Holding the Line Against Tyranny and Anarchy (Constitution Committee Report)

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very glad to be able to make a brief contribution to this debate. I was not a member of the committee—in fact, I have always wanted to be a member of the committee, so I hope my remarks will not rule me out from consideration in future—but I applaud the report and the speech of the noble Lord introducing it. Incidentally, I pay my own tribute to Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who was widely admired in the household in which I grew up.

We are rightly proud of our legal heritage. As a matter of fact, earlier this afternoon we had a debate about the UK’s role in the space economy, and one of the aspects—–Members may not realise—is that, looking ahead, we very much hope that the UK can be a centre for international arbitration and the regulation of space, which is going to become more and more important.

I will direct my few remarks to that part of the report that deals with Parliament and its role in making the law. I was brought up to believe in the supremacy of the House of Commons and parliamentary sovereignty, but I am bound to say that my first visit to the Royal Courts of Justice gave me a very different view of the law. Given the eminence of the legal Members of the House here, I hope they will not mind if I say that my memory is of going to the Royal Courts of Justice with my dad, who had been elected for the fourth time as the Member for Bristol South East and was refused entry to the House of Commons—the only Member in the 20th century to be refused entry, having been elected. In the course of the judgment before an Election Court, which consists of two judges, it was held that the ruling of Mr Justice Dodderidge in 1626 took precedence over the electors of Bristol South East in electing their Member of Parliament. Noble Lords will appreciate that that shaped my view of the law to some extent.

The story of country and Parliament, and power in this country, over the last few hundred years has been one of progress and change from the power of the monarch to the power of Parliament, and now the power of a Prime Minister who exercises so many of the powers that a monarch used to hold and does so in his name. I would argue that the balance of power between the Executive and the legislature has changed, and to the disadvantage of the legislature. This is illustrated by that part of the report which deals with the issue of delegated legislation. It is true that you cannot do everything in primary legislation, but that is not to say that secondary legislation receives the scrutiny that it should. Our inability, in effect, to reject secondary legislation, much less to amend it, is eroding, and could erode in the longer term, some element of respect for the rule of law because Parliament itself is unable sufficiently to exercise control over it.

A few years ago, we had a debate in this House promoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, about the use of skeleton Bills. It was a very interesting debate and I recommend it to anyone. It is true that, over time—I do not blame any one Government for it at all; I am happy to blame them all—the temptation has been to introduce legislation that enables Ministers in particular to have greater powers exercised through secondary legislation. Mention was made of the fact that change can sometimes be slow, but there is a pressure cooker building up here and I cannot predict when it may burst. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could address this.

The report lists 11 questions that the Constitution Committee applies when looking at Bills before giving its view, and they are all very good questions. I end by asking my noble friend the Minister whether she could give what I would call an honest assessment of the extent to which these questions are in fact considered by the Government in producing Bills. This House would like to feel that the Government are taking seriously the need for Parliament to be as effective as possible in its scrutiny and to have them exercised accordingly.