Executive power

Tom Griffin (London, OK): In order to get the the Counter-terrorism Bill through the Commons in June, the Government promised a parliamentary vote if it was necessary to extend the detention of terror suspects temporarily for up to 42 days.

That proposal has been systematically taken apart today in a report from the House of Lords Constitution Committee which warns that Parliament is 'institutionally ill-equipped' for the role which is being thrust upon it.

John Jackson (London, Mishcon de Reya): At the end of her judgement in the BAE case one of the law lords, Lady  Hale, said “- - I would wish that the world was a better place where honest and conscientious public servants were not put in impossible situations such as this - - -“. I would wish that too. I would also wish that people and nations did not seek to advance their interests by violence or the threat of violence. If that were so there would be no need of armaments industries and questions of national security could be dealt with in a more open and satisfactory way.

The impossible situation to which Lady Hale referred was the dilemma confronting the Director of the SFO in deciding, with incomplete information, whether, to quote Lord Bingham, “the public interest in pursuing an important investigation into alleged bribery was outweighed by the public interest in protecting the lives of British citizens”. The incompleteness of information available to the Director is the link to my second wish and my remark about how questions of national security are dealt with.

David Smith (Weymouth, Saving Democracy): Some while ago I expressed to my MP (Labour) and to Kenneth Clarke the thought that the use of the Royal Prerogative to ratify treaties weakened the UK's negotiating position. Both agreed. Had Tony Blair not had the ability to put strong pressure on the SFO to halt its investigation into allegations of corruption in regard to BAE Systems dealings with Saudi, or had SFO decision to halt the investigation been prevented by law, the Saudi's would have had to accept that everything would have come out. Being realists they would probably not made good their alleged threats. Another argument for those advocating proportional representation and wider reform.

Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): The foreign policy aspects of Gordon Brown's constitutional reform programme have got very little attention. Exception (excuse own trumpet blowing) is  myforeignpolicytoo which now has a detailed analysis of their implications (see here for who we are). We welcome the general thrust of the proposals, but with concerns about the devilish smallprint. For instance we hope that the right of Parliament to vote on going to war will be put on a statutory basis (not left to a convention, please!) and we note that the Attorney General will still be able to interfere in decisions over prosecutions if they are deemed to involve national security.

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): The democratic left pressure group Compass has published the latest in its Programme for Renewal: Democracy and the Public Realm. Democracy, it notes, is in retreat under New Labour. Government centralisation, unaccountable power and attacks on our civil liberties are familiar causes, but the report also blames New Labour’s obsession with the market, its strategy of "It’s the economy stupid". Instead it offers a social-democratic view of what a modern democracy should be stressing "autonomy and self-management" over the consumer freedom that capitalism offers. The report proposes various measures for building this "participatory democracy". Alongside familiar proposals of more powers for parliament and the devolution of power to local government, it proposes a written constitution, a citizens’ debate over PR, and ''cultural'' changes, including the enhancing of public broadcasting and ''greater workplace democracy''. The timing of Compass’s report coincides with that of Ken Clarke’s Democracy Taskforce (which I reported on this week) and adds to the sense that reform is on the agenda. Although it makes for a lively read it probably stands less chance of making the translation to policy than Clarke’s-perhaps less idealistic-set of proposals. Creating "new symbols of democracy" and getting politicians to abandon "spin" for example, may be easier said than done...

Dan Leighton (Hay-on-Wye, Power Inquiry): A fascinating debate occurred at the Power Inquiry sponsored debate at the book festival at Hay-on-Wye yesterday between Henry Porter, Billy Bragg and Phillippe Sands. Henry Porter summed up a general agreement that the government has sliced away our liberties: citizens are being forced to become more and more accountable to the state, while the state is less and less accountable to parliament and citizens. Billy Bragg said the best way for Gordon Brown to confront this, if he wishes to, is with a Bill of Rights. “Accountability”, Billy said, is going to be the watchword in the next round of constitutional reforms. Only this could ensure that liberty and security can go together, thus he'd be OK with carrying an ID card, provided it had our Bill of Rights printed on the back. But who writes the bill of rights and who will interpret it? Porter argued that guardianship of our basic rights could not rest with an utterly executive dominated parliament. He described how he had witnessed MPs voting away their anyway limited powers. Therefore we have to move beyond parliamentary sovereignty to a federal constitutional system. Phillippe Sands objected that parliamentary sovereignty must remain at the centre of the British system or an entrenched a bill of rights would just give power to the unelected judiciary. Even to disagree like this meant there was a guarded optimism among the speakers. This was true of other events I went to. I liked the way, for example, Simon Jenkins said it was possible for Brown to change his mind because he knew where he came from, whereas Blair was an aspirant seduced by his belief in the power of others. But the mood among the audiences everywhere was one of disbelief. Political parties manipulate their members. Attempts at activism are crushed with restrictions. Brown says that people should have more say while the planning white paper sets out to abolish the influence of local people. Once burnt, twice shy? Those whose hopes were raised by the advent of New Labour seem thoroughly alienated.