somebody who did operate within a written constitution because devolved Wales, like devolved Scotland, has a written constitution. There are four founding documents which are acts of the UK Parliament, and it's works pretty well. It did improve over the years, but something I was quite used to. But like you, I'm pragmatic enough to know that a written constitution isn't round the corner and it's not necessarily of itself a safeguard, as we see in other parts of the world, which I won't name.
But what I was going to ask you is short of short of a written constitution. Is there. anything you think that could be done to . Strengthen our.
But what I was going to ask you is short of short of a written constitution. Is there. anything you think that could be done to . Strengthen our.
12:09
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Constitutional safeguards? Yeah, I think. probably I mean, for the committee, obviously , to to reach its own conclusions. I think that the sort of the thread that Lord Burnett was, was pulling on earlier, which is just. identifying some of those critical things that we might look to move from the precedent book or the cabinet manual or something, and bring into, into. legislation feels to me like a good idea.
You know, a few things. Well, I mean, one one actually. Well, if you take the grand sweep of history, there's an enormously significant thing happening. constitutionally at the moment in Parliament, which is changing the law so that a Roman Catholic or Jewish prime minister could . Appoint
You know, a few things. Well, I mean, one one actually. Well, if you take the grand sweep of history, there's an enormously significant thing happening. constitutionally at the moment in Parliament, which is changing the law so that a Roman Catholic or Jewish prime minister could . Appoint
12:10
12:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
can be involved in the appointment of bishops in the Church of England. You know, sort of what on earth is this all about? But actually, if you look at our nation's history, that's a really very. significant historical and constitutional and societal move. But perhaps rather more seriously on these questions, like an order of precedence, who do . You
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:11
12:11
12:11
12:11
12:11
12:11
12:11
12:11
12:11
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Feels to me, I mean, is it truly a trend, a growing trend? I don't know, but it feels like it to me. And therefore, things that used to be pencil lines around our. Constitution or in and around our Constitution perhaps should be turned into inked lines. I, I think even in my world where you might end up with a written.
12:13
12:13
12:13
12:13
12:13
12:13
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:14
12:14
12:14
12:14
12:14
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Everything else that needs to happen? I think it would. I think it would be. extremely difficult to achieve as part of the the. normal run of, of sort of politics and how we run the country society would have, as I mentioned earlier, I think the. circumstances in which you shift to are written a written. constitution are coming out of, you know, very large scale national or international crisis.
You know, it's it's liberation. It's those moments where actually. restating or creating a new platform for all of your national. institutions that really matters. So it's, I'm, I'm highly, I'm highly. pragmatic about how you would get there. I think as we, you know, as we see with the endless constitutional tinkering that goes on at the.
You know, it's it's liberation. It's those moments where actually. restating or creating a new platform for all of your national. institutions that really matters. So it's, I'm, I'm highly, I'm highly. pragmatic about how you would get there. I think as we, you know, as we see with the endless constitutional tinkering that goes on at the.
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:16
Lord Strathclyde
-
-
Lord Strathclyde
wildly disagree with large chunks of it? Well, I know, I mean, Lord, you talked about what Lord Burnett's face might might have looked like after his question and, and your views. And, and of course, we're all unelected here as well. But we do feel that we do we have a role in trying to shed light on this. And of course, one of the things we're trying to do is to look ahead over the next ten, 15 years.
What are the.
What are the.
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:17