By James Gray MP - 1st April 2011
Modernisation for modernisation’s sake has no merit
James Gray MP
As the debate about sitting hours and procedures resumes, James Gray goes back to fundamentals about what an MP should actually do.
It has become a fashionably accepted wisdom that “there’s something the matter with Parliament”, and that urgent reform of our sitting hours, or procedures, or language, or dress sense, or a host of other matters is now urgently necessary to correct it.
That was the general tenor of a recent Westminster Hall debate, and the Commons Procedure Committee (which took up the mantle of the former self-styled ‘modernisation’ committee) is starting to give some thought to sitting hours, and the parliamentary calendar.
You will have heard some of the commonplace criticisms of the status quo: Young mums need family friendly hours or they won’t stand for office. How can you be taking important decisions in the middle of the night? Isn’t voting by trooping through the lobbies an outdated waste of time? Shouldn’t you be spending less of your time gassing away in Westminster and more of it in your constituency?
Let’s modernise by doing away with the Men in Tights, changing the language used, making Parliament more relevant. IPSA rules necessitate no evening sittings, so that London MPs can get home in decent time. Why do MPs get such long holidays? Parliament should sit longer, like any other business. When I tune in to the Parliament Channel, why is no-one ever in the chamber? PMQs is a disgrace. Why can’t you all just agree with each other? Coalition creates a committee-like coalescence of good ideas. Let’s abolish head-to head confrontation politics in favour of consensus.
Now of course, some or all of these ideas and complaints have a degree of resonance. Of course we want to make Parliament available and accessible to all; of course we have to minimise the cost of Parliament to the taxpayer; of course we should be ready to change our procedures to optimise the way Parliament works. All of those things, and many more of a like kind, are well worthy of full and frank discussion, as the Procedure Committee and then the whole House will be doing in the coming months.
But it would be wrong if those discussions focussed exclusively on questions like: What is most convenient for MPs? What would cost the least? Or even, what do people outside think about the way we do our business? Surely we should be starting by asking: What is an MP actually for? What does Parliament do? What should it be doing that it currently is not? And how can we change the procedures and sitting times and the rest of it to better enable it to do that job?’
Only then should we make any fine adjustments to take account of personal circumstances of MPs, the cost of proceedings or the possibly prejudiced views of outsiders.
So what are MPs for? In essence we have seven core functions:
• To make, amend, improve, or stop the making of laws;
• To examine the daily workings of the Executive branch of government, and hold it to account;
• To represent the interests of our constituents in Westminster;
• To support our party or colleagues in a collective effort to govern or to oppose;
• To advance causes, national or local, in Parliament;
• To liaise with or scrutinise EU and devolved administrations;
• To carry out ‘casework’ and constituency matters.
There are of course a host of other activities associated with these which ensure that an MP’s diary is full 24/7, and that our offices are flat out dealing with lobbyists, constituents, interest groups, journalists, meetings of all kinds, private and charitable interests and a glittering array of other more or less important functions. No-one could accuse us of being idle.
But is it not right to start by accepting that the above seven are our ‘core’ tasks, our raison d’etre from which we should not be diverted? And have I correctly listed them roughly in order of priority?
I hope that the list is relatively uncontroversial – with one possible exception. I have intentionally put constituency casework at the bottom of the list. Now I am of course aware that others may take a different view on that. Some – perhaps the newly elected whose priority is to establish themselves in the constituency, perhaps those with a small majority whose very survival may depend on assiduous attention to case-work, perhaps those whose career, or political party, may indicate little likelihood of advancement in Westminster and who award themselves a compensation prize as a ‘good constituency MP’ – will argue that casework and constituency work is their first priority and duty.
It is demonstrably true that in recent years there has been a huge increase in constituency casework. It has become commonplace for MPs to become fully engaged in immigration appeals, benefits disputes, Child Support Agency arguments, planning applications, school placements and the like.
Now no-one would dispute that the MP has a real and important role in unlocking bureaucracy or correcting injustice. But is it not right to admit that to some MPs it seems that no pot-hole is too small for it to be pored over.
Is it not right to accept that too often MPs land up carrying out functions which would much better be done by others – by councillors, or by the public bodies themselves?
It may be instructive that 40 years ago there was a total of 25 secretaries in Parliament to look after all 630 MPs. Today there are 2,700 members of staff. Doing what, I might ask. And why?
Is it really a proper use of parliamentary funds to have a team of three or four sitting in a High Street in one’s constituency generating more and more casework, rather than in Westminster helping the MP with his true parliamentary work? Would Disraeli or Churchill have done all that, and is it a trend we really want to encourage?
Or am I not right in thinking that the huge increase in casework has tended to divert us away from our true role – as parliamentarians?
Is there not a directly proportional link between the increase in casework and the growth in the powers of the Executive at the expense of Parliament?
May it not be true that the increasingly overweaning Executive has sought to diminish Parliament and parliamentarians at least partly by encouraging harmless constituency duties to divert us from over-zealous scrutiny of it?
The pernicious presumption that we should spend less and less time in Parliament in order to allow us to spend more and more time in our constituencies continues. Many people, for example, are questioning the value of parliamentary Fridays, and proposing that private member’s business could be dealt with during the week.
There is more and more grumbling if there is important business on a Thursday, with people often heading for home after the 7pm vote on a Wednesday evening. Parliament in recent years has become a four-day-a-week job, very often only three. And more and more business is being concentrated on Mondays and Tuesdays. There has even been talk of having ‘constituency weeks’ – perhaps one in four.
How wrong all of this is. The complexity of government is certainly no less today than it has ever been. Legislation has in fact vastly increased in volume in recent years, and vastly decreased in quality. Why? Because we are failing to scrutinise it properly in Parliament. Why? Because we don’t have enough time to do so. Surely we should be seeking to extend parliamentary hours and scrutiny rather than shortening them?
There are other aspects to all of this too. In opposition, the Conservatives opposed all programme motions (parliamentary motions to limit the amount of time spent discussing a bill). In government – surprise, surprise – we are applying them just as often and as stringently as the Labour government ever did. It seems to me that this is wrong. Time is one of the very few weapons which Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition has at its disposal. It can hold bills up, keep government backbenchers in Westminster by delaying things, spring surprises and ambush the government, and generally make life as difficult as it can for ministers. That is the opposition’s real role, and that is precisely why the government will always seek to prevent it from doing it – very often, of course, ardently declaring at the same moment that they are doing precisely the opposite.
Is it not time to reverse this decline; to strengthen Parliament at the expense of the over-mighty Executive; to re-establish our supremacy over institutions like the EU and devolved administrations; to re-energise the press and public’s interest in and respect for the parliamentary process; and to correct the increasing belief that casework is what we are all here to do?
There are ten fundamental changes we must make if we are to achieve this:
• Parliament must sit for longer. Rather than abolishing Fridays, we should seek to upgrade the business on Thursday and Friday, and make it plain to MPs and constituents alike that MPs are expected to be in Parliament Monday-Friday, always accepting that there may occasionally be days off.
• The Ipsa parliamentary allowances system should be changed to encourage and facilitate MPs spending longer in Parliament. It is quite wrong that the 120 Members deemed under current Ipsa rules to be within commuting distance should be given no second home allowance at all. If Parliament is to do its job properly, sitting hours will be longer and less convenient, which makes it imperative that MPs should be able to stay Monday-Friday close to Parliament. It should also be possible for them to be accompanied by their families both in London and the constituency at weekends.
The previous system was open to abuse, and was abused by some unscrupulous MPs. But it had a great deal of merit in the way in which it had evolved to allow MPs to carry out their functions.
The Ipsa system has exactly the opposite effect, and is in urgent need of reform. Incidentally, Ipsa should also re-examine the way in which MPs are encouraged to have their staff in the constituency. Is that really a proper use of parliamentary funds? What are they doing there? And why? And what is the precise relationship with political parties from whom they very often rent office space?
• The parliamentary calendar should similarly be adjusted to ensure more sitting days and hours, not fewer. Why is it that MPs spend so many years straining every sinew in trying to get elected to Parliament, and then as soon as they get here leave no stone unturned in an effort to go home again? We are Members of Parliament representing our constituents in Westminster, and not vice-versa.
The current situation in the summer, for example, is wrong. It is reasonable that MPs should have a month’s holiday. A couple of weeks for travel and constituency visits is probably a good idea, and a week to attend the party conference. A seven-week summer recess is probably therefore about right. I would suggest that the House rises at the end of the second week in July, and reconvenes in the second week in September.
The party conferences could either be re-arranged to fit, or indeed could probably happen while the House is sitting. The rest of the parliamentary calendar is broadly right as it is, although the Queen’s Speech being moved to May may necessitate a short recess immediately before it.
• We should engage in a process of fundamental and widespread re-education about what an MP’s duties, especially with regard to his constituents, should be. The Hansard Society and others have shown that constituents really have no clue at all about what MPs do, nor why. I have often been asked: “Do you have to go to London often?” Er, yes. How many of us have been accused of neglecting our constituency duties because we were unable to attend some council meeting or other on a Tuesday evening? We must seek to reverse the slippery slope of presumption that casework is of overwhelming parliamentary importance.
• While speaking up for the constituency in Parliament is an important part of our role, it is becoming increasingly the norm to trivialise it. How often these days do we hear a backbencher use up a valuable question to the prime minister, of which he will probably get no more than one or two a year, asking a fatuous question about a local football team, or pressing the PM on a road extension in the patch, for which of course said PM has neither knowledge nor responsibility? It may ensure a quick local press release, but is it really why we are sent to Westminster? Surely our job should be to press the government on the great issues of the day – the economy, defence, foreign affairs, education, health and the rest – in a way of which we would hope that our constituents would approve, rather than to trivialise that representative role in this way.
• By removing this excessive parochialising of the MP’s role, we would also clear more time in their diaries for thought, reading, attendance in the chamber, diligent attendance at select committees, and proper preparation for debates and question times. A glance at theyworkforyou.com will show how infrequently some MPs speak in debates or ask questions. Why? Because they are too busy stuck in their offices doing paperwork and casework.
• The collegiate nature of Parliament – “the place where people speak” – is also damaged by that. Macmillan was of the view that, of the 2000 rooms in the Palace of Westminster, the young backbencher need only trouble himself with two: the chamber and the Smoking Room. (In those days, of course, an MP neither had an office nor any staff at all!) Might there not be some merit in returning to those halcyon days of our parliamentary democracy?
Parliament works because people move around the building attending a myriad of events, bumping into each other, talking, swapping experiences, plotting. That is what a vibrant Parliament is all about, and abolishing it in favour of ‘family friendly hours’ with people all disappearing if they can possibly do so at 5pm or 6pm in the evening would destroy that collegiate atmosphere at a stroke.
• We must give no ground to those who would change the present system of voting in the Commons. Some MPs have recently argued that it is dreadfully inconvenient to have to leave their comfortable offices, be dragged away from their local campaigns and casework to trouble themselves to vote. Let’s do it once a day, they say, even better perhaps once a week. Let’s extend the ‘deferred divisions’ procedure to all votes. That would save us coming in at all apart from for one massive vote-fest on a Wednesday after PMQs. How wrong that would be.
Votes should be closely linked to the debate which preceded them. The power of persuasion should surely still have some place. And divisions have an important role to play in the collegiate nature of the place, which we would destroy at our peril. My own preference would be to abolish deferred divisions. If the House cannot agree on a matter, then it should vote on it no matter what time of day or night that may be.
• We should abolish, or at least significantly weaken, programme motions and other forms of guillotine. If that means that the opposition keeps the House sitting at what some people might find inconvenient times, then so be it. If we have to sit all night, or at weekends to discuss properly matters of huge import to the people we represent, then we must allow that to happen. And if we have to change living arrangements or allowances to do so, then that is exactly what we should do.
• We must very significantly strengthen the conventions by which ministers are answerable to Parliament. All statements must be made in the House, and a much larger part of the ministerial day spent here. The prime minister should be in Parliament for a great deal more of his time – making at least an appearance at all major debates, rather than just PMQs once a week, and an occasional vote when the chief whip tells him it may be close. Westminster Hall may well have an important role in requiring greater attention from ministers.
Now if all of that sounds like a radical reversal of some of the ‘modernisations’ that have occurred in the last 13 years, then I plead guilty. Modernisation for modernisation’s sake has no merit. When people enter a profession or career at a senior level – be it the army, an airline pilot, director of a merchant bank, editor of a newspaper or Member of Parliament – they realise that they are going to have to make a significant personal sacrifice in order to do it.
It is simply not possible to be an effective MP of the kind I have described and still whinge about unsocial hours. Running the country and taking the government to task is not an easy job. We can’t do it in our lunch hours. It does have consequences for family life, our health and stress levels.
All of that is true, and while it is reasonable to try to minimise the deleterious personal consequences of our role and task and calling, we should also be ready to acknowledge that some of that may be a necessary evil. Lawrence of Arabia, Florence Nightingale, Captain Cook, Winston Churchill – they did not demand family friendly hours. And nor would they have achieved what they did had they had them.
Ours was once the greatest parliamentary democracy in the world. It evolved over hundreds of years, the envy of emerging democracies everywhere, truly the Mother of all Parliaments. But it is a sad and undeniable fact that in recent years we have allowed our strengths to be eroded by an overmighty Executive, anxious to further increase its powers.
It would be secretly content if we put it into power and then went quietly off into the night – little moles beavering away with our casework, emerging blinking into the sunlight just in time for the subsequent general election in an effort to help it to hold onto power.
Cromwell, Disraeli, Churchill, Macmillan would not have allowed that.
They believed in the power and supremacy, not of government, but of Parliament. It is our inheritance and our duty to take radical steps to preserve and enhance that primacy.
James Gray is Conservative MP for North Wiltshire and a member of the procedure committee.
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.