Geoffrey Bindman (London, BIHR): The age of Brown has begun with the dramatic offer of a new constitutional settlement that “entrusts more power to Parliament and the British people”. The Prime Minister has presented his proposals under four headings, but these really fall under two broad moves: the specific transfers of power in some defined areas; and longer term national consultations and debate for potentially more fundamental changes. This is a clever approach because the specific items are largely uncontroversial and have already been widely acclaimed. They relate to glaring anomalies which have allowed the executive to make major decisions without democratic accountability. These include powers to declare war, to ratify international treaties, to restrict oversight of the intelligence services, to appoint judges and bishops, to direct prosecutions, and to control the civil service.
These specific changes will not, however, have much practical effect because for most of them executive power has been substantially curtailed already: the decision to go to war in Iraq was in fact debated in the House of Commons; a largely independent Judicial Appointments Commission is already in place; Mr. Brown has already moved to give more independence to the civil service; and the new Attorney-General has dropped out of the prosecution process save where she has a statutory role.
It is right to insist that treaties should invariably have parliamentary endorsement (as supported by myforeignpolicytoo)but the government can go further: they should be automatically part of our domestic law and enforceable through the courts, as is the case in every other European country.
More problematic is the broader issues put forward for debate especially a British Bill of Rights. The Human Rights Act, incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights, already fulfils the function of a Bill of Rights. (And this might be strengthened by the fact that the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights has becoming binding across the rest of the continent despite the UK’s opt outs). A home-grown version could be valuable provided it adds to the rights already guaranteed by the Human Rights Act. There is also merit creating a code of principles which the public can see as reflecting its will and consent. Although the Convention is in fact largely the product of British draftsmanship, it is often wrongly perceived as something foisted on us by other Europeans. Gordon Brown may be right to see a healthy public debate on such issues including a new constitution as a useful way of cultivating a sense of ownership - a catalyst for improved social cohesion.
