We all like to think that the two Houses of Parliament have developed more effective mechanisms for holding the Government to account. The Select Committees in the Commons – introduced by Norman St Stevas 30 years ago – have certainly improved scrutiny of the executive. I was interested to see him in his place in our House, just before I opened a debate on the crisis of confidence in politics and Parliament on Thursday. It is also true that our committees in the Lords perform a more useful role than the chamber can when it comes to detailed scrutiny, whether of legislation or government action. This is especially true of our European committee structure, which is far more thorough than in the Commons.
However, there are severe limitations. The Chilcot Inquiry is confirming some of our worst suspicions about the events leading up to Parliament’s decision to send troops to war in Iraq.
At the time, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I argued strongly against joining the US in the invasion, not least because its legal basis was dubious at best. Indeed, we now know beyond doubt that the Attorney General was leant on – despatched to the United States to have his mind changed – in order that the Government’s official legal advice would match its political preferences.
What’s very striking is how weak Parliament proved at this most vital of moments. It had no access to the legal advice, or indeed to definitive alternative advice, and relied on government intelligence briefings. The Conservative leadership urged faster military action, and disdained efforts to seek international support. Despite a substantial rebellion from Labour MPs, the Government’s motion authorising conflict was carried by Tory votes.
We have since had parliamentary inquiries by the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee and the Defence Select Committee Yet neither could get proper answers. Parliament couldn’t compel Ministers to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And it appears they were therefore content to mislead us. By contrast, the Butler and Hutton Inquiries were given access to vital, illuminating official papers, just the Chilcot Inquiry has been. Why is it that Parliament – in theory accountable to the people for its scrutiny of the executive – should be kept in the dark, leaving ‘independent’ inquiries to shed real light on government policy?
The House of Lords debated a whole range of constitutional issues yesterday, including the role of the Attorney General and, crucially, protection for civil service ‘whistleblowers. The Conservative frontbench was a lone voice in favour of maintaining the status quo – their over-optimistic presumptions about the election result has drained away any interest they have in strengthening Parliament against the Executive. To his credit, Lord Norton of Louth spoke up in favour of further internal reforms so we can hold the government of the day to account; we can rely on him to maintain his consistent views whichever side of the House he is sitting on!
Regular readers may want to read over the Hansard report of the debate, since so many contributions from all sides of the House were clearly informed by public concern over the last few months. We’d be interested in your views!
“What’s very striking is how weak Parliament proved at this most vital of moments.”
It is worth making the point that the same applies to the U.S. Congress, often held up as an example of one of the few legislatures able to hold the executive to account. The point is well drawn out by John Owens in his article “Congressional Acquiesence to Presidentialism in the US ‘War on Terror'”, The Journal of Legislative Studies, Vol. 15 (1/2), June/Sept. 2009. The volume is a special issue of the journal on ‘The Impact of the Post-9/11 ‘War on Terror’ on Executive Legislative Relations: A Global Perspective’. The British case is covered by Mark Shephard.
“when it comes to detailed scrutiny, whether of legislation or government action. This is especially true of our European committee structure, which is far more thorough than in the Commons.”
Blatantly obvious that this is so, by one day in parliament, but have the Lords not now found a useful purpose in doing this work? It may be one of the few they do have.
My opinions are the same about the value of the Hutton inquiry to whom I sent a short,received note.
I do not agree that the commons FA Selcom was NOT useful in the circumstances. I found Noble Lord Anderson’s lead as an international lawyer to be valuable and constructive in the best possible way.
I do forget Noble lord Tyler’s Lib Dem credentials, which have been excellent and
invaluable over the last ten years or so.
Not for nothing do the LDs have 60 seats in parliament. Noble Lord Chidgey is another example of crystal clear thinking, about many
otherwise corrupt ways of thinking in today’s parliament, about all manner of subjects.
Don’t tell me I am a liberal though; I’m not!!!
Off topic somewhat My interest in Central Asia is the development of an over arching
political organisation to replace the vacuum of Soviet Union power in that region.
This can only be the ECO (ecosecretariat.org)from the Turkish Aegean to the Uighur chinese border. Only when that is sponsored by Russia ,AND US, AND UN, AND EU, will there be peace in Afghanistan and/or its surrounding countries.
Until then the scenario of conflict, in Europe itself, following military teeth cutting in Afghanistan/Pastan region, will be followed.
We have an example of the failure of the Lords at the moment.
It’s with the FOI act.
You can’t be prosecuted for criminal offences under the act if the prosecution is more than 6 months from the time of the offence.
So as a department, all you have to do is commit the offence and delay for 6 months and you are off Scott free.
Like the Climate research group at UEA.
That reminds me to. I’m not going to wait for the BBC to review one of my reviews into their lying that they had no information about the request. After receiving their response, they posted some information on their website that was dated before the request.
The answer may be that the Attorney General was dispatched because the main market for the quotation of BP shares whose installations at Basra were at stake, had then moved to NY.
When you consider that 30% of the shareholder capital of BP is owned by the British govt, it is scarcely surprising that the party in power felt obliged to do what it did.
The fact that the PSAs (Production Sharing agreements) were renewed overnight is another matter all together. If only Iraq earned oil TRANSIT fees, as do Central Asian nations, there would be far less problem, but there ain’t (as they say in cockney)there ain’t any transit, well a few hundred metres at the most.
So where was the question of the Attorney General?
To be honest it was pathetic. It has all the hall marks of a sham.
ie. What were your arguments for and against the law.
What did you rely on to say no in the first place?
What did you rely on to say yes?
What were the arguments that were new, or changed your mind?
Which laws were you relying on?
…
Instead, it’s I’ve changed my mind, and not questions were drilled as to why.
The conclusion is that Chiltcot is weak and pathetic.
An excellent question, Lord Tyler, concerning the incapacity of parliamentary committees to properly command evidence. Indeed, it’s astonishing they manage to achieve the calibre of work they do, which, as I understand it, is generally of a high standard.
Re Iraq – Lord Goldsmith’s account of the ‘revivalist’ (was it?) argument, harking way back to the first Gulf War UN resolutions as a legal justification, showed I suppose that there was once ‘a’ case – albeit a manifestly poor one – but can hardly be sustained in view of the clear attempt and dismal failure to secure a clear mandate from the Security Council for military action in the immediate run-up to the invasion.
The failure of the Anglo-American attempt to secure a final resolution was deafening, irrespective of whatever resolutions the Council had or hadn’t passed up to that point, and the council’s very silence spoke volumes of the very clear international feeling that invasion was not, at that point, justified.
Back to your original point. Lord Norton has this idea for small evidence-hearing committees in the Lords for public bills, along the lines of the Commons’ committee stage, which I for one am enthusiastic about Any views on that from the Lib Dems?
http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2010/01/over-on-iain-dales-site-he-is-advancing-the-case-for-a-peerage-for-gyles-brandreth–and-what-a-good-idea-that-is–gyles-ha.html
Don’t say you are in the dark – you have been warned…
Vanity being Brandreth’s strongest point.
I saw some of the debate on BBCparl and saw a high turn out of the Lords of the Blog.
I wasn’t impressed by Lord Luke’s reply but he did raise a point I’d been thinking of while you were first speaking – the Salisbury convention. Slightly exasperatingly you replied by referring him to a report which, having now managed to find it, seems to take many paragraphs to not give a clear answer. If the LD position position is that it won’t vote down a bill at 2nd/3rd reading then fine but that doesn’t seem to rule out a wrecking amendment(s) which achieve precisely the same thing?
Could you clarify that answer, also are we now clear what is the Lab position on the convention. What seems certain is that the more likely the Tories think Lab/LDs will use their considerable numerical advantage the more likely we will see the Lords flooded with a massive series of creations post election which can’t be desirable.
“incapacity of parliamentary committees to properly command evidence” Or not to split their infinitives capably, when they do give it.
Madeleine Albright’s rule by indefinite UN resolution was the best idea. It could still have been in place, although by now somebody more worthy than the Geo Bush family would have bumped off Saddam.
Your Article “Parliament in the dark” reads as though you are frustrated. If I am right and you are indeed frustrated by being kept in the dark, how do you think the ordinary “Tax Payer” is feeling? They continue to pay their taxes in the hope those we ‘elect’ make all our laws, yet how do you think they feel when they realise that since 1972, our elected MP’s have to obey the same EU Laws that we so far, have obeyed?
The House of Lords continues to find more people to sit on those red benches. WHY? Perhaps the next Government will get rid of all the ‘Life Peers’ and set back on those Hereditary Peers that should rightfully sit in the Lords. No Parliament may bind and all that?
Or, perhaps the people will eventually realise that our money should go directly to the EU-cut out National Governments altogether-for surely that is what you have all been working towards- and we should make sure the new EU Regions are in full working order? If they are not working properly it is perhaps time they were? We-the people cannot afford ALL these layers of Government at this particular time, especially as our own are not too pushy in returning the expenses so many have “taken advantage” of-all-be-it, it was all within the rules.
Let us see, how many layers did we have when this Country won the last war?
Clive, Lord Soley’s remarks to Zeina Bedawi about the aftermath of the invasion being totally un-organized is one that has not been examined in nearly sufficient detail.
As a “date” in history, Blair’s decision, as a self professed “leader” of the British people, to go to war on the basis of false information about WMD, will certainly be discussed ad infinitum.
“His own conviction of his power to persuade”
(Balir,one commentator)once his mind was made up, and as a feature of his style of leadership, will surely be examined again and again and again.
Vacillation and indecision must be far worse than dogma and determination, as a quality of leadership, or is it, if the determination is based on false information?
Clive, Lord Soley’s remarks to Zeina Bedawi about the aftermath of the invasion being totally un-organized is one that has not been examined in nearly sufficient detail.
As a “date” in history, Blair’s decision, as a self professed “leader” of the British people, to go to war on the basis of false information about WMD, will certainly be discussed ad infinitum.
“His own conviction of his power to persuade”
(Blair,one commentator)once his mind was made up, and as a feature of his style of leadership, will surely be examined again and again and again.
Vacillation and indecision must be far worse than dogma and determination, as a quality of leadership, or is it, if the determination is based on false information?
From the debate in the Lords as suggested: I quote: “To his credit, Lord Norton of Louth spoke up in favour of further internal reforms so we can hold the government of the day to account; we can rely on him to maintain his consistent views whichever side of the House he is sitting on!”
As the people elect their Political Party and thus their Government, Government should be accountable to the people? Wrong? Perhaps they should be accountable to the person they pledge their allegiance to? The British Crown? Wrong? Perhaps they should be accountable to their Constitution? Wrong again? Surely not because their Constitution makes very clear there is provision in it to make sure those that do not abide by that Constitution is indeed accountable. So how come the people have not been able to bring this about? Oh yes, they have indeed tried. A Constitution is the very foundation upon which all other laws should build on, is that not correct? Yes indeed, so why have governments set about accepting foreign laws when it is strictly contrary to our Queen’s Coronation Oath and our Constitution? As this is meant for all time
Ah! Now I know whom Government is accountable to. They are accountable to foreigners. They must be because the EU can take them to a higher Court if they do not abide by ALL EU Laws they have agreed to in ratifying European Union Treaties.
From the debate, “Mr Straw and the Prime Minister have said that they are in favour of a written constitution. Why not try to build up public support and encourage proper discussion among our fellow citizens in a citizens’ assembly or convention to make progress?” Public support? What support? Does any MP deserve support? No matter what new legislation any one tries to bring forth, a new written Constitution, a new Bill of Rights, etc, the Lisbon Treaty makes very clear that it has and will have ‘competence’ over national Constitutions and Laws. What is the point in bringing forth a “Better Government Initiative,” now Government has ratified ‘Lisbon’?
You say, “However, it is a characteristic of this country that we go by evolution rather than revolution. Indeed, with the Glorious Revolution of 1688, we moved from one kind of monarchy to another.” Do not be too sure about that for there are ways of bringing forth yet another “Glorious” revolution using Magna Carta and by ‘Glorious’, I mean in exactly in the same sense as it was used in 1688. Peacefully.
We, the people, have fought wars, against all odds at times, to keep our way of life, our very own Constitution and Laws, which Governments from 1972 have accepted rule by foreigners and set about slowly destroying the people’s and YOUR very own Common Law Constitution. You can all stop this now if you wanted to. I can tell you (predict perhaps) that eventually this Country will return to self-government, but sadly not before many have suffered and died yet this can be avoided with determination, truth and loyalty.
Do not bank on the Conservative winning a General election, for the people realise that they will be exactly the same as Labour. Possibly a ‘hung’ Parliament? They are beginning to realise there is no “choice” because all three major political Parties want to remain in the EU. The people do not want that and had they have been allowed a vote on LISBON they would have said “NO
“and to work with the British people to achieve a stronger sense of what it means to be British”-meaning citizenship and all that. British? We are European Citizens as are all the Overseas Territories (OTC’s). Although OTC’s can renounce their EU citizenship0 if they so wish. See COM (2009) 623 final dated 6.11.2009.
My Lord mentions legal advice to Government, the fact it may have been dubious and that Parliament may have been mislead and even lied to.
Many, many lives were lost on all sides but an inquiry whose presumed intent is to learn lessons is all those lives are worth ? If those lives were lost in illegal action surely more than inquiry is required ?
The outrage felt about Parliament’s involvement with the Iraq war offends people’s innate sense of right or wrong and leads them to consider the legality of the war.
Everybody knows that when somebody is on trial a judge will instruct the jury to return a verdict commensurate with the evidence presented and to make their judgement based solely upon the facts. However, the jury is free to use their sense of right or wrong if they feel there is reasonable doubt to the validity of that evidence.
The freedom to do this was not always available to a jury because at one time a judge could instruct the jury to return a verdict in accordance with the views of the establishment rather than in the interests of justice.
One such pivotal moment occurred with the arrest of William Penn in 1670; see ‘Persecutions’ in the link below. It has issues in common with the various investigations into the Iraq war, principally the availability of documentation.
The ‘Sovereignty’ link below paraphrases this:
“…the de facto right an English jury has had since at least the trial of William Penn in 1670 to judge the law according to its conscience and if necessary return a verdict contrary to the law prescribed by parliament in what is known as a perverse verdict…”
Because of the separation of people from the sovereignty of Parliament and that no UK legal definition of a crime has been committed people cannot reasonably expect their feelings or views to be of any consequence by way of holding government to account.
The link also goes on to say:
Parliamentary supremacy is blamed by contemporary legal historians for the failure of English law to develop due process in the American sense (that is, a mechanism for protecting the human rights of individuals from being arbitrarily infringed by the government).
Parliamentarians have a strong sense of right and wrong and one would believe, naively, that they could exercise some influence over government. In practice committees, inquiries or the views of backbenchers will be listened to but they cannot hold government to account in any constitutional sense.
The only body that can do this is the House of Lords. However, its power has been severely diminished, even its role as a legislative reforming chamber endures the weakening ‘Salisbury Convention’.
In effect a Commons government holds absolute power within Parliament and any accountability it sustains is entirely at its discretion. When we talk about Saddam Hussein, he was a patriot and did not start out as a murderous despot it was the constitutional freedom afforded to him by Iraq’s republic that allowed this.
Worryingly, and in the face of continuous opposition from the US Senate the house eyes with envy the UK government’s ability to pass laws, ultimately by use of the Parliament Act.
Ref: William Penn: Persecutions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Penn
Parliamentary Sovereignty: History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty
Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Revolutionary_Command_Council
Senex, you wrote, “Parliamentarians have a strong sense of right and wrong and one would believe, naively, that they could exercise some influence over government”. Sadly, this ‘strong sense of right and wrong’ was lost through the publication in the National Newspapers of the ‘advantage’ many MP’s and Government and would be Governments have taken with the claiming of the already generous expenses.
Parliament supremacy and sovereignty was ‘lost’ in 1972’3 and particularly 1975 in the term ” there will be no loss of essential sovereignty’. Even now, MP’s are afraid to tell the people the truth of what being in the EU involves. The people were told at the time of “The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe” that it was “Just a tidying up exercise”, that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights was a “Tidying up Exercise”-SOME TIDYING UP EXERSIZE EH? Then the Treaty of Lisbon, so deliberately muddled up so that the ordinary person could barely make head or tail of it. For me, I doubted very much if it was in keeping with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties-and so challenged thus. Needless to say, I had no reply but it really does not comply with certain articles in that Convention.
Proof of the loss of UK sovereignty has been through the ruling of the European Court of Justice. To me though, the loss of Sovereignty also rears its head when reading through “new” alleged UK legislation (as if it was all our own Government’s idea) going through Parliament-some (Most) of which may be contrary to our own Constitution. I look for the original in the EU Parliament (Like the Equalities Bill at present) and yes, there it is, although not one mention in our parliament that this may be so. Then, in the passing of this Bill comes the sickening words, “We welcome this Bill”.
Anne: The sovereignty of Parliament is the culprit behind the expenses scandal. It seems to cause Parliament to dish out food it is not prepared to eat itself.
This is very important because the Prime Minister when Chancellor created a series of the most complex impenetrable Finance Acts this country has ever seen. The motive for doing so was amongst other things to ensure the public did not fiddle their expenses. I hope you noticed that I never said MPs had a strong moral sense of right and wrong just that they can distinguish between the two.
As to the EU: the commission works hard to avoid enacting laws that are regional but to create laws that serve the common good throughout the EU. Like it or not all citizens of the EU have more in common than they have not. You are right to keep pressure up on the commission and it needs to explain more of the rationale behind the laws it promotes.
As to the topic in hand: it is unfortunate that a case for constitutional abuse of the Royal Prerogative cannot be tested in the Supreme Court because to do so would put both the House of Commons and the government on trial. It would be the only way to bring the government to account on the Iraq war and to force full disclosure of all relevant documentation. The role of the attorney general at the hands of the government is another issue.
At the time we had a Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, both barristers that were unable between them to determine whether an invasion of Iraq would be legal. Instead the attorney general a peer in the HoL with very poor resources was asked to decide the issue for them. In effect the HoL took the decision to go to war by exercising the Royal Prerogative something that is beyond it constitutional authority to do so.
If a bloggers prospectus for an elected HoL is to replace Aristocracy with an Aristoi then both the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary represented a Pseudo-Aristoi in the affairs of the Iraq war. What is the point of electing somebody to the Commons into a full time job only to see their ‘trade skills’ erode to the point where they have to rely upon a practising peer to make a legal decision for them? The Commons is choc full of such diminished individuals and yet we give them authority to form governments, constitutionally accountable to no one, not even the HoL.
Thank you for your response Senex: I take in what you have written here, “As to the topic in hand: it is unfortunate that a case for constitutional abuse of the Royal Prerogative cannot be tested in the Supreme Court because to do so would put both the House of Commons and the government on trial”.
I looked to why there was a need for a separate Supreme Court in the first place because the Law Lords had successfully used the House of Lords for hundreds of years without question. Their integrity had never been in doubt nor questioned. It apparently has to be ‘seen’ to be separate.
I now understand that EU Treaties ratified would be put before our Constitution if there was to be any case put before the Supreme Court on the issue of the EU? Perhaps that has always been so since 1972-but if so, it was always carefully never mentioned. There is no ‘British Crown’ behind the Judges chair in the Supreme Court as in other Courts. Soon perhaps the Crown will be removed from all our Courts?
As for the ‘constitutional abuse’ of the Royal Prerogative-this was to have been part of a Legal Challenge prepared- before the Supreme Court came about-I had worked on such a case for over 12 months, all hope dashed when not enough money could be raised. (For want of a shilling a Crown was lost eh?).
However, I had looked at Article 47 Treaty of Lisbon- The Union shall have legal personality. (Which includes signing Treaties (The EU have already done so without debate in our Parliament- see Extradition Bill, Hansard, House of Lords 18 June 2003 Treaties COL GC 288-294) and I make the point that our Government, through Lisbon has given the Royal Prerogative Powers to the EU. It was not in their gift so to do. No Treaty could be ratified without the use of the Royal Prerogative here in the UK. This brings into question, and soon many more people will also be asking-not just me-why do we need so many MP’s while there are EU Regions and why indeed to we need anyone in the House of Lords? We simply cannot afford all these layers of Governance.
As to “the commission works hard to avoid enacting laws that are regional but to create laws that serve the common good throughout the EU”. One size law to fit all will never work. If the people wanted to have a conversation with anyone on the Continent, go to a pub for a casual drink, they would have to have an interpreter.
Anne: “If the people wanted to have a conversation with anyone on the Continent, go to a pub for a casual drink, they would have to have an interpreter.” Most Europeans speak several languages including English. If they came to a pub here they would enjoy a conversation albeit in ‘American English’ complete with American accent.
For a Federal Europe to take place each member state would have to endorse each law passed by Federal government in an EU Parliament. This would be similar to the US model of Federation. So when people demand that they retain control over their own laws it serves only to make things easier in creating that Federation. The trick is to frustrate the formation of Federation. How would you do this, withdraw from the EU?
“There is no ‘British Crown’ behind the Judges chair in the Supreme Court as in other Courts.” Yes, but the court can only consider matters that pertain to UK law? The Dutch Supreme Court on the other hand has decided that the war is illegal – how were they able to do this?
Back on topic: In evidence to the Chilcot enquiry Lord Goldsmith has said that UN Resolution 1441 did not call for a decision on war but deliberately chose wording to indicate that a decision should be considered. At this time he was not persuaded one way or another as to the legality of the war.
He was in a terrible dilemma, things were moving fast. Troops were waiting on standby to invade Iraq and I suspect that his gut feeling was that the invasion would take place regardless. Should he allow British troops to go into theatre with doubts hanging over them as to the legality of the war? Should he be a lawyer or a patriot? In the end he chose to be a patriot and nobody should condemn him for this. My view is he overstepped his authority as a peer because he is bound by constitutional constraints that sit above his legal duties under common law. He should have brought the matter before the Lord Speaker. Why didn’t he?
The internal tensions in the UK at the time of the declaration of war were not good either.
The Labour party, in 1997, had the intention of abolishing the HofL. full stop.
It may only have been co-incidence that the Iraq war put a stop to the most extreme Republican wishes of that party, but the external threat certainly moderated internal “reformers”.
Added to that there was severe division in the USA,and the Presidential supreme court, and Florida court arguments over who had one vote more than the other, which only ended with the outrage of Al Qaeda 09/11, and the intention of Bush to go…to war.
The saying from Shakespeare, “There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood leads on to fortune”, would be abased by saying the tide was in favor of war at the time, and you could only ride with it on yer surfboard buddy.
The friendship between Bush and Blair was made in hell, for everybody to put up with.
In deed, the threat of outright ‘republicanism’ by the Blair/Irvine/Falconer syndicate was sufficient for the MOD war machine to foment war, to externalize the threat, which they succeeded in doing.
The choice that Blair COULD have made was between shelving extensive Lords reform and NOT going to war, but he did not make that choice.
He chose friendship with a notorious war mongering Bush family of the USA, war, AND ‘constitutional’ reform.
As a pacifist Robin Cooke, would probably have chosen continuing peace and far less Lords reform. I certainly would have done, but then where is Robin Cooke (RIP),and where am I?
That’s the way I saw the war machine of the UK working in 2001, and I was close to it, in Westminster. Perhaps it was not like that at all?
The externalized threat in the USA came a few months later, on September 11th.
“He should have brought the matter before the Lord Speaker. Why didn’t he?”
Only He knows the answer to that. However, I doubt it would have made any difference. As it is now, what with Chilcot and the Expenses Saga, Sadly, I would perhaps only trust a handful if I put the TWO Houses together.
I have read far too many debates now, I know what words are coming out of the mouths of MP’s before I have had chance to read them. I doubt, from what I amd reading now re our Defence and the EU Defence Agency, I doubt our MP’s will ever be forgiven. 1939 all over again.
Anne: I hear the home office now saying that the Royal Prerogative was not used? The matter was an entirely legal interpretation endorsed by an enabling vote in the Commons. The Monarchy cannot send troops into battle it must come from government so for the home office to say this, is completely bizarre.
This is the first time to my knowledge that we have invaded another country based upon the legality of an intended action and a vote in the Commons. It has been our way for a very long time that anybody that suffers a death sentence must not only face the law but the conscience of a jury existing outside of the sovereignty of Parliament.
What has happened is that the state has gone to war without this element of conscience being applicable. This is the action of a Monarch whose right to rule is by the will of god and therefore the act of going to war cannot be disputed. We stopped the Monarchy from doing this a long time ago but just how does Parliament stop a chamber with absolute power and authority from doing it too? The Monarchy cannot do anything neither can the HoL as they have both, been put to one side for the purposes of exercising power.
It remains to be seen whether the government or indeed any government will sustain criticism or learn the lessons from enquiries by doing something that effectively weakens its power?
I completely agree. Am waiting to see what happens next.