Memorandum by Charter 88
Preamble
1. Charter 88 is the major organisation
in the UK campaigning for a modern and fair democracy based on
the principle of accountability. Over 80,000 people have signed
the Charter.
2. We have been promoting The Armed Forces
(Parliamentary Approval for Participation in Armed Conflict) Bill
is a Private Members' Bill being sponsored by a cross-party team
of MPs including Clare Short (Labour), the Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke
MP, the Rt Hon Sir Menzies Campbell (Lib Dem), Michael Moore (Lib
Dem), the Rt Hon William Hague (Conservative), Adam Price (Plaid
Cymru) and Alex Salmond (SNP).
Basic Constitutional Points
3. It is the role of government to govern:
or in more formal language that of the executive to execute. But
in a representative democracy, the executive does not execute
that which it "feels like" executing—it executes
that which it has been authorised to execute by parliament acting
on behalf of the people.
4. This applies in all aspects of government.
Education, social services, environment, culture media and sport,
health, work and pensions etc—all policies need to have
their basis in laws passed by parliament and indeed even the broad
policies are often sanctioned by parliament via debates on White
Papers formally "laid before" parliament. Even economic
and fiscal policy needs approval via the annual budget debate
and votes and Finance Act.
5. "All aspects" that is bar those
covered by the Royal Prerogative (and similar ancient and little
known provisions) which includes probably the most important decision
our country can take—going to war. In our view this must
be wrong and that Parliament must, as of right, be given the opportunity
to authorise the use of armed forces—even if, in cases of
urgency that authorisation may be retrospective. We accept that
such a provision may be necessary on occasions. Such a provision
is contained in the Clare Short Bill mentioned above.
6. The fact that such provisions are "little
known" is itself another argument as to why they should come
under parliamentary scrutiny: they are part of the problem of
the alienation of people from politics. Arcane and archaic constitutional
provisions are the very opposite of the transparency that is required
by a modern democracy if we are to have any chance at all of engaging
people in politics.
7. It may be argued (and indeed has been)
that a law would inhibit government flexibility in what is, after
all, a very sensitive and secretive area. There are, we believe,
three fundamental flaws in this argument:
— This is not the case in other
countries.
— The "retrospective authorisation"
procedure referred to above.
— The current government has specifically
now assured the public that it will seek parliamentary approval
for future use of armed forces. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself
has told the House of Commons Liaison Committee that he can see
no situation in which such approval would not be sought. If such
government assurances are to be accepted then a new law would
not inhibit flexibility any more than that assurance. In other
words, those very assurances (if taken seriously) themselves destroy
the "inhibiting flexibility" argument against a law.
8. Is those assurances sufficient? There
are two fundamental reasons why they are not:
— They only apply to the current
Prime Minister and the current government. What if either were
to change? Suppose, in particular, there was a government of a
different party?
— But that apart there is another
point: the rights of Parliament should not be dependant on the
will of the Prime Minister. That is constitutionally not just
wrong but the wrong way round.
Points raised by the Committee
9. As regards the Committee's particular
questions, we endorse and recommend the submissions made by New
Politics Network and Democratic Audit.
October 2005
| 
