Westminster Watch

The long-anticipated thoughts and wishes of Gordon Brown regarding constitutional matters were delivered to the House of Commons, naturally, on 3 July. It had been planned for this to be one of the first pronouncements of the new prime minister, akin to the 1997 decision to grant operational independence to the Bank of England, but the failed terrorist attacks on London and Glasgow reprioritised it.

The Governance of Britain (green paper) is not the first document bearing that title to come from a Labour prime minister, that was from Harold Wilson in 1976 at the end of his political career. Brown’s version comes at the very beginning of his Premiership.

Yet Brown is hardly a beginner. He was by far the longest-serving Chancellor of the postwar period. This experience and vantage point is unprecedented in modern times. Anything missing or ill-prepared is not because of time pressure. (That Jack Straw, Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, will take the proposals forward also brings a decade of Cabinet level, and specifically constitutional, experience.)

Although hints that something constitutional was in the offing emerged from the almost watertight Brown circle, the document did present some surprise both in what was there and what was not. It is a proposal-heavy piece of work that encompasses clear potential actions, suggested future moves dependent upon negotiation and other ideas which are floated almost in abstract.

The tightening of the ministerial code alongside the strengthening of parliament’s role in holding the executive accountable was expected due to the perceived lack of due process during the Blair years. Notable amongst these proposals is the decision to make definite the need to seek parliamentary sanction when committing the armed forces to action (subject to urgent emergency needs). How this will be done is still undecided, either by making it a convention or by taking the unambiguous statutory path. The mention yet again of a final settlement for the Lords, without an explicit course, leads to the conclusion that little or nothing will happen here until after the next election.

Placing the civil service on a statutory footing — a recommendation of the Northcote-Trevelyan Report of 1854, as Brown somewhat comically pointed out in the Commons — is a highly welcome step and one which should bring greater stability to the role of Whitehall after three decades of politicisation fears. This has been a live issue in government circles for a number of years now, attracting regular media attention. It has been interesting to see just how little press coverage civil service reform has received this time. Perhaps its former celebrity was generated simply because of Tony Blair’s opposition.

Brown’s floating of a written constitution is immensely intriguing. Is this something he truly believes in or a device to divert attention? Would it take the form of a time-consuming detailed dissection of all aspects of British governance or appears as a set of principles much like those that govern the civil service? Something as big as this necessarily requires the most profound debate leading to the widest possible acceptance and the fact that it is merely mooted is to be applauded.

The green paper contains a significant amount of detail on issues relating to local government which are unfortunately underwhelming. Much research has been undertaken regarding devolution to the countries, regions and authorities of the UK, and even on what is known as ‘double devolution’ (powers devolved to very local units such as housing trusts or individual streets), but this is notable by its absence. Perhaps this will come in time, possibly in the forthcoming Labour manifesto currently being prepared by Ed Miliband.

If the Brown Government is truly committed to the renaissance of local government, the acid test is granting greater ability to set taxes — and be clearly accountable for it. Until this happens, most is froth.

The Banquo at the feast of the devolution proposals is Tam Dalyell’s famous ‘West Lothian Question’ which is being given extra emphasis by the amount of Scots in the Cabinet and on the Labour backbenches and by some of the populist decisions emanating from the SNP-controlled Holyrood. Asymmetrical devolution is unavoidable in a UK overwhelmingly dominated by England. The Conservative party has been agitating on this issue for some time and Brown’s clunking dismissal of it will not make it go away.

All of this adds up to a document that is not revolutionary but far from insignificant. It contains many of the constitutional reassurances that were being demanded after ten years of Blair-style government. Attempting to restore the loss of trust many sense in the political system is to be commended. Moreover, even mention of a possible written constitution is truly ground-breaking, whose time may have finally come.

But the true message which The Governance of Britain sends is that however closed, power hungry and indeed ‘Stalinistic’ Gordon Brown is portrayed, he has, at the earliest possible opportunity, demonstrated a wish to give up some of the very real powers bequeathed to him by the unwritten British constitution.

That, in the history of the British premiership, is undeniably momentous. On constitutional issues at least, Brown has, in the words of Churchill and Roy Jenkins, ‘risen to the level of events’.

Jon Davis is Assistant Director of the Mile End Institute.