From Democracywiki

Central Lobby

Main Page | Index

---

Our View We very much welcome Graham Allen's efforts to highlight the need for a written constitution in the UK. Unlock Democracy campaigns for a written constitution, the primary purpose of which would be to set out the limits of what governments may and may not do in our name. We have argued that a written constitution must contain a Bill of Rights, thereby granting every citizen a legal remedy, should they need it, if their rights are infringed by the State. However we believe that the process of achieving constitutional reform is as important as the reform itself. We believe that for the citizens to possess a constitution they need to have built it themselves. When the new South Africa wanted to write a constitution following the end of apartheid it embarked on a wide-scale process of public discussion, debate and participation. This is what we want for the UK. In June Unlock Democracy launched the cross party Citizens' Convention Bill. The Bill, sponsored by Julia Goldsworthy MP, would commit the Government to establishing a Citizens’ Convention within twelve months of the Bill becoming law, which would actively involve people in deliberating on how to improve the way the UK is governed. The Government would then be required to co-operate with the Convention in deciding on the implementation of those recommendations.

Status

This is a Private Members Bill sponsored by Graham Allen MP a backbench Labour MP who has a long standing interest in constitutional reform.

The Bill was presented on 23th May and is due to have its second reading debate on 19th October. As a Private members Bill this is unlikely to become law.

What the Bill does

The Bill provides for a Speakers Conference to draw up a written constitution for UK.

The constitution drafted by the Conference shall make provision for:-

• the separation of constitutional powers as between the Executive and the Legislature;

• the protection of individual and collective rights;

• the entrenchment of the Constitution as eventually approved

• methods of amendment of the Constitution;

• the relationship between the provisions of the draft constitution and the legal and judicial systems of the United Kingdom; and

• any other matters the Conference may think fit.

The draft constitution would then be presented to Parliament as a Bill, and if passed by Parliament, put to a referendum.

October 2007

On the 10th of October 2007 an adjournment debate on government proposals for a written constitution followed on from the debate initiated by Graham Allen on the 23nd of May. The debate saw Keith Vaz put an argument for a written Constitution, in tandem with a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, to government spokesman Michael Wills (Minister of State, Ministry of Justice).

This focused on the following three points:

• It has been 300 years since the last Bill of Rights (1689)
• A constitution would create clarity as to the duties of the citizen and the state.

- It would help combat antisocial behaviour through social unity.

• Combining a constitution with a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities would bring the EU convention of Human Rights “Back Home”.

He also asked for several assurances from Michael Wills that:

• There would be representation for people all over the country in any discussions,
• That those who have final responsibility for the document have legitimacy themselves, and
• That a breakdown of who will be involved from the Ministry of Justice would be available.

In response to Keith Vaz, Michael Wills covered the following points:

• He accepted that constitutional change must be done with consultation of the British People, noting the following:

- Citizen’s Juries will be used

- The internet will be used for consultation

- A citizen’s summit will be held to decide upon a statement of UK values

• He said that a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities is a possibility, and
• He said that Constitutional changes should be conducted in a non-partisan manner, when answering Keith Vaz’s point about the legitimacy of editors.

Keith Vaz, in his statement to the house, began by quoting clause 29 of the Magna Carta, highlighting how individual freedoms have always been at the core of our thinking as a nation, but that, with reference to Sir Ian Blair’s comments, they are still under debate today. Of our current situation he said “It is not clear enough to the individual where his or her rights and duties lie, and where the Government’s begin ... We need a document embodying the guiding values we share as a nation”.

He said a constitution would “clarify the collective power of Government” and the “powers of a neighbourhood, community group or family to correct antisocial behaviour”.

He also stated that a written constitution in combination with a Bill of Rights and responsibilities would “in effect [bring] the convention back home”, as well as creating a sense of British values which “could be used to provide new British citizens from other countries with a sense of British identity”. “A constitution would [also] state the responsibilities that go alongside those rights”.

Michael Wills, in his response, pointed to “The Governance of Britain” Green Paper which, he said, represented the next stage of Labour’s reforms and sought to “forge a new constitutional settlement that entrusts parliament and the people with more power”, though it did not represent a “blueprint”.

Addressing concerns over human rights legislation, he continued to say that although the “Government remain fully committed to the universal declaration of human rights”, they have “always said that the 1998 Act was a first step on the journey towards a full articulation of fundamental rights and responsibilities”.

At this point Keith Vaz interrupted to raise a question regarding the nature of the consultations. Michael Wills responded “We shall use a wide variety of mechanisms, such as citizens juries, in which representative bodies of citizens come together to deliberate on particular issues. We intend to use online consultation widely”.

Michael Wills also stated that the root of the discussion was the “desire to find the things that bind us together as a nation. We have proposed, therefore, the development of a British statement of values” which, he said, would also be consulted upon.

In conclusion Michael Wills said that constitutional reform was “not the prerogative of one party, but something that should belong to every Member of the House and every citizen of the country. It is an important process and, if we can do it together on a non-partisan basis, we have a good chance of achieving a radical constitutional settlement, which will serve the country well for many years.”