The Conservative Manifesto 1997

The Constitution

Our constitution has been stable, but not static. It has been woven over the centuries - the product of hundreds of years of knowledge, experience and history.

Radical changes that alter the whole character of our constitutional balance could unravel what generations of our predecessors have created. To preserve that stability in future - and the freedoms and rights of our citizens - we need to continue a process of evolution, not revolution.

Conservatives embrace evolutionary change that solves real problems and improves the way our constitution works. In recent years we have opened up government, devolved power and accountability, and introduced reforms to make Parliament work more effectively. It is that evolutionary process that we are committed to continue.

Open, Accountable Government

We have introduced a code on access to government information, policed by the Ombudsman. We have published information on the workings of government previously held secret - including the composition of Cabinet Committees, and the structure of the Security and Intelligence Services. We have introduced a new Civil Service Code, and reformed the process for public appointments. We are pledged to legislate on the commitments in our 1993 White Paper on Open Government, including a statutory right of access by citizens to personal records held about them by the government and other public authorities. And we have set up the Nolan Committee and have implemented its proposals to ensure that the highest standards are maintained in public life.

But our reforms go even wider than that. We have transferred power from central bureaucracies to local organisations such as school governors and hospital trusts. We have introduced the Citizen's Charter. We have also required them to publish information on their performance - information which enables the local community to keep a check on standards and apply pressure where needed. Wherever possible, we are widening competition and choice in public services. We showed in Chapter 6 how we wished to push this agenda forward.

Regional government would be a dangerously centralising measure - taking power away from elected local authorities. We wish to go in the opposite direction, shifting power to the local neighbourhood - for example by giving more power to parish councils.

Parliament

We have therefore already done much to improve the way Parliament works and will do more. We have accepted the proposal from the Public Service Select Committee and put before the House of Commons a clear new statement of the principles underlying ministerial accountability to Parliament.

All these developments have made Parliament open to the citizen, and the government more accountable. In the next session of Parliament we will continue this careful reform.

To give Parliament more time to consider legislation thoroughly we will extend the Queen's Speech to cover not only legislation for the immediate year but also provisional plans for legislation in the year after that.

This will mean that more draft bills will be subject to public scrutiny before they reach the floor of the House of Commons. It will give Select Committees more time to take evidence and report. And this should also mean better legislation.

We do not believe there is a case for more radical reform that would undermine the House of Commons. A new Bill of Rights, for example, would risk transferring power away from parliament to legal courts - undermining the democratic supremacy of parliament as representatives of the people. Whilst this may be a necessary check in other countries which depend upon more formalised written constitutions, we do not believe it is appropriate to the UK.

Nor do we favour changes in the system of voting in parliamentary elections that would break the link between an individual member of parliament and his constituents. A system of proportional representation would be more likely to produce unstable, coalition governments that are unable to provide effective leadership - with crucial decisions being dependent on compromise deals hammered out behind closed doors. This is not the British way.

We have demonstrated we are not against change where it is practical and beneficial. But fundamental changes which have not been fully thought through - such as opposition proposals on the House of Lords - would be extremely damaging. We will oppose change for change's sake.

The Union

While preserving the role of parliament at the centre of the Union, we have given new powers to the Scottish Grand Committee and Welsh Grand Committee - enabling Scottish and Welsh MPs to call Ministers to account and debate legislation which affects those countries - something that would be impossible with separate Assemblies. For the first time, Welsh members of parliament can ask their questions to Ministers in Welsh in Wales. Most recently we have similarly extended the basic powers of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.

We believe this is the right way to go. By contrast, the development of new assemblies in Scotland and Wales would create strains which could well pull apart the Union. That would create a new layer of government, which would be hungry for power. It would risk rivalry and conflict between these parliaments or assemblies and the parliament at Westminster. And it would raise serious questions about whether the representation of Scottish and Welsh MPs at Westminster - and their role in matters affecting English affairs - could remain unchanged.

Nor do we believe it would be in the interests of the Scottish or Welsh people. A Scottish tax-raising parliament, for example, could well affect the choice of where new investment locates in the United Kingdom.

In a world where people want security, nothing would be more dangerous than to unravel a constitution that binds our nation together and the institutions that bring us stability. We will continue to fight for the strength and diversity that benefits all of us as a proud union of nations.

Northern Ireland

After a quarter of a century we wish to see the unique and originally temporary system of direct rule ended and a successful restoration of local accountable democracy achieved. We want to see this brought about in a form which carries the broadest agreement possible. And we want to see the rights, traditions and interests of all parts of the community recognised within any such agreement.

We will accordingly continue to pursue a policy of dialogue and negotiation with and between the democratic Northern Ireland parties. We will continue to underpin such negotiations with the guarantee that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland cannot and will not be changed without the broad consent of the people of Northern Ireland. At the same time we will continue to take whatever security measures are required to protect the people of Northern Ireland from those who seek to achieve their political goals by violent means.

We seek peace. But we will never be swayed by terrorist violence nor will we ever compromise our principles with those who seek to overthrow the rule of law by force.