asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether they will establish a royal commission on the constitution.

My Lords, the Government are not at present proposing to establish a royal commission on the constitution.

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that reply, which is disappointing but not surprising. Did he see what the Prime Minister-designate was reported as saying in The House Magazine of 21 May 2007? He stated:

“Over the coming months, I want to build a shared national consensus for a programme of constitutional reform that strengthens the accountability of all those who hold power”.

Does he not agree that a royal commission, the establishment of which would ideally be supported by all political parties and go into their general election manifestos, would be precisely the best way of achieving that national consensus? Its terms of reference could cover not just the composition and powers of this House, on which there is a settled view among the great majority of our Members, but the role of the other place, its relationship with the devolved Assemblies and Parliament and, indeed, the funding of political parties.

My Lords, I did not see that article, but I entirely agree with its comments on seeking national consensus, as you would expect. Royal commissions have done an excellent job. I am very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, in his place. As Members of this House will know, his royal commission on House of Lords reform produced an excellent document, but it did not ultimately achieve the basis for consensus which everybody hoped it would. To believe that a royal commission would cover all the things that my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester mentioned and would hope to produce a consensus and a way forward seems optimistic.

My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord believe that it would have been right if, 10 years ago, the Government had set up a royal commission before they started to dismantle the independence of the judiciary, got rid of his own post of Lord Chancellor, broke down the United Kingdom, changed the electoral system and created a muddled and rejected form of regional government in England? Would it not have been better to have had such a royal commission 10 years ago and, perhaps, it would be better late than never?

Absolutely not, my Lords. We came with a number of very clear ideas on constitutional reform, the Human Rights Act, freedom of information and devolution, and we put them into effect. I am very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who came to his view in favour of an almost wholly elected House of Lords without the benefit of a royal commission.

My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that it is pure coincidence that his Department for Constitutional Affairs was abolished in the very week that the Prime Minister-designate proposed a written constitution?

Yes, my Lords, pure coincidence.

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that a royal commission would embody the principle which many people are anxious to see returned to our public life—that voting is important but that without proper and structural accountability it is dangerously incomplete? Does he not agree that a royal commission would be preferable to what we will otherwise get, which is constitutional change on a wing and a prayer? These Benches are happy to supply the prayer, but we want to be assured of the quality of the wing.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate for the prayer. I wonder whether royal commissions are the appropriate way to deal with constitutional change now and whether there are ways of communicating with the public in a much larger way. I wonder whether bringing together the great and the good and saying this is the way that constitutional reform should take place is the appropriate way to deal with it. I suspect that the day of the royal commission determining what constitutional reform should take place may be in the past. For example, there have been three royal commissions on the press—in 1947, 1960 and 1974. As we all agree, the press is now in a perfect state of grace, but it may well be that three royal commissions did not do that trick.

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend recall the words of the late Lord Wilson of Huyton, who said that royal commissions take minutes and last years? For that reason I commend the proposition to him.

My Lords, I am aware of the words of Lord Wilson. Some royal commissions have achieved a huge amount. Who can forget the seminal royal commission in 1919 on royal commissions themselves? But by and large, as I say, there may be other ways to do constitutional reform.

My Lords, if a consensual constitution is indeed the aspiration of the Lord Chancellor and his colleague the Prime Minister-designate, will he look with favour at the historical example of the Scottish convention, which produced consensus and is lasting? In considering how to advance his goals, will he bear in mind that, because we do not have a written constitution, there has been a propensity to reform in bits and pieces? Somehow these things need to be pulled together, because they interact. Will he also bear in mind that, without entrenchment, the possibility of a standing convention might be given favour, particularly if it involves the public as he suggests it might?

My Lords, I am aware of the achievements of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. There is much that we can learn from it. In some ways, that convention is an indication of the fact that you need to reach wider than a royal commission perhaps can. I also accept that it is important in any constitutional reform to identify its effect on the rest of the constitution. However, I do not agree that that leads to the conclusion that you can reform the constitution only when you can identify all the reforms needed. Noble Lords will recall—many of them were here at the time—that the 1969 convention on the constitution produced by Lord Kilbrandon was useful but ultimately did not provide a blueprint for a way forward. We have as a nation successfully transformed and amended our constitution on a bit-by-bit basis, and we have done it because there is not a written constitution. While I am sure that it is worth while to set out our values in writing, it would be a bad idea to have a written constitution, because it would be too rigid and would have a profound effect on parliamentary sovereignty.

My Lords, notwithstanding the excellent advances made by this Government on the constitution, as described by my noble and learned friend, would he not agree that a few loose ends need tying up, as my noble friend Lord Faulkner indicated? Can I advise my noble and learned friend not only against royal commissions, for the reasons that he has given, but against anything like the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which has produced the kind of dog’s breakfast that ends up with me getting elected to the Scottish Parliament, rather to my surprise? I instead suggest a parliamentary commission consisting of Members of the Commons and the Lords and the three devolved parliaments to look at the constitution in an integrated and comprehensive way. After all, we are experienced in this. Those are the people who could look at the matter effectively.

My Lords, first, I regard the presence of my noble friend here and in the Scottish Parliament as the final and complete endorsement of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Secondly, a range of bodies need to be considered, and a parliamentary committee is one of them.