Crossofstgeorge Debate

[Hotspur]

New designs on democracy


BEFORE we are all caught up in a frenzy of debate about the rights and wrongs of the draft European constitution and its chances of passing a referendum in France and Holland, there is a more fundamental issue that requires to be addressed: the British constitution.

Since shortly before New Labour came to power in 1997 it has been fashionable to disparage the British constitution in its entirety. But it has evolved over centuries, rather than being drawn up by a committee, as in America (est. 1776).

So far from having any sense of constitutional inadequacy, we can take pride in the uniqueness of our evolved settlement - or could, until recently. The ill-considered and piecemeal nature of Tony Blair’s bid to change the constitution, of which the most notorious was his back-of-an-envelope plan to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor in the course of a Cabinet reshuffle, has destabilised the governance of Britain.

One way to repair it would be by the composition of a written constitution. The trouble with such documents, as the many amendments to the US and other constitutions testify, is that they are obsolete as soon as the ink is dry.

The British way has long been to identify any individual feature which, at any given time, requires reform and repair it. The time for an overhaul on a number of fronts is upon us.

The high-profile issue being touted in the Westminster village is reform of the House of Lords. It is not a priority, for now. The Upper House, in theory, defies every canon of democracy, since its membership is mainly appointed and partly hereditary. Ironically, it has shown itself a better guardian of our liberties (eg on anti-terror laws) than the supine Commons. As Blair has relentlessly packed it with his cronies, they have largely gone native and he has met continued rebuffs that are very healthy for democracy.

For the time being, the House of Lords is working, but within this decade reform will have to be faced up to. The logic of contemporary Britain is that an elected chamber, with clearly defined delaying and amending powers, is required to balance the Commons. But any further reform needs to be very carefully thought out. There are other issues that will not brook delay.

Foremost among them is the now dangerously inequitable relationship between Scotland and England. A narrow majority of English electors voted Conservative at the recent election, only to see Labour reinstalled in government. This was partly due to glaring anomalies in the English electoral system; but their resentment can only be aggravated by the spectacle of Scots Labour MPs providing majorities for contentious legislation south of the Border, while English MPs have no say whatsoever in law-making on most Scottish issues.

The West Lothian Question is now a serious irritant to the Union. Yet every survey shows that we Scots are happy to see England’s democratic deficit redressed - as ours was by devolution - and would have no objection to Scottish MPs being barred from voting on English matters. It is not Scottish opinion but Labour’s self-interest that is blocking the solution to this grievance.

The other chief problem - that of under-representation of Tories and Liberal Democrats due to flaws in the electoral system - must be radically addressed not by proportional representation but by the Boundary Commission. It needs to redraw parliamentary boundaries in line with current demographic realities. Proposals to introduce a system of PR are a recipe for permanent political fudge. The most polite term to describe some of the minority elements that PR has injected into our Holyrood chamber is eccentric. To repeat this experiment at Westminster, with the added risk of paralysis of government, would be worse than irresponsible.

Across the whole spectrum of electoral law, we need a thorough programme of measures to eliminate unfairness and restore public confidence. In short, we need a rolling programme of Reform Bills aimed at renewing the integrity of our parliamentary democracy for the 21st century. Bring it on.
_________________
Lord Hugh Cecil 1918



"the truth is that colouring federalism with nationalism is like painting a rat red: it kills the animal.

Federalism and Nationalism are contradictory and mutually Fatal".