Back to Business

It's been several weeks, but with the election of a new Parliament, Committee Watch is back in business! We can't wait to see whether the reforms agreed in the last Parliament will be put into effect in this and what impact they will have.

Meanwhile looking back, the (former) Justice Committee's hearing on 24 February on the constitutional implications of a hung Parliament looks positively prophetic given the way the election campaign developed. With our lack of a written constitution, there was plenty of scope for the Committee and its witnesses - Lord Butler, who was a relatively junior official in No 10 in February 1974, Lord Turnbull, Professor Robert Hazell, Peter Riddell and Sir Gus O'Donnell - to play with speculation about the roles of the Prime Minister, the Queen, the Cabinet Secretary, the party leaders and others in the case of a hung Parliament. As an opportunity for well-informed luminaries to conduct an elaborate dance on a constitutional pinhead it was unrivalled.

But the nature of the discussion was essentially unsatisfying. It was unsatisfying because it was all about process, rather than content. As the polls close today, we all want political content - something most Committee members and witnesses seemed to feel inappropriate (with the notable exception of Douglas Hogg).

The most interesting questions were probably about what would happen if people did not play by the rules, written or unwritten. What if an outgoing Prime Minister who could not form a government simply continued to act as if he could, or else washed his hands of the whole situation and declined to advise the Queen on an alternative? What if an outgoing government during a period of uncertainty while a new government was formed took major policy decisions without consultation? What if a smaller party or parties forced a leadership election in a larger party as a condition of co-operation? In our system we tend to assume people will play by the rules and, on the whole, they do. That's both an advantage and a disadvantage. (After all, the real problem with the Parliamentary expenses scandal was not the very few MPs who broke the rules but the rules themselves).

If it's assumed people will play by the rules then business can carry on even in uncertain circumstances. On the other hand, it gives the opportunity to rule-breakers to seize the initiative. Who will be doing that tomorrow?