Home Affairs and Justice

Yesterday we saw the Lord Chancellor, in all his finery, skilfully walking backwards, which he did most expertly. That was entirely appropriate, because retreat has been the story of the Prime Minister's programme on constitutional renewal. Back in July last year, when the new Prime Minister made his first statement to the House, he promised a"““national debate…founded on the conviction that the best answer to disengagement from our democracy is to strengthen our democracy.””—[Official Report, 3 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 819.]" Constitutional change was not peripheral to the Government's agenda; it was central to their programme—““founded on…conviction””. That conviction cannot have been very profound, because just 18 months later, the constitutional agenda has all but disappeared. It has become clear that the Prime Minister had no great vision of a new settlement, just the immediate political challenge of dissociating himself from his predecessor. The Prime Minister soon discovered that just repeating the word ““renewal”” did not renew anything, least of all his reputation. The work of change did not work, so spin doctors were fired and a new purpose was sought. Now the Prime Minister has found a different posture, on the global stage—““Never mind British democratic renewal; it's time to save the world.”” A supposed programme for long-term constitutional change has now been cast aside in a second, desperate attempt to establish a new narrative. What we are left with is neither reform nor renewal, just tinkering. Eighteen months on from the grand promise, we do not even have a proper constitutional renewal Bill, just an ongoing draft Bill, with an indication that the real thing will be introduced when time allows, and we all know what that means. The Prime Minister said:"““Constitutional change will not be the work of just one Bill or one year or one Parliament””.—[Official Report, 3 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 815.]" Now we know what he meant. At this rate, we will not see a constitutional renewal Bill until the next Parliament. We are left with a few draft measures that are worthy enough in their own right, but completely inadequate to address the real problems of public disengagement and imbalance in our political system. Last year, the Justice Secretary told us:"““I hope that a consensus can be achieved on the constitutional renewal Bill””.—[Official Report, 7 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 148.]" However, he cannot even find consensus among those on his own Benches. His predecessor, Lord Falconer, said that the Bill was not so much constitutional renewal as constitutional retreat. The Joint Committee on the Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill, which was chaired by the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster), said:"““it is difficult to discern the principles underpinning it,””" which is a polite way of saying, ““It's a dog's breakfast.”” More than one commentator has described the Bill as a miscellaneous provisions Bill. Professor Adam Tomkins of the university of Glasgow told the Joint Committee that"““to call this Bill a Constitutional Renewal Bill is an exaggeration…of both the terms 'constitutional' and…'renewal'.””" The Bill contains some worthwhile measures, among them the repeal of sections of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which has seen people arrested for reading out the names of the dead at the Cenotaph, but which can apparently do nothing about the permanent encampment that has taken root in Parliament square. Citizens should not have to petition the police for the right to make themselves heard by Parliament. After all, it was the Prime Minister who said last October:"““we can start immediately to make changes in our constitution and laws to safeguard and extend the liberties of our citizens,””" which included"““respecting and extending freedom of assembly””." With the constitutional renewal Bill still only in draft form, will the Government consider including the provision to deal with the issue of protests in Parliament square in the policing and crime Bill instead, which is at least a real Bill and will be introduced in this Session? Perhaps the Metropolitan police does, after all, have enough to do at Westminster. The Justice Secretary is in full constitutional retreat. Last year, he promised to publish a Bill of rights and responsibilities. He travelled round the world talking about it. He delivered learned speeches to academic audiences. He even flew to Washington to tell the new world that he was going to modernise Magna Carta. Only new Labour could utter that phrase with no sense of irony or endorse its revolting suggestion that all our ancient rights need is a makeover from a spin doctor. What has happened to the Bill of Rights? The Justice Secretary's constitutional adviser, Lord Lester, has resigned, saying that the Government's proposals are unworkable. Since none of us has seen the proposals, it is hard to know. Where is the statement of British values? When does the Justice Secretary plan to publish it—on the new British day, perhaps? Last March, the Prime Minister said, ““Today””—I emphasise the word ““today””—the"““Secretary for Justice is consulting throughout the country on a statement of values and on the case for a full British bill of rights””." After nine months, will the Justice Secretary say how his consultation throughout the country is going? He cannot, of course, because it has not happened. The Prime Minister said last year that the consultation would begin ““in the autumn””. In October last year, the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), told the House that he would ““shortly be announcing”” it. In November, he said that work was ““still under way””. By February this year, he claimed that the Government were ““about to launch”” it; then he said it was launching ““before Easter””. After Easter, they were still ““finalising the process””. In May this year, the Justice Secretary said he would be making an announcement ““before the summer recess””. The build-up to the statement of values is acquiring a tantric quality. The question must be asked how much value the Government believe this statement of values still has. [Interruption.] I am glad the Home Secretary understood the reference. During the debate on last year's Queen's Speech, the Justice Secretary promised us"““All the changes that…the Prime Minister…set out in his historic, first statement””.—[Official Report, 7 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 146.]" So let us have a look at that historic first statement.