Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Thank you for reading my blog. As of today it is moving to a new home, with a fresh format.

Visit my new page to see all of my reports and analysis in one place - not just my blog posts but also the various television and radio programmes I am involved with at Wesminster.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

On the Turkeys/Early Christmas principle, a lot of peers instinctively oppose reform of the House of Lords, but there is one internal factor that may work in favour of change - it's getting rather crowded in the Bishops' Bar.

Forget the arguments about the nature and structure of parliamentary institutions in a democratic polity, forget the manifesto promises and a century of constitutional debate. When a chap can't get a table for dinner in the Peers' Dining Room, and when Noble Lords have to order their G&Ts in the Pugin Room to avoid the crush, there's a problem.

With a membership now in excess of 800, and more and more new peers arriving every week, the Upper House's normal collegiality is being strained by sheer population pressure.

The comment by "Ex Engineer" that the Lords should come up with a retirement mechanism for their more emeritus members is spot on - but difficult to deliver, since the writ of summons by which peers are appointed confers life membership, posing a knotty legal problem.

So most solutions revolve around some kind of voluntary recusal - and some include the prospect of continued access to the catering facilities and the Library.

Most schemes for moving to an elected house envisage phasing in the elected element, rather than expelling the current membership en masse - with reformers preferring to rely on what they tactfully refer to as "natural wastage" rather than provoke last ditch resistance to their schemes.

But the prospect of reduced crowding may generate more enthusiasm for change on the red benches than the constitutional case for reform ever will.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Just 38 hours after the Commons rose for its Easter break, I'm already hearing talk of a recall. The anti-euro contingent on the Tory backbenches are mobilising to argue that MPs should be told about the extent of Britain's contribution to the EU bailout of Portugal, and be given the chance to ask some of the very difficult questions that arise from the bailout - like who signed us up and which other states might follow Portugal.

Ideally they would like to be back in Westminster in the middle of next week - when they could also take the opportunity to get an update on the latest events in Libya.

That, backers of the recall argue, is exactly what the classic parliamentary role of "holding government to account" should mean. Although at the moment I suspect they're unlikely to get their way.

But there is a genuine sense that it looks very bad for MPs to head off on their Easter hols when British forces are involved in military action and financial crisis is stalking Europe.

A three week Easter break, followed by a short week around the royal wedding, followed by a fortnight off for Whitsun, from May 24, rather than the usual week, does not exactly suggest we're all in it together.

It's argued that Parliament will sit for as many days as it did last year - but I seem to remember that the General Election took a bit of a bite out of the 2010 sitting schedule, so I'm not too impressed with that.

Perhaps what we're seeing is "compensation" for the extra two weeks the Commons is due to sit in September, in the shape of longer breaks earlier in the year. To be sure some MPs will be diligently at work in their constituencies, and campaigning in the various elections now under way - but I fear some will not. And weren't we promised that this Government would not sideline Parliament?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The promised revamp of the libel laws is now under way - with the Chair of the special parliamentary committee set up to scrutinise the Defamation Bill now chosen. He's the former Conservative Cabinet Minister Brian, now Lord, Mawhinney.

They'll be taking their first evidence, on April 27, from Lord Lester, the Lib Dem Peer who has campaigned endlessly against the "chilling effect" of the current laws. He could probably dictate serviceable bill to them off the top of his head.

The committee will trawl through such issues as a "public interest test" to justify the publication of potentially libellous information, how to make the defence of "fair comment" more workable as well as the much publicised problem of "libel tourism" - of foreigners suing in this country when they would not be able to sue in their own.

And they will also look at the ramifications for parliamentary privilege: Is there a case for reforming the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 in the light of recent coverage of super-injunctions.

Parliamentary privilege is the legal protection which allows the press to report what happens in parliament. Or should that issue be left to the forthcoming Parliamentary Privilege Bill?

The members of the Committee are: Lord Bew, Crossbench; Lord Grade of Yarmouth, Conservative; Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town, Labour; Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Liberal Democrat, Lord Mawhinney, Conservative, Lord Morris of Aberavon, Labour; Sir Peter Bottomley, Conservative; Rehman Chishti, Conservative; Christopher Evans, Labour; Julian Huppert, Liberal Democrat; David Lammy, Labour and Stephen Phillips, Conservative.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Much complaint about the number of simultaneous votes some lucky folk will be invited to cast on May 5th. The electorate of Leicester South will have to choose a new MP, a Mayor for their city, city councillors, and the right voting system for future General Elections - four separate polls.

Cue much chuntering about how unreasonable it is to ask people to consider several different issues at the same time.

I suspect we'll just have to get used to it. One of the outcomes of the Coalition's blizzard of constitutional changes will be more elections - for members of the Upper House, for Police Commissioners, and for more big city mayors. And it's hard to imagine that all of these different elections can be kept separate.

Considerable contortions are already being suggested to avoid the General Election scheduled for 2015 clashing with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland elections (and there were loud enough complaints when a mere referendum was scheduled alongside this year's).

But if all goes according to Nick Clegg's plans we could be electing our first tranche of senators (or whatever they will be called) on polling day 2015, and quite possibly several mayors and police commissioners as well. And that's before we get onto the provisions in the Localism Bill to allow direct consultation of the electorate on major policy issues and council tax increases in referendums. There could be a few of those as well.

The alternative is to have a second big polling day a year, perhaps in October, where lesser elections can be shuffled away from a General Election - which would be expensive and would almost certainly lead to a lower turnout.

So maybe the Government will bite the bullet and offer voters American style balloting in which they choose everyone from the municipal dog-catcher to the President, in one fell swoop.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It was just about audible over the massed heckling from the Labour ranks at Deputy Prime Minister's questions in the Commons this morning; Nick Clegg will publish a White Paper on reform of the House of Lords encompassing a draft bill "by the end of next month".

Yes, the next exciting episode in the Coalition's sweeping programme of constitutional change is about to begin. A white paper towards the end of May, followed by pre-legislative scrutiny by a high powered committee of MPs and Peers, reporting by the New Year, followed by a Bill in the Queen's Speech (ie May) for the 2012-13 session, followed by the use of the Parliament Act to tank it through into law, if Their Lordships refuse to pass it, or insist on amendments the Coalition can't accept.

This is where the composition of the special committee to scrutinise the Bill comes in. The thinking seems to be a 22-member committee, half MPs, half Peers. I'd guess it would be chaired by a peer, so that person could sell the proposals to the Upper House.

And I suspect there would be some litmus test of reforming enthusiasm for membership - the objective of the committee would not be to re-fight a century of debate on Lords reform, but to knock the Bill into shape, so the Coalition would want members committed to moving the process forward.

There would be plenty of issues for them to ponder - not least the issue of unelected members. At the moment the leaked account of the Bill suggest 20 per cent of the membership would be appointed rather than elected and that a handful of Church of England Bishops would be retained - but the White Paper alongside the Draft Bill would contain options for an all-elected House.

Then there's the electoral system for choosing peers. The current favourite seems to be a regional list system, but the White Paper would contain other options that the Committee might prefer. Again the ultimate objective would be to put a proposal backed by a strong before Parliament.

Since Lords Reform was in the Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour manifestos, there should, theoretically, be an overwhelming consensus behind the Bill. But somehow, I doubt that's quite how it will work out.

By 2013, when the Bill will be before the Lords, Peers will be accustomed to monstoring Coalition Bills, having by then sharpened their teeth on the Health and Social Care Bill, the Police and Social Responsibility Bill and of course the earlier "Clegg Bills" on the AV referendum and fixed term parliaments.

So they may be much more inclined to savage this one, out of sheer habit. And at that point one has to wonder whether the Coalition will still have the political energy to force the Bill through - with all the consequences the use of the Parliament Act (the mechanism for over-riding opposition in the Lords) might have for the rest of their agenda. If Their Lordships turn nasty, Parliament could grind to a halt.

But since the trench warfare over the Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill, iron has entered the Coalition's soul. Their high command has, I'm told, little compunction about doing whatever it takes to get a key part of their programme through. However much ermine gets ruffled in the process.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It's the last week before recess but there's still plenty of excitement to be had in Westminster.

Monday in the Commons opens with Eric Pickles and Communities and Local Government ministerial team on their feet, answering questions from MPs. After that, it's an Opposition Day with Labour staging debates on police cuts and the government's green policy.

In the Lords, the Public Bodies Bill will be up for consideration - it's day three of report stage and their lordships - many quangocrats themselves - are still nibbling away at the Bill's provisions. That comes after questions, of course, with some interesting ones from Lord Dykes, on the proposed acquisition of BSkyB by Rupert Murdoch's News International and Lord Dubs on the reorganisation of primary care trusts. I'm just speculating here, but I somehow doubt strong approval will feature in either of their lordships' questions.

Grant Shapps will be hot-footing it from questions in the Commons to the on Monday afternoon, where he'll be talking to MPs there about the audit and inspection of local authorities. This tekky-sounding subject is, in fact, highly controversial - because the present financial watchdog for local government, the Audit Commission is due to be abolished. Is that decision the product of post-election euphoria by Communities Secretary Eric Pickles or has he thought it through properly?

Elsewhere on committee corridor, there is a Joint Committee session on the detention of terrorist suspects with (count 'em) three former home secretaries: Jack Straw, David Blunkett and Charles Clarke - and former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith.

The committee will want to hear their views on contingency plans that would allow terrorism suspects to be held for more than 14 days, ask whether the current proposals unnecessarily risk a suspect's right to a fair trial - and discover whether they think the proposals blur the line between Parliament and the courts.

And the Scottish and Welsh Committees are taking wing: the is in Aberdeen to take evidence on the potential impact of government changes to immigration rules on universities in Scotland. The National Union of Students, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and Universities Scotland give evidence. Meanwhile, the will hold an evidence session at Swansea University for its inquiry into Inward Investment in Wales. The committee will hear from academics and industry experts on how Wales can improve its chances of attracting investment.

On Tuesday, Nick Clegg faces questions from MPs, followed by a debate on Britain's contribution to humanitarian relief in Libya and then backbench business - the traditional end-of-term debate in which MPs can raise any subject they fancy. This rather amorphous event has been much improved by the Backbench Business Committee, which has grouped the speeches into themes, so that they can get a better answer from a suitable minister.

Meanwhile, the Lords continue to plough through legislation with the Building Regulations (Review) Bill and the EU Bill. Committee-wise, there's a meeting on the future of higher education and a interrogation of the chairman and chief executive of the Premier League, Dave Richards and Richard Scudamore on football governance. Meanwhile, the will be looking at the UK Border Agency and the hacking of mobile phones.

The Commons is in recess on Wednesday; their Lordships forge on. Telephone hacking crops up again in questions in the Lords (Lord Fowler is raising the subject), then the house will consider the Postal Services Bill.

Then it's the Easter recess - and Parliamentarians disappear until 26 April, for three days before the Royal wedding. That's always supposing they are not recalled in the event of stirrings of war in North Africa and the Middle East. You have been warned...

There's also an extensive crop of select committee reports - so here are some highlights: on Saturday, the releases its report on Competition and Choice in Retail Banking. Is the consumer getting a good enough deal following the consolidation in the banking industry created by the financial crisis? On Monday, the reports on the EU Single Market. It is expected to recommend ongoing monitoring, to highlight the economic benefits, and to flag the UK's role in helping to complete it.

Perhaps the most important report of the week emanates from Stephen Dorrell's . Their verdict on NHS Commissioning is likely to be very important to the prospect of Health Secretary Andrew Lansley's proposed changes to the system in the Health and Social Care Bill - and may even offer the committee's shopping list of changes to the bill if the planned switch to GP-led commissioning is to help the NHS deliver the improvements to services needed to meet the rising number of elderly people. I hear whispers that there have been ructions over the drafting of this report, so watch this space, and beware of "forms of words" within, which may paper over the cracks in the committee.

The first report containing comment on arms exports to North Africa is published on Tuesday from the - chaired by Sir John Stanley.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Conservative backbencher Peter Bone is having fun this morning, moving his (actually the absent Christopher Chope's) ; but his attempt to get more Commons days devoted to private members' business floundered this week. Mr Bone argued that the current extra-long parliamentary year meant that MPs were owed 13 more days pro-rata to bring in bills on their own account. The Leader of the House, Sir George Young, offered four.

Mr Bone then objected to the government resolution which would have provided four extra days and put down an amendment - and then failed to extract any further concessions from Sir George. I gather the normally affable Leader e-mailed all Conservative MPs, blaming Mr Bone for the need to keep them in the Commons late into Monday evening, so that Mr Bone's amendment could be voted down. And the row over that delayed David Cameron's triumphant appearance alongside Arnold Schwarzenegger at the 1922 Committee meeting. The PM and the Terminator were, I gather, kept waiting outside, while the two protagonists slugged it out. And Mr Bone, recognising, perhaps, that he was on a hiding to nothing, has now pulled his amendment, and the House has approved plans for just four extra private members' days.

A storm in a teacup perhaps, but not quite the hands off, "let the Commons be the Commons" approach the Coalition once promised. I'm not sure that preventing a handful of procedurally adept backbenchers from putting down large numbers of no-hope bills, in a kind of Thatcherite performance art, constitutes a death blow to our democracy, but surely part of the point of an independent Commons is to irritate and challenge ministers.

And as for those backbenchers who complain that Messrs Bone, Chope, Hollobone etc have hogged all the slots for extra private members' bills, they should work harder at learning and exploiting the rules of the Commons.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?