Democracy in action

POLITICAL COMMENTARY AUBERON WAUGH

As Parliament reassembled on Monday, outside observers might not have thought that it had any particular reason to be pleased with itself. The

December trade figures were almost as bad as ever; and the Government (aided in this mat-

ter by the Opposition) had succeeded in frustrat- ing its desire for a debate and a vote on Nigeria. If the House of Commons were run on anything remotely resembling democratic lines, and if the will of Parliament were actually represented in the actions of the Government, then it would be reasonable to conclude that members bore their share of the responsibility for the deaths of Biafran civilians during the Christmas recess at

the rate of about 390 corpses apiece. One hopes that they all had a happy Christmas, and that they return reinvigorated for their important duties.

The first day of the new sitting was allotted for a discussion on proposals to supply new offices for members of the House of Commons, and other amenities which would make their lives more agreeable. It was hoped to proceed

from there to a debate on parliamentary privilege, on motions reaffirming members' im- munity from jury service, their power topunish those who breach their privileges or hold Parliament in contempt, and a daring new re- form whereby proceedings may now legally be reported, having been reported regularly since the famous Wilkes case of 1771, and in a gal- lery specially supplied for the purpose since 1835. But the matter of members' accommo- dation proved so important and pressing that time ran out without anyone ever knowing whether the House, in its own words, doth agree with Mr Fred Peart's motions or whether it dothn't.

Since Tuesday was devoted to the second reading of the Education (Scotland) Bill and the remaining stages of two other Bills—Agri- culture (Spring Traps) (Scotland) and Mines and Quarries (Tips)—we shall probably have to wait until next week before knowing the answer. For many of us the suspense will be almost unendurable. Will there be a major revolt from the left against Mr Peart's motions? Normally they are allowed smooth and regular passage. as is only decent, but the left is human too, and might easily revolt if these motions are pushed too far. Will- the Tories be faced with the dreaded spectre of the three-way split? No- body can say that the people of Great Britain do not enter into the drama of the House, or that there is the slightest temptation to hold it in anything remotely resembling contempt, while such vital matters are being discussed. And, of course, it is only right that members should deal with their accommodation as thoroughly as possible before moving to the equally important matter of their privileges. One speech in particular, on that memorable occasion, will haunt my memory and my conscience for as long as either survives. It came from a Labour member whose name I forget, and was to the effect that conditions in which honourable members worked in the Palace had to be seen to be believed. I cannot believe (he said) that these conditions have not contributed to the premature deaths of some members.

He is absolutely right, too. The dark cor-

ridors under the Chamber of the House re- semble nothing so much as the scene 'neath decks in an eighteenth century man-o'-war. Only the occasional low groan or rasping con- sumptive cough breaks the silence, as one passes pale, prematurely aged figures gazing forlornly at a Bill entitled Agriculture (Spring Traps) (Scotland) or eating their way, with a wild and uncomprehending stare, through the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Bill, remaining stages. In the various bars and refreshment rooms in the House, I have seen members drink the stale of horses, and eat such things as men did die to look upon. At least Mr Peart's motions, when produced again next week, will give our elected representatives another hasty snack before the dreaded kwashiorkor sets in, to be followed by swelling of the ankles, premature death and another unwelcome by-election.

And yet, and yet . . . is any of this suffering really necessary? Is there the slightest evidence that Parliament has achieved anything this ses- sion which would not have been achieved with- out it, or that it has prevented anything from

happening which would otherwise have hap- pened, or that its influence has made itself felt in any significant way on government decisions? Parliamentary hands will assure you that of course it has. They have a vision of government as something conducted by ex- tremist maniacs, on the left or the right, accord- ing to taste, dedicated to evil and restrained only by the gentle presence of the backbenchers. We all know that backbenchers would never bring down their own government, the argu- ment runs—and it is supported by the voting records—but this is only so because no govern- ment would ever put its backbenchers to the test. Democracy in the Commons operates, they say, through the soundings of the Whips be- fore a measure is produced. Of course, that is rubbish, since ,the Whips do not begin their soundings until a measure is published. Very well, then. the argument runs, democracy operates through those representations which members make to their Whips in advance, and also through the Whips' instinct for what they can get away with. But one does not need to be exceptionally cynical, nor to have any advanced political instinct, to know that under present circumstances there is not a single measure under the sun which the Government would be unable to get away with—except, perhaps, the halving of MPS. salaries. Even this is by no means certain, since only a proportion of Labour members could be sure of earning more than half their present wage in the free market, although they would be hard-pressed to maintain two establishments or share a secretary, and life at Westminster appears to have a certain charm, despite its many privations.

But there are ways in which outside opinion can be made to influence a government de- cision. The fact that Parliament is not one of them scarcely matters. Stansted is the case most frequently cited, although a much smaller example occurred this week. Few of those who say that Stansted was an example of public opinion influencing the Government ever bother to inquire why the Government allowed this influence. It could never have been a major electoral issue, after all, and the Government has shown sufficient contempt for minority public opinion in other fields to demonstrate that it is not influenced by these pressures as such. My own explanation is that to delay the Stansted scheme saved money, and it was this which commended the matter to the Govern- ment, just as Mr Marsh now listens to every trifling objection to any route for the con- tinuation of the M4 in order to avoid building it. However, it may have been that the sense of outrage among middle-class people at such a tyrannical way of behaving threatened to create a permanent anti-Government bias among opinion formers—not just political correspon- dents, archbishops and leader writers, but the giants of television, too. Only the second ex- planation accounts for this week's example.

Among the Lord Privy Seal's motions for Monday was a particularly unsavoury little clause—quite rightly attacked by my colleague David Wood in The Times that day—which would have reaffirmed the House's right to punish the reporting of its proceedings where such reporting involved wilful misrepresenta- tion. Quite a few MPS seem to imagine that any mention of their names must involve wilful mis- representation, almost by definition, since no mere words could do justice to the depths of their compassion, the nuances of their characters or the subtlety of their reasoning. Be that as it may, the offending article had been removed when Mr Peart's motions re- appeared next day. So the Government is still mildly sensitive to public opinion, at any rate as represented in the fourth estate; it does not quite dare take away our birthright wilfully to misrepresent whatever people may say in the House of Commons, even if it dare starve half a million children to death while there is still an element of support for that policy in the press and Opposition.

Another way in which members of the public might be able to influence government is through active membership of one of the major parties, and this is often produced in Tory dis- cussion on participation. Anyone who has ever attended a party conference will know that it is rubbish, at any rate so far as Labour is con- cerned when in power, and so far as the Con- servative party is ever concerned. A study of the development of Tory policy will show that it is only influenced by opinion inside the party where there is also the implicit threat of a challenge to the leadership. Thus Mr Heath has accommodated Mr Sandys inside his lunatic East of Suez policy and has gone a long way towards accommodating Mr Powell inside his new policy on immigration, but on the only other matter where Tories feel strongly- education—he has not budged an inch. This is because neither Mr Maude nor the redoubtable Miss Joan Hall yet constitutes a challenge to the leadership. On most other matters. the Tory party seems to have very little opinion at all, being content to let Sir Alec Douglas-Home do their thinking for them; and he is not a man to let the burden weigh heavily on him. Perhaps just once since the war—over Schedule. A in the early 1960s—has Tory rank and file opinion influenced policy without the threat of a leader- ship wrangle. It is scarcely enough to encourage anyone to join the party for the thrills of participation.

The Labour party is slightly different in that it still makes obeisance to the farcical notion that policy is determined by conference decisions. If conference decisions represented anything more than the block votes of a few mutton-headed trade unionists, then the Government might easily pay more attention to them since it has very few ideas of its own. It pays some attention to votes in the Parliamen- tary Labour party, but it is far more influenced by the need to steal any clothing with which the Opposition may from time to time make half-hearted attempts to clothe its nakedness. When Labour is in opposition, of course, the case is entirely different, and a measure of participation does actually occur; which might, even, influence the Tory government.

So the only chance that the individual has to influence events is to join the Labour party and then wait for it to go into opposition. Those with insufficient patience for that may find some relief in throwing a cauliflower at any politician who shows his face outside the Palace of Westminster.