Governance of Britain Green Paper
From Democracywiki
Central Lobby
 Our View Unlock Democracy has welcomed Gordon Brown’s commitment to introduce a wide range of constitutional reforms, from ceding Royal Prerogative powers to Parliament to beefing up citizens’ petitioning rights. However, it has warned that the government cannot afford to pick and choose from the findings of its “national conversation” on a Bill of Rights and a written constitution. Commenting, Director of Unlock Democracy Peter Facey said: “In many respects, Gordon Brown’s speech today is the speech we have waited ten years to hear from a Labour Prime Minister. While many of the things he has committed to today are relatively uncontroversial, low hanging fruit, they are commitments that none of his predecessors are willing to make. Today he has struck a blow for the authority of Parliament. The next step is to strike a blow for the power of the people. “The Prime Minister’s call for a national conversation about rights and the need for a constitution is similarly a step in the right direction, but we have concerns that the process will be controlled by the Government. The Secretary of State for Justice will be facilitating the debate and it will be for Government to decide which proposals should go forward. “In our opinion, this process needs to be owned and lead by the people themselves. For this reason we will continue to push for a Citizens’ Convention that Government has a statutory obligation to cooperate with.” The Citizens’ Convention Bill had its first reading in the House of Commons last Tuesday, sponsored by Julia Goldsworthy MP (Liberal Democrats). It will commit the Government to establishing a constitutional convention that must involve people from all sections of society in improving the way the United Kingdom is governed. It is supported by a cross party group of MPs including David Chaytor (Labour) and Douglas Carswell (Conservative) and 24 other MPs. |
Contents |
June 2008
On the 19th June 2008, the House of Lords hosted a debate on the concept of Britishness in terms of the cultural, historical, and ethical traditions of the British people.
The discussion concluded that the nation is becoming progressively more segregated, placing ethnic minorities at risk of isolation and alienation from mainstream society and thereby increasing the threat of fundamentalism and terrorism within our homeland. In order to prevent this, we must treat minorities as equal members of society and establish an inclusive definition of Britishness that depends not on defined boundaries but on the common cultural and ethical values established throughout the nation’s history. Furthermore, we must appreciate the benefits of individual differences offered by a diverse community while fostering, without imposition, a sense of national identity and belonging.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Conservative) opened the debate, emphasising the need to understand the concept of Britishness in order to adequately tackle the challenges facing modern Britain. He asserted that Britishness is not defined not by national, ethnic or geographical origins but by national values and hallmarks such as our legal system, parliamentary democracy, social justice, freedom of speech, and equality of opportunity.
He agreed with Sir Trevor Phillips, head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) that Britain is becoming increasingly divided by race and religion, developing an imbalance between multi-culture and integration leading to "isolation, alienation and even hostile communities.” He referred to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in young British Muslims, stating that almost a third of those surveyed would prefer to live under Sharia law. Therefore, in order to prevent terrorism, we must build bridges between communities and treat minorities as equal members of society.
Lord Taylor outlined four ways in which to nurture the concept of being British to create a stronger sense of an inclusive identity similar to that displayed in America:
- Promote the English language so new migrants can communicate with the rest of Society
- Promote the use of language and knowledge tests to equip migrants with the skills and information necessary to increase their awareness of British Society.
- Less negative media focus on ethnic minority icons; rather, ethnic minority role models should inspire children of all backgrounds.
- Government funding of faith and community groups at local and national levels.
Lord Parekh (Labour) responded by expressing his unhappiness with the term Britishness, as it implies a lack of fluidity and an unchanging all-encompassing essence of which all Britons must embody. Problems with defining Britishness arise because the British people take great pride in their individual identities, making their own choices and forming their own opinions.
In order to create a sense of community, Lord Parekh argued that we need a nationally shared self-definition, adaptable to future changes as Britain’s destiny becomes interlocked with that of the rest of the world. He identifies three elements that must be included in any self-definition, stating that
He concluded by defining being British as a moral covenant between the minorities and majority, in which the minorities must accept our society’s values and the majority must accept their differences.
Baroness Cox (Crossbench) maintained that the cultural traditions of education and freedom of thought have been one of the greatest British contributions to the developing world. Regretabbly, this contribution remains underappreciated by the younger generations. According to a recent survey, many young people have left school with little appreciation of the value of Britishness or our cultural heritage, many even believing that Winston Churchill was a fictional character. She referred to the “lack of identity and the vacuum of values” affecting the youth of modern Britain.
The Bishop of Norwich argued that religion may be a more important guide to defining Britishness than we realise. He contended that the debate of Britishness remains valuable so long as we do not attempt to establish definite boundaries regarding who the British are and who is not British. Rather, softer boundaries are more pragmatic, as they can remind us that individual differences can be more interesting and important than similarities, concluding that the debate should not be about border control and immigration, but should focus on “fostering good citizenship.”
Baroness Verma, Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills (Conservative) cited the Cantle Report findings in which members of largely Muslim communities and those from the white population were “living parallel lives” and moving towards a more segregated society. She argued that the Britishness debate, though designed to promote a sense of belonging and commonality, is not a clear concept; a 2005 research study by the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE - now part of the EHRC) identified eight dimensions to Britishness that are further subdivided with different emphasis being placed on different dimensions for each individual person. The greatest challenge facing the concept of a cohesive British identity exists in the ghettos, in which at least 2/3 of the population are a single ethnic minority and where segregation remains prevalent in the workforce and the education system. There is also the threat of “soft segregation,” the segregation within social circles; the CRE found that 95% of white Britons state that all or most of their friends are white.
Baroness Verma maintained that diversity within British society is to be valued, but not at the expense of a national identity and belonging. Rather, we need to bridge the gaps created by these differences so that these differences can be experienced, giving our young children the wider outlook and experience vital to making them well-rounded adults. She concludes that the government should fund initiatives to address the serious and common issues of poor education, housing, and unemployment affecting minority populations to prevent the fostering of ill will and segregation.
Lord Haskel (Labour) emphasised the separation of the concept of Britishness from that of citizenship and identity, stating that Britishness has become a framework for uniting us in our differences. The concept of Britishness must instead include both social and economic equality. He asserted that the basics of social equality are provided by the Human Rights Act but if equality was guaranteed then Britishness would not be a threatening concept to minorities.
Lord Prys-Davies (Labour) responded by evoking the findings of the 2007 British Social Attitudes Survey, which reveal a notable increase in the proportion of people preferring a national identity such as England, Scotland or Wales over a inclusive British identity, with particularly prevalence amongst people under the age of 35. He suggests that leaders need to define Britishness in terms that are meaningful to a generation with pluralistic identities, each of equal strength.
Baroness Flather (Conservative) contended that Britishness is based on personal views and cannot be objective. Multiculturalism in Britain has failed because we are unable to respect all cultures as equal in status with the British culture. Additionally, the desire to remain politically correct has caused people to stop being open and frank with each other, which in turn has reduced their abilities for discussion and debate. Finally, society is being fragmented because too much attention is being paid to relatively few disaffected Muslims; we need to separate in our minds these few from other Muslims.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (Crossbench) acknowledged multiple identities ubiquitous in our modern Britain, including civic, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, moral and linguistic identities; careful distinctions are necessary to define and separate them from each other such that the concept of Britishness refers to our civic identity alone. Furthermore, it is the role of the national government to foster and encourage this civic identity based on shared civic values. Lord Harries counters Lord Taylor’s idea that we should fuse our multiple identities into one overarching national identity similar to that of America, as America’s identity emerged from organic growth throughout her history. However, British history has been different from that of America; a British national identity has not grown organically and it would be folly to attempt to impose a fusion of identities.
Lord Harries concluded by suggesting the establishment of a House of Lords Select Committee to monitor the efficacy of current citizenship education.
Lord Bew (Crossbench) identified two underlying problems facing the government in defining a concept of Britishness. First, the writing of British history has left a notoriously negative view of a xenophobic, materialistic, and aristocratic imperialism that has evolved into the current cold, insulated and Eurosceptic society. Secondly, devolution remains at the heart of problems within the British Isles and has not proved to effectively solve old problems. Furthermore, a Dod’s survey has shown that 80% of the House of Lords believes that devolution has weakened the union.
Lord Bew concluded with the observation that Britishness must be specifically defined as a political and legal culture in that immigrants do not necessarily need to completely assimilate into the general culture so long as they are integrated into the economic, political and legal culture.
Lord Addington, Deputy Chief Whip (Liberal Democrat), analyzed the current feeling of exclusion amongst ethnic minorities and the looking towards their own communities as a product of the nation’s historical development, such that the current concept of Britishness is reinforced by our interpretation of our past experiences. He equated the difficulties experienced by minorities to those associated with class differences of the past, in that some people from ethnic backgrounds can integrate into the middle class more successfully than others in the same way that many working class members were able to more successfully rise above their stations than others. We must address these current problems to make our society more accessible to its members without imposing our own values on them.
Baroness Warsi, Shadow Minister (Community Cohesion), Communities and Local Government (Conservative), established the debate about Britishness as a question of defining loyalty. She criticised the government’s multiculturalism approach to minority communities as “clunking, headline-driven on many occasions, and unsophisticated in its homogenous approach.” She commended David Cameron’s six-week national school-leavers citizen programme as an opportunity to unite the nation’s youth and foster better understanding of one another.
In addressing the question of what binds us together, Baroness Warsi identified three pivotal characteristics:
- Access to learning the English language
- Return to equality of opportunity agenda
- Proper teaching of the history of our nation and its institutions to understand past challenges to identity and how they have been overcome.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Parliamentary Under-Secretary,Ministry of Justice (Labour), recognised that the civic values mentioned throughout this debate may not have been fully codified in a way that helps define who we are in a way that Britons can understand. He sympathizes with the view that an explicit statement of values is unnecessary and in fact un-British, considering that the nation is renowned for understatement, yet there remains an undeniable call amongst the British people for tracing the roots of their identity.
As the world has become increasingly interdependent, a new politics of inward-looking identity has emerged, bringing many social and economic benefits but also uncertainties and fears. Pluralistic identities have become common across the nation and are inherent in the nature of the union, which has been strengthened and developed by the process of devolution.
With regards to segregation and separatism, Lord Hunt asserted that we must not underestimate the cohesion in the Society but must tackle segregation by focussing on opportunity and education.
March 2008
On 5th March 2008, there was a Westminster Hall Debate on the Governance of Britain.
During this brief debate, Graham Allen urged the Prime Minister and the Government to press ahead with the democratic renewal they had promised recently in their Governance of Britain Green Paper. Justice Minister Michael Wills confirmed that the Government were pressing ahead with reform but said it was a gradual process and one in which people needed to be involved.
Graham Allen MP (Labour) opened the debate by stating that he would like the Gordon Brown Government to be remembered as one that revitalised British democracy and returned power to the people. He pointed out that we had seen ten years of massive majorities and unprecedented economic growth, giving real space to transform our democracy, but he claimed this opportunity had been missed. It was Mr Allen’s opinion that Parliament itself has the most to gain from democratic renewal. Mr Allen claimed that in the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign, he made only one commitment to legislation, and that was on democratic reform. Warning that progress was being slowed by “the dead-weight of conservative culture, bureaucratic tradition and the soporific comfort zone of colleagues,” he urged Gordon Brown to proceed with democratic reform. He stressed such reform needed “reinvigoration and reaffirmation from the top.”
It was Mr Allen’s contention that the Prime Minister "has been working hard”, but that he “knows that outside there are no torches lit, no passionate debates being held, no sense of this being Philadelphia in 1787.” He asserted that the media should be “abuzz with excitement around creating free-standing, independent local government, democratising the health and police services in regions” and carrying through genuine democratic reform. Mr Allen also stressed the importance of having our rights and responsibilities defined in a British Bill of Rights.
A question was put by Neil Turner MP (Labour), as to whether Mr Allen was worried over the long period in implementing regional Select Committees, to which Mr Allen confirmed he was. Mr Allen went on to say that regional Ministers themselves could form the nucleus of regional government.
Peter Soulsby MP (Labour) queried whether the vision that was being set out by Mr Allen for a much more democratised Britain could be achieved only in the context of a Bill of Rights. In response, Mr Allen agreed, saying “Let every school and every sixth form debate what should be in a British Bill of Rights.”
It was also Mr Allen’s view that a written constitution would have to be the first step of constitutional reform, pointing out that “many things in our current unwritten constitution would be laughable in a written constitution,” such as the Prime Minster not being elected. Before a written constitution could be drafted and modelled however, Mr Allen stressed that “a debate needs to take place in the country and in Parliament.”
Congratulating Mr Allen on his long-term efforts on constitutional reform, Michael Wills (Minister of State), (Ministry of Justice) confirmed the importance of that issue to the Government and the country, declaring “it is about power: where it resides in our society.”
However, whilst recognising the need for further reform, he highlighted the government’s achievements on the issue over the last decade, pinpointing devolution, government’s relationship with local authorities, the Human Rights Act 1998, freedom of information and House of Lords reform as key successes.
Outlining the Government’s current position, Mr Wills stated they had consulted on the role of the Attorney-General, war powers, the ratification of treaties, judicial appointments, protests around Parliament, flag flying, and would “shortly publish our draft constitutional renewal Bill.”
Mr Wills also pointed out that they had established a concordat between the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Local Government Association, to find ways of increasingly empowering local authorities.
Furthermore, Mr Wills highlighted the Government’s review of voting systems, which he said "sets out a survey of all the different voting systems that we have introduced in this country.”In order to achieve successful democratic reform, Mr Wills stressed it was vital to “engage with the British people, online, practically and physically in town hall meetings up and down the country,” a process which he said would “take months, but not years and years.”
On 3rd July 2007 Gordon Brown made a statement to the House of Commons launching a review of the way the UK is Governed. The Governance of Britain green paper makes wide ranging proposals from reform of the royal prerogative to lowering the voting age. Although some of these reforms, such as giving parliament a role in deploying troops, had been expected, the breadth of reforms proposed was not.
The Prime Minister highlighted 12 areas where prerogative powers held by the executive would be surrendered or limited "to make for a more open 21st century British democracy which better serves the British people".
These are:
- the power of the executive to declare war
- the power to request the dissolution of Parliament
- the power over recall of Parliament
- the power of the executive to ratify international treaties without decision by Parliament
- the power to make key public appointments without effective scrutiny
- the power to restrict Parliamentary oversight of the intelligence services
- the power to choose bishops
- power in the appointment of judges
- the power to direct prosecutors in individual criminal cases
- power over the civil service itself
- powers to determine the rules governing entitlement to passports
- powers to determine the rules governing the granting of pardons
Other key proposals included:
- a public debate on the case for a British Bill of Rights or a written constitution
- changing the traditional weekday election to a weekend
- lowering the voting age from 18 to 16.
- an extension of the period of time during which parties can use all women shortlists for candidate selections and to give more time for all parties to take up this new right if they choose
- a new Ministerial Code, with a new independent adviser whom the PM can ask to scrutinise ministerial conduct including conflicts of interest
- laws on demonstrating in Parliament Square should be changed. Consultation will be held with the Metropolitan Police, the Mayor of London, Westminster City Council and MPs.
- a new process for the House of Commons to consider petitions from the public to be explored.
Unlock Democracy will publish a briefing on these proposals shortly
July 2007
Regional Accountability
In July 2007 the Prime Minister proposed that regional ministers and regional select committees should be introduced. This was in order to increase regional accountability and provide more efficient scrutiny of 'the delivery of public services in the English regions.' In October 2007 the Modernisation Committee announced its inquiry into how regional accountability could be achieved and published their report on regional accountability in July 2008.
