Labour's programme of constitutional reform has left plenty of gaps and loose ends which all the parties are probing as they prepare their election manifestos.
The biggest piece of unfinished devolution business lies in the English Question. England is the hole in the devolution settlement. The English Question is best broken down into a series of questions about English representation in our new quasi-federal system. Should there be an English parliament to match the Scottish parliament and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies? Should England instead be divided into eight or so regions, each with its own assembly, which in population terms would come closer to the size of the devolved assemblies? Or should Westminster (in particular the House of Lords) be adapted to give greater voice to English concerns, without creating a separate English parliament?
All of these questions are currently up in the air. William Hague flirted with the idea of an English parliament in 1998, but then backed away: a year later his rallying call became "English votes on English laws" at Westminster. Labour had seemed to support regional chambers and regional assemblies, at least in the run-up to the 1997 election, but in government the initial focus has been limited to creating Regional Development Agencies and more political energy has been devoted to elected mayors than to regionalism.
An English parliament is not an option. Those who demand one are, in effect, demanding a full-blown federation, in which the four historic nations would form the component parts. But as a rule of thumb there is no successful federation in the world in which one of the parts is greater than about one-third of the whole. England, with four-fifths of the population, would be hugely dominant: even more dominant than Prussia in the old Germany. Nor is there any strong public demand.
Regional assemblies are one of Labour's unfulfilled promises from their 1997 manifesto. In government it fell to John Prescott to implement this pledge, but he has had little support from his colleagues, and none from No 10. Again, there is little sign of public demand, although things are stirring in the regional undergrowth. In the past year, three of the English regions have established constitutional conventions, each chaired by a bishop, with the North East making the running. This spring saw the launch of the Campaign for the English Regions, formed by the vanguard bodies of the North East, North West, West Midlands, Yorkshire and Humberside. So far none has got beyond sloganising: there is little sign of the detailed planning and gritty determination which went into the work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. But it took the Scots ten years.
The other important unfinished business of devolution lies at the centre. Paradoxically, the devolution of power requires a stronger centre-in both Whitehall and Westminster-to hold the new settlement together. But so far the changes have been minimalist. In Whitehall there continue to be three territorial secretaries of state, although there is little justification for their separate existence. In time they should merge into a single Cabinet post, a Secretary of State for the Union, or for the Nations and Regions, to handle relations with the devolved governments and to uphold the devolution settlement in Whitehall. The new post could be in a beefed-up Cabinet Office, where relations with the devolved governments are currently managed by the Constitution Secretariat. It services the Joint Ministerial Committee on Devolution (JMC). This committee, rather than the "Council of the Isles," has proved to be the real gearbox of devolution, the forum for troubleshooting, and for the UK government to negotiate policy initiatives with the new administrations. Up to now the UK government has used the JMC to promote its own agenda. It is a sign that the JMC is coming of age that the first summit meeting, on 1st September, was convened at the request of the devolved governments. If Donald Dewar, David Trimble and Rhodri Morgan start to act collectively, devolution is taking root, and Whitehall needs a strong centre to hold the ring.
Historically, Whitehall has had a weak centre around the prime minister; the real power lies in the departments. Tony Blair has introduced new units to galvanise the centre, such as the Performance and Innovation Unit, but to
be more effective
the Cabinet Office and No 10 should come together in
a Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, as they have in Australia.
A stronger centre for the executive in Whitehall requires a stronger legislature in Westminster, both to hold it to account and to hold the new devolved Union together in terms of political representation. Here, too, the changes have been minimalist, perhaps reflecting Blair's lack of interest in parliament.
But Westminster is gradually developing its role as a quasi-federal parliament. This includes operating as a proxy for an English parliament, within the wider shell of the Union parliament. Pre-devolution, it was clear when Westminster was operating as the legislature for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; post-devolution, it will also need to become clear when Westminster is operating for England. Over the next few years we will witness greater formalisation of "English only" business at Westminster.
Will Scottish and Welsh members stay away from English debates? Will they follow the self-denying ordinance set by Tam Dalyell, and decline to vote on such issues? If all the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs were to follow Dalyell's example, William Hague's purpose of English votes on English laws would have been achieved, by a new convention rather than a new law. There would still be big political implications if this convention were to be observed-especially if two different political parties commanded majorities in the Union and England. To be manageable it would require acceptance of another convention: that a defeat for the government on English business was not a matter of confidence. (How much legislation is purely English is a moot point-according to Malcolm Rifkind, more than two-thirds of the bills in the last Queen's speech applied to the whole UK.)
Equally important is the potential new role for the House of Lords. In a quasi-federal Britain, one obvious role would be to represent the nations and regions-like second chambers in federal systems. The Wakeham Commission on Lords reform came down against a full-blown federal solution, but recommended that a minority of the members of a reformed second chamber should be elected to represent the nations and regions.
What is lacking in these piecemeal adaptations is a vision of parliament's new role. Historically, Britain has been governed by a parliamentary system dominated by the executive, with few checks and balances (although we now have the Human Rights Act) and little separation of powers. Devolution tends to reduce executive domination. In a party system, this is normally reinforced by proportional representation (PR), which reduces government majorities and often leads to minority or coalition government (as in Scotland and Wales). But PR is no longer on the agenda for Westminster, as Roy Jenkins himself has acknowledged.
In the absence of PR, how else can we strengthen the legislature to balance a stronger executive? In the devolved assemblies a new figure is emerging: the Presiding Officer-David Steel in Scotland and Dafydd Elis-Thomas in Wales are much stronger leaders of the legislature than the Speaker at Westminster. There are other ways in which the power of parliament could be increased. Most of them are well-known: strengthening select committees, and removing appointments to them from the hands of the whips; requiring committees to engage in more systematic scrutiny of government spending; giving committee chairs a salary equivalent to ministers, and better office support; pre-legislative scrutiny of draft bills; more shared control of the legislative timetable. Underlying all these proposals is a desire to reduce the imbalance in power and resources between the executive and the legislature; and the wish to develop an alternative career structure for MPs, as attractive and prestigious as ministerial office.
Some of these points were raised by the Conservatives' Commission to Strengthen Parliament, chaired by Lord Norton of Louth. William Hague has said that he will implement most of them. It would be a nice twist if it fell to the Conservatives to complete the ambitious programme of constitutional reform which Labour has started. n
