Proceeding contribution from David Howarth (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 25 March 2008. It occurred during Ministerial statement on Constitutional Renewal.
Constitutional Renewal
I, too, thank the Secretary of State for advanced notice of his statement. Will he acknowledge that although some aspects of it are welcome—for example, the abolition of the absurd restrictions on demonstrating around Parliament—much of what he has said will be seen as tentative first steps and half measures? It is right that the Attorney-General should not give direction on individual prosecutions, and should give only general policy guidance that is open and on the record. However, does the Secretary of State not accept that as long as the Attorney-General retains a broad, unaccountable power to stop prosecutions on grounds of national security, the public will not be reassured about, for example, the shameful events surrounding the dropping of the BAE Systems case? Why will the Attorney-General still have a power to stop prosecutions related to terrorism? Is it not important to fight terrorism on the basis of fighting crime, in a context that has nothing to do with political decisions? The proposals on not releasing the Attorney-General's legal opinions are especially poignant, given that later today we will debate the Iraq war. There is a strong case for confidentiality while policy is being formulated, but when the Government rely on that legal advice in a parliamentary debate, Parliament should see the real thing. It is not enough for the Government merely to promise not to mislead Parliament. On treaty ratification, the Government are again taking a step in the right direction, but given their tight grip on the business of the House, does not the proposal mean that there will be a vote in the House only if the Government want one? On the proposal to put the civil service on a statutory footing, there will be quiet rejoicing in many discreet quarters, but—again, on the day of a debate on Iraq—why are the Government to make an exception so that MI5 and MI6 officers will not be bound by duties of impartiality and objectivity? Surely one central lesson of Iraq is that never again should Government policy dictate intelligence. On the limiting of the Prime Minister's power to call early elections, which was given short shrift in the statement, I invite the Government to clear up the whole mess by supporting my Fixed Term Parliaments Bill. Is not the main problem with the statement that it is nibbling at the edges of constitutional reform? Our political system is broken and people are losing faith in politics. That means that if we do nothing about it, they will lose faith in democracy itself. This House is at the heart of the problem, being elected in so unrepresentative a way that all Governments start out as unpopular, and usually get worse. As in 1832, and many times since, reform must start with the way in which this House is elected.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 474 c27-8
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Armed conflict Devolution Civil service Attorney General Church of England British constitution Bill of Rights House of Lords Judiciary Government departments Flags Intelligence and Security Committee Law Commission Dissolution Ministerial powers Prosecutions Public appointments Parliament Square Protest Parliamentary scrutiny Parliament Passports Prerogative of mercy Recall of parliament Scotland Treaties Reform Royal prerogative
- Legislation
- Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 00:51:37 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_457705
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_457705
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_457705