FactCheck: Brown's reform record
Updated on 01 June 2009
The prime minister says he has called for constitutional reform for the last two years. FactCheck takes a look at his record.
The Claim
"I have been calling for constitutional reform for two years."
Prime Minister Gordon Brown, BBC Radio 4 Today Programme, 1 June 2009
The background
As the calls to overhaul British politics in the wake of the expenses scandal grow, party leaders have been falling over themselves to highlight their reformist credentials.
Gordon Brown tried to impress voters today by saying he had called for "constitutional reform" a whopping two years ago. But just what reform did he ask for, and what did he do about the hot topic of expenses?
FactCheck takes a look.
The analysis
Rewind two years. Indeed, Brown did call for constitutional reform. In his first address to the Commons as prime minister, he talked of a new system which would "entrust more power to parliament and the British people".
The lofty plans included: giving MPs the power to decide whether to wage war, setting up a national security council, parliament to have the final say on international treaties, Commons committees for each English region, a new ministerial code, choice of Church of England bishops no longer being down to the prime minister, elections moving from Thursdays to weekends, MPs to hold hearings on key public appointments, people to be consulted on a possible "bill of rights", and potential lowering of the voting age to 16.
All worthy proposals and it says something that Brown used his symbolic first speech to press for these changes.
However, when Brown spoke about calling for "constitutional reform" this morning, it was specifically in the context of the expenses row, so it's worth looking at how he behaved in the past on this controversial subject. Did he try and lock the receipts in a cupboard, or open the books up to one and all?
This first area to look at is Brown's voting record on what is loosely described as "transparency"-related legislation.
The website Public Whip shows that Brown was absent from seven separate votes on changes to the freedom of information act (FoI) and its subsequent relationship to MPs, including the controversial private member's bill put forward by Tory MP David Maclean, to make MPs' expenses exempt from disclosure.
Not top marks there then, but neither Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, nor Tory leader David Cameron - both, like Brown, keen to show their urge for transparency in recent weeks - were at any of the votes either.
Of course, absenteeism cannot be perceived to be either opposition or support for these proposed amendments to FoI rules, you have to look at the wider picture. In effect, the political theatre that surrounded the votes.
The first key vote on exempting MPs' expenses from FoI rules - which was bolted on to loftier plans to make constituents' letters exempt too - happened on 18 May 2007, when Brown had the "prime minister in waiting" tag. Tony Blair had stepped down just eight days before, but would not officially leave office until 27 June.
After MPs voted the controversial move through, Brown's spokesman told the Sunday Times on May 20: "If MPs have voted this measure through then that is a matter for them."
Not exactly imbued with transparent zeal at this point then, it appears. MPs were seemingly free to make up their own minds about publishing expenses.
Brown was challenged by the Liberal Democrats - namely then leader Sir Menzies Campbell - to come out against the plans, but he continued to resist.
The pressure mounted, and on 22 May Brown conceded: "A private member's bill [Maclean's] may not be the ideal way to go about settling this issue, but it's important we reach a conclusion whereby constituents are properly protected.
"As for the proper public scrutiny of MPs' expenses and allowances, I am absolutely clear that these should continue to be published as now.''
The last line is rather ambiguous. "Published as now" could easily mean the retention of the system which just publishes totals (since 2001 - available at TheyWorkForYou, not public anger inducing receipts which the Telegraph got hold of, or which the information commissioner demanded should be in the public domain.
But if Brown had indeed rediscovered a belated desire for transparency, it seemed to go missing again at the start of this year, when the expenses issue loomed large again.
This time Labour MPs were reportedly given a three-line whip by Brown to block publication of MPs' expenses, as another Commons vote loomed.
Brown was forced to drop the plans after opposition mounted. He was baited at prime minister's questions by Cameron, who asked: "Why is the prime minister whipping his party to vote to keep MPs' expenses secret?"
Brown replied: "We thought we had agreement on the implications of the freedom of information act as part of this wider package. Recently, the support that we believed we had from the main opposition party was withdrawn.
"I believe that all-party support is important on this particular matter, on which we will continue to consult."
The papers branded it a U-turn by Brown.
The verdict
There is no doubt that Brown has pressed for constitutional reform, in fact a good deal more reform than many previous prime ministers. And he did push for it two years ago.
But his boast this morning was in the context of transparency and expenses, not who gets to pick Church of England bishops. His comments - or lack of - around the FoI expenses votes in parliament, notably in May 2007 and January 2009, are at odds with the picture he tried to paint this morning.
FactCheck rating: 3
How ratings work
Every time a FactCheck article is published we'll give it a rating from zero to five.
The lower end of the scale indicates that the claim in question largerly checks out, while the upper end of the scale suggests misrepresentation, exaggeration, a massaging of statistics and/or language.
In the unlikely event that we award a 5 out of 5, our factcheckers have concluded that the claim under examination has absolutely no basis in fact.
Your views
You've read the article, now have your say. We want to know your experiences and your views. We also want to know if there are any claims you want given the FactCheck treatment.
Email factcheck@channel4.com
FactCheck will correct significant errors in a timely manner. Readers should direct their enquiries to the editor at the email address above.
