Nothing illustrates the change of regime in 10 Downing Street more strikingly than Gordon Brown’s Commons statement and his 63 pages of proposals for constitutional reform.

They could not conceivably have been put forward by Tony Blair, who had no real interest in these issues. Mr Brown and Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, have for a long time believed that further measures are needed to help to rebuild trust in democracy.

The result is a sensible and workable package to strengthen the accountability of the executive to Parliament, combined with some less precise, longer-term aspirations. On the latter, such as a British Bill of rights and duties and a possible written constitution, the Government is opening a debate.

At one level, the aim is to appeal to liberal, as opposed to specifically Liberal Democrat, opinion, which had been alienated from the Blair Government.

The message is that the Blair era is over, and now we have a Government that is serious about the constitution. The impression is of a big bang, but the details are more cautious and reformist.

But what will it all mean in practice?

— 1 Prerogative powers. The proposals to transfer these powers to Parliament vary vastly in significance. Some, like giving MPs a vote on the dissolution of Parliament, are largely symbolic, and are unlikely to make much difference when one party has an overall majority. Others, such as withdrawing the Prime Minister from involvement in the appointment of bishops, are not meant to affect the establishment of the Church of England, although it will end two centuries of intrigue over episcopal patronage.

— 2 War and peace. Giving the Commons a formal say on deploying Armed Forces abroad has been widely urged. In practice, the precedent was established when the Commons voted on the Iraq War in March 2003. Despite Mr Blair’s reluctance to accept this as a new convention, it would have been impossible for any government to go to war without seeking the backing of MPs. There will now be a debate about whether this should be via a parliamentary convention, as suggested by the Lords Constitution Committee, or by statute.

— 3 Including the long-delayed Civil Service Bill in this winter’s constitutional Bill will provide statutory backing for the rights of officials in relations to ministers and advisers. This is part of the campaign to reaffirm the role of the Civil Service. As Mr Brown dryly remarked, it is a belated response to a key recommendation of the Northcote-Trevelyan report on an impartial Civil Service of 1854. It is essentially reassurance.

— 4 Public appointments. We are not moving to an American “advise and consent” style of Senate confirmation hearings. What is proposed is a limited, and varying, extension of oversight by MPs. There will be two categories. First, for officials who protect the public’s rights and interests, such as the Chief Inspector of Prisons, the Civil Service Commissioner etc, Commons committees will hold hearings between announcement and appointment. Such reports would not be binding, but, in practice, an adverse verdict would be hard to override. Secondly, for market-sensitive posts such as the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee and utility regulators, select committees would hold hearings after an appointment but before the nominee takes up the post. This would be little different from now.

— 5 The correct decision by the Attorney-General not to make prosecution decisions on criminal cases except in cases of national security means that Baroness Scotland of Asthal will not be involved in any decisions in the “loans-for-peerages” affair.

— 6 Parliamentary reform. Strong backing for more topical Commons debates and cross-party talks on Lords reform, including more definition of the balance of powers between the two chambers. Also regional select committees and a preQueen’s Speech consultation process. But, as the Tories complained, the Government is reluctant to surrender control over business to MPs collectively.

— 7 Ministerial Code. A new, simplified version was published yesterday and an independent adviser (Sir Philip Mawer, the retiring Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) will investigate alleged breaches and will publish an annual report and a list of ministers’ interests. Inquiries can still be initiated only by the Prime Minister.

Overall, these proposals should improve, but not transform, the way we are governed, forcing ministers to justify themselves. But they will work only if MPs seize the opportunity to hold the executive to account. Implementation is all.

The proposals

Government powers to be given up

— Dissolving Parliament

— Recalling Parliament

— Ratifying treaties

— Choosing bishops

— Appointing bishops

— Rules for issuing passports

— Rules for granting pardons

Government powers to be limited

— Control of Civil Service

— Oversight of intelligence services

— Deploying British troops overseas

— Making public appointments

— Directing criminal prosecutions

Other changes to be considered

— Voting at weekends, not Thursdays

— Lowering voting age to 16

— Bill of British citizens’ rights and duties

— Consult on moves towards written constitution

— National security council for counter-terrorism

— Relax rules on flying Union flag on public buildings

— New rights for citizens to petition Parliament

Ruled out

— Rejects calls for English MPs to vote on England-only laws

— Instead there will be regional ministers and MPs’ committees

Times Recommends

• In the real world, the public sector must pay
• Playing politics in a land of double Dutch
• Be like the plinth people: not set in stone