Memorandum submitted by Unlock Democracy
ABOUT UNLOCK
DEMOCRACY
Unlock Democracy is a campaign run by Charter
88 and the New Politics Network to ensure that Britain has a strong
voice calling for democratic and constitutional reform. Unlock
Democracy is non-affiliated and works with political parties across
the political spectrum and a wide range of groups and individuals
to provide an independent and innovative debate on the future
of politics.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(i) Unlock Democracy believes that power should
be devolved to the lowest possible level. The devolution of power
to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has been a significant
achievement.
(ii) However a decade on governance in the UK
remains highly centralised. We believe that devolution must be
an ongoing dialogue rather than a one off reform. There should
be an open and transparent process for citizens or devolved assemblies
to request additional powers and if there is popular support for
this proposal it should not be able to be blocked by central government.
Citizens should also be given the right to petition for further
decentralisation of power using the mechanism that is already
in place for elected Mayors.
(iii) While we welcome devolution it is also
important to recognise that it has created an underlying instability
within the UK constitution that needs to be addressed. If a government
was elected that did not have a majority of MPs in England but
passed laws that applied only to England, this could potentially
lead to a constitutional crisis.
(iv) Unlock Democracy is in favour of devolution
of power to the English regions but we recognise that there may
need to be a wider package of measures to address the English
questions and that this could include the creation of an English
Grand Committee.
(v) England needs to have the same debates about
government, power and identity that have already taken place in
Scotland and Wales. We believe there should be a constitutional
convention to address the issue of governance in the UK at the
earliest opportunity.
What issues remain outstanding?
1. Unlock Democracy believes that devolution
to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was a significant achievement
of the 1997 Labour Government. However there is a danger in believing
that devolution has been achieved and can somehow be ticked off
the list of constitutional reforms that need to be addressed.
2. The relationships between the devolved
assemblies and Westminster have inevitably evolved over the last
decade and will continue to do so. There are calls for further
powers to be devolved to both the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish
Parliament, although there is not yet a coherent vision of what
this means in terms of the Scottish Parliament.
3. Unlock Democracy supports the implementations
of the Richards Commission proposals in Wales but we believe the
process of constitutional change is as important as the individual
proposal.
4. We believe that it should be possible
for citizens to petition for additional powers to be devolved.
The principle of petitioning for change has already been accepted
for directly elected Mayors and local government Executives. Under
the government's proposals it was also necessary for there to
be demonstrable public support for regional government before
a referendum could be held. We believe that this principle should
be taken a step further and that the power to initiate change
should be given directly to citizens and then put to a referendum.
5. The most pressing outstanding issue regarding
the devolution settlement is the English question. There is a
growing sense that England is badly served by the devolution settlement.
Although it is often phrased in terms of distribution of seats
in Westminster the English question is actually a series of questions
about identity, the constitution and where power lies.
6. When devolution was first proposed critics
claimed it would lead to the break up of the United Kingdom, that
a Parliament for Scotland would inevitably lead to independence.
Our concern is that that if the current sense of grievance in
England is not addressed, then it will be England, not Scotland,
that precipitates the end of the Union. The status quo is
not sustainable. England needs to have the same debates about
government, power and identity that have already taken place in
Scotland and Wales.
7. If a Government were elected with a majority
of seats in the UK but not in England and passed laws that applied
only to England, it could cause a constitutional crisis. Traditionally
Labour governments have relied on the support of MPs from Scottish
and Welsh constituencies, where historically they have had more
support, to govern the UK. This was accepted even if the government
did not have a majority in England, as in most cases policies
applied equally to all areas of the UK. This is no longer the
case. The dominance of the Labour Party since 1997 has meant that
has not yet become an issue but the devolution settlement has
left an underlying instability in the UK constitution that needs
to be addressed.
8. There are a number of proposed solutions
to the English questions including an English Parliament, territorial
voting, and English Grand Committee and regional government. However
just as there is not one English question it is likely that there
will not be one answer, rather there will need to be a package
of measures to address the different issues.
9. An English Parliament would address some
of the issues of national identity but would not solve the problem
of centralisation within England; power would still need to be
devolved to a regional level. A parliament would just be an additional
and unnecessary tier of governance.
10. We do not support what has been referred
to as English Votes for English matters. While this would solve
the issue of representation at a technical parliamentary level
it would do nothing to address the broader issues of national
identity and an overly centralised state. We recognise that the
status quo is unsustainable and is creating tensions, but
do not believe territorial voting is the solution. England needs
power to be decentralised; not a complicated and bureaucratic
voting mechanism in Westminster.
11. An English Grand Committee has also
been put forward as a possible solution. While this would be a
useful mechanism for addressing the technical parliamentary issue
of English representatives having a forum to explore English only
issues, it does not address the fundamental issue of too much
power being held at the centre. Nor does it address the broader
cultural and identity issues. However it could be used in conjunction
with devolution to the regions as a forum for national discussions.
12. Unlock Democracy believes that power
should be devolved to the lowest possible level. If a decision
only affects one community the power to make that decision should
rest with that community. The question should be not what powers
should be devolved but what functions can only be carried out
at a national level.
13. Following this principle we believe
that devolution in England should take the form of directly elected
regional government. It is difficult to see what powers that would
only apply to England, which could not be devolved to a regional
level. However this would have to involve significant devolution
of power from Westminster and not just the regional administration
proposed for the North East. Nor would it have to mean devolution
to existing governmental regions. There is a strong case for devolving
power in some areas down to the local area as some local authorities
in southern England are larger than member states of the European
union.
14. It is important to recognise that devolution
to a region of England is not the same as devolution the nations
of Scotland and Wales but also that the size and population of
England means that even as an independent country, England would
need power to be decentralised.
15. We have an opportunity to address these
issues now, while they are a concern rather than a matter of urgency.
If power is not devolved within England, we risk a constitutional
crisis and the rise of English nationalism. Under these circumstances
it becomes more difficult to resolve the English questions within
the context of the United Kindgom.
What is the future of the current Secretaries
of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Are the current
arrangements for the Scotland and Wales offices within the DCA
appropriate?
16. There is no doubt that the interests
of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should continue to be
represented within government and that there needs to be a Minister
accountable for the use of reserved powers. However as the relationship
with the devolved assemblies evolves and particularly if further
powers are devolved it may be that there is no longer a need for
separate Secretaries of State. It may be desirable to move towards
having a Secretary of State for nations and regions, rather than
separate government offices. However this should only be done
in close consultation with the devolved assemblies and relevant
stakeholders.
17. As the DCA is now incorporated within
the much larger Ministry for Justice it may be time to consider
moving the offices for Wales and Scotland. Our concern is that
that constitutional affairs agenda is going to be submerged beneath
the much larger and more controversial criminal justice agenda.
Is the UK's model of asymmetrical devolution sustainable?
18. We recognise that variable devolution
is a reality of governance in the UK but the same powers should
be available to the different nations if they request them. There
should be an open and transparent process for devolved assemblies
to request additional powers and if there is popular support for
this proposal it should not be able to be blocked by central government.
For example if a devolved assembly voted to change the electoral
system and this was ratified in a referendum, it should not be
possible for this reform to be blocked by the Secretary of State.
19. Citizens must also be able to call for
constitutional change and not be dependent on their elected representatives.
We believe that citizens should be able to petition for power
to be devolved or for independence. This is already an established
principle for elected Mayors we recommend that this use of citizens
initiative should be extended, particularly in relation to where
decisions are taken.
20. Unlock Democracy believes that the outstanding
issues from the devolution settlement should be addressed within
the broader context of a constitutional convention. Within that
there should be the opportunity for the English representatives
to meet to debate the English questions but this should be in
the context of a broader constitutional settlement. However if
for some reason, it was decided not to hold a UK constitutional
convention we would support an English constitutional convention
to debate these issues.
What are the broader consequences of devolution
for the future of the UK's constitution?
21. Charter 88, now working with the New
Politics Network as Unlock Democracy, has always campaigned 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.
22. The constitutional reforms that have
taken place since 1997 while welcome, have made the need for a
Citizens' Constitution even more urgent, as has the way in which
the Labour Party in government has continued the process of centralisation.
Most of those things which used to characterise the British constitution
have either now been removed or are irreparably damaged:
we no longer have a unitary state;
the absolute sovereignty of Parliament
has been undermined by the Human Rights Act;
Cabinet government is no more than
a convenient fiction;
the use of referendums has undermined
parliamentary sovereigntyit is difficult to see how the
Scottish Parliament could be abolished, for example, without a
referendum, even if this is constitutionally possible;
the move towards politicisation of
key sections of the civil service has continued; and
the monarchy no longer commands immediate
respect nor does it play its once unifying role.
23. With the exception of the rule of law,
all that is left of the old constitution are its least desirable
elements: winner-takes-all elections and Prime Ministerial powerwhich
is, of course, greater than ever.
24. Constitutional reform has taken place
in a piecemeal fashion in the UK. Radical change there has been,
but with no overall sense of the kind of country that these reforms
were designed to help build. Each reform seems to have been enacted
in isolation without a real idea of how it would impact on the
others.
25. A written Constitution will set out
the rules for the way we make and change the rules. It will provide
the basic law and fundamental rights that together provide a framework
within which our society will live and prosper.
26. 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. This does not need to be in the form of a single document
but a new constitutional settlement should include the following.
It should:
be created with maximum public involvement;
guarantee political equality and
help society aspire towards social equality;
protect democratic representation
in and authority over government and public affairs;
provide a framework for the stable
rule of law;
ensure that individuals can claim
and protect their rights;
empower citizens as individuals,
in families and also in communities of place, occupation, choice
and lifestyle;
define being a "good citizen"
as exercising the power to say "no", to hold authority
of all kinds to account, and to resist as well as endorse and
assist elected authority; and
describe what citizens share and
will protect the differences we enjoy; indeed, it will map and
enable differences and help to ensure they are protected as a
common, living inheritance.
27. If voters are to become citizens they
must have a fundamental Bill of Rights. Without one, they remain
powerless to exercise control over those who govern in their name
between general elections.
28. Even if there were no other reason,
relations between separate territorial parliaments and assemblies
within the UK demand rules that everyone can understand. The present
situation is a formula for perpetual conflict. We believe that
the governance of the UK should be the priority for a constitutional
convention.
29. As a member of a European Union, which
with the Charter of Fundamental Rights has continued the process
of constitutionalising itself, the need for Britain to be clear
about its own self-definition is all the greater. The process
of creating a written Constitution will help to foster this.
30. Having a written Constitution is like
having the vote: in itself it is procedural. It does not guarantee
more justice, equality or efficiency or economic growth or any
other outcome. People can have the vote and not use it, or feel
like voting "none of the above". Nonetheless, as a matter
of principle they must have the vote.
31. So it is with a written Constitution.
It cannot magic into being a society in which citizens participate
in and exercise control over government. It will not automatically
create a country in which everyone is free from discrimination
and the indignities of inequality.
32. Our argument is quite simply this: without
a new constitutional settlement that has the full consent of the
people of these islands none of these other goals will be sustainably
achieved.
Alexandra Runswick
Parliamentary and Policy Officer
May 2007
|