Meltdown

A slight trip, and the British railway network falls flat on its face.

On Tuesday evening, as I was returning to Milton Keynes for my French conversation class, after a day at Westminster, Euston descended into chaos. At least three separate incidents were causing problems on the line between London Euston and Rugby.

I wrote the draft for this post (in longhand) yesterday while awaiting the arrival of a friend from Lutterworth who was travelling via Coventry. The train had been have problems for most of its journey from Scotland. It finally gave up the ghost in Rugby. In the meantime a freight train breakdown shut down the route via Northampton.

Even the best networks suffer occasional problems (and to be fair, reading the news from France this morning, alerted me to the problems their network had suffered due to the heatwave). 100% punctuality is an impossibility - so much can happen that is outside the control of the track operators and the train operators.

But for regular users of the trains, service disruptions occur all too frequently. The annual average for London Midland is 87.9% of trains arrive within 5 minutes of schedule. Virgin trains had 89.4% of trains arriving within 10 minutes of schedule in May 2015. (Btw it would be nice if at a station COMPARABLE statistics were available!)

Train travel is very expensive in the UK - and this isn't good enough. ANSWERS (rather than apologies & the occasional refund) is what passengers want - in other words ACCOUNTABILITY.

Blank Cheques

For me, the most important event this week at Westminster will be the Second Reading Debate of the Education and Adoption Bill in the House of Commons. It is certainly not the biggest story that will dominate the news over the coming week - Greece is likely to dominate the headlines - and who knows what else may come along. So why am I so concerned about this bill?

I am a strong believer in parliamentary accountability (as an internationalist who believes in the central importance that legislatures should play in democracies - accountability by any legislature is important). Legislatures should write the laws (OK, pass them - even if the texts are proposed elsewhere - for example the Executive). The Executive's power should be approved and its use held to account by Parliament.

This bill grants the Secretary of State for Education powers that would have Dicey revolving in his grave - not at the speed of old LPs or singles (very dated reference for those of us of a certain age), but of CDs. She (currently the post is held by Nicky Morgan [NO relation]) is given extensive powers over a new "class" of schools; their existing governors and teaching staff; and local authorities. That might be justified - but she gets to write the criteria for "entry" into this class.

Currently the Secretary of State's powers are limited to "failing" schools - ones that have weaknesses identified by an Ofsted inspection. Now these powers are extended (in two ways - both to (1) schools and to (2) the extent of the orders she can issue and duties placed on the recipients of her orders).

It is not right that the Executive be given the power to make up its own definitions. It is Parliament's responsibility.

Clause 1 (A Clause in a Bill becomes a Section in a passed Act) of the Education and Adoption Bill says

.....

(3)After section 60A [Education and Inspections Act 2006] insert—

“60AB Coasting schools

(1) A maintained school is by virtue of this section eligible for intervention if the
governing body of the school—

(a)have been notified that the Secretary of State considers the school to be
coasting, and

(b) have not subsequently been notified that the Secretary of State no
longer considers the school to be coasting.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations define what “coasting”
means in relation to a school for the purposes of subsection (1).””

 

Such regulations must be approved under the Affirmative resolution procedure - but that means little oversight in practice.

 

The Bill will get its Second Reading tomorrow evening, and will move to the committee stage in the House of Commons. Government Ministers and whips will have as their key objective NOT to accept any amendment other than ones the Government wants (so amending Clause 1(3) is almost impossible). Only the House of Lords stands a chance of defeating the Government on this - and it is rightly unwilling to do this except on rare occasions. Some lively criticism in the Commons Second Reading debate might embolden them.

I have other concerns about this bill - and its effect on centralisation of powers.

 

Sadly, the issue may just be left. The government may further extend its powers - with parents; local representatives and the public unable to act when these powers are used.

 

It isn't just the buildings that are crumbling at Westminster.

The Bill can be found here; Explanatory Notes (prepared by the Government) here and the House of Commons Library Briefing Paper here.

Oversight in Congress

The Congressional Research Service is part of the Library of Congress. It is a fantastically useful resource for members of both Houses, enabling them to have quality; well researched materials to aid them in their work. As long-term readers of this blog will be aware, I am a huge fan of CRS - and much appreciative of the quality of their staff and their output.

One of their most useful documents is the Congressional Oversight Manual. It both explains the tools of oversight, and is a practical manual. It can be downloaded from -

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30240.pdf

It is also a useful document to reflect upon - how can legislatures (or for that matter any body which exists to ensure that government services are accountable to the people they should be serving - and that includes local councils as well as national legislatures) be effective in their work. What are the issues and the tools?

The Return Of..... The House of Commons

A look at what's coming up - and how you can watch the House of Commons seek to ensure accountability.




Watch live broadcasts on http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/ or catch up through http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Archive.aspx

PMQs

Prime Minister's Question Time is worth watching in person. The atmosphere can be felt in the chamber. There is excitement and some excellent humour displayed. Yet I must admit that I have come to dislike it intensely. In my opinion, the sooner it is abolished, the better! I can't bear to watch it (and I'm a political junkie!!!).

My objection is that it achieves little in terms of holding the government to account. It's an opportunity to score points - hoping that the electorate will be impressed. I fear (and I go canvassing, and hear complaints from voters - and I hear the same from some of my students) that it puts them off.

The low esteem of PMQs is confirmed in a report from the Hansard Society. I recommend reading it.

It is available at  http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Tuned-in-or-Turned-off-Public-attitudes-to-PMQs.pdf

Is "good government" possible?

Ronald Reagan once stated (actually I think he kept on saying it!) that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." It's a view that many people hold today. I have to say right from the start - it is not a view I share.

Yet we hear so much about cost overruns; corruption; blunders; if not sheer incompetence. It's not limited to a particular government; or even system of government - I subscribe to The Guardian (UK); Le Monde (France); New York Times (UK); and "European Voice" (EU). Very different systems are reported upon - but the stories are so familiar.

Is it a question of complexity? Our modern world is so complicated - that it may be impossible for any institutions to attempt to keep everything working at the same time. Some people argue that only unrestricted market forces can bring about the optimum results. Frankly, that seems to me to be complete rubbish. History is full of examples of the follies and disasters brought about by unregulated markets. If you want scandals, swindles; abuse of power - read any economic history. I remember reading Professor Galbraith's argument that modern economic history demonstrates a recurring cycle - scandal & crashes (from the South Sea Bubble to...applying his thesis - the Banking crisis of recent years), followed by government intervention to save the system and regulations to stop the same thing happening again - followed inevitably by demands for the relaxing of regulations - leading to new scandals and crashes. Public officials are (rightly) held to much higher ethical standards than business requires.

Certainly complexity is one of a (series) of problems - but can it explain the role of abuse of power and scandal?

I think that we have to accept the first part of Lord Acton's dictum that "POWER TENDS TO CORRUPT, absolute power corrupts absolutely." There are various ways that systems can seek to temper the downside of Human Nature.

Constitutional Law has its role to play. A constitution can set limits on power, and rules which invalidate actions which breach the Constitution. Most states have a single document which sets out the main rules. However that single document is not the complete statement of constitutional law. The US Constitution has been interpreted and applied by the Courts, particularly the US Supreme Court. Constitutional conventions can exist. Until Franklin Roosevelt ran for a third term it was a convention that Presidents served no more than two terms. He broke it, and a constitutional amendment was subsequently passed. Legal remedies may work (but may not be safe in the hands of clever lawyers), but sometimes other pressures encourage compliance. "Conventions" in the UK play this role - they are not legally enforceable, but constitutional actors regard themselves bound by the convention. They are effective when they mean that the cost of breaking the convention outweighs any short term advantage. The Queen could refuse to give the Royal Assent to a bill passed by Parliament (was she tempted when the Hunting Bill was passed?) - but the cost would be the loss of the unchallenged role that the Crown plays.

Ethics rules can play a role. While we might complain about our current politicians being a bunch of rogues - they are actually 'cleaner' than most generations in history. Many scandals of the last 40 years involve behaviour that, thanks to ethics rules, are forbidden - previously these practices were regarded as normal political behaviour.

"Accountability" is a requirement that can reduce scandal and show up incompetence. There is an important role for investigative committees - in Congress committees play an important role in questioning decisions; and requiring officials and others to justify their actions. Within constraints the Departmental Select Committees in the House of Commons can do the same. They are aided by professional support bodies - the GAO (Government Accountability Office) in the USA and the NAO (National Audit Office) in the UK.

In England MPs and Councillors can ask questions of officials carrying out policies; and the decision makers who have adopted policies - and demand answers. Sometimes the press can play a role in uncovering sharp practices and incompetence. There are also various organisations seeking to hold decision makers to account - such as the USA's Common Cause.

We don't live in a perfect world - and Human Nature can be deeply flawed - but in democracies - where power belongs to its citizens - we each have a responsibility (to ourselves and to others) to see that power is accountable to us.

The Right Question

 

There's a wonderful line (well let's be honest about it, there are a host of superb lines) in "Yes Minister" - one of my favourites is a comment from a civil servant -

"Ministers are ignorant not because we do not give them the right answers but because they do not ask us the right questions."

Asking the right question is key to getting answers. Watching Select Committees at Westminster or Congressional Committees in Washington provide many examples of questioning - as does observing lawyers cross-examining in Court. It is well worth watching questioners and reflecting on their questions - which can easily be dodged? - and which get to the heart of the matter?

Washminster would welcome your observations.

Accountability

 

A key aspect of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility - is that members of the Government are subject to questioning by MPs and Peers. Oral questions are held on Mondays through Thursdays in both Houses. MPs and Members of the House of Lords can also submit written questions - and they can engage in correspondence.

Yesterday the Minister for the Cabinet Office published a report on Departments’ and agencies’ performance on handling Members’ and peers’ correspondence during the calendar year 2012.

Performance - and therefore the level of accountability varies - The Department of Health, dealing with 17,279 letters (this is from MPs & Peers, whose job it is to hold Government to account) responded within their target period to 98% of those letters. The Department for Education (16,413 letters) only reached 55%.

If I were being flippant I'd say that the Secretary of State for Education, Mr Michael Gove should have his report card marked, "Could do better". But this is a serious matter. He is responsible to Parliament for the performance of his Department - and should be ensuring that when MPs and Peers ask questions; raise concerns about individual cases; and issues that he is responsible for - answers should be given - not perhaps immediately (I'd love to see the pronouncements of the DfE and its Ministers based on evidence - and that can take time), but within the targets set down for the Department.

I hope the Education Select Committee and individual MPs & Peers will take up the issue of this failure to reach acceptable levels of response. Accountability matters!

The full report can be read at

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130513/wmstext/130513m0001.htm#1305133000294

Could Watergate Happen Again?

This series began with my concerns about the dangers of abuses of power. We need to be eternally vigilant. Last week, as part of an anniversary event, the question was posed - Could Watergate happen again?




My argument is that there will always be the temptation to abuse power - and human nature being what it is - such abuse will be self-justified. Since Watergate we had the Iran-Contra Affair - in my view a more serious matter. The participants broke the law; lied to the American people - but convinced themselves that what they were doing was right.

We need investigative journalism; we need active committees (and their members and staff) in Legislatures; most of all we need people to demand accountability.

Parliamentary Accountability

Asked by Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that Parliament is able effectively to hold them to account.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, it is primarily for Parliament itself to determine how it can best hold the Government to account. However, I have sought to help that process in this House by setting up a Leader's Group to consider our working practices.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I warmly welcome the establishment of the Leader's Group, and I am sure that it will have some fruitful deliberations. Do the Government view the Cabinet manual, which we understand that they will be publishing later this week-possibly even tomorrow-as a first step towards a written constitution for this country, as was postulated in today's Daily Telegraph? How will the Cabinet manual improve government accountability in Parliament?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Cabinet manual has yet to be published, so I will not comment on it. As to whether or not it is a precursor to a written constitution, no, I do not think so.

Lord Boston of Faversham: While I normally find myself in accord with what the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, says, is it not a rather strange concept that Her Majesty's Government would wish to be called to account?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I always admire the noble Lord for his questions. However, I think that the Government have an interest in the generality of being held to account by Parliament; that is part of our support for the parliamentary process as a whole. I have to say that in this Parliament, I think that noble Lords opposite-the Official Opposition-are doing a very good job.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I welcome this Question. In the previous Administration, the Executive were far too powerful and the legislature so weak. Had it been the other way round, perhaps there would have been better scrutiny of war with Iraq. That said, does the Leader's Group intend to look not only at the composition in terms of reform of the House but at the functions of both Houses and how they relate to each other, bearing in mind that in a fully elected House the Salisbury convention would no longer apply?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, a Leader's Group led by my noble friend Lord Goodlad is looking at the working practices of the House. There is another committee led by the Deputy Prime Minister looking at reform of the House of Lords; that will report early in the new year. As for the previous Government, I think that after 1997 there was a move away from good parliamentary governance, and the relationship between the House of Commons-another place-and the Government changed. We have sought to put that back.

Lord Morgan: My Lords, is not parliamentary governance and accountability a total fiction at present? To have parliamentary accountability, you need, first, a Government with a clear mandate. This Government do not have a mandate. They were not elected by the people; they were elected by six people in a closed room without consultation of the electorate. Nor do they have an agreed programme. There is no constitutional coalition manifesto; we have a mysterious document called the coalition agreement. Is that not a reinvention of the constitution much to our damage?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I completely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, in almost everything he said. He does not have a long enough memory. There have not been many coalitions, but the whole point about the Government is that they are made up of whoever controls the majority in another place, and the coalition clearly does that.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, in the interests of accountability, would the Government consider attaching where appropriate measurable numerical targets to legislation-for example, numeracy and literacy targets to legislation affecting primary schools?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we in this Government have been trying to get away from targets. I am not entirely certain what point the noble Lord was trying to make, but perhaps I could look again at his question and, if I can think of a better answer, I will write to him.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, the Leader of the House was telling us how much he appreciated the Opposition being very good in this Parliament. Does he not realise that the Opposition could be much better if we had a Speaker with power who could call Members to speak?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the reason I thought the Opposition were doing so well is that out of 24 Divisions, the Government have lost six. We have been defeated in 25 per cent. That is why I think they are doing a very good job. I remember the Opposition of the 1980s and 1990s, when the Labour Party here was considerably smaller. They did a very good job then, which leads me to believe that Labour really is very good in opposition and is probably better in opposition than in government.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is there much point in Parliament trying to hold the Government to account when the Government themselves are largely controlled from Brussels?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I had a feeling that the noble Lord was heading that way. Whatever the realities of the relationship between this Parliament and Europe, what is of primary importance to this Government is that Parliament itself is in a fit state to scrutinise the Government.

Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend was very welcoming and supportive of the idea of parliamentary control of government, which I am sure we all welcome. Will he bear in mind that this enthusiasm is common in every incoming Opposition and cools in the first 18 months, so can he get on with it?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend, with his long experience, is almost certainly right. The basic principle of parliamentary accountability of the Executive is an important one that we should never let go lightly.