|  |  |  | | | | | Mark D'Arcy | BBC News | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Following Justice Secretary Ken Clarke's monstering by the Tories' backbench law 'n' order mob yesterday, the government will offer a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down. In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
The sweetener will be dispensed on Monday - in the shape of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill - and its proposals for elected Policing and Crime Commissioners in England and Wales. The thinking behind it is that many police forces do not deliver the kind of policing communities want; elected commissioners will have a powerful mandate and will make them do so. So, if the bill is passed, the 43 chief constables outside London will each have a powerful new politician breathing down their neck, and while Ken Clarke is taking a distinctly non-populist line on punishment, these newcomers are supposed to inject a bit of populism into tackling crime. This is a Conservative victory in coalition policy-making. The Lib Dems wanted elected police authorities, and wince slightly about the commissioners. Their hope is that the advisory panels who will work with them will provide sufficient checking and balancing to prevent any of the commissioners going rogue. So as the bill goes through, detailed, rather tekky, points about the powers and make-up of these panels could assume some importance. Labour doubts about the whole policy revolve around the dangers of concentrating power over policing policies (none, please note, over operations) in a single individual. The result could be policing policies driven by tabloid headlines, and a sacrifice of longer-term endeavours like combating organised crime, in order to "put more bobbies on the beat". And there's a more subtle point about one individual not being able to bring the same range of experience to bear as a committee with several members from different backgrounds and areas. So who might these commissioners be? When the Blair government introduced elected big city mayors, and above all, created the mayor of London, the hope was that stars of business would be enticed to running for election, ideally as non-party technocrats. But the anticipated flock of Branson-like figures failed to materialise, and no-one seems to expect legions of non-party contenders to emerge for these posts. Perhaps the most likely source of independents would be retired police chiefs, or high profile officers. (One of the few independent city mayors is Middlesbrough's Ray Mallon - who made his name as a crime-cutting chief superintendent.) But the Home Affairs Select Committee has reservations about allowing top cops to step out of uniform and into politics. They can see all kinds of conflict of interest issues, and all kinds of dangers of politicised policing - and they've proposed a four year cooling off period, before ex-cops can become Policing and Crime Commissioners - and they will doubtless work to ensure that idea is built into the bill. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | As MPs start their consideration of the EU Bill - which aims to enshrine the "referendum lock" promised by the Conservatives during the election - Bill Cash's European Scrutiny Select Committee has rushed out a pretty lukewarm report on the proposals. So does the bill do what it says on the tin - require a referendum on any further transfer of powers from Westminster to Brussels? Some Conservative MPs are pretty unimpressed with it (backbench eurosceptic Douglas Carswell has started keeping a scorecard of transfers of power since the election on his blog) but the committee's criticisms are rather different. They took evidence from academic legal experts (a pretty terrifying breed) to the effect that the legislative supremacy of Parliament is not, at present, under threat from the EU. In particular, they suggest that the key clause of the bill, clause 18, which is supposed to affirm the supremacy of Parliament over EU law in Britain, is not needed. The argument is that the EU Court of Justice insists on the primacy of EU law, while the British courts maintain that they have primacy over EU law, and passing another British law won't impress the Euro-judges in the least. Indeed, they worry that a new law insisting on the supremacy of Parliament over EU law could be interpreted as meaning that Parliament doesn't always think it is supreme over the courts... One witness suggested that the clause as drafted "goes out of its way to invite litigation". Here's their conclusion: "Clause 18 is not a sovereignty clause in the manner claimed by the government, and the whole premise on which it has been included in the bill is, in our view, exaggerated. We are gravely concerned that for political reasons it has been portrayed by the government as a sovereignty clause in correspondence and also in the explanatory notes, which we discuss below. For these reasons we deeply regret that the Secretary of State has refused to come and give evidence himself on these matters." | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Another day, another senior Conservative turning puce after a rebuke from Speaker Bercow. Yesterday's remarkable clash with Chief Whip Patrick McLoughlin has been followed today by a stern admonition to Mr Speaker's current bete noir, Health Minister Simon Burns. Mr Burns, you'll recall, refused to shake Mr Bercow's hand as he took his MP's oath in May. He was heard to describe the Speaker as a "stupid sanctimonious dwarf" in the Chamber in June, and more recently was the author of another dwarf joke at Mr Speaker's expense. Today at Health Questions, he had a couple of answers cut short in the Speaker's continuing campaign to ensure pointed questions and brief answers, so that the maximum possible number of MPs have a chance to get in. But Mr Bercow was pretty brusque, telling Mr Burns: "Answers have been excessively long winded and repetitive and it mustn't happen again - I've made the position clear and I hope that the minister will learn from that." Mr Burns briefly turned a rather alarming colour before answering his next question. Yesterday's clash with the Chief Whip was nastier. Several MPs, including Lib Dem Greg Mulholland and Labour's Paul Farrelly were unhappy with the proposed time limit for Thursday's debate on the orders to increase the cap on university tuition fees. They had made points of order against time limits which, they argued, would not allow sufficient time for backbench MPs to have their say. The programme motion to give effect to the time limits was on the agenda for decision without debate - and when it was read out, there were shouts from the Labour side of "object". But the shouters had not quite got their timing right and shouted before Mr Bercow had completed reading out the agenda item. So when he had finished reading it out, he invited the objectors to object again... at which Mr McLoughlin took umbrage. I'm not quite sure why. It's not unusual for a Speaker or Deputy Speaker to help MPs to get their procedure right...but Mr McLoughlin seemed to think the Speaker was inviting objection where there had been none. My reading is that he was doing what Speakers normally do - but the ugly little spat which followed, with Mr McLoughlin first attempting to walk out, then shouting back as the Speaker attempted to rebuke him was pretty unprecedented. In any event, the programme motion for Thursday will now be debated later tonight, after the debate on the EU Bill - and there are murmurs that it might be a debate that stretches into tomorrow morning. To be sure, it has been a tough week for Mr McLoughlin, with rebellions brewing on tonight's EU Bill and on Thursday's tuition fee vote. With heavyweight Conservative backbencher David Davis announcing his intention to defy the government and vote against the higher tuition fees, followed by another Tory, Lee Scott; along with what promises to be a significant number of Lib Dem rebels, the numbers are tightening and tempers are shortening. And the wounds left by Mr Speaker's waspish tongue will smart for some time to come. * Incidentally, sharp-eyed colleagues at Today in Parliament have noted the presence of the former Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, in the chamber. Is he going to break the parliamentary silence which followed his defeat in the Labour leadership election with a speech on this bill? | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | On Monday, we'll see an opposition day debate in the Commons on the "unfair distribution and impact of cuts to local government funding." It is likely to mean Communities Secretary Eric Pickles will be on his feet - will he be keeping up a recent spate of impressive puns? The Lords will be hard at work on Monday - it's the second day of the committee of the whole house on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, followed by a short debate on the economic and security implications of the melting of the Arctic ice caps. An interesting week on committee corridor next week: Robert Chope from the Office for Budget Responsibility will be appearing before the Treasury Committee to answer questions about the Autumn Statement economic forecasts -kicking off a busy week for that committee. There will also be a session on local authority publications - aka council freesheets - with the Communities and Local Government Committee. There are a host of local newspaper interests represented, as well as officials from the Local Government Association and London Councils. Battle could be joined over one of Mr Pickles's bugbears: council newsletters. And the European Scrutiny Committee will quizzing the Europe Minister David Lidington about the European Union Bill, on the eve of its second reading debate (see below.) The committee, chaired by veteran eurosceptic Bill Cash, is working flat out to provide an authoritative analysis of the bill in time for the later stages of its Commons consideration. And so to Tuesday, when we'll see that second reading of the European Union Bill. Expect some markers to be put down by Conservative eurosceptics, who're unconvinced that this measure will do what it says on tin, and provide a real 'referendum lock' on any future proposed transfer of powers to the European Union. The bill also sets out the circumstances under which transfers of competence and/or power to the EU will be subject to a referendum or will require an Act of Parliament. It will be a very bad sign for the coalition, if there's an actual rebellion, with possible rebels likely to be keeping their powder dry until they can put down amendments at committee stage... The Lords will be discussing the Superannuation Bill and the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grants Bill. There's an interesting question from Lady Boothroyd - on varying the Parliamentary oath of allegiance to enable MPs to take their seats at Westminster. Another good session on offer from the Treasury Committee: Eric Daniels, the Lloyds chief executive, and Stephen Hester, from the RBS, both giving evidence on competition and choice in the banking sector, along with the more upstart figure of Bernie Higgins of Tesco's Bank. The Energy and Climate Change Committee will be questioning the big six energy companies, and the International Development Committee will be starting a new inquiry on the future of CDC, the government body which aims to foster sustainable businesses overseas. Among the witnesses MPs will be calling is the magazine Private Eye - who have written for some time about the organisation. And there's more. The Home Affairs Committee will be conducting a one-off evidence session on police use of Tasers. The committee is questioning Sue Sim, Northumbria Police's acting Chief Constable, who was in charge during the search for gunman Raoul Moat. Another witness is Kevin Coles, the managing director of Pro-Tect Systems - and the business partner of Peter Boatman, a former police officer and director of operations for the firm which supplied the Tasers used during the stand-off with Moat. Mr Boatman is believed to have committed suicide in October. In the Commons on Wednesday, we'll see estimates day debates on police funding 2011-12 and DfID assistance to Zimbabwe. PMQs will go ahead as usual. In the Lords, peers will be, once again, discussing the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill in a committee of the whole House. George Osborne will reappear on committee corridor on Wednesday - this time to answer questions from the Treasury Committee on the Autumn Statement. The Foreign Affairs Committee will be finding out from the esteemed Professor the Lord Hennessy of Nymphsfield, Attlee Professor of Contemporary British History at Queen Mary College, London (aka historian Peter Hennessy) and Lord Jay what the Foreign Office actually does. The Public Accounts Committee revisits one of its favourite subjects - administrative errors in the benefits system. These are estimated at £3.1bn in overpayments and £1.3bn in underpayments. Department of Work and Pensions Permanent Secretary Sir Leigh Lewis will explain...... The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee will be examining the Common Agricultural Policy and UK agriculture, and the Procedure Committee will be looking at ministerial statements. Thursday promises high drama in and outside Parliament. Not, perhaps, from the Proceedings on Consolidated Fund Bill, but on motions on increasing the tuition fees cap, which have emerged as a crucial test of the Coalition. Protests have been promised by groups who have been demonstrating in London in the past weeks - and we could see revolts from Lib Dem MPs too. Their lordships will be debating the role of sport in the health and wellbeing of children and young people and the impact of cuts in grants to local authorities on the provision of social care and other public services.
Committees peter out towards the end of the week - and the two houses are not sitting on Friday. A quiet end to the Westminster week perhaps... | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The Empire struck back in the Commons yesterday - but will MPs come to regret it? They passed a motion demanding that their expenses watchdog, IPSA, should streamline its procedures and cut its costs - and do so in time for the start of the next financial year, in April. That requires IPSA to put down Statutory Instruments to amend its rules - and to do so pretty rapidly. The kicker is that the motion instructs the Leader of the House to provide debating time for a bill to do the job, if IPSA fails to comply.
It's all quite a triumph for the Conservative backbencher Adam Afriyie, whose tenacious lobbying and tactical skill have emboldened MPs to intervene in this most toxic of areas. Maybe IPSA will change the rules of its own accord, but maybe they won't... and if they don't, those who supported Mr Afriyie yesterday will face a further test of courage. The press coverage of the latest returns of expenses published by IPSA may not have turned up any publicly funded moat-clearing, but has still managed to be pretty bruising.
And yesterday's debate was not, at times, a pretty sight. Many MPs nurse deep frustrations and genuine grievances against the operation of the expenses system, but I doubt hard pressed taxpayers will have been much impressed by the parade of senior figures who managed to sound self-pitying and self-interested. Mr Afriyie gave a masterclass in striking the right note, but if some future news bulletin features a similar performance, as MPs are seen re-writing their expenses rules, the damage to Parliament's already diminished status could be significant.
And they must beware of the point raised by Labour's John Mann, who has upset colleagues with his warnings about the excesses of the old system. If MPs are seen to take back control of their expenses system they may find they are simply opening a whole new can of worms. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Will the weather scupper the attempt to reform MPs' expenses? A number of MPs left the Commons early to return to their constituencies before the snow closed the roads and railways... As I write, Adam Afriyie , is on his feet in the Commons, moving his motion calling for the expenses watchdog, IPSA, to change its ways. The chamber has filled up a bit after a near-empty House voted through some changes to the system for complaints against MPs. Suddenly heavy metal backbenchers like David Davis, Edward Leigh, Ann Clwyd, David Winnick and David Blunkett have appeared, chortling and murmuring supportive hear hears. Mr Afriyie is "doughnutted" by Graham Brady, chairman of the Conservative backbench 1922 Committee, and Charles Walker, secretary of the '22. From across the Chamber, the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, Tony Lloyd, beams benignly. My point is that some months of patient diplomacy have secured real backbench backing for Mr Afriyie.
And his scheme is a cunning one. If IPSA does not come up with proposals to cuts its costs and simplify its workings to come into operation in April, the Commons will act, and the Leader of the House will be instructed to find debating time for legislation to amend the Parliamentary Standards Act. In practice this means that Statutory Instruments would have to be laid before Parliament shortly after Christmas, at the latest. So if this motion is passed, the clock will be ticking.
Mr Afriyie, a millionaire, has never needed to claim expenses. And he insists that his proposals for change would cut costs for the taxpayer. An early sign that his support has been noticed by the government could come tomorrow. His Parliamentary Standards Amendment Bill is on the agenda for the Commons tomorrow (Friday). It is far enough down the agenda that it is unlikely to be debated, but if the whips decide not to shout "object" when the list of undebated business is read out at the close of the main business at 2.30pm, it would be sent forward to its committee stage, and so take its first step towards the statute book.
Anti-IPSA MPs (and I'm not sure there is any other kind) claim they now have the backing of "very senior" government figures. We shall see.
| | | | | | | | | |  | |  | |  |
1:52 AM
0 comments:
Post a Comment