The awkward squad does democracy a good turn

TOMORROW Mr John Major and the Conservatives are quite likely to be defeated over the Nolan report. I put it so, not mentioning the Government, because this is supposed to be a free vote. But the Prime Minister has placed his authority, such as it is, behind the recommendations of the majority on the committee which was set up in June to consider the report: that paid advocacy of any cause or interest by MPs should be prohibited but that they should be allowed to continue advising outside bodies and to be paid for it. They should not, however, be compelled to disclose those earnings. This is against Nolan's recommendations. But the committee goes further than Nolan in proposing the elimination of paid advocacy.

For this the Conservative majority on the committee surely deserve some credit, even if it was the price paid to try to ensure that earnings from advising activities remained undisclosed. Mr Tony Blair might be wise to give some thanks for this advance by the Conservatives. But no: the Spirit of John Smith's Death - roughly translated, that politicians should start behaving reasonably towards one another - survived more or less until his funeral, after which they all cheerfully reverted to their old ways with every appearance of relief, like children who had just been released from a tea party with the headmistress.

Mr Blair's attack is on the non-disclosure of earnings. And, as over half-a-dozen Conservatives share the Opposition's views, Mr Blair may win. If he does, it will be good for Parliament as well as for the Labour Party. The party's spokesmen will put it differently. They will not say that it is admirable that, on a free vote, a free House of Commons voted down the recommendation of one of its committees which enjoyed the support of the Prime Minister. Instead they will deplore the Government's failure to get its business through the Commons, however much that business may have been clothed in the lineaments of a free vote.

They will not, however, be able to claim truthfully that the Government is being dominated from the outside by the extreme right of the party. The members who have indicated that they may refuse to support the committee's recommendation include Mr John Biffen, Mr Stephen Day, Mr Hugh Dykes, Mr Peter Griffiths, Mr David Martin, Mr Richard Shepherd, Sir Teddy Taylor and Mr David Wilshire. They form as representative a sample as the most advanced computer could provide.

The theory of right-wing domination, now much in vogue in the People's Party, was what Mr Paul Boateng employed to explain the withdrawal of Lord Mackay's Domestic Violence Bill. Yet, if Lady Olga Maitland was against it, Mrs Teresa Gorman was for it. In the Right Wing Fillies Handicap, my money is on Teresa. On this occasion I was on Lady Olga's side, though I have found myself supporting Mrs Gorman in previous controversies. I rejoice in the defeat of Lord Mackay.

My own views on marriage and divorce are that, if two people wish to go through religious ceremonies of one sort or another, it is a matter for them and for the churches or sects involved. It is no function of the state to prop up those ceremonies. The state should enforce laws relating, first, to cohabitation and, second, to children. The latter would be more onerous than the former on the parties' obligations.

These views are far from those of the Daily Mail, if I understand them correctly. Nevertheless, I applaud the Mail's successful campaign against Lord Mackay's Bill, for the following reasons: it is always agreeable to see those set in authority over us being given a bloody nose. The injury here was inflicted not, in the end, by a newspaper but by a group of backbenchers. It is even more heartening to see backbenchers assert their power. Here they did not do it over a government measure in the party political sense, but over one of those allegedly agreed measures which enjoyed the support of the Law Commission and of various pressure groups concerned with the family. It was proceeding through Parliament by means of an accelerated process; which, in plain language, meant that it was not being given much discussion or, indeed, any at all.

It was not quite the same as Mr Kenneth Baker's Dangerous Dogs Act or the statute setting up the Child Support Agency. The Dogs Act was a measure of panic introduced by a Home Secretary who clearly knew nothing whatever about dogs, as sad cases in our courts demonstrate weekly. The Child Support Act was given a second reading of sorts, though none of the members who spoke foresaw the difficulties that were to lie ahead.

Both Acts turned out to be disasters. But both had been given slightly more consideration than the Domestic Violence Bill. This is not to say that Lord Mackay's measure would have turned out as awkwardly as they did. I do not know. What I believe is that Parliament should not allow measures to go through virtually on the nod, without proper examination or, often, any examination at all, after they have been proposed by pressure groups and appear to be of beneficent intent.

We shall see whether Lord Mackay's Divorce Bill is included in the Queen's Speech. It is said - and I, for one, believe it - that several of those protesting against the Domestic Violence Bill thought they were taking a stand against the Divorce Bill. They had muddled up the two measures. If the divorce measure does not appear it will be lamented as yet another victory for the forces of reaction. But the wails of protest will be hollow.

For the Opposition does not care a jot about divorce or, very much, about domestic violence either. Indeed, it is safe to assume that, on divorce, Lord Mackay (perhaps the most devout person in government) wishes to go rather further than the Blairs, the Campbells or the Mandelsons would judge prudent, for fear of offending Roman Catholic or other interests. The Opposition merely wants to depict the Government as reactionary and Mr Major as a weak prime minister who is not in control of his party.

These are entirely understandable, even admirable objects for an opposition to pursue. But that is no reason for the rest of us to follow in its course. If members are to be more free, the Government will have to lose its legislation, or part of it, more often. The smaller a government's majority, the more powerful will members be. Those whose loyalty is heightened will be outnumbered by those who see their opportunity to join the awkward squad. In any legislature brought about by proportional representation, which is much favoured by enlightened folk, small and unrepresentative groups would have more power than ever.

Alas! Enlightened folk commonly judge not by their principles but by their prejudices. That is why the withdrawal of the Domestic Violence Bill was deplored, whereas the defeat tomorrow of the Conservative majority will, if it happens, be applauded by the very same people.