Can a democracy function on the cheap?

I've just done a live interview with BBC Northampton on the subject of the new £10,000 communications allowance that MPs voted for this week.

I was preceded by a journo from the Daily Express who thought MPs were given too much money. He failed to make it clear that expenses are not paid directly into an MP's bank account - and there were detailed rules covering for what purpose and to whom monies can be paid.

The argument I advanced was that we as voters are rightly expecting more of our representatives. The days when an MP need only visit his constituency at Elections are, thankfully long gone. We now expect them to be in their constituency, as much as at Westminster - to be available at 'surgeries' and in a constituency office at a time convenient for us - and to respond promptly to our communications (whether it be by traditional letter, or email, or telephone, or by our signing of a postcard or online form provided by a pressure group we support).

We expect annual reports from our children's schools - and from providers of all kinds of services - public or private - that we use. Why shouldn't we expect to get a regular report from our representatives on what they have been doing on our behalf? We as voters should be demanding it!

At the heart of the issue is how we expect our representives to serve us. Britain has a long tradition of idolising the 'gifted amateur' - (the plucky individual who does his best, with very limited resources) - rather than expecting professional standards from well resourced representatives who have systems and the capacity to meet the legitimate demands of those they should be serving.

I spend a lot of my time comparing the UK Parliament with the US Congress. Each have their own strengths and weaknesses. I think on this issue Parliament has a weakness - but is addressing it!

Something to watch for the Holidays

If you have a few hours to spare over the Easter holidays, can I recommend the C-Span special on the history of the Capitol.

Over three days, C-Span dedicated their time to broadcasting programmes which showed viewers around the US Congress building (the Capitol) - and looked in detail at its history. It is now available on the web at

http://www.c-span.org/capitolhistory/

Enjoy - and share with us your comments.

How can backbenchers be more effective?

I mentioned (14th March) the work that was being undertaken by the Modernisation Committee into the role of backbenchers.

The committee has been meeting on Wednesday mornings - and the evidence is published on their website. A number of issues have been raised - and I'm sure we will be discussing specfic topics in detail over the weeks ahead.

This morning I attended the hearing at which John Bercow MP (Con); Martin Salter MP (Lab) and Andrew Dismore MP (Lab) gave evidence. There was a real buzz in committee room 15 as the witnesses and members of the committee discussed ways of making the UK parliament - and its members - more effective.

Jack Straw (Leader of the House - and Chair of the Modernisation Committee) began by asking about "the retreat into constituency work" which has been observed at Westminster. Martin Salter corrected him, "not a retreat, but a tidal wave". He highlighted the need to put extra resources into aiding MPs deal with the massive increase in communications from constituents. Jack Straw recalled that in the 1950s the average member received 15 to 25 letters a week - now MPs are deluged with letters; postcards from constituents backing professionally organised campaigns by pressure groups; telephone calls and - most of all - email.

Mr Salter made the point - which most people in the room seemed to agree with - that if MPs are to meet the increased expectations of their constituents - they need the resources and staff - to meet them. John Bercow stated that MPs need to boldly argue the case for increased resources - and the campaign must be championed by the Leader of the House - particularly in the face of a predictable cynical reaction from the media.

Other matters raised included the value of Early Day Motions. Martin Salter described them as "parliamentary graffiti". [well that was better than 'parliamentary loo paper', a definition given by someone later]. These are "petitions" exclusively for MPs

[Definition from Parliamentary Website -

Early day motions (EDMs) are formal motions submitted for debate in the House of Commons. However, very few EDMs are actually debated. Instead, they are used for reasons such as publicising the views of individual MPs, drawing attention to specific events or campaigns, and demonstrating the extent of parliamentary support for a particular cause or point of view. ]

There was a suggestion, favourably received, that should an EDM attract a certain number of signatures, say 200, it should trigger a debate in the chamber of the House of Commons.

There were calls for more frequent topical debates. John Bercow said that chamber debates should be 'topical, relevant and subject to an outcome'.

Continuing professional development of MPs was also discussed. Already many MPs participate in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme or on a placement arranged by the Industry & Parliament Trust. It was suggested that MPs could serve internships with specialists in a field they wish to specialise in.

Dawn Butler raised a smile when she asked the witnesses, "does this place beat the modernisation out of you?"

This is a committee worth watching - and we can discuss some of their ideas in this forum - I hope you will!

The Funny Side of Politics

I enjoy a good laugh about Parliament and Congress. There are some excellent websites that I like to visit regularly for my amusement.

CAPITOL STEPS

I saw their show during one of my visits to Washington DC - and have bought all of their CDs since my first trip to the city. What began as a show put on by congressional staffers for a party has become a must-see (and hear) event. They perform weekly in the Ronald Reagan building - and for those who can't get to see the show as often as we would like - their current satirical songs can be listened to on their website

http://www.capsteps.com/

SIMON HOGGART

Mr Hoggart is the parliamentary sketchwriter for the Guardian. An excellent observer of the Westminster Parliament - he is also very amusing. Read his current and archive pieces at

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/ (and select Simon Hoggart on the drop down menu).

Power of the Purse

I attended an excellent meeting of the Hansard Society, entitled "Parliament, the Budget and Public Money". Speakers included Alex Brazier (Director, Parliament & Government Programme, Hansard Society); Edward Leigh MP (Chair of the Public Accounts Committee); John Whiting (PricewaterhouseCoopers) and Liam Halligan (Economics Editor, The Sunday Telegraph).

All speakers were agreed - the level of involvement by parliament in the Budget process is shamefully low. The 'mother of parliaments' - that won its powers in struggles with Kings over the raising of money - now routinely signs the blank cheque offered by the Executive.

The Budget statement, to be made today, is a great formal occasion, but after a few hours of debate (to be spread over the next week) and the speedy passage of a Finance Bill - the Government will have what it wants, without too many questions being asked.

There has been a fantastic improvement in recent years of scrutiny of expenditure - after the event! The National Audit Office is going a great job - and Select Committees have flowered - but the budget process remains ineffective.

The process in Washington was highly praised by all speakers. They were impressed by the serious and in depth hearings held by both authorizing and appropriations committees. They agreed it was an ideal to be aspired to. Of course the UK will not adopt the system wholesale or immediately - but as more parliamentarians consider that system, and reconsider their own responsibilities - we could (in a typically English glacial way) start moving to adopting some of these techniques.

What do you think? Any pitfalls to avoid?