Norton: Government in a haze

By Philip Norton

Britain has an uncodified (not an "unwritten") constitution. It has been the subject of debate for many years. There are various schools of thought about what should happen to it.

It is difficult if not impossible to engage in a debate with the government because their stance lacks intellectual coherence

Charter 88 adopts a "liberal" approach. It is an approach that derives from traditional liberal theory and stresses individual liberty, juridical defence and the constitutional state.

To realise its goal, this approach advocates radical constitutional change, including an elected second chamber and a new electoral system, all embodied in a written constitution.

Another approach is what can be termed the "traditional" approach, embracing the Westminster model of government. This is a blend of a Tory emphasis on strong government and a Whig emphasis on Parliament.

It adheres to the form of government that developed in Britain in the 19th century.

This provides a government that is clearly answerable to Parliament. It delivers an accountable system of government. There is one body - the party-in-government - that is responsible for public policy and if electors do not approve of that policy they can sweep the party-in-government out of office.

The system is also responsive (ministers know they may lose a subsequent election), effective (government will normally be able to deliver on its programme) and flexible (the system can respond quickly in times of crisis).

It is also a coherent system, one that people understand: they know where accountability lies.

Fundamentally flawed stance

There are other approaches but debate in recent years has largely polarised around these two. Charter 88 adopts the first and I support the second. We therefore take fundamentally different views of constitutional change.

What we agree on is that the policies of the present government are unsatisfactory. For Charter 88 they do not go far enough. For me, they go too far.

The stance of the government is fundamentally flawed. Charter 88 adopts an approach to the constitution that is intellectually coherent. I disagree with their approach but I can engage in debate with supporters of Charter 88 about the constitution.

It is difficult if not impossible to engage in a similar debate with the government because their stance lacks intellectual coherence.

The government has clearly moved away from the Westminster model of government. It has introduced several measures of major constitutional change (devolution, incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights into British law, the removal of most hereditary peers from the House of Lords) as well as employing a device - the referendum - that is still unusual.

These changes have, in different ways, served to undermine the existing tenets of the Westminster system. However, they have modified the Westminster model without destroying it.

Intellectual incoherence

The measures introduced by the government have not been thought through, including in terms of how they will affect other measures of constitutional change. There is no guiding light in terms of philosophy

The government has not embraced the liberal approach to constitutional change. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty remains, formally, in place. The government has thus moved away from the Westminster model without wholly embracing the liberal approach.

The government has not developed an intellectually coherent approach of its own. It argues the case for specific change but it is not able to articulate a philosophy of constitutional change.

When I ask ministers what intellectually coherent approach to change underpins their measures, they are unable to answer.

Take reform of the House of Lords. The government knows what it is against - hereditary peers remaining as members of the House - but not what it is for. Ministers have not said what the House should look like in the future.

In a debate in the House of Lords in March, Leader of the House Baroness Jay said the government broadly accepted the report on the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords.

I pointed out that the government had said what it was going to do but had not explained where it thought it was going. The government has been unable to say what form of constitution it wants for Britain in the 21st century. What shape does it envisage the constitution taking in five or ten years' time?

The measures introduced by the government have not been thought through, including in terms of how they will affect other measures of constitutional change. There is no guiding light in terms of philosophy.

Charter 88 has one clear view of the constitution. I have another. The government appears to be in a haze.

---

Lord Norton of Louth is professor of government at Hull University