Re: the Long Parliament

Douglas Carswell is right when he says Parliament needs reform. As somebody fighting to become an MP at the next election, I view with dismay a clubby, backwards system where the favour of the Speaker and "seniority", ie length of time in Parliament, govern how often a Member is called to speak.

The procedure has it exactly backwards. It focuses on the dignity of the MP as a person, rather than their constituents. Voters in areas with recently elected MPs have as much right to representation, with their MP getting an equal chance to speak on their behalf, as the constituents of the Father of the House.

Press accounts say that criticism of the Speaker has been muted because MPs fear not being called to speak. I have no idea if that is true, but if so, it is a disgrace. No one person should have such control over the debate in Britain's legislature. Quite aside from the position of the present Speaker, whilst we are reforming Parliament's accountability, let us reform the method by which MPs are permitted (or not) to serve their electors by speaking out in the Chamber.

Comments

[deborah]

"Voters in areas with recently elected MPs have as much right to representation"

New MPs have not yet been institutionalised and may have some good new ideas. Also, sitting MPs find it easier to get elected so a new MP - who had to work at getting elected -might actually be more in touch with their voters.

The system does seem a bit backwards.

[Adam in London]

MPs are representatives, not delegates.

[Louise Bagshawe]

Indeed, which is why I said the constituents "have as much right to representation". Their MPs are elected by them to represent their interests on matters local and national. It is not defensible that clubby rules should dictate the ability of their elected representative to speak out.

[Louise Bagshawe]

Indeed, which is why I said the constituents "have as much right to representation". Their MPs are elected by them to represent their interests on matters local and national. It is not defensible that clubby rules should dictate the ability of their elected representative to speak out.

[Andrew Lilico]

So, Louise, your position is that it is inappropriate to show deference for age and long service? That this threatens the "rights" of constituents to representation? You don't see any problems in such a view?

[Louise Bagshawe]

No, Andrew; my position is that showing such appropriate deference should not include the opportunities the MP has to speak in the legislature to which he was elected.

MPs are elected to represent their constituents. All constituents have the right to equal representation. When an MP speaks, not as part of the executive (govt), but of the legislature, he represents his electors and is equal, or should be, to all his colleagues.

It is not defensible to penalise sets of electors based on a rating of the MP, his or her personal long service or achievements.

This is one of many reforms in the Commons I sincerely hope David Cameron will tackle.

[Louise Bagshawe]

No, Andrew; my position is that showing such appropriate deference should not include the opportunities the MP has to speak in the legislature to which he was elected.

MPs are elected to represent their constituents. All constituents have the right to equal representation. (No need for your quotation marks. It is a right.) When an MP speaks, not as part of the executive (govt), but of the legislature, he represents his electors and is equal in debate, or should be, to all his colleagues, for that reason.

It is not defensible to penalise sets of electors based on a rating of the MP, his or her personal long service or achievements.

This is one of many reforms in the Commons I sincerely hope David Cameron will tackle.

[Andrew Woodman]

I think Louise makes a fair point here. Obviously expereince is important, but we know a lot of what some older members are going to say before they stand up. We need some fresh thinking and ideas in the chamber. I see no problem in mixing it up a bit and I hope it's a reform we put in place.

[Adam Jackson]

Louise - you always seem to be moaning about something?! I though we were supposed to be being positive these days...?

[Observer]

I'd agree with Louise's comments. It does seem to me that Parliament's systems and procedures were designed for the 19th century not the 21st. In the business world systems and procedures are constantly reviewed to make sure they are as effective for their purpose as possible. It's time Parliament looked at its own internal ways of operating, perhaps involving people from the real world and not just those in Westminster.

[Robert Key MP]

I'm really pleased to let you know that Louise is mistaken in thinking that old farts are given priority by the Speaker -we aren't! Former Secretaries of State (not former junior ministers like me), who are also Privy Councillors are likely to be called because their experience is really worthwhile. What I find depressing is that there are so many reactionary young fogies getting elected with not much experience of life and not much to say, except about themselves on blogs and who find life with journos much more fun than work on vital Select Committees or speaking in debates. And another thing - too many young Members are entirely predictable in what they say and how they vote. They are just as boring as the handful of insecure MPs who only ever speak about their constituencies and forget they are sent here as independent representatives to shape national policies and decisions and Britain's place in the world. Quite often long experience is helful - on such issues as Defence, the EU,human fertilization and embryology, abortion or even literature and the English language.

[Andrew Lilico]

I hope very much that the Speaker continues to make a judgement, when there is competition to speak, over whose speech, question or comment is likely to be of most value. Simple randomisation isn't in anybody's interest.

For example, suppose that there is a debate on a particular topic on which a particular member has a well-established reputation as an expert. Doesn't it make sense if the Speaker gives that person priority?

I think that many of our younger members, copy, alas, the errors of the new entry of Blair MPs in 1997, have little understanding or respect for the traditions of the past. There is wisdom in the practice of ages. That doesn't mean that things shouldn't change. But it does mean that we are fools if we fail to recognise the value of age and experience and fail to honour the practices that have built up over centuries.

I'm slightly surprised to have to write these things at all. I thought we were all Conservatives here...

[Tim Luckhurst]

Douglas Carswell is wrong and Louise Bagshawe is foolish to be taken in. The primary role of the House of Commons is to scrutinise legislation and hold the executive to account. MPs represent their constituents in many ways e.g. by meeting ministers and writing to government departments. They rarely need to speak in the chamber in order to fulfil this function, but Louise should note that it is a secondary function. MPs are not councillors. Their primary duty is national not local. It is for this excellent reason that expertise in fiscal, foreign and domestic policy earns a parliamentarian priority in contributing to debates. Parliament would suffer were it arranged any other way. Michael Martin is a cretin, but that luminous truth should not be allowed to distort understanding of what our national legislature is for. Louise has fallen for the awful notion that MPs are glorified local councillors. Granted, that is an accurate description of Mr. Speaker Martin, but the best parliamentarians bear no resemblance to him. She should also note that when a debate is of direct relevance to a member's constituency the member will normally be called to contribute. Perhaps a ban on councillors seeking nomination as parliamentary candidates would help to clarify this vital distinction between local and national affairs. Now there's a thought.

[deborah]

"The primary role of the House of Commons is to scrutinise legislation and hold the executive to account."
Indeed.
And Louise is right to point out that a clubby atmosphere where those with "seniority" are allowed to dominate does not further this purpose. Old members of the same club have a habit of sticking together.
Yes, if an MP has expertise in an area, of course he should be called. But length of time in a priveledged position can just as often lead to smug arrogance and protectionism.

[Deputy Editor]

If anyone was wondering, there was a fake comment on here purporting to be from another MP responding to Robert Key. Impersonations are absolutely unacceptable.