Both Houses of Parliament are among the busiest legislative chambers in the world. 2008 has been a busy one for the House of Lords, though no more than usual. Some of it activities have attracted media attention – as over the defeat of the proposal for detention without charge for 42 days – but they are very much the exception. Most of the work of the House comprises detailed scrutiny of bills – as well as scrutiny of government’s actions and proposals – with most of the amendments to bills being achieved by agreement and not by division. Much concerns detail which is not likely to attract much attention outside Westminster. As a result, many people have little knowledge of the House, though that lack of attention does have some benefits. It means there can be a constructive dialogue, ministers knowing that any concessions they make will not be emblazoned in the next day’s press as government u-turns.
What is in store for us in 2009? As I previously mentioned, the legislative load is not a large one, at least not on the face of it, though we will be busy with some omnibus bills. What will be more to the fore, I suspect, will be the issues on which we will doubtless be having a range of ministerial statements. Given the economic and international situations, Treasury minister Lord Myners and Foreign Office minister Lord Malloch-Brown will be busy at the dispatch box. We have the benefit that both are well qualified in their respective fields. Given the membership of the House, the questioning will be informed. It is a depressing thought, though, that in addition to the economic crisis, there remain various critical situations in different parts of the globe. The danger is that as one dominates the headlines, the others tend to decline in public consciousness. When the House resumes, we will doubtless have statements on the situation in the Middle East as well as in Afghanistan. Other troublespots include Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of Congo (on which we had a debate shortly before the Christmas recess), Iran, and Burma. There is also the strained relationship between Pakistan and India. Regrettably, the list is not exhaustive.
Though we get little attention, I hope our discussion of such situations will nonetheless contribute to ensuring that none of the issues fades from the political agenda. We are a scrutinising chamber. I hope very much that we remain a vigilant one.
Do “statements” issued by the house have any effect other than to point out that, yes, we have noticed the terrible state of the world and, no, we can’t do anything about it?
Because, if not, what in all brutal honesty is the point of them?
Would we not be better off making statements only when we are directly involved, and focusing our attention on the actual governing of our own country until such a time as our foreign policy requires action rather than simply empty words?
McDuff: Statements enable ministers to explain the Government’s policy on matters of immediate concern and to be questioned about their position. The benefit is essentially the same as at Question Time. Many of the statements are on matters for which the Government does have direct responsibility, usually policies that it is introducing (on welfare benefits etc). They also allow ministers to deal with concerns about which the Government may not be able to do anything directly, though may be in a position to press others to act. Having said that, I recognise the basis of your scepticism. Statements, like declaratory motions, have no legal effect. On some issues, it may appear that the Government is pontificating or simply repeating what has previously been announced. There are times when one does sometimes wonder whether a particular statement is really necessary. However, it is better to have statements than not to have any – both Government and Parliament recognise that new policies should be announced first in Parliament and not on the morning’s ‘Today’ programme.
Lord Norton
Sorry for being too general, but thank you for taking the time to reply.
My badly-worded point was not about the statements per se as much as the policies that the statements are about. We can issue as many statements or formulate as many policies as we like, but there does not seem to be much in the way of capacity to act. Zimbabwe does not recognise UK law, and neither do India, Pakistan or Israel.
Acknowledging that foreign policy is theoretically effective in some cases, a practical reality is that the UK is not in a position to do much about anything. Any influence we could have in the big hot button issues is overshadowed by far bigger players, such as the USA in the case of Israel and Pakistan or China in the case of Zimbabwe. We don’t have the economic brute force to go in and buy up a country, we don’t have the military force to go and invade even if the last 8 years weren’t a damning indictment of that kind of hubris, and even if we were in the mood to start some underground revolution-funding or special ops/black ops type strategy of taking out the bad guys with gerbils packed with hypnotic suggestions and subdermal nitroglycerine bombs we wouldn’t be making statements about that in parliament. One assumes.
My scepticism is not about the statements, but about the policies behind them. What do we hope – realistically, and in deadly seriousness – to actually achieve? Would there be a concrete difference between having a complicated policy on Israel and simply saying “there’s nothing we can do because we’re not the United States – we don’t have a hundred billion dollars lying down the back of our sofa to outspend them and wouldn’t know what to spend it on if we did”? Would we not save money and time and stress by acknowledging that we’re not the big empire we once were and leaving the geopolitical messing about to the new imperial powers?
This is not just cynicism, but a serious question. There is an awful lot of hot hair in foreign policy debates, and I would love some way of cutting through the hubris and talking about what a condemnation of dictatorial policies actually means, what action we are proposing to take, where that fits into the action being taken by other nations with bigger boots, and how that is expected to solve the problems we are so compassionately taking note of.