Constitutional Renewal White Paper and Draft Bill
From Democracywiki
Central Lobby
PASC Inquiry
The Public Administration Select Committee is conduction an inquiry into aspects of the governments constitutional renewal agenda. a full report is available on the Committee's wiki page
On 29th April 2008, the Public Administration Select Committee heard evidence on the Government's draft Constitutional Renewal Bill. Mr Ed Miliband MP (Minister of State) (Cabinet Office) and Gus O'Donnell gave evidence on the provisions regarding the Civil Service and Mr Michael Wills MP (Minister of State) (Ministry of Justice) gave evidence on the Government's plan for constitutional renewal more generally.
On 24th April 2008, the Public Administration Select Committee heard evidence on the Government's draft Constitutional Renewal Bill. Janet Paraskeva, the First Civil Service Commissioner gave evidence on the provisions regarding the Civil Service and Professor Peter Hennessy, Professor Robert Blackburn and Sir Robin Mountfield KCB gave evidence regarding the Government’s plans for constitutional renewal more generally.
Ministerial Statement
 Our View Commenting on the publication of the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill today, Director of Unlock Democracy Peter Facey said: "Increasing the powers of Parliament is of course a good thing in principle. In some limited circumstances it might even help hold the government to account. But while the government has effective control of the House of Commons via the whips, reforms of this type will only have a limited impact. It is a simple fact that until we have an electoral system that can ensure that the composition of the Commons reflects the votes cast, formally giving Parliament greater powers will be largely symbolic." A detailed response to the drfta Bill will be available on Unlock Democracy's website soon. |
On 25 March 2008, Jack Straw MP (Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State Ministry of Justice) made a statement regarding the Government’s programme of constitutional renewal. A White Paper and a draft Constitutional [Renewal Bill, and an analysis of the responses to the Government’s consultations were also published with his statement. In his statement, Mr Straw announced that the Government planned to surrender significant Executive powers to Parliament, or otherwise limit them.
He stated that the draft Bill was in five parts and outlined those five parts as follows:
The first part related to protest around Parliament. Clause 1 of the draft Bill proposes the repeal of sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
Part 2 of the Bill deals with the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General would cease to have any power to give directions to prosecutors in individual cases - report to Parliament. Mr Straw pointed out that the Government did not propose changing the Attorney-General's role
Part 3 of the Bill removes the Prime Minister entirely from the making of judicial appointments, and the Lord Chancellor from making appointments below the High Court.
Part 4 makes it a statutory requirement that treaties must be laid before both Houses of Parliament before ratification.
Part 5 will for the first time put the civil service on a statutory footing by enshrining the core values of the civil service—impartiality, integrity, honesty and objectivity—into law, as well as the historic principle of appointment on merit.
Furthermore, the Bill would require the Prime Minister of the day to seek the House of Common's approval before deciding to commit forces to armed conflict abroad.
In respect of parliamentary scrutiny of some key public appointments, Mr Straw stated they would await the Liaison Committee’s findings on the issue.
The Bill would also introduce enhanced scrutiny and public role for the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Mr Straw announced that draft legislation on the prerogative power with regard to issuing passports would soon be published.
Appointments to senior Church positions will continue to be made by Her Majesty the Queen.
Nick Herbert MP (Shadow Secretary for Justice), expressed the view that the “changes will be seen as worthy, but inadequate.”
Outlining the Conservative’s response to the Government’s plans, he said they welcomed a number of the proposals, including the measures: to strengthen the autonomy of the Intelligence and Security Committee; to place the rules governing ratification of treaties on a statutory basis; to put the civil service on a statutory footing; to renew the right to protest around Parliament and to reduce the influence of the Executive on judicial appointments.
He also affirmed his party welcomed the idea of parliamentary approval for substantial deployments of troops into conflict, but proposed a mechanism for securing retrospective approval. He also suggested there should be a statutory cap on the number of special advisers, that parliament should set its own timetable, and asked how the Government’s proposals make the Attorney-General more accountable.
Mr Herbert also raised a number of questions of Mr Straw regarding the Government’s proposals.
He enquired as to whether the Government plans to consult on alternative voting systems for the Commons and on compulsory voting, and if so, when.
Mr Straw responded that they were reviewing voting systems, but was also keen to point out that “personally, I am profoundly committed to single Member constituencies.” He also pointed out that the Government “are against making it a criminal offence not to vote.”
Mr Herbert attacked the Government’s progress on devolution, referring to it as unbalanced and claiming it had “unleashed the forces of nationalism.” He invited the Government to confirm whether they would answer “the still unanswered West Lothian question.”
In response, Mr Straw denied any problems with devolution and said it was the poll tax in 1987 that drove nationalism, not devolution.
Mr Herbert asserted that people needed to be given a genuine say over decisions that affect them and suggested giving citizens the power to initiate debates in the House of Commons and have new laws tabled.
In response to this, Mr Straw stated that the Government had put forward radical proposals to the Procedure Committee for improving how the petitions system work, but did not expand further on this.
It was David Howarth MP’s view that the Government’s proposals only represented “nibbling at the edges of constitutional reform,” declaring “our political system is broken and people are losing faith in politics. That means that if we do nothing about it, they will lose faith in democracy itself.” He went on to compare the situation to 1832, saying as at that time "reform must start with the way in which this House is elected."
He suggested that as long as the Attorney-General retains powers to stop prosecutions on grounds of national security, the public will not be reassured about the dropping of cases such as the BAE Systems case.
Mr Straw responded that it was not the Attorney-General, but in fact the Serious Fraud Office, that stopped that investigation.
On treaty ratification, Mr Howarth contended that given their tight grip on the business of the House, the government’s proposal would mean that there will be a vote in the House only if the Government wants one.
Mr Howarthalso invited the Government to “clear up the whole mess” regarding the dissolution of Parliament by supporting his Fixed Term Parliaments Bill.
John Spellar MP expressed concern over lawyers being allowed to appoint judges, which he believed would lead to a “self-perpetuating, out-of-touch, arrogant oligarchy.”
However, Mr Straw pointed out there is now an independent Judicial Appointments Commission, which has the primary role for appointing judges.
Quentin Davies MP suggested parliamentary confirmation of important executive offices.
Kenneth Clarke MP enquired whether as soon as a decision is taken to move troops to an area of potential conflict, where conflict is one of the options, it would be necessary to get parliamentary approval.
Mr Straw replied that he hoped the proposals would change the way in which the Government would operate, internally, where there is consideration of an armed conflict.
Alan Whitehead MP asked whether the ongoing consultations would result in the inclusion of the possibility of weekend voting.
Mr Straw said he could not give that assurance, but said the Government were “looking for an early legislative opportunity, if the measure is what the public want.”
Douglas Hogg MP expressed concern over the roles of the whips in the affairs of Parliament.
Mr Straw responded that “government would be difficult to operate under any party without any whipping.”
George Young MP, referring to demonstrations near Parliament, asserted that “many people object to permanent, unsightly encampments in the middle of a great, historic city.”
It was Mr Straw’s reply that “those encampments are unsightly, but they also represent people exercising a right to demonstrate.”
Fiona Mactaggart MP expressed concern over postal voting fraud, but Mr Straw explained that had been dealt with in the Electoral Administration Act 2006.
David Hamilton MP suggested that this might be the time to separate state from Church, so that the Church is taken out of state business, although Mr Straw was of the opinion that “the Church plays an important role in our constitution as well as in the faith of our society.”
Graham Brady MP complained that the Government keeps complete control of the timetable of parliamentary business.
David Gauke (Shadow Minister, Treasury) asked whether there was a possibility of the mechanism of recall being introduced for MPs.
Mr Straw replied that there were no specific plans, but “there is a case for” the idea.
