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
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.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited





Comments
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.
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.
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 ....
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 !
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.