ePolitix.com - Parliament matters

Most of today's headlines focus on what the latest Commons defeats mean for Tony Blair.

That is, of course, an important question - and worthy of bigger headlines than the fate of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill itself.

But the latest controversy also serves to highlight a new trend in British politics - a resurgence in the importance of parliament.

Not since the days when John Major's Conservative administration struggled through a series of votes on the ratification of the Maastricht treaty has parliament - primarily the House of Commons - been so important for the big issues in the national political debate.

There were occasions in the last parliament - with votes on foundation hospitals and top-up fees - where Labour rebellions led to high drama and headlines. And the debate and vote on Iraq was a huge national event.

But in the nine months since the election the government has suffered three defeats, with more rebellions expected on the forthcoming education reforms.

Given parliament's newly prominent role, however, two issues stand out.

Is it simply a result of the government's reduced majority, or are other factors important in explaining it?

And is it really a good thing?

Does size matter?

On the first question, a majority reduced from 166 to 65 of course means that fewer rebel Labour MPs are needed to put the government's majority at risk.

But other issues are important. The resurgence of parliament is not just a result of a few close votes in the Commons.

The old parliamentary tactic of pursuing embarrassing government information through written questions has been proving its effectiveness of late.

The Lib Dems have prompted a series of embarrassing revelations about the failures of the Child Support Agency and the implementation of tax credits.

The Conservatives have made similar progress on revealing details of John Prescott's council tax record.

There have also been debates, in the Commons and the Lords, on genuinely important matters that have brought the best out of parliament.

Few votes will ever be as important as the last parliament's decision to authorise war with Iraq.

But the civil liberty issues raised by 90-day detention without trial of terrorism suspects, the implications for free speech of the religious hatred legislation and the proposed introduction of identity cards have raised genuine passions and concerns on all sides.

And it is on such matters of basic freedom where parliament excels - with plenty of MPs on all sides insistent that they have a duty to stand up to the executive.

Similarly, the July 7 bombings and the subsequent Commons statements acted as a reminder of parliament's importance to national life at times of great tragedy.

The Commons education select committee, while splitting on party lines, has also been important in seeking to put forward a compromise on school reform legislation.

And the issue of tapping the phones of MPs has led to cross-party concern about executive intrusions into parliamentary sovereignty.

David Cameron and Sir Menzies Campbell have also, as Tory leader and Lib Dem acting leader respectively, faced close scrutiny of their ability to perform at the despatch box.

So perhaps the more prominent role of parliament is as much a factor of the issues being discussed as the size of the government's majority.

For better or worse?

Is this a good thing?

Any believer in free speech would say that vigorous debate exposes the arguments that don't stand up.

That could partly explain why the government is having such a tricky time selling the advantages of its ID cards.

But, of course, politics can be a brutal game where matters of principle often take a back seat.

Are MPs really voting on the issues before them?

Are the Tories and Lib Dems more interested in embarrassing the government?

Are Labour rebels just seeking to finish off Tony Blair?

Is it good for the country if the government can be held hostage by the votes of relatively small groups of MPs?

Those who believe in the primacy of parliament and the dangers of an over-mighty executive might argue that it doesn't really matter as long as the Commons asserts itself on the key issues.

But does the country want to see the government forced to water down its school reforms because of the views of rebel MPs? It did, after all, choose to elect a government that promised to introduce such reforms, as well as the religious hatred legislation and ID cards.

And when the Lords votes to effectively ruin that Labour manifesto commitment, is that good for democracy?

The jury remains out on whether a stronger parliament is unreservedly good for public policy.

Submit Comment

Recent Blogs By This Author