Month: June 2009

I heard this morning that there is a Whips’ stitch up to ensure Margaret Beckett becomes Speaker. I have no idea what the Labour whips are doing, but as it is a secret ballot they will not succeed in making their MPs vote for someone they don’t want. I do know what the Conservative whips are doing.

No whip has aproached me to recommend a candidate or urge me to vote for X. There has been no ring round. I have asked several Conservative whips how they will be voting, as I am trying to understand the election so I can tell you more about it. Each has even refused to tell me how they personally will vote, under orders from their office not to be seen to be influencing the election in any way.

Last week I told you why I would not be voting for three of the candidates. This morning I have decided that Michael Lord and Patrick Cormack are unlikely to receive my support, because I have to start eliminating more. I will attend the session to learn more of the other 5.

I find the endless public comment that one candidiate should be chosen because she is “clean” on expenses quite bizarre. All MPs went along with an expenses scheme which was too generous and too laxly administered. All made claims under it. No Speaker candidate stands out by virtue of being a campaigner for expenses reform, or for being in the fortunate financial position where they did not claim expenses. We need to judge them on what contribution they will make to putting in a new system of expenses which the public will accept, and which is affordable in the new parlous financial circumstances of the public sector.

This morning on the radio Ms Harman, Leader of the House of Commons, has sought to remove the expenses issue from all the candidates, by saying that the government will legislate to put all expense issues outside the control of the House. It will use its majority to set up an independent body which settles the terms of the scheme and administers it, so that means a new Speaker will have no role if the government has its way.

I am not surprised to hear that Ann Widdecombe is popular in the country for the job of Speaker. It just goes to show how large a role media image plays these days in people’s assessment. Ann has been on the media more than most of the candidates and is therefore “better known”. People have unrealistic expectations of what someone could achieve in say ten months in the job, when any change has to meet with the approval of a majority of the Commons, and to be tested in debate and with a vote.

The Commons needs a new system for expenses – new tighter rules on what can be claimed, and a better run administration and audit of the payments. All Speaker candidates propose waiting for the Kelly Report. A new Speaker will then have to decide whether to use what influence they have to persuade the main parties to accept Kelly and implement it, or decide that Kelly has got some of it wrong and seek to change and amend it. Whoever is Speaker, this issue is largely out of their hands, and is unlikely to be settled before the end of this year. The Prime Minister and governing party will have most say over this, as they control most votes. If they are sensible they will seek consensus with the other two main parties.

The Commons needs to assert itself against the executive. I doubt that any new Speaker this Parliament will be able to end the guillotines to give us more time to debate the important issues on Bills, nor will he or she be able to persuade this government to table motions in government time on the most important or embarrassing issues. The majority party largely controls the agenda of the House. The Speaker has little power to make the Executive table and debate things they do not want to debate. The best way the Speaker could flex the power of the office to improve accountability would be to grant more requests for urgent debates on topics which the government refuses to table. This is in the Speaker’s power, and the government has to field a Minister if the Speaker says Yes to an Opposition or backbench request for an urgent debate. None of the candidates have proposed using this power more as far as I am aware.

The Speaker for the next Parliament is highly likely to be a member of the present Parliament. Delaying the decision until the first day of the new Parliament by appointing an interim this time does not guarantee a better result. There may be many new MPs elected at the next Election. They are unlikely to know much about the merits and characters of the candidates on their first day. I still think it best that we appoint someone with authority this time round. An interim Speaker will always face the retort if wanting to make a change that she would not be around to have to live with the consequences or to supervise its full successful implementation.

The Commons needs to insist on Ministers making statements to the House first. A strong Speaker would make this a number one issue. Once again, however, the tyranny of the majority means that unless the Speaker can mobilise backbench Labour MPs as well as the rest of us, this can only be achieved by persuading the government.

Some have said I ought to stand. I have not done so for a variety of reasons. The most important is I do not wish to exclude myself from the debate on the big economic, constitutional and European issues. A Speaker must not have views, and must certainly not seek to express them.

An interim Speaker would in effect have just seven months of active service. The House will start too long a summer recess in July, not returning until October. This Parliament will end in April assuming a May election. Even a strong Speaker would be unable to impose a September session to hold the government to account, as the recess dates are decided by the government.

I am a traditionalist who thinks that the 5 day Test match is a great game. Like all cricket fans I can be engrossed by the struggle of ball against bat, when to the non cricket lover “nothing happens”. A long period of no or low scoring balls can be a fascinating contest. I can go home after a Saturday at the Test not knowing who will win, well satsified if I have seen great bowling and skillful batting. I like to see the game played in whites on a lovely English ground like Lords.

I am also someone who thinks change and the future can be exciting. I do not wish to live in the past. I find 20/20 cricket is simply the most exciting, adventurous, brilliant team game the world has so far designed. In just three hours you will probably see more than 300 runs scored, around 15 wickets taken, and drama on each ball. There are frequent dashed singles, attempted run outs, big hits, and aggressive bowling. There is an ad break in the middle, different coloured clothes, and modern crowd participation. I love it too.

20/20 is a different game. We may need specialists in the two different types of cricket. Knowing how to play the long game with solid defence and classic strokes may still be a good grounding for 20/20, but the cricketer will need to develop and adapt from that if he is to succceed. 20/20 needs a very different approach to stroke play, bowling line and length and to risk taking. 20/20 is unlikely to be a good training for Test cricket, where patience and temperament are so crucial.

There is a place for both games. Many more people will enjoy the thrills and spills of 20/20. Many 20/20 lovers will never grasp why some of us can go and see a whole day’s cricket, see not many runs or wickets, come away still without a winner and think we have had a good time. Those of us who do love the long game should understand the immediacy and pleasure of 20/20. It will involve many more in a type of cricket. There is room for both. 20/20 could become the type of cricket that the US wants to play, and could become a cult global sport if the cricket promoters get behind it. It certainly has plenty of commercial potential.

I attended one of the hustings meetings, and have had conversations with several of the candidates. I would like to hear some views of what you think of the runners.

Some say the new Speaker should be without criticism on his or her expenses. That appears to be an unrealistic ambition, now that political opponents and other critics are commenting adversely on all MPs for one reason or another. The Telegraph has given their summary of the candidates expenses. According to the Times five of the ten candidates are paying sums back. (Alan Beith, John Bercow, Parmjit Dhanda, Alan Haslehurst and Richard Shepherd). I think it would be wrong to rule out Alan Haslehurst, for example, on the grounds of his expense claims as some have suggested. The truth is that all MPs supported or acquiesced in an expense system which was both too generous and too laxly administered, so it that we sense we are all collectively guilty of an important error of judgement which has done great damage to Parliament.

I myself will not be voting for Ann Widdecombe, because I do not want an interim Speaker who will only be around for less than a year. I think we need to make a decision about someone capable of chairing the Commons well and making a contribution to rebuilding its reputation, which will take longer than a few months.

Nor will I be voting for those candidates who want to take Parliament around the country, as Alan Beith and Parmjit Djhanda wish to do. Whilst I accept their view that we need to make Parliament more relevant and important to people, I think the best way to do that is to do the job of Parliament better. Trying to meet around the country will be costly and difficult. Just imagine the imposition of security on a city or town being visitied by Parliament. I doubt it would be very popular with those inconvenienced. There would be endless issues about how many staff could come, how the books and papers would be made available, and how the ceremonial valuables would be safeguarded. A fortune has been spent on adapting Westminster to modern technology and security, so let’s use it fully.

Some of my colleaguess will be voting tactically, at least on the first vote. If an MP knows who he or she does not want, and feels strongly about it, the PR system used for the voting encourages tactical votes to try to stop momentum for a disfavoured candidate by encouraging modest momentum for a rival. Instead of having a single open vote where the person with most votes wins, we will have a series of private ballots, where weaker candidates drop out until a candidate does get more than 50% of the vote.

MPs will remember the Parliamentary arithmetic. This is still a Labour dominated Parliament, so if Labour come to a unified view they will make the decision. It appears for the time being that members from both major parties are approaching the candidates correctly on their individual merits rather than in a tribal way. Let’s hope that remains true.

I suspect that the front runners are currently Margaret Beckett, George Young, and John Bercow. The contest seems to be wide open with no one candidate having a clear lead.

The heavily edited publication of expenses has done more damage to an institution under fire.

Many people want an institution which does more, costs less, and is more open.

We have discussed – and by a large majority agreed – on this site that Parliament needs to stand up against both the UK executive and Brussels, and assert more of the rights, interests and views of the British people.

We also need a Parliament which is better at controlling the costs of the whole UK public sector. To do so, it needs to be able to show it can control its own costs and give value.

As an MP I am frustrated that there is no effective opportunity to review, challenge or help control the costs of Parliament itself. There is no annual event when someone presents the accounts, takes responsibiltiy for the budgets, and proposes the budgets for the following year, to be followed by a decent debate. Scheduled debates on the annual estimates of spending for the whole national budget rarely allow detailed investigation of the costs of Parliament, and if anyone tried to use time for this purpose there would be no-one responsible responding or prepared to change what was going on. There is no Minister driving value for money.

It is true that there are similar problems in applying effective scutiny to much larger budgets under Ministerial control, but at least with say the welfare budget there is a named Minister responsible and an opportunity during the year to highlight the departmental budget, with a special Select Committee which can also review it.

Parliament needs to get a lot better at controlling and challenging all public spending. The Speaker candidates have not so far addressed this crucial issue. It would be good if under a new Speaker new ways were found to show we are in charge of our own total costs, as a prelude to doing a better job at getting value for money from the rest of public spending.

Reform is much discussed. It comes up at meetings to hear the views of the candidates for Speaker. What emerges when listening to them is that the role of Speaker is quite limited to push through reform, all the time the governemnt controls a strong majority and wishes to impede reforms which alow Parliament to challenge the executive more.

I would like Parliament to meet more often. At the very least we should have a September session, to interrupt the 80 day break from July to October. We need to hold the goverment to account in the summer as well as at other times of year. Too many regulations go through without debate during the recess. I doubt if any new Speaker will be able to insist on this. There should be more evenings when we can go on beyond 10 pm, if a bill needs more attention. There should be far fewer guillotines preventing debate.

I would like Ministers to have to tell Parliament first before telling others of their plans, so we can cross examine them on their intents with sufficient time to do so. A Speaker can urge and advise, but cannot demand, as the government has the votes. Will this government mend its ways for a new Speaker? Probably not.

I would like Parliament to have more time to debate laws and policies which are crucial. This year we lived through several months without a debate on the state of the banks and the economy. Week after week the government chooses for the topical debate a subject that is not central to the political controversies of the day. There are only the occasional exceptions when pressure builds up. Wy can’t opposition parties choose some of the topical debate subjects? This would not be the same as an Opposition day where we can table a critical motion, but a right to choose a general policy area for discussion.

Parliament needs to earn its keep. A strong Parliament will produce better government. Good Ministers relish Parliamentary scrutiny, because it can lead to sensible amendment of their plans. Bad Ministers leak and brief, try to avoid Parliament, and fail to answer the questions. For a good Minister Parliament is an opportunity to get things right by listening to other views and a platform to explain the policy. For a bad Minister it is a nightmare to be endured or circumvented.

Today, finally, the Commons publishes the expense claims of its members. A few of us wanted this done a long time ago.

The BBC this morning criticised the Commons for deleting the addresses and making it impossible to work out if someone had sold a property without paying capital gains tax. It is right that the public should know that the properties concerned are located to allow the MP to carry out the job, and that taxes have been paid where appropriate on properties where taxpayer money is received to pay some of the bills.

This Parliament I claimed for a rented flat in St George’s Square Pimlico, and more recently for a bedsit I purchased in Grosvenor Road Pimlico. Both are in walking distance of the Commons , saving time and money on travel on busy and long days. I did sell a property at the time of the 2005 election. I did not claim for it, and did pay capital gains tax on the sale.

At the beginning of the 2008-9 year I decided to cut my total expense claims by 10% in each of the following two years, as I believed we needed to cut public spending without harming front line services. When they get round to publishing the 2008-9 figures they should show I achieved this target for last year. I stated in May 2009 that I would be making no further claims on the housing cost Allowance, which should guarantee cutting more than 10% from my total expenses again this year.

Most people in the Commons now agree the old system was too generous and too laxly administered. The sooner Parliament can agree a system which is fair and offers value for money to taxpayers, the better.