MPs

Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): David Cameron told the Financial Times last week that he plans to legislate – apparently in his first term – to reduce the number of MPs by at least 10 per cent and equalise the size of parliamentary constituencies.

On the surface of it, the move seems a fair one. Surely it is wrong that, because of the current uneven size of seats, Labour can potentially defeat the Conservatives with less votes? And cutting back on the size of the MP payroll must be a laudably prudent decision in these times?

But these arguments are flawed.

First, in practice little or no money would be saved. The running costs of the Palace of Westminster would not be reduced. While the salaries of about 60 MPs and their staff might be saved, the members that remained would probably need to take on more assistance in order to deal with the consequent rise in constituency casework per MP. That is, unless a Conservative government is about to seriously address the causes of the rising demands made by constituents – namely the weakness of local government and the lack of access to citizens’ advice bureaux.

Tom Griffin (London, OK): This morning's Daily Mail reports on a campaign by MPs against the parliamentary oath of allegiance to the Queen, which has aroused the ire of Lord Tebbit:

This seems to me to be an attack upon the State itself. The monarch is the one embodiment of the State which is outside the political, partisan process.

The people behind this campaign must either oppose the idea of anyone who is non-partisan having a role in the affairs of state, or they would rather be swearing allegiance to Brussels.'  

What has sparked Tebbit's anger is an Early Day Motion put down by Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker in June, although its dire subversive implications were apparently not recognised until the dog days of August.

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): The row over MPs expenses continued today when David Cameron used Prime Ministers Questions to revisit Gordon Brown's failure to vote for reform two weeks ago.

MPs will return to the issue this evening, albeit largely symbolically, thanks to a Conservative motion and a Labour amendment which both call for the abolition of the now-infamous 'John Lewis list'.

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): It's been an unedifying few days for the House of Commons.

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): As Gareth Young reports below Ken Clarke's Democracy Task Force has come up with a new answer to the West Lothian Question

The current devolution settlement contains long-term risks to the Union. The Democracy Task Force recommends to David Cameron a modified version of ‘English Votes for English Laws’, incorporating English-only Committee and Report stages but a vote of all MPs at Second and Third Reading. We believe that this proposal can remove the main source of English grievance at the current devolution settlement without some of the risks to political stability that critics have seen in proposals for a completely English procedure. (Answering the West Lothian Question)

Gareth is none too happy with this "crude technical" solution, but how have others reacted?

Gareth Young (Lewes, CEP): Ken Clarke's plans to solve the West Lothian Question, have been greeted with predictable disdain by most political commentators. Typical was Iain Dale who declared that "England deserved better":

From what I have seen I cannot in any way defend this so-called solution. It is not even a half way house. Either you believe that England should have devolved government or you don't. If you do, then you either believe in English votes on English measures or you believe in some form of English Parliament.

But Iain Dale is wrong. Not that England deserves better, of course she does, but because neither Clarke's solution NOR English Votes on English measures are for people who believe that England should have "devolved government" (or "English government" if you prefer). Instead both are crude technical devices that attempt to right the democratic deficit brought about the very absence of English government. Clarke's contrivance is contrived to such a ludicrous degree precisely to avoid even the pretence of an English parliament that EVoEM seems to offer, and the consequent threat that such a democratic English body would pose to the Union when Scots object to it on the grounds of their own irrelevance. Indeed, as Clarke went to pains to point out on the Today Programme, his solution "means that the government retains control of the agenda; it retains control of the money." Scottish MPs would vote on the second reading of an English bill - "which is the vote on principle on the bill" - thereby ensuring the legitimacy of any cabinet government that contained Scottish ministers. But as Malcom Rifkind points out Clarke's mechanism would not have prevented the disgraceful actions of Scottish MPs during the Foundation Hospital and Top-up Fee legislation, even if last week's English Planning Bill amendment, scuppered by Brown's non-English MPs, could have been carried by English rebels. Under Clarke's scheme the English will be denied the affirmative expression of national identity afforded to the Scots; instead English MPs will speak for England only negatively - by wrecking UK Government legislation through the of tabeling ludicrous amendments, or the deleting of English clauses at committee stage. But fear not, for as Clarke points out the UK government retains control, and:

"at the final stage all the UK members would vote so if the English have transformed it to a way that is unacceptable to the Government the government could ask its majority to veto and abort the measure."

Or in other words if the English have transformed the bill to a manner that is acceptable to the English, the government could abort the legislation. Malcolm Rifkind does offer a slightly more sensible alternative to Clarke's madness:

There could be a requirement that at Second Reading and at Report stage, for a vote to be carried on amendments to an England-only Bill, the vote, to be declared carried, would need a majority both of the House as a whole and of MPs representing English constituencies.

Though one has to ask Rifkind why, if the English can veto the UK Government, should we bother letting the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish vote at all; why not just let the English draft and vote on their own legislation instead of muddling up UK Government and non-English MPs in the process? The simple answer to that question is "The Barnett Formula", a funding mechanism that provides Scottish MPs with the constitutional right to vote on English legislation by dint of the fact that English domestic legislation determines the block grant due to Scots as an inflated percentage of what is available to the English. Naturally Ken Clarke does not even bother to address the Barnett Formula.

Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): MPs hate being told that they spend too much time on breaks, but it needs saying. They are now on their Whitsun recess and all their work on scrutiny has come to an abrupt stop (though not the panicky cries and whispers of Labour members).

In case you were wondering, this is the Recess that comes between the Easter recess and the two-and-a-half months that they take off over summer. So they are probably working away in their constituencies and those in vulnerable seats are no doubt busy attempting to shore up their majorities. You could regard their time away from Westminster as the representative side of their responsibilities, only with the staff and other resources they get as MPs, it also weights the advantages of incumbency more heavily in their direction.

There is a bigger problem too. The balance of the work of MPs needs to be shifted firmly away from constituency campaigning towards the oversight of government policies and activities. Various recent reports – including one from the Hansard Society – have suggested that all MPs should serve on select committees to improve the quality of parliamentary scrutiny. Some MPs have risked incurring the anger of their colleagues by acknowledging the problem. Speaking about the long summer break, David Winnick recently told the Commons that it meant 'our main function of holding the Government to account in this Chamber does not take place for some 11 consecutive weeks. There are no oral questions, no statements and no debates...Select Committees can meet, but...few do.' As Leader of the House of Commons in October 2002, Robin Cook, told MPs 'It is not healthy for the elected representatives of the British people to be absent for three months at a stretch. Too much happens while we are away, and too many decisions necessarily have to be taken by Government in our absence'. At the time he managed to secure support for September sittings, but this part of the Cook legacy has since been lost. When the Modernisation Committee looked at the issue two years later, the convenience of members was uppermost in their minds and they ruled out an increase in total sitting time.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): All MP's expenses are likely to be published. The result predicted by Nick Robinson is that they will need to be paid more. It is, he said, if I heard him right on the 10 o'clock BBC news, "a revolution caused by transparency". If only! Let's see what he says in his blog. Answer: he didn't use the phrase

Stuart Weir & Andrew Blick (Cambridge & London, Democratic Audit): David Cannadine recently wrote an interesting article for the BBC providing an historical perspective on the current scandals about corruption amongst MPs involving pay and allowances. He rightly points out that the introduction of salaries for MPs in 1911 enabled men (and later women) from less privileged social groups to become representatives. Then he puts forward three arguments: First, that MPs are not paid enough; second that their present allowances are more than sufficient; third that they should not be able to vote on their own pay and expenses.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): While Sunny Hundal tries to gather everyone (including a  5,000 facebook users) around 'Not a day Longer' and Shami Chakrabarti's Liberty issues pungent press statements and Henry Porter warns and fumes and Stuart Weir posts in OK, the government inches forward. The latest "concession" to quote the spin - which even got into the headline as if it was the report of a fact - of this morning's Guardian story by Nicholas Watt, is a jaw-dropping disgrace.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): The Guardian's veteran political correspondent Michael White cultivates a knowing, seen it all, it won't change, nor-should-it-if-it-comes-to-that, attitude that is only bearable because he works fairly hard. Finally, after thirty years, his faith in the system may have been rocked. In today's political briefing he reports that Parliament's Lisbon debate "rings hollow",

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Every MP (and Lib-Dem etc) but especially Labour should read this post by Iain Dale.

Cameron may not have been reading Stuart Weir in OK as yet - but he has got the point. And in case you think I've gone soft on Iain, I do wish he'd remove the video image of Thatcher looking like ET's sister. I know she was from another planet and did all the damage you'd expect from anything incoming from outer space, but must we be reminded?

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Call me naive. Go on! While I was away in New York it seems that the so-called Senior Salaries Review Body has suggested,

a tightening of rules to require MPs to submit receipts for all expenses claims above a threshold of £50 a month. The current ceiling is £250 per item or claim.

Maurice Frankel (London, CFoI): Contrary to what Graham Allen says below in his post, the Maclean bill is not about protecting MP's constituents’ privacy. That is obvious from its drafting. The bill exempts any correspondence between an MP and a public authority, including his or her lobbying about policy issues which the public should be able to see. An amendment to limit the exemption to letters about identifiable constituents was rejected by the Bill’s supporters on Friday, including Graham Allen.

Anthony Barnett (London OK): Who said that? In 1992, when he first spoke about constitutional issues at length in his Sovereignty lecture (see below) Gordon Brown called "not just for immediate implementation of a Freedom of Information Act to ensure the flow of information from government to citizen and the right to know... but also that there should be precise duties guaranteeing the right of individuals to information where it is in the public interest to do so, in the dark and secret corners of the private sector." Well, leaving the private sector aside, MPs have now voted to close themselves off from accountability (which Spyblog promptly posted here and condemned). The MPs who passed this are absolutely hopeless, living in a lost world. Perhaps they are clinging to the idea that if they they can mark their dealing "secret" this means they will be more important! I'm afraid it's one more swirl towards the plug-hole.