Simon Barrow (London, Ekklesia): In spite of widespread disapproval of the tenor of his remarks on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, it appears that Cardinal Keith O'Brien and his cohorts have won a free vote for Labour MPs on three controversial sections of the Bill, but not the whole instrument. In other words, say critics, the government has given in to bullying.
In reality, the behind the scenes manoeuvring has at least as much to do with the Brown administration wishing to keep its political lockers secure, and to be seen to be responsive to broader public uncertainty over ‘manufacturing life', as it has to the wishes of a few vocal church leaders.
The Cardinal is not persuaded, however. He opposes any human embryonic research, and although he has so far avoided further direct clashes in the media by being on a post-Easter holiday, his spokesperson announced that he would make a further speech about the issue today - in Gordon Brown's own Dunfermline constituency.
The underlying motive could not be clearer, although psephologists point out that past attempts by the Catholic Church in Scotland to influence constituency voting patterns because of their leaders' anger over the gay adoption issue have not made any significant impact.
What all this unseemliness is in danger of obscuring is the desirability of much more open voting in the Houses of Parliament on a regular basis, not just on narrowly defined ‘conscience' concerns. The stranglehold of the organised whipping system, backed up by severe sanctions on the disobedient, makes political life too beholden to the party machines.
Along with a transformation of the archaic and patriarchal Westminster culture, the development of civic mechanisms for participation, and electoral reform; the encouragement of more negotiation, cooperation and rebellion within the system would be no bad thing.
My American wife is astonished by the comparative servility of the professional political classes in their London palace. Of course the kind of leader bidding and interest-based horse-trading that takes place in the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States has its problems too. But the principle of breaking down the thought-crushing boundaries of the power blocs (and between constituency and party interests) by having fewer constraints on elected members is a good one.
The other day I was discussing reaction to the HFE Bill on BBC Radio Scotland's morning news show with the president of the National Secular Society. We were agreeing about the undesirability of the Cardinal's form of intervention. But the NSS didn't want a free vote because it would "let the Catholic Church get its own way." That makes me uncomfortable too. Deciding against more open procedures because of external pressure is as much a concession to it as any other form of capitulation.
We should look at the issue of how MPs vote on its principles and merits, not purely on grounds of expediency. Some checks and balances are needed within the system, but these should not be wholly at the beck and call of the whips. Calculating that a free vote is possible on this or that measure because "we'll win anyway" is not respecting the spirit of democratic debate and decision-making, even if it is utilising one of its forms. Argument should be about persuasion not railroading.
Of course you cannot and should not depoliticise politics or put all the power into the hands of individual MPs and local lobbyists either. But a more free thinking environment is surely possible across the range of instruments that constitute the representative components of our legislative system.
