Step by step, the arguments of the 17th century over parliamentary control of prerogative powers are at last being resolved. The draft Constitutional Renewal Bill is a further big step, by no means the final one, into making the executive more accountable. The Bill proposes giving MPs the final say over all treaties before ratification (rather than just EU and tax ones) and a formal vote over sending the Forces into armed conflict.

The war powers issue has rumbled on since the votes on Iraq (the subject of a Tory debate on whether to hold an inquiry) though, strangely, MPs have never voted on the Helmand deployment in Afghanistan. The Government has opted for enshrining Parliament’s role by resolution (as proposed by the Lords Constitution Committee) rather than by statute. So a prime minister would have to seek the approval of the Commons before deciding to commit Forces, and would have to set out information about the objectives and legal matters.

There will be exemptions in relation to special forces, emergencies and operational secrecy, with a requirement to inform but not to seek retrospective approval. This package has apparently met the desire of the Service chiefs for flexibility and for not putting troops at risk of legal action. Jack Straw told MPs that such provisions would change the way that these decisions were taken in government since ministers would have to take account of their parliamentary obligations.

The other main controversy will be the changes in the role of the Attorney-General, who will cease to have any power to give direction to prosecutors in individual cases, apart from exceptional cases giving rise to issues of national security. That does not go far enough for the opposition parties.

Among other proposals are removing restrictions on protests around Parliament, while consulting whether further action is needed to maintain access to Westminster and to stop disruptive noise, and on making permanent the changes to allow government departments to fly the Union Jack whenever they wish.

Hardly noticed, but very important, is the long-awaited pledge to put the Civil Service on a statutory footing, by enshrining its core values of impartiality and making provision for special advisers and the Civil Service Commission.

This package, to be examined by a joint committee of both Houses, was dismissed by Nick Herbert, for the Tories, as “worthy but inadequate” and by David Howarth, for the Liberal Democrats, as “nibbling at the edges”. But, as Mr Straw said, it is only “part of the much wider programme towards a new constitutional settlement”. There will be a Green Paper in May on a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.

A White Paper on the future of the House of Lords is due before the summer recess as “discussions in the cross-party working group are proceeding well”, though many backbench peers, both Tory and Labour, say that their leaderships do not speak for them. Do not expect action this side of a general election.

Proposals are also due soon on reforming party finance, while weekend voting may be on the way, though not compulsory voting. But will the public notice, or care? The key test remains reviving public confidence in our representative democracy.

Times Recommends

• Exit Clinton. But what a show next!
• Angel of the South: the wrong horse
• Cannabis: who cares if it's B or C?