I have already commented on the fact that the long recess has meant that MPs and peers have not been able to question ministers on events in Georgia. Had Parliament been sitting since the end of July, we would have had statements on a range of issues, including the economy, events in Georgia, world trade talks, the loss of personal data, ongoing negotiations in Zimbabwe, and the failure to get SATS tests marked in time. Some of these would have necessitated more than one statement and there would doubtless have been several debates on the economy.
The long recess means that each House lacks the capacity to call the Government to account, other than through questions for written answer or, as discussed in response to comments on the earlier post, select committees (as with the Children, Schools and Families Committee investigating the failings in marking the SATS test). It has one other consequence. In effect, it hands responsibility for questioning government to the media.
A free media is essential in a democracy and we do not lack journalists and television reporters willing to question ministers vigorously. There are, though, obvious problems with leaving it solely to the media. Ministers can refuse to give interviews. Interviews on Channel 4 News or Newsnight do not last the length of a parliamentary debate. Newspapers have their own agenda. There is no impartial presiding officer. Editors and journalists lack the legitimacy of elected representatives and usually lack the expertise of members of the Lords (though there are some expert, usually specialist, journalists). In short, there is no substitute for Parliament. The media should be supplementing the work of Parliament and not substituting for it.
This brings me back to the discussion of the earlier post. Do we rely more heavily on select committees to meet during recesses (thus placing a burden on particular MPs and peers)? Do both chambers meet during the recess? Would it make more sense to meet more regularly with more frequent but shorter recesses? I am coming to the view that the present situation is not sustainable. At what point does the convenience of members trump the need for Parliament to call Government to account?
I think you’re right Lord Norton. I don’t think it’s fair to give select committee members the short straw by eating up their recess (which is in no sense a ‘holiday’ as many assume it is), and I wouldn’t trust the media as far as I can throw them to handle the government responsibly.
Do other European states follow our method or do they have their own?
Dear Lord Norton,
I wonder if any analysis has been done of the cost and practical implications of moving to a system of shorter but more frequent recesses?
Howridiculous.
Adrian Kidney and howridiculous: No serious study has yet been done at the comparative level or in terms of cost. We differ from our European (and American) counterparts in three respects. First, we tend to sit for longer. Both chambers are among the busiest in the world. The second, and related, difference is that we are still a chamber-oriented legislature. Legislatures such as those of Germany and the USA are much more committee-oriented. Westminster-style legislatures are more geared to plenary debate and hence have members that are more familiar than members of many other legislatures with debating and challenging government. This last point leads on to the third point. Westminster legislatures are structured on the basis of having a dedicated Opposition, so that Government is subject to consistent and critical scrutiny. These are salient points in considering the case for ensuring regular sittings of Parliament. The number of days we sit each year (150+) is probably about right but the problem is the distribution across the session.
Costs are not unimportant and more frequent sittings, with more recesses, has cost implications in terms of ensuring necessary building and refurbishment work gets done and in staff costs. There were estimates made of the cost when both Houses experimented with September sittings. I doubt if the additional costs will be great but it will be necessary for proper costings as part of any study of moving to more frequent sittings.
Adrian Kidney; I should add that Eurobarometer data show that the public tend to share your view of the press. Among EU countries, the lowest level of trust is to be found in the UK. Eurobarometer 69 (Spring 2008) shows that only 19 per cent of those questioned in the UK trust the press. The EU average is 44 per cent. In some countries, levels of trust reach or exceed 60 per cent.
That does not surprise me, Lord Norton!
As Lenin once said, What is to be Done?
as you rightly point out, the Parliamentary staff have a logistical nightmare during recess of ensuring much-needed maintenance work is carried out. The various entrances are currently blast-pits and the din of drilling is deafening! I don’t think MPs would be impressed if they had to deal with it while they were carrying out their duties.
Do you consider the chamber-orientation of the Westminster Parliament to make sense over committee-oriented scrutiny, Lord Norton? I’m favouring the chamber, as it provides more chances to question the government directly, involves every MP/Lord, and prevents discussions becoming too comradely. However I can definitely see the other side of the coin, what with the excellent work the select committees generate.
Your observation that the press seem to run the country when the government is away is quite correct. What worries me more than that is the fact that the press is dumming down what they report every day. They have done this to such an extend that I have ceased to watch the BBC news a long time ago. I have since replaced it with better foreign news programmes such as CNN, Al Jazeera and Bloomberg. They seem to be far more concise and willing to talk hard facts. The BBC on the other hand seem to be more interested in Sport and interviewing other members of the press about what they think is going on.
I find the level of political ignorance in the UK in comparison to even 50 years ago worrying in the extreme. There was a time where MP’s would be booed in the street in response to they way they have voted on recent legislation. Like sir Winston Churchill was when he went to battle Latvian revolutionaries in London. I cant imagine this happening today. People dont even know who their MP is let alone how they vote.
Is there any feeling in westminster that there should be legislation with regards to the press in order to make them carry a supliment on the business of parliment and how the votes go? After all who can tell the lies from the truth if nobody reports the business of the day?
Do you think that would be as effective as re rigging the system to run through the summer?
The government was all but invisible in August, leaving Ms Harman fielding substantial questions you have named from foreign policy to domestic issues, until she, too, vanished.
Noticeably, the main news pundits disappeared at the same time, leaving a few hardy bloggers to comment. I’d like to add that my own lengthy absence here has been due not to my own holidays but that of others – I run a very seasonal business. Of course, I’d prefer my business to be spread over the year when one considers operational costs and I’d be happy to swap comparisons. I should add that my business operates 365 days a year: I’m not in a position to lose a potentially interested client.
As an aside, delighted to see this site get past the six month trial – any updates on its future?
Dear Lord Norton,
Many thanks for your response. I feel an undergraduate dissertation coming on!
I suspect you won’t be surprised that I am still not convinced about the need to change the current situation. That said, if other legislatures can sit for less time than ours I am sure we could try to emulate them!
Howridiculous.
I don’t want to seem cynical, but the UK doesn’t stop working just because of the recess. Maybe MPs should have a maximum holiday allowance that they have to book before the recess begins. That way we can rely on the Houses to question the government with the help of the media, and not leave it to the media to run the show.
Politics isn’t a holiday after all is it?
Thanks for your various comments. You raise important questions. Adrian Kidney: I agree with you about the importance of the chamber (for the reasons you give); the point I would make is that I would not regard debate and questioning in the chamber and the work of select committees as mutually exclusive. They complement one aonther and it may be a mix of the two that is the way forward. James Clarke: I would make a not dissimilar point about encouraging more extensive and informed media scrutiny and more regular sittings of both Houses. Your point about what we do to ensure more media coverage is extremely important. Given the observations that you and Adrian Kidney – andladytizzy – have made, think I will pursue it through a separate post.
Ethan and ladytizzy: you are quite right in emphasising that the UK doesn’t stop because Parliament is not sitting, which is an argument for it sitting more often. Howridiculous: the case for sitting more often relates to my earlier observation about the nature of westminster legislatures. There is an important issue about what Parliament does if it sits more often – there may be a case for stipulating that there should be some sittings in the summer but solely for the purpose of business other than legislation. It should be occasion when private Members should be in the driving seat in terms of business.
ladytizzy: on the blog itself, I am delighted to report that it has indeed been decided to extend the experiment for another six months. In the meantime, as you know, the Hansard Society is keen to get the assessment of readers on the first six months.
I have been delighted by the response we have achieved from readers. We have attracted a good readership, both quantitatively and, in my view, qualitatively. Posts have received some thoughtful and stimulating comments. They have encouraged me to pursue certain issues. Do keep your comments coming in. As I would hope is apparent from our responses, your comments are read and we are keen to engage with resders.
This seems a good moment to repeat my plea for more normal working hours in the Lords. I would much prefer shorter recesses and less fraught days during sitting. Of course there will always be times when Government needs to pass emergency legislation but the general run of law-making has been in preparation for many years before coming to parliament (14yrs in the case of the 2007 Mental Capacity Act). Did we need those late night sittings? I don’t think so. It could easily have been done in normal working hours. Now I can almost feel Ladytizzy about to respond that she works 365 days all hours of the day and night, well I did too for 30 yrs as a doctor, academic and NHS manager. It was worth it because I was achieving something that couldn’t be done in shorter hours but our hours in parliament are actually too short, they are at the wrong time of day and for too short a term.