James Graham (London, Unlock Democracy): I have to admit that despite my back issue collection of Fortean Times, I don't really have that much time for conspiracy theories, least of all the ones surrounding the death of Princess Diana. The current inquest investigating her death seems a collossal waste of tax-payers money, and the media scrum surrounding it just leaves me cold. But watching the footage shown on the BBC this evening about the court's visit to the Pont de l'Alma tunnel in Paris did at least serve to illustrate what a proper working jury looks like.For supporters of widening the jury principle into public policy, it has been a depressing month. The various "citizens' juries" that are being conducted around the country don't resemble what I ever understood a citizens' jury to be. Far from sober, deliberative exercises of the type we saw in Paris, these appear to be glorified focus groups searching for little more than snapshot opinions.
It looks as if Gordon Brown has fundamentally misunderstood the point of citizens' juries: the purpose of them is to develop a single, well informed view with clear outcomes based on a narrowly defined remit. No-one is suggesting they should be used to set policy, but their rulings must carry weight for there to be a point to them. That means at the very least publishing their findings, something the government has thus far refused to do. It is important in law that justice is not merely done but seen to be done, which is a large part of why we have jury trials in the first place. Citizens' juries are no different and thus for them to be regarded with any respect they must follow many of the same rules.
Based on Brown's comments yesterday (reported by Anthony) about having juries "in every part of the country to listen to what people are saying, engaging with people about the big issues" he has clearly mistaken quantity for quality. Having government listen to a cacophony of views is hardly any different to what we had before, with government spending millions on consultations every year. Consultation culture has lead to a degree of cynicism that I don't believe the government fully appreciates.
What should have been an apolitical issue has now become distinctly partisan; at the Conservative conference last week politicians were lining up to denounce Brown's so-called "junk democracy" and "old politics". The media has been equally sceptical and it is curious why the government didn't take more care to keep them on board. Just as with the government's handling of regional government in the early noughties, supporters of the principle have been forced to stand around uncomfortably shuffling their feet as the implementation starts to look less and less like what they thought they were campaigning for.
There is some hope that Brown's plans for citizens' juries will be overhauled, with the National Consumer Council and Involve drafted to help ensure a more rigourous approach (see Alice Casey below), but my own feeling is that the only real solution is to take them entirely out of the hands of government and put them in the hands of Parliament where they would be subject to more cross-party scrutiny. Here the potential for the system is much more exciting: imagine using a jury to deliberate over an actual Bill as a first step before the Public Bill Committee steps in; having seen the limits for what currently passes for Public Bill Committees receiving evidence, there is enormous scope for improvement there. Or how about using the system to complement the work of a select committee, which would have to formally respond to the jury's findings. We should be using the system to broaden public debate on policy, not shutting it down.
Citizens' juries can never replace the role of Parliament, but there are a number of exciting ways in which they can complement its work. In the hands of governments though, there will always be the accusation that they simply lack independence and the credibility that goes along with it.
