Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60
- 78)
TUESDAY 23 OCTOBER 2007
Rt Hon Jack Straw
Q60 Lord Rowlands:
I think there is a difference between consultation and specific
request.
Mr Straw: And had pre-legislative scrutiny.
On a wider issue, I was concerned as Leader of the House and so
have business manager colleagues at this end about the fact that
a number of Bills which have been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny
had dropped off. Business managers are always anxious to see Bills
go into pre-legislative scrutiny because it makes them on the
whole better Bills and it improves their chances of going through.
The problem is, however, one of actually managing them through.
It is hard to pin this down exactly but there was a point where
we had a lot of Bills coming through which were candidates for
pre-legislative scrutiny and we have got into a position now,
as we come into the eleventh session, where there seem to be fewer.
I think it may partly be to do with the cycle of each Parliament.
We are now looking at the third parliamentary session and that
third session is always an important one because it may be the
last full session before a general election. That is the reason
I suggest. There is no hostility to pre-legislative scrutiny whatsoever,
it is just that there have been some practical problems with it.
Q61 Lord Rowlands:
Does there seem to be a principle behind which Bills you chose
to do so?
Mr Straw: We had a meeting this morning
which I happened to chair in the absence of the Leader of the
House about next year's legislative programme. The decisions are—and
you have been involved in this, as others have been round the
table—that you look at the programme, you look at the balance
of the programme, you also look at the time available. As it happens
we are more likely to, because of other pressures on the programme,
to put some Bills into pre-legislative scrutiny than would otherwise
be the case for next year. But you have to have a programme that
makes sense, that keeps both Houses occupied. I am serious here
because there are twice as many candidates for legislation as
ever there is time. We have to take account of the EU Treaty Bill,
which is going to take up a tidy bit of time, so we have to put
those in the pot. As I say, I think we will find that there will
be more candidates for pre-legislative scrutiny than there were.
Q62 Chairman:
One theme that comes out constantly from the Green Paper, perhaps
in response to a perceived democratic deficit, is the need for
new and inventive forms of consultation and one could consider
this as a subset of pre-legislative scrutiny, but clearly the
government feels impelled—and I must say personally I am
very sympathetic to it—to the idea that you have to find
ways of consulting and involving people on the fundamental issue
of how their democracy works, so in respect of the Legislative
and Regulatory Reform Bill, the Constitutional Reform Bill, the
Government of Wales Bill and so on, there is specified that there
should be consultation and all sorts of forms of consultation
are proffered. Citizens' Juries, your colleague, Mr Wills, at
a seminar the other day was talking about the idea of a citizens'
summit, whatever that is, but I gather that the Prime Minister
does not like the idea of the great and good coming together in
a constitutional convention, so can you tell us what you call
the principles of engagement that are going to be worked through
because if we are saying that there needs to be a democratic public
involvement, whether we can think of it in parliamentary terms
as pre-legislative scrutiny or whether it is a good thing in itself,
it seems to be that we are inventing it as we go along and I would
be very interested to know, given your leadership, how we are
going to get to settled principles of engagement so that we are
not just reaching for a new gimmick every day.
Mr Straw: The principle is easy to state
and I think we have already, which is that we need better to involve
people in the decisions which affect them. I am more on the optimistic
side of the curve as to whether or not there has been less engagement
or more in recent years—I think in many ways there has been
more, although that has been disguised by something else that
has been going on, which is a decline in deference. I am absolutely
serious, Lord Lyell, and there is a very interesting book written
by a man called Kevin Jefferys, called Democracy—People
and Politics Since 1918, which charts this. It is a good read,
I have just finished it, and I think it puts a kind of pessimism
about the state of our democracy into a better perspective, because
we have always been pessimistic about it. I think our democracy
is certainly healthier than it was in the 1970s when I still had
this ringside seat in government. All of us are searching for
ways of engaging people in these decisions. I have told the Prime
Minister that in my constituency, which has the benefit of being
a compact, single town with a strong sense of itself, I have long
engaged in what I would described as citizens' juries, with a
small c and a small j, in which I continue to do open air meetings
in the town centre, as I did on Saturday and I did two weeks before
that. I had a very serious conversation, as they now call it,
with my electors; and I do residents' meetings and so on. I do
not regard those as gimmicks, I regard those as processes better
to engage people and ultimately to give them a sense of control
over what is happening in their lives, in their streets. With
some of these more abstract issues, like the British Statement
of Values, I think it is right to think about whether there are
more formal methods of open-air meetings and residents' meetings
where we can bring out issues that people are not used to discussing.
I can only say to those who are cynical about these processes
that about 18 months ago I had a real concern in my constituency
about the growing divide between the white community and the Asian
community—a real concern. The local authority on an all-party
basis said, "We have to have some process for bringing people
together; we cannot just stick them in a room and say that they
must like each other because that is not going to work."
So, yes, consultants were employed to do this, to work out ways
in which you could bring people better together, including people
who have absolutely opposed views. So with these consultants based
in Manchester what was called "100 Voices" was developed.
It started off on a ward basis and then people finally came together
at a two-day conference in the meeting rooms at Dene Wood Park,
and it really worked and I have seen that process then continuing
to have all sorts of spin-offs as people who had not previously
been involved in politics, with a small p, suddenly found that
they found it very interesting and were involved. With the Statement
of Values what we are trying to do here—both simple and
also very difficult—is to articulate what we all think are
British values and to see whether we can arrive at a consensus.
It may be we cannot, in which case I do not think we should legislate
on the Statement of Values unless there is a consensus, but to
have a process which is moderated by people who are reasonably
expert—maybe what has been called the Citizens' Summit—to
argue this through; and citizens' juries, if they are properly
used, as the 100 Voices was, can work. The last point I would
make, Lord Holme, is on the issue of a convention of the great
and the good. I will tell you why I am opposed to that, which
is that we have what is called a convention of the great and the
good, which is called the Houses of Parliament. We undermine our
democracy and our Parliament if we try and invent a convention
to do the job which is ultimately ours. The reason why the convention
had to meet in Philadelphia—and met for an awful long time
and mainly in secret—was because there was not a Parliament
over there. That is what they were seeking, and had there been
they would not have had to have the convention. The reason why
in Scotland that convention got going was because there was not
the machinery for having a Scottish Parliament and it helped to
develop the idea of Parliament up there. I am very much in favour
of others holding their own scrutiny of these ideas and that is
a good idea, but ultimately it has to be for this Parliament to
make decisions.
Q63 Chairman:
It is very difficult to argue against consultation, it is like
arguing against motherhood and apple pie, but I think perhaps
what people will begin to expect from the government is to set
out what the principles of engagement are and what form of consultation
is appropriate for what sort of measure, rather than it simply
being whatever happens to suit the convenience of the government
of the day. But the danger always, which I am sure you will concede,
is that who asks the question controls the agenda and you have
to have a process which people believe is genuinely consultative
and appropriate to the measures concerned and that is the vacuum
at the moment.
Mr Straw: I do not think there is a vacuum
but I accept that people may come to this whole agenda with some
scepticism, if not to say cynicism. I do not think we are going
to get over that until we give them confidence about the product
and show to people that the process has not been a sham and that
we are ready to listen. Ultimately there should not be an escape
from this sort of democracy; it is for ministers to propose and
for Parliament to dispose—that is called democracy. We should
not pretend that we are subcontracting out our decision-making
to some kind of Athenian democracy because that cannot work, but
we should assert that the process between ideas and law is a long
one and a complex one and that the more people are involved in
that the more they can be pretty well assured of being satisfied
either with the outcome or the reasons why they do not have the
outcome they want. It may be the latter rather than the former.
Q64 Lord Goodlad:
Lord Chancellor, what do you regard as the main benefits of the
new practice of publishing the government's legislative programme
in draft form?
Mr Straw: The main benefits are that
as well as consulting over the individual measures and whether
or not there has been a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny
there has almost almost been a statement of principles, a White
Paper or Green Paper preceding a Bill, almost always, you are
able to consult over the balance of the programme and people who
look down it say, "We think that rather than having that
there should be something else in it."
Q65 Lord Goodlad:
Do you think it will help pre-legislative scrutiny on a more methodical
basis?
Mr Straw: It could do. Bear in mind,
Lord Goodlad, that this particular programme for consultation
was announced very late in the session and that was because the
Prime Minister only took office at the end of June and the Leader
of the House made her announcement in the third week of July,
I think. In normal terms our intention would be to announce it
at an earlier stage, and you will be familiar from your time as
Chief Whip that we are now in a cycle where already ministers
are thinking about the legislative programme which starts in 14
months' time.
Q66 Lord Morris of Aberavon:
The point I wanted to make was is there not a real danger that
some of these juries or whatever they are called—I use that
as a shorthand point—can be hijacked by minorities? I have
been to an American town meeting and are they different in substance
to that?
Mr Straw: I would not put the danger
all that high. On the whole these juries or panels are chosen
for balance; they are not chosen at random, necessarily, but they
are chosen to reflect a balanced range of opinion. If I can use
the example of the 100 people involved in 100 Voices in Blackburn
who were chosen, as it were, by category so that you had a reflection
of the balance within the white community and within the Asian
community and you had a balance of political opinions, a balance
in terms of people who were involved in voluntary organisations
and people who were not involved in anything at all, and there
were some people there who might have voted for the BNP and some
who might have voted for extreme parties on the Trotsky left.
It was not really possible to hijack that. If, however, they had
come out with the consensus that emerged as an extreme one we
would have had something to worry about. On the town meetings,
as I say, with the Police Chief and Chief Executive and Leader
of the Council I run these regular residents' meetings—and
have done for the last four and a half years. They are not decision-making
although they are phenomenally influential as to what happens
in their area, and we have not had them hijacked. Just making
a point to you, Lord Holme, what has been crucial about this was
when they first got going people were very cynical about them
and thought they were simply a single event for people to let
off steam and be told to go away. Because people have understood
that it is part of a process in which they are told what formal
decisions are made following it and what action is happening and
there are follow-up meetings where they can put us to proof again,
people's sense of confidence in the process has greatly increased.
Q67 Chairman:
Can I ask you a timing question, Lord Chancellor? You have been
very generous with your time; can we plan that you would stay
with us until half past five?
Mr Straw: Let me just turn behind me.
Could we make it 25 past?
Chairman: A good compromise; thank
you very much. I have several colleagues who would like to ask
you questions. Lord Smith.
Q68 Lord Smith of Clifton:
Lord Chancellor, I noticed earlier that you talked about a Statement
of British Values, which I can understand, but officially it is
a British Statement of Values, which I cannot for the life of
me understand. I commend you on your change in language and terminology.
Could you explain to me why it is a British Statement of Values
as opposed to a Statement of British Values?
Mr Straw: Not really! It is like the
essay that I was set when I was a law student, to explain the
difference between a breach of a fundamental term and a fundamental
breach of a term and I have still been trying to find the answer.
There is obviously a difference about the adjective but we are
talking about British values, essentially.
Q69 Lord Smith of Clifton:
What do you envisage as being distinctly British about the Statement
of Values and the Bill of Rights and Duties? What are they likely
to include which is not shared across Europe and the Commonwealth?
And are there implications for the Human Rights Act?
Mr Straw: On the Statement of British
Values, I would like to think that many values that we regard
as being distinctly British are now ones which have been reflected
elsewhere in the world, and we have had an evangelical role—we
have, genuinely—when it comes to ideas of liberty and values.
I cannot say what will be distinctive about this until this process
is finished but I would like to suggest that personally I think
one of the things that is distinctive about the United Kingdom—and
is not exclusive, which is a different point, but is distinctive—is
our tolerance. I think there is a remarkably high level of tolerance
in this country. How will it differ from other statements? In
France they have this very strong sense of what they call solidarity
and we do perhaps have a vague idea of what it means but it does
not translate very well—I am looking at Baroness Quin, who
may have a stronger idea of what it means than do we—and
I am always struck by that in Europe. So it may be the order in
which the values are set out, the precedence it is given that
is distinctively British as well as some of the values themselves.
On the Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, what I said in my
speech at the Party Conference, in shorthand, as it were, is that
we do not want to undermine the Human Rights Act and fundamentally
the incorporation of the European Convention into British law,
which I happen to think was a very important and a durable Act,
and in the end it is worth recalling that after some changes were
made in the Bill that we did achieve a broad party consensus—indeed,
I remember Lord Lyell, I think, saying at the Third Reading that
we had got it into better shape—and we had, on all sorts
of parts of it. What that process on the Bill showed is that we
have some choices when you come to incorporation; there are still
some parts of the Articles of the European Convention which are
not incorporated, most notably Article 13 on Remedies. The other
point which again I made at the Party Conference speech is that
I think we have learnt—and I have certainly learnt—over
recent years that we need better to articulate into the equation
the fact that with rights go obligations and responsibilities—they
always have done. That side of the equation was taken for granted
by the drafters of the European Convention, which were British
lawyers—almost exclusively British lawyers—and I think
that in today's world we need to take better account of that,
so that is what we are seeking to do and so not to undermine the
Human Rights Act and still less the European Convention, but to
see ways in which it can be supplemented and complemented and
this crucial balance of rights with duties and responsibilities
and a mutual obligation is brought out.
Q70 Lord Smith of Clifton:
Might I ask what have been the reactions from the Scottish Executive,
the Northern Ireland Executive and the Welsh Assembly Government
to the proposed British Statement of Values?
Mr Straw: I do not recall, because it
is an early stage preparation, that we have had a formal response
from them, but we are a Union and I was privileged to take part
in a ceremony today where Mr Speaker unveiled a plaque in St Stephen's
Hall to the three centuries of the Union. There are British values
which transcend English, Scottish or Welsh or Northern Irish values.
Chairman: In the few minutes you
have left I am anxious to get Baroness Quin and Lord Windlesham
in, if I can.
Q71 Baroness Quin:
The Green Paper contains the statement by the government that
a written constitution might be desirable and achievable. Is this
a strong view of the Cabinet? What has brought about this change
of mind in government and perhaps in your own position too?
Mr Straw: Change of mind, this is not
a 180 degree turn, but a sort of shift. Unless one considers that
what one decided were ones view at the age of 22 would last one
through ones decades one is entitled to keep thinking and modify
ones opinions, and as Twain famously said, "If the circumstances
change I change, what do you do?" One of the great attractions
about politics is that you have to keep thinking, and the circumstances
have changed. We have now moved on over the last couple of decades
into a period first of all where we are a much more heterogeneous
society—it is really marked when you look at the changes
in the population, the fact that the ethnic minority population
doubled in a period of ten years between 1991 and 2001 and that
is going on. We are more heterogeneous. We have introduced a number
of constitutional changes and we are proposing some more. There
is also the issue of the House of Lords reform, which we have
not referred to today, and I am very grateful to you for that,
whether or not that continues, and that will also be a major building
block. So, Baroness Quin, there may come a time—and I think
it is at least some years, see me out of this job, probably—where
we will think that we have had major changes, we have reached
a settled state and is it not now time to codify those? I am personally
not in favour of tearing everything up by the roots and saying
that we should have a fundamentally different relationship between
the High Court and Parliament and the Supreme Court, but I think
putting them in a single document would not be a bad idea.
Q72 Baroness Quin:
I think you have partly answered my next question, which was going
to be about the timescale you were envisaging. In terms of the
constitutional reform that is likely in the near future, do you
believe there is a case for a referendum in respect of any of
the likely measures?
Mr Straw: If there were major changes,
yes. For example, we as a party—and I think this is widely
shared and always agreed—that if there was a change to the
voting system for the Westminster Parliament there would have
to be a referendum—it cannot be in the exclusive ownership
of one party, it simply cannot be, in my view. If there were a
change to change the sovereignty of Parliament, to, as it were,
to set up an American-style constitution self-evidently we would
have to have that agreed by some referendum and I suggest it would
be with a qualified majority as well. Where I would go with this
is that once we had got to a settled state on all the major changes—and
as we saw in Victorian times there appeared to be intense constitutional
change and then it settled. It is not to seek to codify where
you have got to so you describe in the second document the arrangements
rather than pull everything up by its roots.
Q73 Baroness Quin:
Do you think we need to codify the circumstances in which referendums
should be held before they are held?
Mr Straw: In terms of process they were
in the 2000 Act, in which you and I played a role in the Home
Office. The only way you could codify it is if you had a written
constitution, you laid that down and then you have to have somebody
arbitrating on it, which would be a Supreme Court. I think it
is better to leave it to political judgment, in my personal view.
Chairman: I want to try to get two questions
in and if we could ask them back to back and then allow you to
respond to both of them. Lord Goodlad.
Q74 Lord Goodlad:
You have very kindly referred, Lord Chancellor, to the House of
Lords reform; would you envisage the House of Lords reform Bill
being the subject of a referendum?
Mr Straw: I have not envisaged it, no.
Just to add to that, I have certainly envisaged—and the
Prime Minister made this clear in his speech—that any change
should be the subject of a clear manifesto commitment.
Q75 Lord Windlesham:
A novelty that has not been discussed so far is the notion of
the Speaker's Conference, with which I was not very familiar before
I read some of the information which is before us this afternoon.
The Prime Minister has said that he wants to revive the idea of
the Speaker's Conference as part of the search for solutions,
but it does not look as though a decision is imminent just yet
and there is still a great deal of discussion and so on and consultation
to go along. Is there a case for this or do you think it would
be a practical issue to have a Speaker's Conference and, if so,
who are the members of such a conference, and how and why and
how long will all this take if it were to be pursued? It is not
something that I feel very strongly about but it was a suggestion
that was just thrown around at the beginning of this meeting before
you joined us.
Mr Straw: The proposal from the Prime
Minister has been that there should be a Speaker's Conference
covering certain areas of electoral law and practice. The Prime
Minister recognises, as do I, that we have to be careful about
the agenda for a Speaker's Conference because the Speaker is above
the party battle so there need to be areas where one is searching
for a sense of it, so that it includes, for example, the issue
of how we extend the representation both of women and of black
and Asian people within Parliament, on which there will be different
views but I think there is basically the beginnings of an all-party
consensus and there are other areas like that. I personally would
not—and we are not proposing to use it for much bigger and
potentially contentious areas, for example the House of Lords,
because it would not work. There is a footnote that I was looking
for to say that Speakers' Conferences have not turned out to be
spectacularly successful down the ages, but anyway we are aiming
to improve the score on the positive side.
Q76 Lord Windlesham:
Is there a commitment to it or are you still looking?
Mr Straw: There is work going on at the
moment to establish it. If you have a Speaker's Conference it
will not operate unless all the political parties are willing
to agree to its terms of reference and to its modus operandi,
including its agenda.
Q77 Chairman:
Lord Chancellor, you have been more than generous with your time.
You can tell that we would be content to keep you here all evening
but I know how busy you are and we very much appreciate it. Despite
our pinning you there for nearly two hours would you be willing
to come back regularly?
Mr Straw: Of course, yes.
Q78 Chairman:
Thank you very much.
Mr Straw: Lord Holme, I understand that
this may be your last meeting in the chair and if I could, on
behalf of those of us who take an interest in constitutional issues,
thank you very much for your work. I do not want to sound impertinent
but it goes well beyond the House of Lords and I am really grateful
to you and also it has been reflected in the joint interest of
the House, which is in the Hansard Society as well, so thank you
very much.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
|
