Andrew Blick is the author of People who Live in the Dark: The History of the Special Adviser in British Politics (Politicos, 2004 ) and How to Go to War (Politicos, 2005).

Recent articles

On 10 June this year Gordon Brown, in the course of explaining to the Commons how he intended to respond to the MPs expenses crisis, said that ‘I personally favour a written constitution.' He thereby became the first sitting British Prime Minister publicly to express such a desire. An historic moment. But one which - like many other initially promising democratic reform proposals made since Brown moved into No.10 - has not been followed up.

The Ministry of Justice paper Review of the Executive Royal Prerogative Powers, published on Thursday, demonstrates that there is no serious commitment within government to realising the idea that Brown floated in June. At the heart of the ‘unwritten' - or as it might better be described, un-codified - UK constitution is a set of executive powers known as the ‘Royal Prerogative'. They feature strongly in the recent Democratic Audit pamphlet, The Unspoken Constitution, which sets out in tragi-comic form the existing UK settlement as it works in practice, but as no-one in official circles would like openly to admit.  

Though a relic of personal monarchical rule, the Royal Prerogative is now wielded largely by ministers (in particular the Prime Minister) and officials. These authorities have never been framed in statute by Parliament, nor is their any formal requirement for parliamentary consent to their exercise. The potential for judicial review of the use of these powers is circumscribed. Consequently, the government is constantly carrying out a wide range of significant activities without being subject to satisfactory democratic oversight. Though no-one, not even the government, is precisely sure of its exact extent, actions covered by the Royal Prerogative include deploying the Armed Forces; making and ratifying treaties; issuing and revoking passports; conducting diplomacy; organising the Civil Service; granting honours and peerages; and appointing ministers.

Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): David Cameron told the Financial Times last week that he plans to legislate – apparently in his first term – to reduce the number of MPs by at least 10 per cent and equalise the size of parliamentary constituencies.

On the surface of it, the move seems a fair one. Surely it is wrong that, because of the current uneven size of seats, Labour can potentially defeat the Conservatives with less votes? And cutting back on the size of the MP payroll must be a laudably prudent decision in these times?

But these arguments are flawed.

First, in practice little or no money would be saved. The running costs of the Palace of Westminster would not be reduced. While the salaries of about 60 MPs and their staff might be saved, the members that remained would probably need to take on more assistance in order to deal with the consequent rise in constituency casework per MP. That is, unless a Conservative government is about to seriously address the causes of the rising demands made by constituents – namely the weakness of local government and the lack of access to citizens’ advice bureaux.

Andrew Blick and Emily Hamilton (London, Democratic Audit):This is a government that makes a thing of ‘consultation’, and a good thing too, you might think. Certainly there are loads of them nowadays. Government departments currently launch around 600 annually[1], with approximately 150 likely to be open at any given time. In this series of posts, we look at what has happened in practice in consultations in three areas: the question of nuclear power; English classes for non-English speakers; and quashing convictions. We invite readers of OurKingdom to add their experiences in the consultation, or non-consultation, processes, briefly or at length.

There is of course a lot of non-consultation, usually on really significant policy decisions, like the government’s plan to spend £3 billion to replace the UK’s 160 nuclear war heads announced to the arms industry at a time when we are told that money is in short supply at the Treasury; or even say, the long pre-meditated plan to invade Iraq or the decision to establish a supreme court (which preceded consultation). But as the official Cabinet Office document, Effective Consultation, says, ‘how and when the Government consults will depend on the circumstances in each case’. Quite so.

Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): The UK Parliament has a dubious record as a protector of human rights. The Commons vote on 42 days is only a recent example. For instance there is a long history of governments of various parties implementing large-scale internment programmes on spurious security grounds while meeting little in the way of significant resistance from the legislature. The malign impact of this poor performance is magnified because under UK constitutional arrangements, Parliament is theoretically supreme, with the judiciary lacking the power always fully to uphold freedoms.

For these reasons we should congratulate the efforts of a parliamentary body which, since its instigation in 2001, has in effect acted as a lobby group within Parliament for the human rights cause, namely the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR).

There is discussion by Claire O'Brien and Guy Aitchison below on the content of the recent JCHR report on a bill of rights. While the proposals should be subject to scrutiny and they are not all as far reaching as I would like, it is important to get a perspective on them.

Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): When the Constitutional Renewal white paper and draft bill were published earlier this year, Gordon Brown once again proved himself the master of the anti-climax. The centrepiece of the Governance of Britain programme to date, and the part of it most likely to be implemented this side of a General Election, 'Constitutional Renewal' primarily addresses the role of the executive with respect both to Parliament and the judiciary. When it appeared there was disappointment that it did not live up to its billing and was not a programme to 'renew' the constitution. As Graham Allen MP put it, 'perhaps our expectations either were raised too high or...those expectations have not yet been met.' More scathingly, Lord (Paul) Tyler has today called it a 'ragbag of retreats'.