Speech Day

Highlight of Annual Conference is the Leader’s Speech, and the day surrounding it is usually one of the busiest of Conference. I had videoed much of the breakfast fringe, and will post the results when I return home. The rest of the morning was spent talking to friends; visiting exhibitors stalls and watching the Crime & Justice, Citizenship and Equalities debate.


At lunchtime I attended the Hansard Society’s fringe meeting, “Jack of All Trades: how can MPs fulfil all their roles?” It was well attended, with a number of new MPs in the audience. The panel consisted of the Guardian’s Polly Toynbee, Jon Cryer, Stella Creasy and Jack Straw. Many contrasts were made with the so-called Golden Age (when MPs rarely rebelled; held down other jobs and attended Westminster just for drinks and the 10pm vote; occasionally visited their constituencies (if at all) and received a handful of mail). Much was made of the tyranny of “They Work for You” – a website which produces data about MPs “activities”, sadly it measures quantities rather than quality – and stresses activities which in reality misrepresent the effectiveness and impact of an MP’s work. There are indications that parliamentary time is wasted in order to manipulate the figures produced. [Meetings with constituents; civil servants & ministers are not recorded; neither is the quantity and quality of correspondence; and thoughtful and effective questions in committee are ignored – but pointless interventions in debate or question time are.]

Once the meeting had finished we headed to join the queue for entry to the hall. Sadly our standing in line, despite having tickets, was to no avail. I had to watch the speech on the giant TV screen by the Unite (the Union) stall. Even some delegates – the 650 (actually a few less as some constituencies hadn’t sent anyone) representatives of their constituency parties, were unable to get into the hall to be seated. The speech went down well with people in the hall and those watching on screens around the rest of the complex. The speech is available to view here.

After the speech there we discussed our opinions with friends we bumped into – many of us eventually taking our conversations in the cold, into coffee shops and the bars. After a meal – and a fascinating discussion with a steward from a rally outside Manchester calling for electoral reform I made my way to my hotel (via the local branch of the bookshop, Waterstones – where I bought a copy of Bob Woodward’s new book “Obama’s Wars” – much of the evening was spent reading it.

Conference continues until Thursday, but at a gentler speed now that the Leader’s Speech has been delivered. Once again I am writing this in my hotel room, but uploading it as I drink a coffee in Starbucks. Next I will be reading a selection of newspapers then heading for the conference complex.

Libel - A chilling effect on free speech

In the case of Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd. and Others, [1993] 2 W.L.R. 449 the Courts declined to allow a local authority to sue for libel. They feared that to allow government bodies and political parties to sue for defamation "must inevitably have an inhibiting effect on freedom of speech"

But individuals can use English libel law to intimidate and silence their critics. The BBC, in a classic example of English understatement said about Robert Maxwell - "Many people cowered from criticising him, not least because of his readiness to confront his critics in the libel courts." Criticism of the man was stifled during his lifetime by his aggressive use of threats of an expensive legal battle. It didn't take long for editors of publications to avoid the risk of upsetting him.

The issue became a matter of international concern as a result of gagging orders which meant that national newspapers were not able to report parliamentary questions. [The Trafigura Affair, 2009]

A report in the Guardian outlines how Jack Straw, the current lord Chancellor, intends to address the issue. It is available here.

Parliamentary Reform

Last night the Hansard Society held a meeting at which the Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw spoke. It was part of their "Parliamentary Reform Lecture Series". Mr Straw began by making the important point that constitutions are about how power is distributed.

The Lord Chancellor argued that a strong Executive, able to get its business through, is a strength of the British system. "Things get done". He contrasted this with the difficulties that President Obama faced in passing healthcare legislation - and expressed the view that had Britain adopted the American system, Nye Bevan would have been unable to create the National Health Service in the 1940s - to the great detriment of millions of British people.

But Mr Straw recognised that there is an imbalance between the Government and Parliament needing to be addressed.

The myth of a supine Parliament was challenged. Mr Straw argued that there was never a 'golden age' - and supported his arguments from comments made from 1895 to 1976. He pointed out that in the 1970s the government really did have the upper hand. There were no select committees - no broadcasting of Parliament - no Freedom of Information Act. The power of the whips has been greatly reduced since. The House of Lords was largely a docile body (at least when there were Conservative governments).

The Lord Chancellor put forward the proposition that reform has transformed Parliament since 1997. In support of this he pointed to

• the way that select committees had been enhanced (paying handsome tribute to Mrs Thatcher for allowing Norman St John Stevas to set up the system of Departmental Select Committees)
• the removal of hundreds of hereditary peers from the House of Lords - which is now smaller but more active and assertive
• the establishment of the Grand Committee in Westminster Hall which offers greatly increased opportunity for MPs to raise issues
• the creation of the Scrutiny Unit to assist committees
• establishment of a regular practice of the Liaison Committee questioning the Prime Minister
• introduction of "topical questions" in the Commons Chamber
• more written Parliamentary Questions accepted than ever before
• buttressing MPs' ability to get information through the Freedom of Information Act
• the requirement in s19 of the Human Rights Acts for Ministers to state whether the bill they are presenting is in their opinion compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (something which he said had "changed the way Government operates"
• pre- and post- legislative scrutiny
• the replacement of Standing Committees in the legislative process with Public Bill Committees which are able to take evidence
• the programming of bills. Mr Straw recognised the validity of some of the criticism of this - but noted that they avoided the unnecessary filibustering and guillotines which had curtailed real discussion of legislation. He argued that under the old system little scrutiny took place while the opposition were filibustering - then a guillotine would be imposed allowing very little meaningful scrutiny. He acknowledged that there was a need for more scrutiny on the floor and suggested that time limits on speeches rather than programme motions may be the best way to move ahead.

Four major areas for reform were highlighted

1. Commons Reform - which was now moving ahead in the wake of the expenses scandal
2. Lords Reform - upon which he said "the time has now come to complete the process"
3. Wider Constitutional Reform - focusing on - the electoral system and addressing the crisis of trust.
4. Discussing the balance between Direct and Representative Democracy (He pointed to recent events in California and Switzerland as warnings about too great direct democracy)

Mr Straw's final remarks concerned Conservative proposals for cutting the size of the House of Commons. He made an impassioned attack on this proposal - which is not to be put to the British people in a referendum, and which had not been discussed with other parties. He described it as "a dangerous piece of gerrymandering" which would disproportionately reduce the representation of urban areas, Scotland and Wales. He pointed to the Electoral Reform Society which had warned that the proposal would destabilise the link between constituents and MPs.

Details of this speech - and future meetings in the Parliamentary Reform Lecture Series will be available on the Hansard Society website.

A British Bill of Rights?

There is already a British Bill of Rights, passed by Parliament in 1689 - but the rights relate to those of Parliament - and not the individual rights we have associated with "Bills of Right" since the 18th Century.

The Green Paper "Rights and Responsibilities: developing our constitutional framework" was published yesterday. It is a consultation paper about rights and responsibilities - one option up for discussion is a legally enforceable Bill of Rights - though the government has signalled that it would prefer a more declaratory, but less enforceable, statement of rights.

It is a goldmine for students of the British constitution - and I recommend reading it closely.

The Green Paper is available at http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/rights-responsibilities.pdf

and the statement in the House of Commons is at http://pubs1.tso.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090323/debtext/90323-0006.htm#0903235000003

The statement was also read out in the Lords - and the ensuing questions are available at http://pubs1.tso.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90323-0005.htm#0903238000440

Sunday Evening

At lunchtime a number of fringe meetings were held. I attended the event organised by the EPLP (European Parliamentary Labour Party) - whch was entitled "Setting a peoples agenda for Europe." The panel included Jim Murphy, the Minister for Europe; Sir Julian Priestley - former General Secretary of the European Parliament and Glenis Willmot. After a series of short speeches questions were invited, I asked the following question - whih received the answers below










During Plenary sessions Crime, Justice, Citienship and Equalities were discussed. Keynote speeches were made by Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw; Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman; Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, Keith Vaz and Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith.

In the evening I attended a number of events including receptions for the West Midlands and East Midlands regions; a 'Diversity' Party; a discussion on whether Britain should have its own Bill of Rights - and the Fabian Society Party.