British constitutional reform. A little light on government

The Freedom of Information Act is a good thing, but does not make up for a wider failure

WHEN Tony Blair came to power in 1997, Labour's main challenge was to win economic credibility, so it committed itself to its predecessor's spending plans for two years. With economic radicalism not an option, it made much of its big ideas for constitutional reform. They sounded good to liberals worried by Britain's system of government by nods and winks and keen to check over-centralised executive power.

The Freedom of Information Act, which comes into full effect on January 1st, was central to those ideas. In a country in which unauthorised parties who revealed the number of sugar lumps a civil servant took in his tea were once breaking the law, it was supposed to shine a light on what government was up to; and, by doing so, to discourage the dark dealings to which the unobserved exercise of power can lead.

The act looks likely to live up to expectations. Not that its initial impact on government will be huge - people take a while to work out how to use new tools - but the model looks a good one. Unlike Americans, who have to take the government to court themselves to force it to share its secrets, Britons have a champion - the information commissioner - to do the job for them.

Yet while the Freedom of Information Act gives grounds for celebration, it also throws into relief the government's patchy progress in fulfilling those original constitutional hopes. Part of the problem has been poor political management. Plans to abolish the Lord Chancellor's anomalous role as head of the judiciary and member of the cabinet were introduced with no consultation, and led to a revolt in the House of Lords which forced a retreat. In the end, though, the government has given way on keeping the Lord Chancellor's title, but not on the more important issues of creating a Supreme Court separate from the House of Lords, and of distancing the appointment of judges from the politicians.

Another part of the problem, however, has been bad faith. In two big areas of constitutional reform, the government has been looking after its own interests better than its citizens'.

Peering ahead

Setting up assemblies in Scotland and Wales certainly seemed a radical step; yet it has, arguably, served the government better than the people. It has disarmed the nationalists but has not given those assemblies the responsibility for raising as well as spending money without which politics never develops beyond the pork-barrel. The decisive rejection by north-easterners in November of a proposal to give it a similar assembly may be read as a sharp comment on what the next-door English neighbours think of Scotland's set-up.

Worse still has been the betrayal over the House of Lords. After getting rid of most hereditary peers, the government seems to have decided that a more legitimate and therefore more powerful second chamber would not necessarily be in its interests. Consequently, it tried to force through a mostly-unelected version; gave up in the face of a revolt; then parked the issue with a committee which shrugged its shoulders and threw it back at the government.

Mr Blair deserves credit for tackling issues which his predecessors have ducked. But if Labour's record on the constitution is to win, rather than lose, it credit at the election expected in 2005, its manifesto needs to include a clear commitment to the elected second chamber it so clearly dreads.

Editorial says that the new Freedom of Information Act in the UK is a good thing, but does not make up for a wider failure.

• Primary Source