What a Constitutional Convention needs to succeed
The idea of a constitutional convention commands growing support amongst the political parties, with most
committed to creating such a body. This may well therefore form part of post-election negotiations between the
parties. A convention has significant potential benefits – in offering a fresh approach to constitutional change for
the UK, helping resolve post-Scottish referendum tensions, and giving future decisions legitimacy by involving
citizens. Nonetheless, to succeed it is crucial that a convention is well designed, in terms of its agenda,
composition, timetable and working. If not, it could do more harm than good: failing to reach agreement, and
exacerbating rather than reducing citizen disillusionment with the political process.
Drawing on overseas experience, we therefore urge decision-makers after the election to take account of eight
key requirements for a successful constitutional convention.
1. A focused and manageable agenda. The most urgent questions for a convention to address concern
relations among the four constituent nations of the UK and devolution and decentralisation within England.
These should be the primary focus, from which other issues – such as parliamentary reform – can flow. The
convention must also of course consider carefully the wider constitutional context and likely effects of its
proposals.
2. Appropriate territorial representation. To discuss the structure of the UK as a whole, members should be
drawn from all parts of the UK. But governance within England is best discussed solely by English
members. Hence convention members should meet in different configurations as required, and could meet
in different parts of the UK.
3. A citizens’ majority. To maximise legitimacy, more than half of the members should be citizens randomly
chosen from the electoral register and invited to participate, with sampling to ensure overall territorial and
demographic representativeness. A minority of members could be politicians, to provide them with a stake
in the work of the convention – since it is politicians who will be directly responsible for implementing the
recommendations that it produces.
4. Phased deliberation. The convention's work should be carefully structured in three phases: a learning
phase, where members hear expert opinion and advice; a consultation phase, where they consult widely with
politicians, activists, and members of the public; finally a deliberation phase, where they evaluate the
options, and draw conclusions.
5. Supporting members' deliberation. The convention should be coordinated by a committed, independent
chair, who facilitates full participation by all members. Members also need expert evidence and advice –
coordinated in other similar conventions by an impartial academic director. Meetings should include a mix of
plenary and small-group sessions, supported by trained facilitators.
6. A realistic timetable. The convention should proceed with urgency but not haste. Citizen involvement
requires it to be spread over a series of weekends, allowing members to digest each step in the discussions.
Assemblies in Canada and the Netherlands have taken 9–12 months, comprising around twelve plenary
weekends.
7. Adequate resources. Citizens require financial support, including travel expenses and accommodation for
meetings, and compensation for things like childcare. They need a congenial meeting environment. The
convention's budget cannot be skimped on.
8. A meaningful follow-up mechanism. The convention's report must not be allowed to gather dust. The
government should commit to following up on its recommendations, including through parliamentary debate
and, where necessary, legislation. Consideration should be given to means by which recommendations,
once implemented, might be protected against casual alteration.
A well-designed convention, deemed a success, offers not only short-term gains but longer-term opportunities. If
citizen involvement and deliberation proves beneficial for considering constitutional change, it may become a
future model – indeed the convention itself may choose to recommend topics for a successor body. A great deal
thus depends on the success of this enterprise, and we urge those establishing a convention to carefully
consider the eight points above.
Professor Robert Blackburn
King's College London
Professor Vernon Bogdanor CBE, FBA
King's College London
Professor Rodney Brazier MVO
University of Manchester
Professor R. Kenneth Carty
University of British Columbia (Academic Director of the British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly)
Professor David Farrell
University College Dublin (Academic Director of the Irish Constitutional Convention)
Professor Matthew Flinders
University of Sheffield
Dr Clodagh Harris
University College Cork (Academic and Legal Advisory Group, Irish Constitutional Convention)
Professor Robert Hazell CBE
University College London
Professor Will Jennings
University of Southampton
Professor Michael Kenny
Queen Mary University of London
Professor Iain McLean FBA
University of Oxford
Professor Dawn Oliver FBA
University College London
Dr Alan Renwick
University of Reading
Dr Jonathan Rose
Queen’s University, Ontario (Academic Director of the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly)
Professor Meg Russell
University College London
Professor Graham Smith
University of Westminster
Professor Gerry Stoker
University of Southampton
Dr Jane Suiter
Dublin City University (Academic and Legal Advisory Group, Irish Constitutional Convention)
Dr Henk van der Kolk
University of Twente (Academic Director of the Dutch Citizens’ Forum)