Commentators

Rain (AM and PM) 3° London Hi 9°C / Lo 6°C

Denis MacShane: This bill is going to reduce us all in the Commons to poodles

The party leaders have crossed a Rubicon in giving up vital powers

At long last the public and the press will have the parliament and politicians of their dreams. Party leaders, Whitehall, and the secret controllers of money and media power can rest content that the transformation of the Commons into a Crufts of poodles has taken a giant step forward.

In a new bill which was rushed through the Commons last week, the relationship between voters and their elected representative has been fundamentally altered. For centuries, free citizens have elected someone to make laws and speak on their behalf. Britain shaped the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy and of freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights exactly 320 years ago. Once elected an MP could not be removed until the next election save for high crimes and misdemeanours. If he crossed the floor he stayed an MP. If he or she was vilified by the press there was no mechanism to oust him. He or she was elected by the people not by party cliques or press campaigns.

The MP could be an intellectual who wrote books and articles to advance causes. The MP could drive his party leadership wild with anger as Tony Benn did and Winston Churchill did when the Tory leadership tried to de-select him as an MP in early 1939 – in fury at his condemnation of the Conservative policy of the day. Churchill spent little time in his constituency.

Now the Commons has a new supervisory body which is a British version of the Council of Guardians – a concept instituted in Iran and other nations where the raw democracy is considered too messy.

This new body has the innocuous name of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. Its members shall consist of a retired judge, a former MP and other representatives of the great and the good that Whitehall keeps careful track on. When first its creation was proposed the idea was that some external body would oversee MPs' pay and allowances. In fact, the new rules strictly reducing what can be claimed, and the requirement that all moneys MPs claim is published transparently, has already brought the fiddles and diddles to a dead stop. No GP, no civil servant, no BBC journalist, no police officer or local government executive has to meet anything like the transparency requirements that now fall upon MPs.

But as Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg all sought to outbid each other in proclaiming their virtue and demanding more and more condign sanctions and controls over MPs they crossed a Rubicon in surrendering vital democratic powers. Oliver Cromwell did not abolish parliament. He handed the real authority to so-called "Commissioners". It is no accident that the new bill sets up an office of "Commissioner of Parliamentary Standards" with powers to carry out investigations into MPs on the basis of complaints from the public. The Commissioner will have the power to institute criminal proceedings and send an MP to prison if the MP does not report all that he or she is doing.

Under the new rules, MPs who write books have to report how many hours they worked researching, thinking and writing them. The same goes for written articles and so the shadow Education Secretary, Michael Gove, a fine journalist and author, has to justify his £50,000 yearly honorarium from The Times by claiming he only takes an hour a week to write his column.

Under these provisions it is unlikely that any MP will ever write a book again. They will have to record the hundreds of hours spent on book writing and their constituents will say: "What, all that time on a book when he or she could have been dealing with child tax credits!" And if the poor MP pretends that this work can be knocked off in a few minutes, an hour per £1,000, our new Commissioner can call for an investigation and remove them from Parliament.

The same rules apply to QCs like the late John Smith who could not have been an MP, let alone Labour leader under these provisions. For party bosses this is a perfect mechanism to reduce MPs to being poodles living in permanent fear of the new "Council of Guardians" and its Commissioner.

The editors and pontificators who have wallowed in the pleasure of seeing MPs squirm in shame as the expenses scandal unfolded should take a step back. If the result of this scandal is the serious, permanent weakening of parliamentary democracy, who actually benefits? If MPs cannot write books, how can they write laws?

Denis MacShane is Labour MP for Rotherham and was a minister at the Foreign Office from 1997-2005

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Oh Denis... come on ...
[info]journeyman01 wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 06:44 am (UTC)
... when was the last time that any MP "wrote" a law"? You've all been very naughty boys and got caught out. Eat it up, Denis.
Idle hands... make them work, then they won't have time for expenses shopping sprees
[info]rozr wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 09:45 am (UTC)
It's ludicrous that MPs may not earn outside Parliament. Of course they should get as much experience as they can of the real world. Parliament wouldn't be in such an appalling mess if more MPs had gumption and made an effort to do other work as well, paid or not. Labour in particular seem to be composed of a fair number of thumb-twiddlers desperately trying to look occupied, especially now that \Labour have little or no policies except it seems a desperate attempt, doubtless involving many man-hours of frantic work by paid staff, to find anything remotely resembling mud that can be fashioned in some way to sling at Tories. One such is this matter of outside jobs. What is so clever at being a career MP who has not enough to do? Well of course, it was always the expenses , wasn'tit? With little else to do much of the time, they spent the endless spare hours shopping and making us pay the bills - presumably as a reward for how hard they'd worked to find that special patio heater or scouring the country for the bathplug that would actually fit out of thousands on offer? Who needs an outside job when getting such amazing experience of shopping or house-designing or garden-landscaping at our expense?

Yes, these MPs need WORK to keep them on the ball. Any time they have left over waiting around for Gordon Brown to DO something relating to running the country, they can spend making money outside Parliament. Writing books, Making speeches, Being lawyers, accountants, company directors, paid advisers, door-to-door salesmen, you name it. But work is essential - to keep their minds away from how much of our money they can squander on luxuries or how much they can eat at our expense.

[info]lady_icedragon wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 11:05 am (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more relevant to control the number of hours that they spend doing MP work, rather than the other way around? An MP could be writing a book solely in their evening/weekend time, why should they be penalised?

Oh, right. Because someone doesn't actually want MPs having rational, critical thought, and sharing these thoughts with the people. There could be an revelations or revolutions - can't have that.
Sauce for the goose ...
[info]john_b_ellis wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 11:45 am (UTC)
Mr MacShane makes a persuasive point, and rozr expands and reinforces it. So why am I not convinced?

1. Parliamentary supremacy is a myth, empyrically, at least as far as the Commons is concerned. What we have the the supremacy of the executive, restrained only by the extension or withdrawal of the electoral mandate every four or five years.

2. Parliament in recent years has subjected every other public body to external scrutiny of one sort or another. If, for instance, local councillors must be supervised by the Standards Board as well as their electors, why should MPs expect any different treatment, least of all after the revelations of the last month or two?

3. If not just MPs, but our democracy itself, is to be "Iranized" by this new supervision, Mr MacShane should direct his reproaches at his colleagues in the House, not at the press or the electorate. Because if MPs are to become poodles, they've made poodles of themselves ....
Dennis MacShane
[info]psmithmike wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 12:04 pm (UTC)
Hmm. Politician speak with forked tongue. Your party has had 12 years to end the whipping system, ensure that every politician had a free vote and that the executive only had the power of argument to persuade M.P.s to vote for their laws. Most M.P.s are sheep who are coralled through the lobbies with all expenses paid fact finding trips, position on committees, nods and winks as to how their careers could go if they make the " right " decision etc. As for outside jobs - fine. But we have the right to know who you are working for, how much you are paid and why you are considered to be an asset to that company. How many were employed in that capacity BEFORE becoming an M.P.? And why is it that our hard working M.P.s NEVER work in a hospital, or a school, or on the transport system or anything else which the rest of us have to use or depend on? Isn't it just as institutionalising to go boardroom - parliament - boardroom ad nauseum? As for never being able to write a book again - at last! If you've got anything to say then let us hear it at the time it is relevant - not years later when it doesn't matter!
This from the man who voted to keep MP's expenses hidden!
[info]silenthunter2 wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 12:19 pm (UTC)
.
I think the word we're looking for here Dennis is "TRANSPARENCY".
.
Not something YOU are very fond of . . . eh?
.
Perhaps the word we should be looking at here is . . . HYPOCRITE !

Life's a Pain, Mr. McShane
[info]brumbar wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 12:45 pm (UTC)
especially for decent, hard-working people who find themselves subjected to the laws and regulations which are there to curb the anti-social activities of assholes.
I'm not interested in what Winston Churchill did or did not do over fifty years ago, but what does concern me is the now almost non-existant divide between Government and business, and the number of ex-ministers and former civil servants who are now very closely connected to businesses to whom they awarded contracts when they were in positions of responsibility. I suppose it would be called "keeping in touch with the real world".
To return to what is the real world, it will doubtless surprise you to know, M. McShane, that employers take a dim view of their employees doing other jobs during their working time. It can be described as 'gross misconduct' for which you can be instantly dismissed. One rule for the Very Important Persons and another for the rest?
We shouldn't really be surprised that some of our MP's have been found wanting. After all, they are no different from any other group of 600+ people be they footballers, plumbers, air hostesses or vicars. The mix will include the conscientious and hard-working, the dull but worthy, the jobsworths and timeservers, the ruthlessly ambitious and the spivs on the make etc. We have to move towards deriving a pragmatic system which expects integrity but not sainthood and can protect and give confidence both to MP's and the rest of us.
Work in your own time
[info]uanime5 wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 01:16 pm (UTC)
Can you not write your book out of hours? Surely any non-paid work you do outside of your Parliamentary hours doesn't have to be reported.
[info]dexter_cobb wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 04:34 pm (UTC)
Denis MacShane in 2009 is about as relevant as skiffle

Columnist Comments

mary_dejevsky

Mary Dejevsky: Cool realism is a political virtue, too

No ideological vision could have replaced sound judgement in 1989

terence_blacker

Terence Blacker: Reality TV police shows are criminal

For half an hour, the real world is presented in black-and-white terms

dominic_lawson

Dominic Lawson: The only options are to double up in Afghanistan or leave

At a risk of sounding callous, the number of casualties is actually small for a war


Loading...


Most popular in Opinion