Parliament

An OurKingdom conversation [History: Jeremy Gilbert > Rosemary Bechler > this post > Rosemary Bechler (part one; part two) > Jeremy Gilbert]

Tom Griffin (London, OK): The ongoing debacle in the House of Commons last week overshadowed an equally significant scandal in the House of Lords. A day after Michael Martin became the first Speaker of the Commons to be forced out since 1695, Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor of Blackburn became the first peers to face suspension from the Lords since 1642.

The latter landmark is in some ways more troubling. The Sub-Committee on Lords Interests looked at the conduct of the peers involved in the cash for amendments affair. It found that Truscott "was advertising his power and willingness to influence Parliament in return for a substantial financial inducement"and that Taylor displayed "his clear willingness to breach the Code of Conduct by engaging in paid advocacy, and by failing to act on his personal honour." This is a degree of corruption beyond fiddling expenses.

There is now a danger that a crackdown on expenses will leave some MPs and peers more susceptible to financial inducements from lobbyists. It is essential therefore that reform of Parliament includes measures to regulate lobbying.

There's lots of talk about how moatgate (I'm calling it that until a name gets settled) can be the catalyst which leads to the clean up and reform of the political system. In their panic the Cabinet has apparently even discussed the possibility of a written constitution and a constitutional convention, something called for by Rick Muir recently on Liberal Conspiracy. At PMQs just now Labour MP Martin Linton told the PM the time is right for a citizens' convention. Brown replied that we've had lots of experience with such conventions in Scotland and and also with the EU (were any citizens invited to that one?) and that we should wait for the government's proposals which will be published in the next few weeks. Brown wasn't giving much away - "wait for the proposals" was also his response to Nick Clegg who used his questions to point out that expenses are "only the tip of the iceberg" and call for radical parliamentary reform.

David Cameron still thinks that the whole mess can be sorted out if only he were elected leader. He went for Brown, pushing a general election as the best solution to the democratic crisis. I  still get the sense the Conservative leader doesn't understand (or is unwilling to acknowledge) that outrage at MPs expenses is simply the inevitable outcome of the public's frustration and disillusionment with a remote (or should that be re-moat) and semi-corrupt Westminster system that has been growing for some time. Instead of just calling for change at the top, Cameron should announce that he will be standing on a programme to convene a constitutional convention and that one of his first acts as Prime Minister will be to set out a path towards democratic reform and renewal. Brown, of course, used his first speech to the House of Commons as Prime Minister in June 2007 to do just that, launching his Governance of Britain Green Paper. It was at that time that OurKingdom was launched and I remember we published several posts arguing that revolutionary constitutional reform would only come following a crisis. I still don’t really buy that argument myself. Rather than the absence of a crisis, I think it was Brown and his Cabinet colleagues’ hunger for centralised power that meant the germ of radicalism in the Green Paper never saw sunlight. But that isn’t to say a crisis won’t help! Now that we have one on our hands what can we do to make sure the political class (and that includes most of the media), having dispatched the Speaker, don’t get away with a return to business as usual?

The trouble with David Purdy's argument is that witches didn't exist, and corrupt and fraudulent MPs - and peers, remember, and MEPs on the take - all too clearly do.  I personally have become increasingly angry and disgusted by the long trail of revelations of the humiliating depths of greed to which MPs and peers have plunged, the more so when some of the worst perpetrators are -rather were - friends. And everyone I have talked to shares my anger and disgust: politics does now engage people, if not in the way that David Purdy and most MPs wish.  

There is an interesting parallel in his and Gerry Hassan's argument. Both are acutely aware of the greater depths of economic crisis and inequality, social disintegration and personal debt in which the nation is sinking, but Hassan links this uncompromisingly with the broken constitutional system and the prevailing neo-liberal political and economic ideology of our ruling class.  I think he is right do so.  Do MPs really need or deserve higher salaries?  Is it possible that the rewards that the people with whom they deal are too high?  

What the media have shown is that our elected - and non-elected - legislators have themselves become infected by a variant of swine flu, obviously brought on by contact with an increasingly greedy and remote global business and professional class.  Neo-liberalism doesn't just pervert public policy, it corrupts political and personal life as well.  Similarly, our political class knows only too well that the governing system feather beds their place, and their parties' place, in Westminster and Whitehall and denies the electorate any real opportunity of change to choose when they vote. The disrespect for ordinary people is palpable. They are not lightly going to share the commanding powers in their grasp with them.

Peter Facey (London, Unlock Democracy): The following announcement originally appeared on the Unlock Democracy website.

Dear friend,

Today I had intended to write to you to encourage you to take part in the Convention on Modern Liberty, of which Unlock Democracy is proud to be a partner organisation. I had intended to write about what an inspiring event I hope it will be, the impressive lineup of speakers, the nationwide parallel sessions that Unlock Democracy is organising with NO2ID and its timeliness.

But events, as ever, have overtaken us.

On Thursday, the Government sneaked out the draft of the innocuous sounding “Freedom of Information (Parliament) Order.” This “statutory instrument” (not an act), if passed, will

“…change the scope of the application of the [Freedom of Information] Act in relation to information held by the House of Commons and House of Lords regarding expenditure in respect of Members of both Houses. This includes information held by either House about expenses claimed by and allowances paid to Members. Such information is no longer within the scope of the Act.”

Tom Griffin (London, OK): Democratic Audit's new report on the Constitutional Renewal Bill, Beating the Retreat (previewed here by Stuart Weir) was the starting point for a Westminster seminar on Wednesday which brought together parliamentarians, academics and campaigners to consider the government's retreat from constitutional reform.

Stuart Weir (Cambridge, Democratic Audit): It was a frustrating experience, giving evidence to the Joint Committee on the Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill. The committee was packed with government and establishment figures, who disregarded the weight of expert wide-ranging evidence for real democratic renewal and defended the status quo.  It was also frustrating for four members of the committee – Conservatives MPs Andrew Tyrie and Sir George Young, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, Lord Tyler, and the Labour peer, Lord Morgan.

They have just joined Democratic Audit in compiling, Beating the Retreat, a dossier of flaws and evasions in the draft Bill. This document is in effect a ‘minority report’ that details the disintegration of Gordon Brown’s bold promises to rebalance power between central government and Parliament.  There is to be a Rowntree seminar today, at which Peter Hennessy, Lord Tyler and Alex Runswick will discuss the broader issues which the government’s retreat raises.  The draft Bill itself has been relegated to the subs’ bench for the next parliamentary session.

Tom Griffin (London, OK):The Damian Green affair rumbled on this evening with a debate in the Commons which showed up the sharp divisions in the House over the affair. The Government's proposals for a Committee to examine the episode passed by 23 votes, with an amendment by Menzies Campbell to widen the Committee's remit being narrowly defeated. Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats indicated they are likely to boycott the Committee in its current form.

Conservative MP David Jones notes Bob Marshall-Andrews' claim that Labour members were effectively whipped during the debate, a point which also exercises Ben Brogan.

Labour's Luke Akehurst thinks the Tories have over-stated their case:

Susanna Kalitowski (London, Hansard Society): The standard media line on yesterday’s Queen’s Speech is that it was ‘thin’ on legislation and, by extension, ideas. Only 15 bills were announced compared to the 18 previewed in May. Last year’s Queen’s Speech contained a whopping 29 bills, and there were 25 in 2006. The government’s explanation for this year’s shortfall is that it needs to concentrate its resources on the economic downturn. Pundits are speculating that it is indicative of a likely early election.

This predictably cynical reaction to the ‘slimline’ programme provides one possible explanation for the substantial increase in the amount of legislation in recent years. In Britain, a large number of bills has become a sign of a government’s strength, authority and capacity for innovation.

John Jackson (London, Mishcon de Reya): Ahem!  Whilst I agree with most of what has been said about the Damian Green affair – particularly the activities of the police, there is an awkward aspect which is in danger of being stuffed under the carpet.

Parliamentary Privilege – a hugely important part of our unwritten constitution -  evolved well before political parties and their activities were a part of our landscape. It was, and is, an essential part of the way in which we, all of us, are protected from the abuse of power by those in control of the state. It is our protection and those who are elected by us to serve in Parliament, our MPs, have a duty to remember that in all their dealings. It is not just a rule of their playground!

Stuart Weir (London, Democratic Audit): A delicious irony, between the elaborate pantomime of the Commons’ tradition of independence enacted once again for the royal opening and the abject reality of the House’s current weakness, another aspect of this cruelly made evident by the Speaker’s pitiful performance.

However his inadequacies have already been clearly signalled in previous episodes of doubt and confusion.  What hasn’t been discussed is the foolish and partisan way in which the House now chooses the Speaker, whose charade of refusal fails to mask the attraction of the office for MPs who are past it (or have never been with it) for a prestigious perk. It is a national version of the yearly processions of mayors being crowned in town and county halls around the world, and operates broadly on the same principle of buggin’s turn.  It hardly seems to matter at local level, though it is often an unnecessarily costly and pompous affair, and frequently unedifying. I still remember a drunk mayor in Hackney tumbling into a swimming pool on the occasion of a show house opening.

Tom Griffin (London, OK):Brassneck's Mick Fealty is not impressed with speaker Martin's performance yesterday. Like Mary Riddell, he suggests that the Damian Green affair has highlighted the inadequacies of an unwritten constitution.

In truth, the British Constitution was blown wide open by what may have been nothing more serious than a lapse in attention to important detail. The Police it seems failed, and the House also failed.

In principle it still exists, but it is worthless if the functionaries upon which it relies at critical moments have not the first idea of how to perform that constitutional role.

Tom Griffin (London, OK): Inquest has today welcomed the inclusion of the Coroners and Justice Bill in the Queens Speech as an opportunity for a long overdue reform of the inquest system. However, it looks as if that prospect may be tainted by a nasty sting in the tail of the legislation.

According to NO2ID National Director Phil Booth, the bill contains broad new data-sharing powers that could be used to sweep away existing legal protections.

Rather than protecting our personal information, as it should be, the government is cutting away safeguards for its own data-trafficking convenience. This is a Bill to smash the rule of law and build the database state in its place. Burying sweeping constitutional change in obscure Bills is an appalling approach. Having proved - and admitted - they cannot be trusted to look after our secrets, they are still determined to steal what privacy we have left. Parliament needs to wake up before it has no say any more."

Tony Clarke (Northampton Independent Voice): Damian Green's role in allegedly "grooming" Graham Galley, an assistant private secretary in the Home Office, and a former Tory election candidate, is still to be fully determined. One can only wonder at what "inducements" would have been put up to persuade the civil servant to leak highly confidential information to the shadow immigration minister in the first place. The Daily Mail and other right wing rags must have thought Christmas had come early as story after story was revealed to give them even more front pages to attack Johnny Foreigner with.

But Green's stupidity, and the distasteful thought of how cheaply politically sensitive information can be acquired are deemed (rightly so) secondary issues to the real crime committed here. That, in my view, was carried out by the Metropolitan Police the minute they entered the parliamentary office of the MP for Ashford and seized his computer. Whatever happened to parliamentary privilege? What on earth was the Sergeant at Arms thinking about allowing such access without the MP's agreement? and what role did the Speaker play in giving permission for such an affront to our democracy?

Keith Ewing (King's College London):  According to Vernon Bogdanor, the Damien Green affair is a ‘storm in a teacup’; while according to Harriet Harman it raises ‘big constitutional principles’. They cannot both be right.  What also cannot be right is the Home Office response that this is an operational policing matter, which is not the responsibility of ministers (who as Jackie Ashley points out in this morning’s Guardian are first and foremost MPs).

Although the facts and circumstances of the affair continue to unfold, and although we do not yet have a clear picture of what has happened, there are nevertheless a few inconvenient principles around which the debate needs to be constructed, principles some of which to his great credit Dennis MacShane appeared to identify well on the Today programme, also this morning.

Tom Griffin (London, OK): I spoke to a civil servant yesterday who was very bullish in support of the police's decision to arrest Damian Green.  According to their version of events, documents were being leaked systematically by a woman with links to the Conservative Party who was employed as cover for another member of staff. It looks as if Mick Fealty has heard a similar account.

If, for instance, Mr Green had someone in the Home Office who seemed to be less motivated by a desire to expose corruption, and more by a determination to run an anti-government campaign from within a government department, it would be a different matter - particularly if Mr Green knew this to be the case.

If, for instance, this person was leaking other material to other senior Conservative spokesmen, for example - or worse still, if this person had some sort of record of Conservative activism - then it really would be a problem.

Tom Griffin (London, OK): The arrest of Conservative immigration spokesman Damian Green has provoked a huge amount of comment  since the first hints started emerging on the blogosphere last night.

ConservativeHome's Tim Montgomerie is incensed...

Given that Boris Johnson and others received prior warnings - but were unable to act - it seems very unlikely that a Home Office Minister (who did have the power to stop the police and may have even had to sanction what happened) did not have prior knowledge.  Such is the reputation of this Government, few are likely to believe ministers' denials anyway.  If Jacqui Smith did know she should resign.

...but so to is Lib Dem Shadow Home Secretary Chris Huhne...

Keith Sutherland (Exeter, Imprint Academic): Imprint Academic’s new book series on political lotteries and citizen juries is launched this week. The series is our response to the growing sense that the institutions of liberal party democracy are damaged beyond repair.

The 1997 election was a watershed as it was quite obvious that Labour was prepared to say anything in order to win power. From then on political parties would no longer ‘represent’ anything other than the whims of a few thousand swing voters in key marginals, leaving everybody else, in effect, disenfranchised.

Tom Griffin (London, OK): Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights has today published a report on the prospect of a UK bill of rights.

Committee chairman Andrew Dismore argues that the report's recommendations offer a solution to the thorny question of how such bills should deal with social and economic rights.

The Human Rights Act is a parliamentary model of human rights protection. Courts have an important role, but parliament has the final say.

Our new bill of rights could build on this unique relationship between the courts and legislature. It could provide, for example, that economic and social rights are not directly enforceable by individuals against the government, but make it the government's duty to achieve the progressive realisation of those rights, with a limited role for the courts to review the measures taken.