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.
Wills discussed concerns over the executive's dominance of the Commons and quoted Lord Steyn who has said that 'the rule of law may trump parliamentary supremacy'. As John Jackson has repeatedly pointed out in OK, remarks such as this suggest judges will intervene if government ever acts to undermine the democratic principles which confer legitimacy upon it. Wills, it seems, recognises this.
He also had novel things to say on another issue much discussed in OK. The so called "Dog and Duck" problem of how to engage non-anoraks in constitutional reform issues:
Our constitutional arrangements reflect - and determine - how power is distributed in our country. This isn't just about the grand issues that populate textbooks... It's also about overcoming the daily frustrations of public life. It's about getting support to tackle anti-social behaviour. It's about the hunting ban and the smoking ban. It's about tackling the discrimination and prejudice many of our people still have to endure.
Wills reiterated points he made in a recent speech on the power of the web and the dangers of a slippery slope to a "plebiscitary democracy" which only strengthens "the wealthy and powerful" and undermines democratic decision-making. Instead, new forms of engagement will be used to strengthen "our historic system of representative democracy" - an example is the British statement of values which will "emerge from a deliberative process, culminating in a citizens' summit."
But what of the written constitution tantalisingly hinted at by Brown and others? Wills's remarks confirm those made in Straw's "Magna Carta" speech last month. Don't expect anything radical or soon:
Historically, constitutional change in this country has been the work of the physician, healing what needed to be healed, rather than the engineer, drawing up blueprints for new models.
As the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor have signalled, it follows from an organic and evolutionary view of constitutional development that we should not rule out progress to a fundamentally different set of constitutional arrangements - embodied in a fully written, codified constitution. But such a fundamental change could - and should - only ever take place on the basis of a settled consensus. And such a consensus will inevitably only emerge over time.
A Green Paper will, however, be published "shortly" on the BBRR. "Responsibilities" are being given particular emphasis. The BBRR will apparently articulate those "we owe to each other that are intertwined with the rights we enjoy." Now, I am unclear (and a little uneasy) about what it means for rights to be "intertwined" with responsibilities and, judging by some of the points raised in the brief Q&A, I'm not the only one. Sure, there are duties correlative to legal rights. These fall on the state. But what would it mean to have citizens' responsibilities written down in a charter? The law already limits rights and assigns obligations. Do we need reminding? On a charitable reading, the government are worried any BBRR, like the HRA, will be assailed from certain quarters as the embodiment of a "me first" culture that ignores the interests of the law-abiding majority.
The timing of the lecture lent it a certain irony. Wills spoke eloquently and enthusiastically on ways to restore trust in democracy and encourage participation. But he did so in haste, and rushed off at the end leaving an MoJ official to take questions. He was needed in the Commons to vote "No" on holding a referendum on the EU Treaty.
