Tom Griffin (London, OK): Democratic Audit's new report on the Constitutional Renewal Bill, Beating the Retreat (previewed here by Stuart Weir) was the starting point for a Westminster seminar on Wednesday which brought together parliamentarians, academics and campaigners to consider the government's retreat from constitutional reform.
The report was compiled by two MPs, Andrew Tyrie and George Young, and two members of the Lords, Kenneth Morgan and Paul Tyler, who served on the Joint Committee which examined the Draft Bill. They concluded that the proposed legislation failed to live up to the ambitions of the Governance of Britain green paper "to rebalance power between Parliament and the Government, and give Parliament more ability to hold the Government to account." They did recognise 'a number of valuable elements' in the Bill, but even those measures are now in jeopardy, because despite the extensive scrutiny the draft bill has already received, it was not included in the Queen's Speech earlier this month.
"This was an attempt at addressing the prerogative in a coherent manner," one campaigner told the seminar. "I don't think it will be done again particularly quickly."
One academic noted that the appetite for constitutional reform in Britain was lukewarm at the best of times. The Governance of Britain agenda was intended as "Gordon's shining hour" but had failed to resonate even bofore the credit crisis. The rest of the government had little time for constitutional reformers, it was suggested: "The cabinet sags at the thought of miserable bastards like us meeting in rooms like this, whinging."
The credit crisis may have reinforced this viewpoint, but there was general agreement that it ultimately made the case for reform stronger not weaker. One suggestion was simply that the constitutional agenda was relatively cheap to implement, although it was noted that measures on citizen engagement might require substantial spending. The enlarged role for the state in the economy, and the potential for social unrest that could call into question the legitimacy of government decisions, were also cited as reasons why the crisis might require public re-engagement with parliamentary democracy.
One parliamentarian highlighted the role of special advisors in creating the tripartite division between the Treasury, the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority, which had failed at the first test with the onset of the credit crunch. "We need a Civil Service Act to ensure that Civil Service advice is taken in a considered way," he said. Others suggested that both Labour and the Conservatives were reluctant to put the Civil Service on a statutory basis, because it would limit their room for manouvre in Government.
There was some discussion of the impact of the electoral timetable on the prospects for reform. While some believed the Government would wait until 2010, others foresaw an election next year that could lead to a hung Parliament, raising profound constitutional questions. Decisions about a new Government could not be made in the informal, undemocratic manner of 1974, it was suggested.
The emphasis on restoring the sovereignty of Parliament was questioned by one campaigner who argued that the way forward lay with establishing the sovereignty of the people. Public indifference to the Damian Green affair revealed that "They don't think MPs matter. They think Government matters," he said. "If you're going to restore trust. You can't go back. The unified system is broken."
