APPENDIX 3: CALL FOR EVIDENCE
The Constitution Committee was appointed "to
examine the constitutional implications of all public bills coming
before the House; and to keep under review the operation of the
constitution".
The Committee has decided to conduct an inquiry into
the constitutional reform process.
In 2002 the Constitution Committee produced a report
on Changing the Constitution: The Process of Constitutional
Change. The report was compiled in the light of significant
recent constitutional reforms such as the establishment of the
devolved institutions and the passage of the Human Rights Act
1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
In the years since that report was published, constitutional
reform has continued apace. Under the last Government the role
of the Lord Chancellor was reformed, the Supreme Court was established
and the Civil Service was placed on a statutory footing for the
first time. This Government has brought forward legislation to
introduce fixed-term Parliaments, to reduce the number of MPs
and redraw parliamentary constituency boundaries, and to hold
a referendum on the electoral system, whilst proposals to reform
the House of Lords are expected soon. Meanwhile the devolution
settlement has continued to evolve, through the Scotland Bill
currently before Parliament, the 3 March referendum on further
Welsh devolution, and the devolution of policing and justice powers
in Northern Ireland.
Throughout this period (and under successive governments)
the process by which constitutional reform takes place has often
proved controversial. This Committee has consistently expressed
concern about rushed proposals, lack of consultation and pre-legislative
scrutiny and a failure to appreciate the knock-on constitutional
consequences of any given reform. In the light of this, the Committee
has decided that it is time to revisit the issue and consider
the process of constitutional reform and how it can be improved.
The Committee invites interested organisations and
individuals to submit written evidence as part of its inquiry,
reflecting the guidance given below. Written evidence should reach
the Committee as soon as possible and no later than 31 March
2011.
Scope of the Committee's inquiry
Witnesses are invited to bear in mind that this inquiry
is not intended to focus on the merits or otherwise of any specific
constitutional reform proposals, but instead seeks to focus on
the process by which they have been introduced. In particular,
the Committee invites evidence on the following themes:
Overview
Should constitutional laws be considered to have
a special character such that constitutional law-making is given
special treatment? Should the Government apply particular procedures
to constitutional policy-making? If so, what should these be?
How would you characterise the constitutional reform
process in the UK? What are its strengths and weaknesses? Has
the process changed in recent years?
How would you assess the varying processes by which
successive governments have conceived and developed proposals
for constitutional reform? What case studies would you cite as
examples of good and bad practice?
How can the constitutional reform process be improved?
What "good practice" principles could the Committee
recommend in terms of the development of constitutional reform
policy?
How is constitutional reform undertaken in other
countries? What can be learned from practice elsewhere in terms
of good and bad practice?
The development of constitutional reform proposals
Should the onus for proposing constitutional reform
rest (solely) with the Government? What role should Parliament
and/or outside bodies and individuals have in initiating proposals
for change?
In what circumstances should constitutional proposals
be set out in green or white papers?
In what circumstances should constitutional proposals
be subject to public consultation, such as via Citizens' Assemblies?
What principles should apply and what form should such consultation
take?
Should the Government consult other parties when
developing constitutional reform proposals? What importance should
be attached to achieving cross-party consensus?
The role of Parliament
What role should Parliament play in the scrutiny
of constitutional reform proposals?
Can constitutional legislation be defined? Should
its consideration differ from that pertaining to other legislation?
Should constitutional reform proposals be subject
to parliamentary pre-legislative scrutiny?
Post-legislative scrutiny
Is the post-legislative scrutiny model set out by
the then Government in March 2008 a sufficiently robust process
for both the Government and Parliament to scrutinise constitutional
reform legislation effectively?
Those responding to this call for evidence are not
necessarily expected to address all these points but instead to
focus on those issues on which they have special expertise or
about which they are particularly concerned. Respondents should
not feel constrained by the above list from drawing attention
to any other points about the process of constitutional reform
thought to be of significance to the United Kingdom constitution.
| 
