DISCLAIMER: This article contains the personal views of the author and should not be inferred to be the views of Unlock Democracy.

Labour came to power in 1997 with the promise of a comprehensive programme of constitutional reform, agreed with the Liberal Democrats. We advocated and supported the legislation which brought about the first Scottish Parliament for 300 years along with devolved government for Wales, London and Northern Ireland. We supported the Human Rights Act and backed the first stage of reform for the Lords. We looked forward to the ‘proper directly elected Second Chamber’ Tony Blair had promised in 1996. The then Prime Minister was no proponent of electoral reform but he had promised ‘the chance for the people to decide…the system by which they elect the government of the future’. So much for that.

What then of Gordon Brown? Credit where it’s due, the Prime Minister’s first statement to the House of Commons – on the Governance of Britain – was a welcome first step. Perhaps the most important tenet was his willingness to circumscribe the powers presently exercised by Ministers under the Royal Prerogative. The devil, though, is in the detail. The Government and the Conservative Party have spoken with a common, cautious voice, the former saying it might just ‘limit’ the powers and the latter warning in its recent policy working paper on Sofa Government that ‘full replacement of the Royal Prerogative by Parliamentary authority would mean a radical constitutional change…with a complex and pervasive administrative law’. The Tories give the impression that it may not be Sofa Government which is the problem so much as on whose sofa government is transacted.

Our approach to the Royal Prerogative – to Executive power – turns the approach of the other two parties upside down. We believe that powers which have not expressly been conferred on the Executive should be held to rest with Parliament. Nothing very complex about that – it’s how other constitutions the world over work, defining and limiting Ministerial power in the interests of citizens and their representatives.

At our conference this month, we will be debating a new policy paper on constitutional reform, For the people, by the people. In it, we propose to break out of Westminster, placing responsibility for drawing up a new constitution with a convention made up of members of the public, as well as with political representatives of all parties and none. We renew our promise of urgent electoral reform for the Commons. First past the post provides neither proper representation nor any kind of mandate for strong government – electoral reform is a prerequisite for reinvigorating the democratic life of the United Kingdom. Our policy paper commits us to a wholly elected Senate. Jack Straw’s proposal to publish yet another White Paper on Lords Reform – the fourth in eight years – and to delay legislation until after a general election represents a triumph for those who seek to stave off democracy in our second chamber. Never has an issue with such obvious underlying principles – those of legitimacy and democracy – attracted such interminable deliberation and reporting by committees of the great and the good. The last thing we need is another report. What is needed now is legislation to bring about the clear will of the Commons, and the clear wish of the people, to have a fully democratic Parliament. Is that so much to ask in 2007?

In the coming parliamentary session we will, as ever, fight the forces of conservatism on both sides of the House of Commons. We will be the voice for radical reform, for handing power to the people and bringing government closer to our communities. We welcome the Prime Minister’s conviction ‘that the best answer to disengagement from our democracy is to strengthen our democracy’. Our advice to him is to take heed of his predecessor’s words on the birth of that ‘new dawn’ in 1997: Enough of talking, it is time now to do.