Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): The government is proudly presenting its new draft constitutional renewal bill, which Anthony blogged yesterday, as a handover of power from the executive to Parliament. I hope it is not unduly cynical to suggest that ministers are perhaps willing to put forward this package because they know that MPs can be relied on to do the right thing with their new responsibilities: that is, not much, especially as they are so under-resourced.
On the face of it, there is lots in here to excite the constitutional trainspotter. Reform of the role of the Attorney General, a statutory process for treaty ratification and a long-awaited (for about 150 years) Civil Service Bill. A central theme is the surrender of the ancient Royal Prerogative powers to Parliament, through which ministers at present execute a wide range of external and domestic policy subject to no effective democratic oversight.
But closer analysis shows the limitations. The Attorney General will remain political, an adviser to the government who will continue to attend Cabinet: hardly the impartial figure that is required for the role. One major reason for reform of this office was the former Attorney General's intervention to stop the investigation into the Saudi BAe Al-Yammah arms deal in defiance of the UK's international obligations and fears over his potential role in the peerages for sale case. The Attorney General will still be able to give directions to prosecuting authorities in some individual cases, meaning that it may still be difficult to take action against corruption or in any other politically sensitive matter if it involves, or can be claimed to involve, a national security dimension. And it is difficult to legislate against a nod and a wink.
The requirement to consult the legislature over war making is to be governed only by a resolution of the House, not an Act of Parliament, and the special forces (who are normally in action before any conflict has officially started) are not covered at all.
Lurking behind it all is the question - what will Parliament actually do with its new theoretical powers? The government continually falls back on the refrain that how Parliament operates is a matter for Parliament. But we all know that the legislature in the UK is an executive-dominated institution - more Parliament in the Crown than the Crown in Parliament. If the required overhaul of the parliamentary committee system and the resources provided to it is to happen, the government must take the lead - which is perhaps something it is not disposed to do. Left to their own devices MPs will (with a few notable exceptions) continue to show more interest in shoring up their positions in their constituencies through local 'social work' and propaganda activities than engaging with the big policy issues covered in this draft bill. Which suits the executive, at least in the short term, but not the cause of democratic, effective governance.
