Ministry of Justice

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): Last week John Jackson blogged on the heroic efforts of Michael Wills to drive through the Governance of Britain agenda in the face of hostility from his parliamentary colleagues and the press and as the government of which he is a part implodes. As part of the process Wills has been travelling around the country holding open table discussions on different aspects of the agenda. He recently stopped off in my hometown of Bristol to discuss plans for the British Statement of Values, the Bill of Rights and Responsibilies, community engagement and barriers to voting.

The good people of Bristol offered sage advice to the Government, captured in this MoJ document. Not least they pointed out that any "public engagement had to be meaningful and worthwhile to the participants involved and that their contribution is going to be taken into account as part of the decision-making process." Next stop Nottingham, followed by Newcastle, Brighton and London. If you attend a discussion do let us know your thoughts on how it went.

John Jackson (London, Unlock Democracy): Many political commentators are enjoying great sport by sniffing out and pursuing members of the presently besieged government who smell like attractive quarry. With increasing frequency the victims deserve this attention because of incaution, stupidity or breaking cover at the wrong time. It is rare for a minister to attract praise for doing something rather brave. One such should be Michael Wills at the Ministry of Justice responsible for the discussion paper "A national framework for greater citizen engagement" (pdf).

I have just reread Wills' paper "A New Agenda-Labour and Democracy" written when he was a backbencher and published by the Institute for Public Policy Research in June 2006. In the introduction he says "This essay argues for a programme of reform, that may have to be driven not by the political class who are seen as responsible for undermining faith in our constitutional arrangements but by the people themselves who are served by such arrangements. It suggests that the time may be coming for an elected, one-off, fixed term constitutional convention to heal the fracture in our politics".

It is easy to contrast that imaginative idea, set out in clear and refreshingly honest words, with the caution, correctness and need not to be too costly pervading the ideas outlined in the discussion paper and either damn Wills as a cowardly backslider with faint praise or dismiss him as someone of no consequence with caustic snidery. It would be wrong and unfair to do either.

Alexandra Runswick (London, Unlock Democracy): On the edge of your seat waiting for the latest exciting instalment on how the British Statement of Values and Citizens Summit is actually going to work? No? Just as well really, as the NCVO sponsored meeting last week with Michael Wills was certainly detail-lite.

Anthony Barnett has rebuked me for not sharing the scintillating insights and fascinating public policy lessons learned from the meeting but to be brutal; there were none. All I can report is that motherhood and apple pie AKA participation and engagement are generally considered to be good things. Michael Wills, as ever, was passionate about the agenda and committed to making the Citizens Summit a meaningful deliberative exercise. I have no doubt that he personally wants the British Statement of Values to be a radical citizen engagement exercise. However I don't see how it can be when so little policy detail is available at this late stage.

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): Yesterday evening Michael Wills gave the annual Constitution Unit lecture to a packed out room in UCL's School of Public Policy. Its title was "Kick-Starting a National Debate on a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" but Wills took the opportunity to speak more broadly on the whole Governance of Britain agenda. The Government, he said, recognises that debate on a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities "can only make sense in the context of the wider debate about power in our society." And so a BBRR will form part of the ongoing "struggle" to distribute power so it "flows freely" and does not become concentrated and used arbitrarily.

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): It went largely unnoticed last week, but Justice Minister Michael Wills gave a short speech at Lincoln's Inn on how the constitutional reform programme is shaping up and what the government hopes to achieve.

He sets out in a clear fashion the three main processes entailed by the Green Paper. Some points of interest. It's encouraging that Wills says he will "explore the case for economic, social and cultural rights and so-called third generation rights", although, he stresses, these would not be enforceable by judges since this would "put them in the uncomfortable position of having to make decisions about the allocation of scarce public resources" disempowering "elected politicians". The Green Paper seemed to all but rule out the prospect of a BBOR containing anything over and above the standard civil-political rights, despite the fact 88% of Britons, when asked, list free access to healthcare as one of the most important rights. (To my knowledge, South Africa is the only country to have a constitution giving judges powers to order government to redistribute resources when an individual's basic welfare is not being met.)

Jon Bright (London, OK): The Ministry of Justice have launched the Governance of Britain website, something which all keen OKers might want to have a look at - it promises to be the focal point of the Governance of Britain agenda online. Whether it will evolve into a large, flourishing conversation on the constitutional future of Britain or lists slowly along underused until it is finally killed by committee remains to be seen. Either way, we will be keeping a keen eye on it.

James Graham (London, Quaequam!):

Millennium reminded me of something I’ve been meaning to blog about for a while now.The Ministry of Justice’s Governance of Britain initiative now has a logo (pictured). Is it my imagination or does it look rather like an airstrip? Given Gordon Brown’s avowed Atlanticism and scandalous adoption of Son of Star Wars by press release, is this the sign of things to come, perhaps?

Stuart Weir (London, Democratic Audit): Anyone who wishes to comprehend the dark well of ignorance, prejudice and insularity at the core of this country's political culture need go no further than to read The Times's report on the review of electoral systems carried out by officials of the former Department for Constitutional Affairs, now part of the Ministry of Justice.  It is hard to be sure what the full document might say, since this is a report of a leak, but in essence these officials have warned that proportional elections to Parliament would de-stabilise British politics, introduce an era of minority governments and coalitions and bring our glorious tradition of  'effective' government to an end. So far as I can discern, they have been very selective in their assessment of proportional elections within the UK and even more so in their appraisal of PR elections abroad.  But what sticks in the craw, after Britain's experience of the policy disasters that litter the recent history of electoral duopoly, or dictatorship, culminating (so far) in the illegal and disastrous invasion of Iraq, is the idea that our disproportionate elections to Parliament deliver 'effective' government. Nick Herbert, the Conservative spokesman, apparently fears that Gordon Brown might yet water down the report, due to be published in December, and imperil the 'tried and trusted'  electoral system just to keep the Lib Dems on side should he need them - adding stupidity to ignorance, prejudice and insularity.  

Jon Bright (London, OK): The independent human rights organisation, Justice, has released a response to the Green Paper on constitutional reform published by the Ministry of Justice yesterday. You can read the Green Paper here and Justice's response here (opens pdf).