POLITICS
The importance of losing sleep over the British Constitution
SIMON HEFFER
Since there is little legislating to occupy them, MPs devoted much of the last days before the recess to discussing domestic matters: like how late at night they should sit, how much they should be paid, and who should sit on select committees. After the acrimony of so much of our politics since the election, such minutiae should have provided refreshment. However, this apparently innocuous parliamentary busi- ness contained a profound measure of con- stitutional significance.
On Monday the House debated, without moving to a vote, the Jopling report. It is named after Mr Michael Jopling, his party's Chief Whip in the days when such crea- tures had a sense of humour. He has just chaired a committee about changing the hours of the House. His report seeks to end sittings at lOpm, allow MPs more days off, and fix recesses so that MPs can plan their holidays better. If this was all the report did it might just offend a few traditionalists who like sitting up until 2.30am, men whose view on this is often best understood if one has a five-minute exposure to their wives; and some with seats near London, noticing the proprietorial attitude of constituents, fear even more claims being made on their time. 'I don't mind going there at week- ends,' one suburban Tory MP told me, showing far more enthusiasm for the voters than most of his colleagues do, tut if they think I'm working office hours they'll want me to go there every bloody night.'
Yet the report has found much favour. Of the 447 MPs who replied to a question- naire from the committee last year, 83 per cent wanted fewer late sittings. The com- mittee cited the greater demands con- stituents are making on their MPs as a main reason for change. Ten Fridays in a session would be designated 'non-sitting days'. With business on the previous Thurs- day ending by 7pm it would give MPs more time to hear complaints about dog turds on the pavement, and the other matters that most distract constituents. However, to accommodate this extra voter contact, sac- rifices will have to be made: and this is where the question becomes constitutional.
The report assumed that 'the Govern- ment of the day must get its business, and within that principle must ultimately con- trol the time of the House'. This is a strange assumption. At the moment there is no constitutional right for the Govern- ment to 'get its business'. The Government usually succeeds in having what Bills it desires made law, because it commands a majority in the Commons. On some ques- tions it might, because of the Whips, win a Third Reading vote, but it may not have a sufficent majority to force a closure during the committee stage of contentious Bills. Thus, by operating a filibuster, ordinary backbench MPs can sometimes stop the Government 'getting its business'. Howev- er, the report proposes strict timetabling of Bills, ending the chances of a filibuster.
Th most famous obstruction of recent years was in 1969, when Crossman attempt- ed to put through a Bill reforming the House of Lords. For different reasons Enoch Powell and Michael Foot orches- trated a filibuster until the measure ran out of time. A similar thing might happen if the Government attempted to bring back the Maastricht Bill, because of cross-party opposition to it, and because of Labour's having no need to help the Government by supporting a closure. Perhaps this last point explains the enthusiasm of some ultra-loyal ministers for timetabling to be introduced as soon as possible, thus abolishing this right of backbenchers to frustrate the Gov- ernment. In Monday's debate Mr Tam Dalyell quite rightly described the planned reforms as 'the castration of the Opposi- tion'; though Mr Peter Shore, the former Labour cabinet minister, said he had inter- preted the report as not applying the reforms to Bills whose Committee stage was taken on the floor of the House — like the Maastricht Bill.
By proposing only one morning sitting a week, to transact private business, the com- mittee does not threaten the business activ- ities pursued by about 85 per cent of Tory backbenchers. That extra sitting does, though, provide more time for private members to sound off on non-Government business, thereby giving them the illusion that they will not suffer a diminution of influence if the reforms are enacted. Despite the Government's low representa- tion in Scotland many of the reforms seems geared to help Scots MPs get home early, and to see more of their children by bring- ing forward the start of the summer recess. Under the Jopling plan it would start in mid-July, just as it has this year because of the lack of business. Women MPs would be encouraged, allegedly, because of the end to late hours. The price of this caring phi- losophy, though, would be the removal of most of the few obstacles to a Government doing whatever it likes between elections.
Mr Dalyell realised this, and as it dawned on more of his colleagues that this might mean the end of proper opposition many of them, too, voiced reservations in the debate. The right to delay is one of the few things standing between us and Lord Hail- sham's elective dictatorship; a point that may not be understood by a Government so thoroughly run by whips and exrwhips as this one is. Nor is there just a constitutional case against reform. After all, to judge from the numbers of applicants for safe parliamentry seats, there would be tens of thousands of people happy to spend 52 weeks of the year at Westminster doing 19- hour days for the honour of putting the let- ters 'MP' after their name. Nor is there that much to do. Parliament has just risen, 10 days earlier than usual (thus letting Scots see their children), and will not return until 19 October. It is not entirely clear what, unless the European Communities (Amendment) Bill returns, the Govern- ment will find to fill up the next four years.
Given this relative freedom from legisla- tion, parliament could give MPs more time off by reverting to its pre-1914 routine, when it ran an Empire while having recess- es that lasted from August to February. After all, the basic functions of the House seem to distress the Government. It packs question times with sycophants making fatuous points. It keeps known Tory trou- blemakers, however gifted, off select com- mittees, thereby neutering those commit- tees but not the troublemakers. The Gov- ernment would no doubt support anything that kept Parliament's holidays as long as possible. Couple that with timetabling, which would guarantee (provided the Whips do their stuff) that everything the Government wanted the Government got, and there would be no real need for debate at all. Indeed, given the paltry attendances at most debates in the Commons, many MPs seem already to be of this view.
The present system may be imperfect, but it has survived because it provides one last check on the powerful writ of an elect- ed government. If some people do not like sitting up all night to ensure that crucial piece of freedom, then maybe the House of Commons is not for them.
Previous page
