By Michael Meacher MP
In the light of calls now being made for the democratisation of Parliament, a cross-party group of 32 senior Parliamentarians, drawn equally from the three main parties, have signed a letter to the PM calling for the election of chairs and members of Select Committees by Members of the whole House by secret ballot, in order to increase the independence of the House of Commons' powers of scrutiny and to strengthen the Legislature by bypassing the patronage of the Whips.
This is more than a symbolic change. The PLP Chief Whip recently decreed that nobody who had voted against the Government in the last year should be eligible to serve on a Select Committee, even though confining membership of these committees to loyalists would largely rob them of their whole purpose which is to hold the Government effectively to account. But the letter makes other demands too.
The letter is signed by, among others, Alan Beith, Menzies Campbell, Vince Cable and Chris Huhne for the Liberals, George Young, John Gummer and Richard Shepherd for the Tories, and Chris Mullin, Nick Raynsford, Tony Wright and Frank Field for Labour, as well as by myself. As a major cross-party exercise it is significant as a real attempt to break the entrenchment of tribalism in the Commons which has hitherto constantly blocked the process of reform and left the Executive as the winner by default. It is designed to bring about change whoever wins the next election.
But even more important than the issue of democratic election for Select Committees, the letter also demands a reform of procedure which would remove the single greatest weakness in the operation of these committees. That is the fact that having reported, nothing then happens. Of course Select Committees may exercise influence both in government circles and via media reporting. But there is at present no leverage by which they can routinely challenge Government policy.
What the letter proposes is that the chairs of Select Committees should have time allotted to ensure that some of the reports of these committees (as prioritised by the Liaison Committee) should be debated and voted on the floor of the House on a substantive motion drawn up by the committee concerned. Potentially this gives the House power to change Government policy.
The letter also proposes one other important innovation. It suggests that, just as Ministers make statements to the House on major new developments in Government policy, so the chairman of Select Committees should in some cases have a right to make a brief statement to the House outlining key recommendations and then be questioned about the proposals, for perhaps half an hour in total. This would more closely connect the investigatory committee with the decision-making forum in Parliament.
Michael Meacher also blogs at michaelmeacher.info/weblog/.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
1. How long have you been an MP?
2. When did the notion that something might be awry first occur to you?
3. Does the modern phrase "behind the curve" mean anything to you?
You speak of the democratisation of Parliament, a rhetorical statement if ever there was one.
Over half of the country wants a general election now and we are 'led' by a PM with no public mandate. In 12 years, there has been no reform, plenty of votes on reform, plenty of times they were voted down. Brown's appointed Speaker was the roadblock.
Every single MP speaks of having faith in the system. However, we the public have no faith in you.
In the name of God, go.
But don't expect praise for them: far too little, far too late, and an inadequate cure for the culture of self-interest by front-benchers and subservience by back-benchers that has typified the Commons for the past couple of decades.
Can we add:
Members who persist in making rude gestures or shouting Yah! Boo! to be put on the "naughty step"
The abolition of the obfuscatory convention of referring to MPs by their constituency instead of their name ... and definitely the abolition of the obviously-wrong description "Honourable" etc
Abolition of "I'll scratch your back and you scratch mine" - otherwise known as "pairing", which encourages perpetuation of a divisive 2-party system
An anti-bullying policy that specifically includes the revealingly-named "Whips"
If we actually want to behave like grown-ups, and build in structural change, we have to go a lot further - some kind of PR that does not involve a "Party List"; ability of constituents to trigger a vote to recall a sitting MP and force a by-election; an elected Lords with full democratic legitimacy; a reduction in the number of MPs paid for Government positions and an abolition of the expectation that they must always toe the Party line; probably a written constitution; an acceptance that those who use their time in parliament to promote their careers are misusing public office for personal gain (lecture tours, Saint Tony?), and so should at minimum pay direct UK tax on such income wherever in the world it is generated, and whatever sleazy tax-dodge foundations they may try to nominate the fees going to; ... in fact, full equitable taxation for all MPs; Parliament and constituents to enforce Working Time directive so every MP works 48-hour week, statutory holiday entitlement, no second jobs allowed; ... and a whole lot else.
How many houses does this arch-socialist own?
Here, here Michael.
I also have little respect for the current batch of MPs (backbench or ministers) it was them as individuals who abused taxpayers money - not the parties, or the government etc...
However I do believe that they lived *down* to expectations - if back-benching was a more responsible job (it is currently less of a responsibility than any other job I know of) - maybe the trash (we currently have) would be scared off a bit, and the responsibility would be a suitable reward alongside the £65,000 (plus genuine expenses) for genuinely decent people to run...
I could go on but I've got a rounder view. Sometimes people make mistakes and get caught up in things. Obsessing and spreading hate all over the place isn't going to change that and can be counter productive.
If you expect perfection in a hurry you're not going to have many successful dates. Business and politics are like that. Keeping your eyes on the win is fine but if you can't travel the path you ain't going anywhere.
Unless you are a shareholder then what a CEO does is none of your damn business.
If you have think you could do better, no one (apart from our evil labour government) is standing in your way of setting up and competing...
Lord Tebbit is asking for an October election, "Dave" mentioned end September.
are we observing a converging of divergent interests?
The only viable answer to that is that it is disgraceful (because it involves intimidation), as well as stupid and counter productive (because it means that not only do we have some committees dominated by yes-people, it also means that somewhere along the line being competent is not a primary qualification to being on a Select Committee). Ergo, sooner or later the mess hits the fan and the government find they have several problems on their hands
Michael Meacher is right to get this discussion started and I hope that local constituency parties will add to and enhance the debate. Now is the time for a reassertion by all sections of the party to take back the means of input and right to table motions at conference that Blair and the other robbers stole.