HOME SECRETARY'S SPEECH - CHARTER 88 -  THURSDAY, 26 NOVEMBER 1998

Introduction

I am delighted to be here today to mark the 10th Anniversary of Charter 88. Over the last ten years you have done much to raise the profile of the need for constitutional reform in this country. You have championed the cause of greater democracy and increased the public's awareness of key issues. I know that you are supportive of the work that this Government is taking forward.

The half-century from the end of the last war has seen an increasing centralisation of power in the United Kingdom. The experience of the war was in many ways the cause. When the late Douglas Jay, then Economic Secretary to the Treasury said in 1947 that "the man in Whitehall knows best", he meant it - and had good reason for his belief. The war could only have been won by tight central control, on the home front as well as on the battle field. In one area after another - health, education, welfare services - there was huge frustration in the thirties amongst a political and intellectual élite with systems of government in Britain so dispersed as seriously to hamper progress in the development of these services, and of much basic industry as well. "National" became as pervasive an adjective for government in the 1940's, as "New" has in the late 1990's. From the National Coal Board, to National Insurance and the National Health Service, there was a strong consensus that the central way was the best way. This view was not just confined to the centre-ground of administrators or politicians like Beveridge, Anderson or Jay. Aneurin Bevan was crystal clear that it was the fact that the provision of health services was in part the responsibility of disparate local authorities that was one of the problems he had to resolve - through central control.

This process continued, perhaps more benignly in the fifties and sixties. In the Labour Government's period in the seventies, we must acknowledge, the impatient tones of Ministers like Anthony Crosland (then Environment Secretary) with his "party's over" speech directed at local authorities suggesting that these post-war notions had not died away.

The 1980's however saw a change in the pace and intensity of centralisation.

Those 18 years of Conservative government were marked by a sustained accumulation of power in Whitehall and its executive arms. Local democracy was systematically undermined, while the number of powerful and unaccountable quangos increased dramatically. In recent years, the Democratic Audit has documented this centralising drift in government, and I pay tribute to their work. In opposition, I carried out similar research which demonstrated the extent to which power in this country had been removed from local people.

This process of centralisation has played a significant part in the decline of public confidence in the political process. As government in its widest sense became detached and distant, so people's sense of ownership on the services it provided declined. Holding institutions and individuals to account became ever more difficult.

It was because of this that we were committed to a profound change in the way our country was governed. As I said in my Charter 88 lecture in June 1996: "we will change not just what government does, but the way in which it does it".

It was a theme which was prevalent in the Labour Party's manifesto. In it Tony Blair said:

We hope this process will produce a profound shift in the way the UK is governed. For the first time in generations, real power is being devolved and dispersed from central government.
 

ECHR

Another major shift has been marked by the recent Incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into our domestic law. Again it involves a transfer of power away from the Government to the governed.

We are making it much more difficult for ourselves, as well as our successors, to act in an arbitrary or unreasonable way. We are ending a situation in which British people have been obliged to go to Strasbourg to enforce what are their basic fundamental rights. By bringing rights home, citizens will be able to having those rights upheld by our courts here in the UK.

I am delighted to report that today I signed my first statement of compatibility for the Youth Sentencing and Witnesses Bill under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act. Around Whitehall everyone in Government now has to consider the implications of our legislation on human rights as a top priority. This is a great step forward and one which will have a real impact on how Government operates.

Devolution

Let me turn to other key parts of our reform programme. First, devolution. The reforms on which we have embarked are very significant in scope and involve a very significant transfer of power. Creating the Scottish Parliament, Welsh, Northern Irish and Greater London Assemblies will transform the nature of government in this country. It will bring power much closer to the people. In doing so, I hope it will begin to restore faith in government. It should certainly prevent any repetition of the kind of anger and disillusion which the people of Scotland felt at being used as the guinea pigs for the poll tax.

Devolution will have a profound effect on the way we are governed. There would be little point undertaking it unless there was the possibility that the new devolved authorities would take different decisions from that those that might have been taken in Whitehall.

Electoral Systems

Let me now talk about electoral systems because they follow on neatly from devolution. We believe that it is of the utmost importance that the new assemblies in Scotland, Wales and London should be inclusive and provide a platform for broad shades of opinion in their respective jurisdictions. That is why we are introducing additional member electoral systems which will achieve that result.

But those electoral systems will have another important effect. They will mean that the Labour Party will secure fewer seats than would have been the case had those elections been conducted using the simple first-past-the-post. Not only are we prepared to transfer power from Westminster. We are also prepared to use our majority to give more power to our political opponents. And yet those very beneficiaries decry as control freaks.

In the case of elections to the House of Commons the ultimate decision will not be made by Labour's majority of MPs, but by the British people in a referendum. I think I can modestly claim that my own views on this issue are well known. But, nevertheless, I have long supported the proposition that there should be a referendum so that the public can express their view and this issue can be settled once and for all.

No date has yet been set for the referendum. It may be in this Parliament or it may not. Since the system which the Jenkins Commission has come up with could not in any event by in place for the next general election, as the Commission itself has acknowledged, we are keen to ensure that there is the fullest possible debate in the country about the merits of the Jenkins system.

There is one set of elections I have not yet mentioned and those are the elections to the European Parliament. Again our opponents have tried to paint this as an example of our control freakery. It is nothing of the sort. There are good arguments in favour of closed lists and against open lists which I would be happy to elaborate in questions.

The President of the Council, Margaret Beckett has today announced that the Government will be re-introducing the Bill in the Commons next week.

House of Lords

It may not have escaped your notice, that one of the items included in the Queen's speech earlier this week was a Bill to remove the sitting and voting rights of hereditary peers. This is very much unfinished business from 1911 - and arguably much earlier - and I am glad we are pressing ahead with it as a self-contained measure. At the same time we shall be establishing a Royal Commission to consider the longer term future of the second chamber. I am sure that Charter 88 and others will want to play a key part in this consultative process.

Freedom of Information

The Government's programme of constitutional reform aims to involve people more closely in decisions that affect their lives. This is done not just through changing institutional structures but also by changing the way our institutions work which means greater openness and accountability.

A key element in this will be a Freedom of Information Act. For the first time, every citizen in the country will have the right of access to information held by bodies across the public sector. The Act will provide a standard of openness for the Government as a whole, in keeping with the need for proper Ministerial accountability to Parliament.

I took on responsibility for Freedom of Information in the summer.

I was interested to learn from the Charter 88 policy paper on FoI that was published in September that I am allegedly "a leading opponent of FoI in the Cabinet". Not true. And, as with my colleagues, I have practised what I preach on freedom of information, well in advance of any legislation. Just so you all know, here is something of what I have done in my own area to serve greater openness:

What I am, however, is strongly in favour of getting the detail right. Big pictures are made up of small discreet brush strokes. Get those in the wrong place, and the picture looks a mess. Since the summer we have devoted a great deal of effort and additional resources towards translating the White Paper's proposals into a draft Bill.

When we publish a draft Freedom of Information Bill, early next year, I look forward to a thorough and informed debate. Following this period of consultation, the Government is committed to introduce the Bill to Parliament as soon as the legislative programme allows.

Strong leadership

As I have demonstrated, the changes we are making will have a profound effect on the way our country is governed. It sill strengthen our democracy and it will strengthen the Government's accountability to the people.

Devolving and transferring power in this way however does not negate the need for a strong and confident centre of government. Indeed, it requires it. For such a radical process of change to be effective and enduring, it does need to be managed in a co-ordinated and structured way. And most of all, it needs strong and effective leadership.

I make no apology for backing strong political leadership. This is not "control freakery" but effective government, government with a clear purpose. Our manifesto sets out a clear strategic path of constitutional reform and only effective leadership will ensure it is carried out.

For those who need convincing of this need for leadership, they should recall the final years of the 74-79 Labour Government. Here was a weak government attempting to push through constitutional change and failing above all because it lacked a clear majority, and because it was wracked by divisions so serious as to trigger the SDP split within 20 months of our loss of office. If nothing else, the Labour Party's history tells us that division and drift are the enemies of radical political change not its friends.

Following the Election last May, the new Government did not lack democratic legitimacy. We could have maintained the status quo or even carried on the steady accretion of power in Whitehall that has been the hallmark of our predecessors. Instead, as I have outlined, we have chosen to reverse that trend.

Let me quote from Hugo Young, not a man who is usually liberal with his compliments. Writing in the Guardian last week he said:

With Christmas less than a month away expressions about turkeys voting for Christmas seem very topical. I certainly do not believe that is an apt way to describe what this Government have done - quite the reverse in that I believe that our constitutional reforms will have a profound and highly beneficial effect on this country. Nevertheless, the fact that this Government has, of its own volition, chosen to hand over so much of the power that it acquired after eighteen years in opposition will, I predict, be something that will be a source of fascination to future generations.

Conclusion

As well as marking the tenth anniversary of Charter 88 this conference is also the launch pad for Stuart Weir and David Beetham's book "Political Power and Democratic Control in Britain". In closing I should like to quote from their introduction to that impressive tome:

On behalf of the Government I should like heartily to endorse those sentiments. That is why we have devoted so much attention in this Parliament to constitutional reform. Before the election the Constitution Unit suggested that it would be sensible to plan for two constitutional Acts in any session of Parliament. In the session just ended we managed ten - it would have been eleven but for the Tory hereditary peers - while still pushing through important legislation in many other spheres.

We have given constitutional reform this high priority because we believe it matters, not just to the sort of people gathered in this room but, as Stuart and David say, to "ordinary citizens".

This Government does not believe it has a monopoly of wisdom nor do we seek a monopoly of power. Instead we have set out on a programme of fundamental change in the way that the United Kingdom is governed.

I am proud of what we have already achieved and have high hopes for the future. I hope that I will still be around to address Charter 88's twentieth birthday conference and that on that occasion, in 2008, we will all be able to look back at the general election of 1 May 1997 as the turning point when the most radical and beneficial overhaul that our constitution has ever experienced began.

My hope is that by then we will be living in a nation where power is devolved and an informed citizenry plays a full part in the democratic process. We will, in other words, have what the title of today's conference promises us: "Effective government and pluralist politics".
 
 

• Back to top

© Crown Copyright