Instead, Kenny thinks there is an endemic weakness in the way our system of checks and balances works. “Particularly at the height of the Brexit crisis, it became obvious that these checks and balances were not operating as they were supposed to. It looked like the balance between the executive and the legislature was being tilted too much to the executive arm. Some would say that’s been happening for a long time, and I think that’s a fair point. But it’s certainly one weakness that has been writ large in recent years.” 

A second issue is the fact that constitutional legislation is akin to every other kind of legislation – and can therefore be changed pretty easily. Take the Fixed-term Parliament Act 2011, which, for the first time, set a default date for general elections in the UK. It was repealed 11 years later. “One of the problems is that in our system, it’s not possible to make the process of constitutional change special or distinctive. Governments make constitutional changes the same way they’d make changes to other domestic legislation,” says Kenny. “This, it seems to us, is increasingly problematic, because it leaves a legacy whereby it looks to citizens as if the political winners can change the rules of the game.” 

And finally, the core principles of the Constitution are increasingly unclear, with question marks over what actually counts as ‘constitutional’ in the British system. “This means that politicians can weaponise a particular interpretation of the Constitution and use it to advance their own objectives. Again, that’s not new, but it became much more problematic in the context of Brexit.” 

Tidy-minded people will be vexed to know that the answer to all this does not involve a single document with bullet points. Much constitutional debate, Kenny points out, is bewitched by the idea that there is an optimal constitutional model out there: if we could just upgrade from our creaky model, it would solve all our problems. “But, paradoxically, so many different countries with very different constitutional arrangements seem to be facing the same problems. In the US, for example – which is often held up as an exemplar of a codified constitution – we have seen very deep conflicts and huge disagreements about interpretations of the constitution. It’s not clear that having a codified constitution per se solves deep, underlying problems with citizen trust, lack of government performance and the declining legitimacy of democratic government.” 

In short, there is no silver bullet. But the Bennett report’s main recommendation argues for the introduction of a new parliamentary committee on the Constitution, where no single party has the majority. “It would build on the work done at the moment by the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which I think has developed a very strong reputation as an independent voice and source of scrutiny,” says Kenny. “But this would go further. We think it should have the power of scrutiny over any legislation that counts as constitutional.” 

Additionally, the report recommends that a small group of Acts should be recognised as constitutional and given additional protections, so they can’t be repealed easily. “For instance, New Zealand, which has moved in this direction, has a requirement that two thirds of the lower house has to agree to amend a constitutional statute. We think something like that would allow for greater stability in our constitutional politics.” And there is a strong case for strengthening the role and profile of the Constitution within British government. This might sound strange, Kenny says, as the British government is so closely entwined with the traditions and ethos of the Constitution. But it’s hard for people to respect something with such a nebulous and scattered nature. “So we recommend establishing a Centre for Constitutional Expertise in the Cabinet Office, and, importantly, making sure that civil servants understand their own constitutional role more clearly. The Cabinet Secretary has a key role in promoting the Constitution and making sure that minsters are given good, clear advice about whether proposals they are advancing are constitutionally proper – or not.” 

What impact would he like the report to have? This kind of change is hard, says Kenny. In British politics, parties tend to be interested in this area when they’re in opposition and can tell a strong story about the misbehaviour or carelessness of the incumbent party. “And then, when they get into power, they don’t tend to do that much. That’s arguably a pattern we’ve seen repeated with the current government, though it’s still early days.” The Starmer government has, he points out, made some small changes in ethical oversight of government, such as boosting the role of the independent adviser. “But the big thing they said they would do, which so far they have not, is to introduce a commission for ethics and integrity. We wait to see what those proposals will look like, but that could be an important step forward.” 

Constitutional reform is unlikely to be the hot topic or big vote winner at the next election. But although it might sound very removed from the reality of our lives, the Constitution could, in fact, be a tool to address a very obvious crisis that governments across the world are facing: a crisis of trust between citizens and state. Most people didn’t obsessively follow the constitutional twists and turns of Brexit, but everyone became aware of what powers governments had when the pandemic hit – and many were surprised when they realised those powers were different in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. “And I think it was a really telling moment. There is evidence that many people were genuinely shocked to discover that the devolved governments had the responsibility to introduce those rules – because devolution has been so poorly understood,” says Kenny. 

The British have always tended to have spasms of constitutional reform at moments of crisis, and Kenny says there is no reason to suspect that will change. The big question, of course, is what the next crisis will be. Electoral reform could make a comeback: will an increasingly fragmented electorate continue to be content with the outcomes of a voting system that favours the two main parties? Support for Scottish independence remains above 40 per cent, while Northern Ireland is still dealing with the aftermath of Brexit: could more independence referendums be on the horizon? 

Or, of course, it could just be a good old-fashioned scandal. “When members of the new Labour government accepted clothes and concert tickets last year, they weren’t breaking the rules,” says Kenny. “But in a context where the public is increasingly sceptical of and frustrated with government, and what it delivers for them, just following the rules is not good enough. Politicians need to start thinking of the institutional reforms and culture changes that could start the difficult process of winning back public trust.”