Citizen Extra: Support the Citizens’ Convention Bill (November 2009)
In the aftermath of the MPs’ expenses scandal and other factors that have led to widespread disillusionment, we believe that politicians have demonstrated that they cannot be relied on to sort out the mess that the UK political system has got into. Unlock Democracy is therefore promoting a new law – the Citizens Convention (Accountability and Ethics) Bill – which will establish a ‘Citizens’ Convention’ to look at ways to make the UK political system more ethical and accountable. The Bill sets out the mechanisms for this and the role of the Convention. But let us emphasise at the outset that the Convention will not just be a talking shop: it will have real power.
- What is a Citizens’ Convention?
- Isn’t the government already doing something like this?
- Won’t a Citizens’ Convention hold up urgent reforms?
- Won’t the Convention’s proposals be quietly forgotten?
- Has this ever been done before?
- Is there any support for this idea in Parliament?
- What can I do to help?
- What do people say about a Citizens’ Convention?
What is a Citizens’ Convention?
A Citizens’ Convention would a deliberative assembly consisting of at least 100 ordinary men and women selected from the electoral roll, just as juries are selected in the courts. The selection would be “semi-random” as attempts would be made to ensure that the Convention represents all sections of society and all areas of the UK.
The role of the Citizens’ Convention would be to make a series of recommendations to Parliament for improving UK politics. In particular, we would want it to look at:
- The payments and expenses of MPs and members of the House of Lords.
- The electoral system or systems in the UK including the composition of the House of Lords.
- Greater powers for citizens to hold MPs and members of the House of Lords to account including the circumstances and method by which citizens can petition for the recall MPs and members of the House of Lords.
- The conduct of business in Parliament including the powers of the House of Commons; and of individual members of Parliament.
- The funding of political parties including the issue of caps on donations.
It could explore other areas of reform if it decided to.
Like a jury trial, the Citizens’ Convention would hear evidence from a variety of interested people, ranging from political parties, academics and interest groups. We would also want to see it going around the country hearing evidence from the public directly. This public involvement is important. The Convention itself would decide who to take evidence from.
There are lots of different ways a Citizens’ Convention could be organised. See our guide to involving people in constitutional reform.
Isn’t the government already doing something like this?
Not at all. Gordon Brown has established a “National Council on Democratic Renewal” which consists of a few government ministers who will take advice from constitutional experts. The final say remains with Gordon Brown. The other political parties have already rejected this, they have indicated that there will be very little reform before the general election and the whole process will come to a shuddering halt if Labour loses the next election (which currently looks very likely).
A Citizens’ Convention protected by statute (see below) would be able to proceed regardless of a general election.
Won’t a Citizens’ Convention hold up urgent reforms?
Allowing a Citizens’ Convention to be established won’t stop any other reforms happening in the meantime. For example, there is currently an urgent review of the parliamentary expenses system being held. This can still be completed and the Convention would have to take it into account.
But the Convention would be able to assess these reforms and either accept them or make further recommendations.
Won’t the Convention’s proposals be quietly forgotten?
No!
Following the Citizens’ Convention submitting its proposals, Parliament would have to debate them within three months. Parliament would be free to reject any single proposal, but any rejected proposal would be subject to a national referendum if the Convention itself or 5% of the public petitioned Parliament to hold one The people – not ‘the Westminster Village’ – will have the final say.
Surely we would be better having constitutional experts do this, rather than the public?
For it to properly do its work, the Citizens’ Convention would need to hear from a wide range of constitutional experts and may choose to appoint a number of advisors to help guide it through the process, but ultimately it would be free to make its own conclusions.
We believe that for a constitutional convention to be able to command the trust of the majority of the public it would have to be independent of government and Parliament. A convention of experts hand picked by government and Parliament would inevitably be accused of being biased in favour of the established political class. Politicians have created this mess; they can’t be trusted to get us out of it.
It is also the case, we strongly believe, that ‘ordinary people’ can and will have good ideas as to what is needed. Politicians and academics and other ‘experts’ do NOT have a monopoly of good ideas. ‘Ordinary people’ can have extraordinary ideas!
Has this ever been done before?
The jury system has been a central part of the British political system for centuries and is the first authentically democratic part of it. The practice of using randomly selected groups of citizens to decide public policy goes back to ancient Greece.
In the UK and worldwide, citizens’ juries are increasingly being given a role in policy. Most local councils and numerous government departments use them to deliberate on specific issues (although the way the government often structures its Citizens’ Juries often leaves a lot to be desired). In the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Ontario, “citizens’ assemblies” have been used to deliberate on the electoral system.
What is different though is that we are giving the Convention power: power to have its ideas debated and voted on in Parliament; and power to call a referendum if it disagrees with the decisions of Parliament on its proposals.
Is there any support for this idea in Parliament?
In the last Parliamentary session – between November 2008 and November 2009 – 155 MPs signed Early Day Motion 1573 in support of the Citizens’ Convention Bill. That’s just under 1-in-4 MPs. With your help we can convince many more!
What can I do to help?
Parliament needs to pass an Act of Parliament to establish the Citizens’ Convention. We’ve written the draft legislation, called the Citizens Convention (Accountability and Ethics) Bill, and a cross-party group of MPs have tabled it in the House of Commons.
We need to persuade MPs to ensure that it is debated and passed as quickly as possible. That’s where you come in.
We need as many people as possible to write to their MPs and ask them to:
- Support the “Citizens Convention (Accountability and Ethics) Bill” by signing Early Day Motion 148;
- Whether they are prepared to sign the Early Day Motion or not, to let you know whether they will support this Bill in Parliament.
- Whether they would be willing to sponsor it if they are chosen in the Private Members’ Bill ballot.
An Early Day Motion is a sort of petition which MPs can sign to publicly express their opinion. They rarely get debated but they play a crucial role in demonstrating how strongly MPs feel about a certain issue. The Private Members’ Bill ballot is a chance for ordinary MPs to make actual laws. 20 MPs’ names are picked at random and the ones who come top of the list are given an opportunity to table a piece of legislation of their choosing. This is a rare privilege for MPs (see the Parliament website for more information).
You can write to your MP by writing to [YOUR MP's NAME], House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. Alternatively, you can write to them online via 38 Degrees’ handy web tool.
Please send copies of any replies you get to either alex*dot*runswick*at*unlockdemocracy*dot*org*dot*uk or Alex Runswick, 6 Cynthia Street, London N1 9JF. We will be publishing their views.
If you have already written to your MP and been given the brush off, we have a list of frequently used excuses and how to respond to them.
What do people say about a Citizens’ Convention?
“Our political system isn’t working because too many politicians think they’ve got a job for life. It makes them less responsive to local people and makes many seem a caste apart. We need to renew our political system with direct democracy, so those we vote for answer to us – not just the party machines.”
Douglas Carswell, the Conservative MP who lead calls for the resignation of Speaker Martin and who co-wrote (with Dan Hannan MEP) The Plan: Twelve Months To Renew Britain last autumn.
“We found in the Power Inquiry that people are not apathetic: they feel disempowered and disenfranchised. We must change this in order to involve people”.
Baroness Helena Kennedy, who was Chair of both the groundbreaking Charter 88 and 2006’s Power Inquiry.
“Canvassing for the forthcoming elections has convinced me that the level of disenchantment has reached dangerous levels: if we don’t embark on a root and branch overhaul of our political system – lead by citizens not by politicians – democracy will continue to wither.”
Liberal Democrat Shadow Health Spokesperson Norman Lamb
“Our political system is in disarray; Parliament and politicians are held in contempt. There are no ‘quick fixes’ to this and we can’t trust the people who created this mess to sort it out. Only a public-led initiative will have the confidence of the public themselves.”
Director of Unlock Democracy Peter Facey
“The constitution does not belong to the political class it belongs to the people. The time has come to hand over real power to the people so that they can determine how they would like to be governed.
“Reform must be driven by the people themselves. It has, long been recognised that party interest has always stood in the way of achieving far-reaching constitutional reform, hence the endless delays over Lords reform, party funding and electoral reform.”
Lisa Harker, Co-Director of ippr (link)
“Politicians have failed to address the fundamental reforms this country needs, and it’s time to allow the public to take charge of creating the change Britain’s democracy so sorely needs.”
Jessica Asato, Acting Director of Progress (link)
“It has been a dark and bloody few weeks in politics but what is emerging could be the beginning of a renewal of our democracy. We are living at a defining moment and one that is rather wonderful.”
Dr Brian Brivati, professor of contemporary history at Kingston University (link)
“We should go further and hand over the power to decide how we are elected to Westminster to the voters. After all, it’s not for us to decide how we are elected.”
Martin Linton, Labour MP for Battersea (link)
“For the first time since the suffragettes, constitutional reform has become a popular issue. The crisis over MPs’ expenses has convinced many that Parliament has become insulated from the people. MPs must become accountable between general elections, not just once every five years.”
Vernon Bogdanor, professor of government at Oxford University (link)
“If trust is to be regained, we need to take the constitutional reform debate out of the Westminster village and ask the British people what kind of politics they want”
Carey Oppenheim, Institute for Public Policy Research (link)
“The last few weeks have witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of the two main party leaders attempting to outdo each other on democratic reform (with a lot borrowed from the Lib Dems but little credit going their way). At times it has felt like watching a bizarre game of constitutional poker – ‘I’ll see your right of recall, and raise you one Lords reform’ – played with no overall strategy or purpose than to appease the wrath of angry voters. With nothing less than the future of British democracy at stake, it’s time that we, the people, called their bluff.”
Guy Aitchison, OurKingdom (link)
“This a big step forward over the top-down technocratic approaches adopted by the leaders of all three main political parties. The Bill deserves enthusiastic support.”
Stuart White, Fabian Society (link)
