The events of recent days, with world financial turmoil, have rather borne out my earlier observations about the consequences of a long parliamentary recess. The US Congress has been at the centre of attention. Here, the Government has been able to act under legislation enacted earlier this year. Had that not been in place, then Parliament would likely have been recalled. In the event, neither House is sitting and events since late July have not been subject to parliamentary scrutiny and debate. I know from responses to earlier posts that some people believe this may be no bad thing – and there are certainly dangers in parliamentarians making ill-informed comments (as we have seen in the States) – but it is important that there is the opportunity for ministers to justify their actions and be subject to sustained scrutiny. Relying on media interviews is not sufficient.
In response to my post on ‘the big stink’, Liam raises the question as to whether the problem of Parliament not sitting for so long can be overcome through the use of technology. This links to a discussion on an earlier post. Though it is possible to communicate now, wherever members of either House are located, I do not think this is a substitute for each House meeting and questioning ministers. I can see that some means may be employed for communicating (we can now table parliamentary questions during summer recesses), which may be better than doing nothing, but there is no alternative in my view to Parliament actually sitting.
Dear Lord Norton,
As you may recall, for want of a better word, I have been one of those sceptical about Parliament being recalled before 6 October.
I had, however, started to think that events had come to such a pass that it was time Parliament did indeed come back to discuss the current situation. (This would have had the added benefit of preventing us having to suffer the spectacle of the annual party conferences.)
How wrong I was to have this change of heart was brought home to me last evening as I watched events unfold in the US Congress. If there were ever a case for parliamentarians having long, uninterrupted, recesses, it was made by the ludicrous scenes and even more ludicrous comments that emanated from Washington yesterday. It was a wonderful demonstration of how just how little good and just how much bad politicans can do. If parliaments behave in such a way they deserve to be sidelined.
Howridiculous.
howridiculous: I too watched the proceedings in the House of Representatives. However, having been involved in trans-Atlantic gatherings of British and American parliamentarians, I have to say that there is a marked difference in the debating quality of British parliamentarians and members of Congress. I console myself with the thought that we would be unlikely to have such a debate in the House of Lords.
Unfortunately I was not able to catch the debate in the House of Representatives, but does anybody has a link where I can read it?
Parliament closing down for the summer seems like a strange anachronism to me. Other than schools, what other organisations simply shut down for months on end? All over Britain, the rest of us get up and go to work throughout the year. When we take holidays, we typically take them at different times from each other such that our companies are still able to operate.
If, as claimed, the recess is to allow Parliamentarians to engage in constituency work or research trips abroad or whatever, that’s fine, but is it really necessary for everyone to go all at the same time?
I would also be careful, Lord Norton, of suggesting that Parliament not getting in the way of the Government over the summer has been a good thing as it suggests that it might be a good thing all of the time. *All* Government actions deserve scrutiny and defence, whenever they take place.
Is the American Senate voting on a money bill? Has the Senate raised their own bill? I did not realise the Senate could do this constitutionally – good thing its happening though.
Jonathan Hogg: I certainly wasn’t suggesting that Parliament not getting in the way of Government over the summer was a good thing – quite the reverse. I was acknowledging that some contributors believe that there are problems attached to Parliament meeting more regularly. I take your point, which I think is very pertinent, that not everyone need be away at the same time. I have been in Westminster on a number of occasions recently and have been struck by how many parliamentarians – peers as well as MPs – are around.
I believe one of the advantages of having everyone gone at the same time is that rennovation work can be carried out. The Palace of Westminster being quite an old building that is under constant wear.
Also, how easy would it be for an MP/Peer to plan a holiday around issues that may arise? It might be ammunition for the press if the Minister of Health were un-contactable during a major nurses strike.
Agreed. However, wouldn’t both shorter terms and judicious use of technology be a good compromise?
Liam: The renovation work is certainly a problem. It is possible to work round it though, as happened recently when both Houses experimented with September sittings. Indeed, the answer to this question is the same as to your second question. That is, if we know in advance when sittings are to be held, we can plan around them. If the gap between them is not too great, then we are less likely to face recalls, necessitating a change of plans, and – as I mentioned in my earlier response to Jonathan Hogg – not all members necessarily have to be present. I can see some value in technology, but as recent studies have emphasised it has not proved to be the saviour some thought it would be in reinvigorating democratic engagement.
One of my biggest gripes is the number of letters signed by duty ministers – or simply pp’d by civil servants – in the absence of the minister responsible. Yes, ministers need a holiday, but it looks unprofessional and sends out a bad message when MPs reply to their constituents.
Roll on Monday!