Making it OUR Parliament!

Avery important (and useful speech by Graham Allen) debate on UK parliamentary reform. Please share this post with fellow citizens;  and students of law and politics.

Graham Allen's Question

Further to the post about Graham Allen's question set down for PMQ's - he did get the opportunity to ask it. This is the Hansard report of the exchanges.

Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North) (Lab): What recent representations he has received on bringing forward proposals arising from the report of the Select Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons.

The Prime Minister: The Leader of the House has written to representatives of the other parties on this issue. The Government are keen to proceed on a consensual basis.

Mr. Allen: UK politics has become ever more the private playground of Governments and the media, and this place, Parliament, an ever more tatty backdrop, with little independence. Will the Prime Minister take the powers that he has to bring forward to our agenda-not for debate, but for decision-the proposals to reform this House? Will he please do that in the next few weeks?

The Prime Minister: It is in all our interests to say that both the standard of debate in this House and what is discussed in this House should reflect the views and values of the people of this whole country. All of us want in this new year to make sure that the House is discussing the issues that matter to people.

We welcome the Select Committee report. I know that my hon. Friend has taken a long- standing interest in these institutional reforms. The creation of a Back-Bench committee, a business committee and party ballots-all these are being looked at in detail. The Leader of the House has made it clear that we will have an opportunity to debate them in due course and to discuss the recommendations.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): In due course? We have been waiting for weeks. Is that not typical of this Government and this Prime Minister? He made a big announcement on 10 June last year that we were to have urgent reform of the House of Commons, but when it comes to action the Government act with all the dispatch of a particularly arthritic slug on its way to its own funeral. Will he tell us whether he is still committed to urgent action on reforming this ineffective and incompetent House, or are there people on his own Benches who are stopping that from happening?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman gives me a great deal of hope that the consensual approach will work! I think that he is part of the talks. The talks are taking place. The issues about the creation of a business committee, party ballots for Select Committee membership and ballots of the whole House for Select Committee chairmanship were recommended by the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). We are now discussing these issues, and they will form the subject of a debate and decisions by this House.

When will reforms happen?

Graham Allen is listed to ask the 10th question to the Prime Minister in PMQs today. He probably won't be reached - but might get recognised for a supplementary to one of the earlier questions.

If his question is reached, he is due to ask "What recent representations he has received on bringing forward proposals arising from the report of the Select Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons."

Pressure is likely to come from some reform minded MPs for early action. Expect lots of questions - both to the Prime Minister and to the Leader of the House of Commons.

The Report can be accessed here.

Comparing Constitutions

It is often said that the United Kingdom does not have a constitution. In a narrow sense that is true. There is no single document which codifies the major constitutional rules in the UK. Of course, in a wider sense, the UK does have a constitution - and it is written - but it is not to be found in one place. Statutes, reports of judgements in cases, conventions and other rules (such as the standing orders of each House of parliament) are where "the constitution" is to be found.

It would be a mistake to imagine that the US constitution is confined to The Constitution. Caselaw is important - and there are conventions which do control the behaviour of the political actors.

It is worth comparing the constitutions. What can we learn from each? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each system? How far are constitutional practices transferable?

Separation of powers has always been an aspect of the British system (Montesquieu used the British system as an example of separation of powers!). However it has always been limited. One of the most important developments of recent years has been a strengthening of the separation in the UK. The Lord Chancellor once played an active role in the highest Court (House of Lords judicial Committee), sitting as a judge - while - like all of the Judicial committee - being a member of the legislature (House of Lords). He was also a leading member of the Cabinet, a key body in the Executive. No longer - the Lord Chancellor has no role as a judge. The Supreme Court has been created, and the link to the House of Lords broken.

But has it gone far enough. Some argue, for example Graham Allen MP, that we need to move from a parliamentary system - to a complete separation of the Executive and Legislature.

What do you think? What lessons can be learned from your own system? Do share your views on Washminster.