Andrew Blick's blog

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'.

Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): Constitutional reform in this country is a fitful business. First, the people in charge know they have to respond to the need for change, but they are unwilling ever knowingly to give away power. So their proposals, like Gordon Brown's July 2007 Governance agenda, and Michael Wills's framework for "greater citizen engagement" a year later, are shot through with ambiguity and downright evasion. But there is also a problem with the uncodified, amorphous UK constitution. It is a bit like restoring an old building that has gone through a succession of additions and adaptations. If you can't pull it down, reform projects are bound to be piecemeal and their significance and effectiveness is always difficult to measure.

Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): Is there a 'mental Berlin Wall' that separates unease about democratic issues such as 'executive dominance of Parliament, the unreformed House of Lords, the obsolete parliamentary election system, 42 days and the data-base state' from concern over the existence of 'local government that is neither "local" nor "government."'?

That at any rate is the view of Stuart Weir, Director of Democratic Audit, who led the discussion at Wednesday's CAOS (Combining All Our Strengths) seminar for civil society organisations.  Stuart described  domination by Whitehall managerialism, a complexity of structures and the financial and constitutional weakness of local government to ask, "Is democratic accountability at local level possible?  Is there space for genuine participation, and if so, is it confined to a very low level at which government is willing to tolerate ordinary people getting involved?' 

As it happens, the seminar coincided with a white paper on community engagement that illustrates how uneasy Whitehall is about any ideas that might break the managerial mould.

Andrew Blick reviews A Question of Honour: Inside New Labour and the true story of the cash for peerages scandal by Lord Micahel Levy.

(Lord Michael Levy, A Question of Honour, Simon and Schuster, 2008, 320pp)

Late in 1973, a record called ‘My Coo-Ca-Choo' entered the UK singles charts. It was credited to the glam-rock singer Alvin Stardust; but customers who thought it was Stardust singing on the recording were being had. The voice belonged to Peter Shelley, a musician with a small share in label which released it, Magnet. The main man behind Magnet was Michael Levy. He excuses the stunt on the grounds that it was ‘fairly standard industry practice at the time.'

This book is the latest in a string of insider accounts of the Blair inner circle. It charts the progress of Levy from a humble background, becoming a chartered account, then music business magnate and finally Peer, and tennis playing partner to and ‘Personal Envoy to the Middle East' for Tony Blair. Most famously Levy was chief fund raiser to Blair, popularly known as ‘Lord cashpoint'. This memoir covers familiar ground such as the internal tensions at No.10 and disputes between Blair and Gordon Brown, adding some interesting anecdotes.

Though it deals with other issues, understandably the publishers have billed it as ‘the true story of the cash for peerages scandal'. Levy was at the centre of a police investigation which was triggered when the press learned that a number of individuals who had provided undeclared loans to the Labour Party to fight the 2005 General Election and had subsequently been proposed for peerages, which were queried by the House of Lords Appointments Commission in November 2005. After a complaint in March 2006, an inquiry began into whether an attempt had been made to confer peerages in contravention of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. The investigation was later broadened to include possible violation of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and perversion of the course of justice. All three major parties were under investigation. Ultimately in 2007 the Crown Prosecution Service determined that it would not bring forward any criminal proceedings, but not before Levy was arrested twice (along with three others); 90 individuals were questioned including Blair; and immense and deserved negative publicity was generated about the way parties and senior politicians do business.

Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): A new political term was coined Monday night - 'post-post-nationalism'. Its inventor, David Goodhart. Editor of Prospect, was giving a paper at another lively 'Combining All our Strengths' Rowntree seminar in Westminster on the 'English question'. When asked if he was really simply talking about nationalism, he insisted that he wasn’t – and if it was he would have saved himself the trouble and called it just that.

Goodhart’s basic thesis was that a 'post-post-nationalism' is necessary in the UK to replace the current 'fuzzy' concept of nationalism and create 'markers for a post-ethnic national citizenship that is also open to the world.' This project is particularly important to the liberal left, with the increased demands it wants to make on citizens, 'whether paying higher taxes or being more active citizens.' At this stage in history, the nation is a vital unit for collective action and 'without it we are sunk'. Given his benign attitude towards nationalism, the default establishment of a separate English state and Parliament that could follow Scottish independence is, in David Goodhart's view, nothing to fear, even for the Labour Party, which would simply have to work harder at winning English middle class support.

Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): MPs hate being told that they spend too much time on breaks, but it needs saying. They are now on their Whitsun recess and all their work on scrutiny has come to an abrupt stop (though not the panicky cries and whispers of Labour members).

In case you were wondering, this is the Recess that comes between the Easter recess and the two-and-a-half months that they take off over summer. So they are probably working away in their constituencies and those in vulnerable seats are no doubt busy attempting to shore up their majorities. You could regard their time away from Westminster as the representative side of their responsibilities, only with the staff and other resources they get as MPs, it also weights the advantages of incumbency more heavily in their direction.

There is a bigger problem too. The balance of the work of MPs needs to be shifted firmly away from constituency campaigning towards the oversight of government policies and activities. Various recent reports – including one from the Hansard Society – have suggested that all MPs should serve on select committees to improve the quality of parliamentary scrutiny. Some MPs have risked incurring the anger of their colleagues by acknowledging the problem. Speaking about the long summer break, David Winnick recently told the Commons that it meant 'our main function of holding the Government to account in this Chamber does not take place for some 11 consecutive weeks. There are no oral questions, no statements and no debates...Select Committees can meet, but...few do.' As Leader of the House of Commons in October 2002, Robin Cook, told MPs 'It is not healthy for the elected representatives of the British people to be absent for three months at a stretch. Too much happens while we are away, and too many decisions necessarily have to be taken by Government in our absence'. At the time he managed to secure support for September sittings, but this part of the Cook legacy has since been lost. When the Modernisation Committee looked at the issue two years later, the convenience of members was uppermost in their minds and they ruled out an increase in total sitting time.

This is the second in a series of posts by Andrew Blick on the Constitutional Renewal Bill. You can read the first post here.

 
Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): There is a crucial tension within the Governance of Britain programme. On the one hand it sets out to provide greater independence to the judiciary. On the other hand it proposes making the legal system more accountable to Parliament. On the strength of Tuesday's evidence session with the Joint Committee on the Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill, this problem needs closer attention than it is currently receiving.

In theory everyone should take an interest in they way they are governed and their rights – but in practice they don’t. For this reason the important issues raised by the Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill are much more likely to achieve traction when they engage a particular interest group. Yesterday’s session of the Joint Committee was well-attended, because it attracted the interest of the legal profession, which is to its credit consistently the most likely to become involved in constitutional matters. (The government consultation on judicial appointments received 34 responses, compared to a paltry 11 for treaties.)

Tim Dutton QC, Chairman of the Bar Council, and Andrew Holroyd, President of the Law Society, were questioned about the Renewal proposals for judicial appointments. Vital principles are at stake here and it is a shame that time was wasted by one committee member, a solicitor, demanding to know why more solicitors were not appointed judges; and another making a rambling speech about the need to appoint judges on a basis of merit, which the witnesses assured us was the position already.

Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): At the very end of a long and remote corridor, MPs and peers on the joint committee on the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill held their first evidence sessions on Tuesday. The importance of their work has been heightened by Gordon Brown's commitment to introduce a bill proper in the next parliamentary session, as part of his statement on the legislative programme. We will report regularly on their inquiries and the draft Bill’s provisions as they progress; meanwhile we attach a brief and opinionated guide to official progress on the government’s Governance agenda which, as Guy Aitchison wrote seems to have lost important elements. 

The first three witnesses, providing an overview, were Professor Stuart Weir of Democratic Audit (my boss); the Oxford academic (and David Cameron's former tutor) Professor Vernon Bogdanor; and Peter Riddell of The Times. The committee are a mixed bunch, ranging from those with real knowledge of constitutional issues to the more conservative minded, several of whom emphasised Britain’s long tradition of evolutionary change. It will be interesting to see what conclusions they can all buy into.