Comments on: I'm a celebrity, elect me

By: Croft

Croft — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:17:26 +0000

Would it be uncharitable to suggest that the government is reluctant on pre-legislative scrutiny because it delays what they want to do but fairly relaxed about post-legislative scrutiny because they can ignore whatever is said. Without sunset clauses or bullet proof affirmative resolutions no matter how good the exercise or wise the words parliament has no obvious lever to pressure government to act.

Not a celebrity but I see the ‘last’ of the Law Lords took his seat yesterday with the slightly odd choice of title Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony

By: lordnorton

lordnorton — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 09:54:07 +0000

Senex: Liberal Democrats may be independent outside Westminster, but inside their voting (in both Houses) is the most cohesive of all the parties.

Bedd Gelert: As Baroness Murphy has indicated,there are celebrities and celebrities. As Joanna Lumley has acknowledged, being an MP is actually rather hard work. In both Houses, members are expected to pull their weight. Being a celebrity as such cuts little ice.

By: lordnorton

lordnorton — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 09:50:18 +0000

Croft: The most significant element of the Constitution Committee report that has borne fruit has been the proposal for post-legislative scrutiny. This is somewhat counter-intuitive. When the report was published, it looked as if there would be a continuing momentum for pre-legislative scrutiny. Post-legislative scrutiny looked rather ambitious: though everyone was in favour of it in principle, achieving it in practice looked extremely problematic. In the event, the number of bills subject to pre-legislative scrutiny has not shown a great increase, whereas the Government have accepted the case for systematic post-legislative scrutiny. Most Acts will now be subject the post-legislative review 3-5 years after enactment, with the review being sent to the appropriate departmental select committee.

Your suggestion on the relationship between the delaying power and sunset provisions is an interesting one. I find it quite attractive, though whether a Government would feel the same way is another matter. I can see that they might find acceptable one half of the proposal!

By: baronessmurphy

baronessmurphy — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 08:21:05 +0000

Bedd Gelert, Paul, I deliberately used the term ‘celeb’ rather than celebrity, which I agree still refers to a broad range of people including those who might make excellent MPs. And yes we do have a lot of proper celebrities in the house. I suppose I was thinking that those whose ambitions are solely to be ‘well known’ and invited to the A list parties (the sort that many of us would pay to avoid) and who figure large in the tabloids and magazines in ladies’ hairdressing salons, might balk at the sheer hard slog which goes on behind the scenes in the local constituency and is largely unrecognised. As an NHS manager I was often in discussion with local MPs about individual complaints and saw them quite rightly helping communities challenge plans for local services. I quickly learnt that the vast majority of MPs were hard working and very committed to doing right by their local voters but their work was often arduous, tedious and unrewarding. It also requires a very efficient office staff and being very accessible, another trait that celebs with their gatekeeping publicity officers might not like. Of course I’ve also got a list of MPs in my head who are lazy, dismissive and so focused on their sticky hold on the pole of ambition they were useless to their constituents.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:56:07 +0000

Celebs I guess won’t want to slog round their constituencies, hold surgeries to hear long drawn out sagas about the incompetence of local public services or private landlords or sit around waiting to be chosen by the Speaker to make their time-guillotined contribution.

baronessmurphy – that seems like a rather broad and damning generalisation. Do you have any evidence for it?

By: senex

senex — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:24:34 +0000

Lord Norton: “The difficulty with having independent MPs is that there is no collective accountability to the electors.”

Well not exactly, they are called the Liberal Democrats. When they came onto the political scene in the 1850′s they were a party of disgruntled Radicals, Tory Peelites and Whigs. Of late they have added socialism to their list of talents.

Not much has changed then?

When such disparate individuals become organised one can never know at any moment in time which of their four heads will pop up to speak or act.

They are puckering up once again to sort out Parliament. I do hope they can agree amongst themselves as to what is required, if not they will leave us with another mess like they did in 1911.

“I went and locked myself in the loo”. This is the only place where the world’s politicians can experience some quality time and think upon great thoughts whilst they attend to their duty.

By: Croft

Croft — Sat, 30 May 2009 09:19:27 +0000

The summary of recommendations all sound perfectly sensible. How much was taken up to any extent? – I can certainly see some bits that have happened. Due to the government control of the timetable the practice of trying to use private members bills to move committee recommendations does not seem very practical. Of course if the government lost some control of the timetabling it might became more realistic but on the present customs I think specifically allotted time has more potential.

Para 179+225 of the report mentions something I’ve always thought offered interesting possibilities: sunset clauses. I’ve sometimes wondered if the Lords veto was upped from 1yr back to 2 (reversing the 49 parliament act) but as a counterweight a bill with a sunset clause over either the whole bill or the contested amendments should have a reduced 6 month veto. It would seem to create an interesting tension between the government’s desire to get the legislation though quickly that would see them more generally agreeing to sunset clauses where the measures are controversial. The present Lord’s veto seems too nuclear an option and therefore not really that useful in offering carrot or stick.

By: Bedd Gelert

Bedd Gelert — Fri, 29 May 2009 19:31:48 +0000

Lord Norton, Baroness Murphy,

I think you need to be careful about how you define ‘celebrities’ before dismissing all of them. English usage, love it or loathe it, now uses ‘celebrity’ as an umbrella title covering pop stars, sportsmen and women, famous business people, authors – academic and otherwise- and even the Royal Family.

We may not like that, but almost anyone who is on the books of a ‘Speaking Agency’ can be deemed a celebrity. While I’m not a fan of Esther Rantzen, there are the following people, including some of the Lords themselves, who can be regarded as celebrities.

David Attenborough
Roger Black MBE
Lord Bragg
Lord Coe
Richard Dawkins
Michael Grade
Steve Jones
Michael Parkinson
Delia Smith
Terry Waite – Surely he has something to offer ?

Bedd Gelert

By: lordnorton

lordnorton — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:52:08 +0000

Croft: I think they are very good proposals. I am also a great advocate of Bills having to be accommpanied by a clear statement of the criteria by which it can be determined whether they have fulfilled their purpose. The proposal can be found, along with similar proposals, in the 2004 report of the Constitution Committee on ‘Parliament and the Legislative Process’:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldselect/ldconst/173/173.pdf

There is a precedent for a Private Member’s Bill being put forward to implement the recommendations of a select committee: it was introduced by the chairman in his own name. There may be a case for looking at the practice in the Scottish Parliament, where committees are empowered to initiate bills. In the Lords, an amendment to a Bill is sometimes moved by a committee chairman to give effect to a committee recommendation.

By: Croft

Croft — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:01:49 +0000

I’ll take myself told

On a slightly different note were you thinking of covering at a remove some of the proposals being put forward by the prospective speakers, which seem as relevant to the Lords as the commons. I was struck by some of the recent comments by Frank Field , over his proposals for green papers/bills. It omits a personal favourite of mine a definition of success (this bill with have succeeded if X, will have failed if Y) but otherwise it seemed all very reasonable.

The idea of Select Committees being able to introduce legislation, in allotted time, resulting from their reports seems intriguing though I’m not sure how in practice it would work.