Last Thursday, Gordon Brown accepted his nomination to become the leader of the Labour party and the next Prime Minister, saying:

“I will bring forward reform proposals to renew our constitution with the first draft constitutional reform bill later this year.”

He named “building trust in our democracy” as one of the five priorities that he will focus on as Prime Minister.

How will that draft constitutional reform Bill work, what will be in it and how will it be implemented? I do not expect a clear answer from the Minister today. Not only is he new to his brief—I congratulate him on a well-deserved change of responsibilities—but he will have to pick his words carefully until that changeover. However, given such an unequivocal commitment from the current Chancellor and future Prime Minister, the Minister and his officials should now be on the alert, thinking and drafting ahead of the day when a new Prime Minister, with such a clear commitment, takes over.

A new democratic settlement in the UK—moreover, one driven by someone who believes in it—is a certainty. Clarity of leadership and greater self-discipline among reformers is essential if serious progress is to be made in the face of the forces of conservatism and the status quo, which will be ranged against us. The lost landslides for change will not be repeated and things will be even harder than they could have been. However, we can now use our democratic imaginations once again. That means councillors who make their own policies and raise the income to implement them; MPs who genuinely hold the Government to account; Prime Ministers directly elected by the people; our health, police and other public services given meaningful democratic governance; and people at the top who not only preach “change or die” to others, but practise it themselves, changing their own outdated political institutions first.

Reform can mean a Britain whose democratic culture and heart is finally matched by an institutional framework that is also democratic, finally catching up with what is commonplace in virtually every other western democracy. Great prizes await us if we can seize this moment, freeing the talent of the nation and extending the right to govern beyond the incestuous confines of No. 10, the media and the bureaucrat. Change will mean enabling every parish, neighbourhood and community to run what is appropriately theirs, doing so because it is right for them, not because it ticks a target box to placate Whitehall. Change will also mean returning responsibility, so as to revive interest not merely in voting but in running our localities, our regions and our lives.

Of course details on the constitutional reform Bill must remain scarce, so let me sketch some possibilities. Perhaps we can be honest about our federal system in the UK, defining what the regions and the nations can do, and what central Government are entitled to do. Perhaps we will finally commit to a separation of powers—a legislative, a judiciary and an Executive, each with its own legitimacy. Perhaps we will list and legalise prerogative powers and for the first time give the prime ministership statutory legitimacy.

However, making any of those things happen and sustaining them will require a written constitution and entrenchment. Gordon Brown’s reference to a written constitution at the 2006 Labour party conference gave hope that, for the first time, the British political system would finally be created on an honest and understandable basis. That is the last unfinished business of British democracy—the British people prising the political rulebook from the closed grasp of the Executive.

Imagine the rules of our politics and government not being discovered by “judicial archaeology”, as John Smith used to describe it, but being in the pocket of every child at school and on every family’s kitchen table or bookshelf, understood and proudly owned by those whom it affects. If we already have a constitution, as some claim, what is wrong with writing it down, so that all those who are affected and governed by it can read it? The way we are governed should not be secretive, and made up as government goes along; it should literally be an open book for all.

A written constitution would also introduce a dynamic into British politics. Merely describing what currently exists would not be enough. No self-respecting founders would dare stop at a snapshot of our over-centralised system. Imagine enshrining as article 1, “The chief executive of our nation may not be elected by the people, nor even endorsed by a new Parliament, but shall be summoned by an unelected sovereign”. Imagine article 2, “Laws will be subject to veto and delay by an unelected second Chamber”, or article 3, “Local government will be the creature of statute, changeable on the whim of central Government”, let alone article 4, “The British people shall not be citizens with rights and responsibilities. They shall be subjects of an hereditary monarchy”. The simple effort of writing down an unwritten constitution must, after a brief period of disbelieving ridicule, invite analysis and generate a serious momentum for reform.

The very act of committing a constitution to paper would raise the question that lies behind all our key debates on UK democracy. Do we want to continue our centralised unitary system or evolve a pluralist democracy, with many equally legitimate institutions? The latter would inevitably precipitate the most radical package of democratic reform ever presented to the British people by a major political party. Moreover, putting our political settlement beyond easy repeal, in a written settlement, would change our political system for good and bring an end to short-term tinkering and tampering by the Executive. It would do for democracy what putting the Bank of England in charge of interest rates did for our economy and end winner-takes-all politics, replacing it with an acceptance that political action in future must be checked, negotiated and accountable, as it should be in a modern democracy.

Replacing our command politics with the synthesis of all our talents will not only facilitate better democracy; it will be a more effective way of governing ourselves in the modern world, freeing our economic potential and improving value for money. The 1980s proved that Executive power at its most extreme and unhindered has failed, even when led by its most obsessive and dynamic driver, Mrs. Thatcher. A written constitution is a different path, which is about using the abilities of all our institutions and people, at all levels and in all locations, not about deference, hierarchy and control from the centre. Although Labour will, I hope, be the midwife of pluralism, it will not be our sole property. Pluralism echoes the best traditions of liberalism and conservatism, and will liberate us all.

There will undoubtedly be a serious debate between the different institutions. A reformed House of Commons will of course discomfort the Executive. An elected second Chamber will want to spread its wings. Individuals using a British bill of rights will expose the Government to much greater accountability and influence the future development of the judiciary. European initiatives will have to be debated much earlier and in greater detail, while constitutionally independent local government will be assertive and rejuvenated and will—like all the new institutions to which I have referred—make mistakes. Above all, not only will individuals feel greater ownership of the political system and be more demanding of it; they will be less tolerant of abuse of power and better equipped to put it right, as we should be in a democracy.

Winning the general election to decide the national Government will always be vital. However, in a balanced pluralist democracy, with other equally legitimate institutions available through which political voices can be raised and progress realised, losing a general election will never again be the end of meaningful politics for four or five years. A written constitution would end the subcontracting, from a whole nation to a small elite in the Executive and around No. 10, of the political action that we should all enjoy.

How can we bring this about? The most obvious way would be to put the key ideas and reforms in a draft constitutional reform Bill. Parliament and people would then debate in the most extended pre-legislative consultation in our history, and the draft would define the powers of each political institution, the separation of powers between Executive and legislature and how a constitution would be approved and amended.

Meanwhile, the components of a new constitution could evolve. While the national debate proceeded, each separate reform, carefully formulated and consistent with the others, could be progressed by legislation. When the legislative programme necessary for the democratic agenda was completed, a written constitution extracting the fundamental principles, briefly and elegantly, could be simply crafted.

Unlike constitutions that have been the statements of political victors in history, fortifying their own power, ours in the UK will need to be part of a programme of democratic change. A draft Bill with full pre-legislative scrutiny involving the public—in person and online—would make the remaking of our constitution massively educational. A constitution could only be the product of a nationwide debate. That in itself would re-energise and revive politics in the UK. Unlike all previous constitutions, this one—in the age of television and the computer—could have a million founding fathers and founding mothers, rather than being the property of a handful of the great and the good.

The constitution would need to be accompanied by a serious burst of democratic activity. Imagine the political parties and the Electoral Commission acting with passion and exuberance, promoting education in democracy and citizenship at school and in the community, rebuilding the local political base by training and equipping the next generations of councillors and political activists, funding research, monitoring and advising on the mix of electoral processes, spreading best practice at home and abroad, shaking up the more fusty local electoral registration offices and promoting tax donations and other funding of political parties and linking their state aid to activity. We could be in serious danger of exciting people about our democracy.

A written settlement for our democracy will mean a different world for the media too. Initially, the clash and reconciliation of independent political institutions will doubtless be painted as splits and crises by those habituated to inhaling the line from No. 10. However, the media too, freed of the illegitimate burden of being the only institutional voice on a par with central Government, will grow to understand and revel in diversity and legitimate debate. Advocates of the new settlement must be clear that, of itself, pluralism does not provide answers, but creates an accessible, open set of democratic structures—the framework in which real policy battles and choices can be expressed and then reconciled.

The followership of today’s unitary system wants certainty, not democratic interaction. The written constitution is the boxing ring, not the political fight itself. It will be the guarantor of a fair contest, not the deliverer of a pre-determined result in which the Executive always seem to win. Pluralist democracy—with all its debate, conflict and compromises—will be represented by the centralists as a system out of control. Thankfully, power will indeed be out of their control; it will have passed into the hands of the many in British politics.

The obstacles are many, the most deadly being our own conservatism and timidity; even those with little or nothing to lose will fear change unless it is put forward confidently and coherently. Even in this legislature, daily abused by Government, there are still the self-deluded who cling to the mythology of parliamentary sovereignty, unable or unwilling to see that that was superseded long ago by governmental sovereignty.

As with any framework or rulebook, a written constitution will be fought over and interpreted—and rightly so. Usually, that interpretation will be made by the elected political institutions placed there for just that purpose. Of course there must be a backstop of judicial interpretation; there is now. However, it should not be based on unseen and unwritten rules and conventions, as it is now, but played out in public on a basis formulated and endorsed by the people. Such a responsibility will itself be a catalyst for a new role for the judiciary and the new supreme court that will start on the other side of Parliament square in 2009. The judiciary—properly and democratically ratified—will have to become a real partner under a genuine separation of powers and no longer mistake isolation and irrelevance for independence.

Let the draft constitutional reform Bill be published this year, as promised by the incoming Prime Minister. Let the debate begin, and let the natives of the last country in the empire finally be free to govern themselves.

Before I call the Minister, I should remind you, Mr. Allen, that the conventions and constitution of this House stipulate that we should identify Members not by name but by constituency. You referred to the Chancellor by name at least twice. I know that you are a stickler for having a constitution; let us hope that we can stick to the one we work to.

Thank you, Mr. Hancock. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing this debate, which he knows is timely, given the contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

My hon. Friend has a long history of challenging and trying to modernise the institutions of Parliament and Government. A regular review of the Order Paper reveals that he still appears in respect of a number of issues that are important to the parliamentary integrity of this House and another place.

Safeguarding and reforming the constitution has been one of the key aspects of the Labour Government’s intentions since our election in 1997. When my hon. Friend reflects on what has happened to date, he will recognise that considerable work has been done. I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations on my taking up office, about nine days ago, as Minister in the brand new Ministry of Justice. One of the key, central and integral roles that the Ministry will play will be to examine constitutional affairs and the role of the constitution in our society at large.

I recognise the fact that my hon. Friend has become a Minister in the new Department. What gives me even greater pleasure is that not only is the Minister a personal friend, but I wrote the policy on creating a ministry of justice in 1992. Sometimes, good things are worth waiting for.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s foresight. It would have been nice to have had a little more foresight of my arrival at the Department. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s contribution to that debate.

I refer my hon. Friend to the document “Justice—a new approach”, published by the Ministry of Justice on 9 May, the day of its formation. On page 26, the document sets out the approach that the Government will take to constitutional affairs. That page is headlined, “We will safeguard and reform the constitution”. That will certainly involve examination of further reform of the House of Lords. It will also have other aspects: examination of the management of relations between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations; ensuring that the values of proper ministerial accountability and parliamentary sovereignty are upheld; playing an international role in developing coherent EU and international strategies; and the creation of the United Kingdom supreme court in 2009, as my hon. Friend has mentioned. That role and the one that we have taken to date in developing the constitutional agenda are important. I wanted to place those issues on the record.

The Minister of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), will lead on those issues, reporting to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State. It is important that we recognise that the Government will wish to consider how we take these things forward in future. My hon. Friend has put his finger on it: Parliament will be central in helping to define that debate. Today’s debate is an important contribution towards that.

My hon. Friend will be aware that we have undertaken significant constitutional reform. I have been in this House for 15 years and I can recall a time when there was no devolution in Scotland or Wales, or indeed in Northern Ireland, as I know from my previous ministerial job; when there were hereditary peers in the House of Lords; when there was not a freedom of information Act; when there was no London government, and when there was no potential for votes, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has indicated there will be, on whether we deploy military forces in future. All those things have been introduced by this Government. The debate will continue after today and after my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes the office of Prime Minister in June.

Devolution has been a major constitutional change. We need to consider how it will be implemented in future. I recognise the need to consider the future and the constitutional arrangements between the devolved Administrations, between us and the other place, and between us and the wider government machinery. We need to examine how we will modernise those aspects, based on experiences of the extensive modernisation of the past 10 years. There is now a more clearly defined separation than ever before of powers between the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary. With the reform of the Lord Chancellor’s role, the independence of the judiciary, the establishment of an independent Appointments Commission, the removal of the Lord Chancellor’s powers to appoint judges and the establishment of the supreme court, we are in an exciting time for the development of the forward agenda.

As my hon. Friend said, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who occupies the unconstitutional position of Prime Minister-elect and will assume the prime ministerial role on 27 June, has said in the process of securing the nominations of more than 313 Members of Parliament that he will consider constitutional reform. He has said that the draft Bill will be published later this year, because he wants to lead a different type of political engagement in society at large. He will bring forward proposals to renew our constitution for the simple purpose of building trust in our democracy, ensuring a more open form of dialogue between citizens and politicians, and finding a way to relate to the United Kingdom citizen. I am excited and interested by the suggestions made by my hon. Friend.

What type of forward planning do we need to undertake, and how do we put into practice the aspirations of both my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor? The notion of a traditional written constitution can be seen in such diverse countries as the United States, South Africa and Australia. It would be a radical departure from our constitutional and historical arrangements. A carefully defined constitution, bound in a single document, would change the constitution and the way we operate in our day-to-day lives. My hon. Friend is quite clear that that is what he wants to happen. We need to examine the potentially wide-ranging implications, not only for the framework of our constitution, but for the institutions of state, the rule of law, the delivery of justice and the building blocks of democracy. The way in which we can marry the aspirations of my hon. Friend and those of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is a key issue that will be debated in the weeks and months to come.

The implications of such radical change will be wide-ranging. We need to reconsider aspects of our constitution, to emphasise, explain and ascertain certain values in our constitution, and to consider measures to make the Executive more accountable. I look forward to that debate, in which I know my hon. Friend will engage constructively. We need to consider how we can document and express the core democratic values of the UK. If we have a draft Bill in due course and a more enforceable written constitution, that will be a significant undertaking. I am sure that you would agree, Mr. Hancock, that we would wish Parliament to be integral to the consideration of those matters.

Does the Minister agree that we also need to exercise some imagination? He rattled off a monumental list of achievements of the Labour Government in the past 10 years, which was an incredible list of progress. Last week, both the Labour and the Conservative parties agreed to consider the war-making powers of the House. When I first tabled that proposal in the remaining orders five years ago, it was regarded as outrageous and somehow off the radar, but now it is—sadly, from my point of view—mainstream thinking in both main parties. We should not be constrained. Many things that the Government have done in the past we now take for granted. Let us try to imagine that we are looking back in 10 years’ time, thinking about the great challenges that faced us. I suspect that a written constitution might well fall into that bracket.

I accept my hon. Friend’s foresight and vision on such matters. I often try to think about how they would be considered in years to come. I look forward to the day when my grandchildren—not yet born—will say to me, “Granddad, do you remember the time we learned about in school today, when people were in Parliament, not through election but through the nature of their birth, their parents and their grandparents?” I can say proudly that we have removed those hereditary peers, but it would have been the norm once upon a time. I hope that in the future, people will be incredulous that it happened.

Change happens slowly, with deliberation and consideration. My hon. Friend is aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has indicated that we will consider these matters in detail. We will be drawn to a wider debate in this House and outside, I hope, for the reasons that my hon. Friend has mentioned—to electrify the public’s engagement with political life. I am sure that that will happen in the near future.

Parliamentary sovereignty is one of the foundation stones of our democracy, and so is the convention that no single Government can bind their successors. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor made it clear in another place:

“I have no problem with our values being expressed in a document, but not in one that is superior to parliamentary sovereignty.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 April 2007; Vol. 691, c. 7.]

We need to examine the issues in the light of my right hon. Friend’s discussion points, and consider how to take the matters forward positively. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained to my hon. Friend:

“The UK has been well served by its existing uncodified constitution, which has evolved to meet changing circumstances…the need to ensure that Parliament holds the Executive to account is absolutely right.”—[Official Report, 25 May 2005; Vol. 434, c. 700.]

We need to examine all those issues. The changes that my hon. Friend has proposed today are significant and major. The agenda and the climate are right to examine them, and we need to examine how to take them forward.

In the context of the change of leadership that is about to occur, does the Minister feel that it is indicative of the strength of the Chancellor’s feeling on the issue that he has made no commitments for legislation to date other than to bring forward a Bill for constitutional reform? Does not that underline how significant he feels the issue is?

Will the Minister take back to his officials the concept that when we move forward on constitutional change we ought to involve not only Parliament, which is central, but the public, children at school, community groups, councillors and everybody else, so that we can generate some excitement? We all feel that we should excite people about politics again, particularly after the recent local elections, whichever way the results went—they were good in my city. This is one of the ways to do that.

Order. That was close to a second speech.

I accept my hon. Friend’s encouragement to excite people about politics. That is important to our democracy as a whole. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will follow the lead that was set by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to take forward the constitutional agenda. Devolution, reform of the Lords, freedom of information and war-making powers are key things that have happened in the past 10 years. I look forward to the next 10 years of government, when the aspirations that my hon. Friend has laid out will be discussed by Parliament and set in context. I commend my hon. Friend for raising those issues; they will form part of a widespread debate. I look forward to hearing from him on them again in due course.