Britain is poised for a second big wave of constitutional reform. Tony Blair never really believed in it, but despite his minimalism, the first wave of reforms (devolution, the Human Rights Act, Lords reform stage one) has transformed Britain's constitutional landscape and built up momentum for the second. Gordon Brown, by contrast, is a strong believer in constitutional reform. He has kept it quiet for ten years, but in the opening speech of his leadership campaign he committed himself in general terms to a new programme of reform, starting with parliament. In the same week, his campaign manager Jack Straw came out in favour of a written constitution.
Blair's reforms have left a lot of unfinished business. The main items are devolution, parliamentary reform, Lords and electoral reform and a British bill of rights. On devolution, Alex Salmond is not the only first minister flexing his muscles; all three of the devolved assemblies will demand more powers. Brown should set up a British framework for answering their demands. Under the old regime, each would have been dealt with separately, through the Scotland office, Wales office and Northern Ireland office. Brown should merge the three offices into a single department, and revive the cabinet committee on nations and regions, which lapsed in 2005. As devolution heads into choppier waters, Brown should revive the joint ministerial committee on devolution, the forum in which the British prime minister meets his devolved counterparts, which Blair also allowed to lapse in 2003.
Parliamentary reform is one of Brown's declared priorities. As leader of the house, Jack Straw has strengthened the legislative process with various technical but important reforms. Now we can expect scrutiny hearings of senior public appointments, as happens with the treasury select committee, which can question new members of the Bank of England's monetary policy committee. To reconnect parliament with the public, the government could encourage parliament to welcome public petitions, as the Scottish parliament does. The e-petitions currently directed to No 10 could be channelled through parliament, strengthening its historic role in redressing grievances.
Lords reform is harder. Despite the Commons' seemingly resounding vote in March in support of an all-elected chamber, tactical voting was involved, and all the parties are split on the proper balance between elected and appointed members. If the government tries to introduce a bill proposing an all-elected Lords in the next session, it will be blocked in the Lords (who voted to retain an all-appointed chamber) and subject to myriad amendments in the Commons. This is an issue the government should refer to all-party talks or a constitutional convention, along with the related issue of electoral reform for the Commons. It can then make its detailed intentions clear in the next manifesto, which would help overcome any final obstruction in the Lords.
Brown's interest in a British bill of rights stems from his interest in Britishness. Labour's original plan was to incorporate the European convention on human rights (ECHR) as stage one, before introducing a British bill of rights. Incorporation of the ECHR through the Human Rights Act 1998 was a top-down elite project. The lack of public involvement has enabled part of the media to depict the ECHR as a rogues' charter, and part of a European plot. By launching a public consultation on a British bill of rights, Brown could develop greater understanding and support for the ECHR, and foster debate about what additional rights might be required. The change in content might not be great. But the change in public support could be dramatic, especially if the bill of rights were endorsed in a referendum. The equivalent Canadian charter commands huge public support, and is an important symbol of Canadian national identity.
Finally, should these reforms be brought together in a written constitution? Here the political signals from the Brown camp are puzzling. A written constitution is a huge project, for which there is little public demand. It would do nothing to restore trust. Its main advantage is that it would improve political literacy, by providing an organisation chart of the main institutions of the British state, and the rights of its citizens. The difficulty is reaching agreement on its content. Should it be the constitution as it is, or as people would wish it to be? What should it say about the House of Lords, the established church, the monarchy? Should it be entrenched, and if so how? Should the document be short or long? A shorter one would be easier to understand, but would leave more scope for judicial interpretation.
The constitutional agenda will test to the extreme the tensions between Brown the constitutional reformer and Brown the control freak. The first symbolic changes Brown makes as prime minister will show how he means to continue. Brown the reformer would announce the restoration of the role of the cabinet and cabinet committees in place of "sofa" government. Brown the reformer would announce that the main prerogative powers will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. And a reforming Brown would renounce prime ministerial patronage in relation to House of Lords appointments.
Brown is genuinely interested in decentralising power, in greater transparency and accountability, in restoring trust in democracy. But he has also learned the harsh lesson that transparency can diminish trust (as over the publication of MPs' expenses, or the disclosure of treasury advice); and he has now seen devolution lead to an SNP government in Scotland.
Brown and Straw are old hands who know all too well the laws of unintended consequences. So they are likely to be cautious in response to suggestions to establish a constitutional convention, like the one which laid the plans for the Scottish parliament. This might usefully be convened for specific projects with specific terms of reference, like preparing a British bill of rights; but not for an open-ended exercise like writing a constitution. Don't be surprised if the government's language modulates into promises of a new constitutional settlement, in which more of the constitution is written down. Taking things step by step is the British tradition, and is also more practical politics.
