As Wednesday turns into... more Wednesday?

It’s late in the evening, the time of the day during the work week when I usually FaceTime Ros and we catch up on each other’s days. Except that, today, Ros’s day hasn’t finished, nor does it look much like finishing anytime soon.

The debate on a business motion to secure time to debate what is now the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill, has been scarred by the submitting of 101 amendments by Conservative Peers who have chosen now to conclude that, whilst they might well have been in favour of Parliamentary sovereignty at first, all they really want is to crash the country’s economy regardless of the impact that this might have on its citizens.

And so, methodically, each amendment has to be moved, debated and, after due consideration, moved to a vote. That means, in non-Parliamentary language, telling the mover or his colleagues to shut up and sit down, by order of the House. This takes time, lots of time. And that, after all, is the intention, to talk out the Bill and thwart Parliamentary sovereignty.

There is another convention at threat here, that of the elected House ultimately having the right to have its legislation passed, albeit after proper scrutiny - you wouldn’t believe some of the rubbish which passes for scrutiny at the Commons end.

But, of course, for the Brexiteers, the ends justify the means. Attack the judiciary, attack the neutrality of the Civil Service, undermine all of the supports that underpin our Parliamentary democracy, regardless of the long-term impact of doing so. And there is a long-term impact because, once you’ve scrambled the egg, you can’t unscramble it again. Because if you can do it, anybody else can too - “bad people”, for want of a better phrase, more dangerous people. And they can do it to you.

Now, in truth, whilst I respect our unwritten constitution, with all of its quirks and idiosyncrasies, I’ve always favoured a written alternative, laying out the rules so that anyone (theoretically) can find out how the game is played. And, if ever there was a time to move on this, it is now. The need to resort to procedural jiggerypokery to allow a majority in both Houses of Parliament (and that’s what we have, make no mistake) to make law, leads us ever further down the road to an American style of politics which would serve this country very badly.

And so, Ros and her colleagues are settling in for a long night of voting down wrecking amendments. It’s a terrible way to do business, but there’s a whole raft of principles at stake here, and somebody has to stand up for the rule of law and the notion of fair play.

Meanwhile, the radicalisation of the Conservative Party continues unchecked...

Ros in the Lords: Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill, Report Stage

Ros is a member of the Shadow Sponsor Body tasked with overseeing the essential work of dragging the core of the Parliamentary Estate into the modern age, or perhaps as accurate, salvaging the building before it explodes, catches fire or is flooded with sewage. In that capacity, she had some thoughts to outline in response to what turned out to be a rather short, and harmonious, Report Stage...

My Lords, I will add my thanks to all those who have worked during August to come up with a solution that meets not just the needs of those moving the amendments but the sentiments that were expressed during the debate. As a member of the shadow sponsor body, I think that this gives some clarity about the wishes of the House and the responsibilities of the sponsor body when it gets its substantive form. 

Right from the beginning, outreach and education have been an absolute priority for the sponsor body. I assure the noble Earl that we have had a lot of discussions with the education and outreach department already, and I assure the noble Lord, Lord Norton, that flexibility is one of the key things that we are thinking about in design. Obviously not every room in the Palace can be entirely flexible - there are too many constraints, particularly of heritage, for that - but one of our overall objectives will be to end up with a much more flexible space because, as the noble Lord said, we simply cannot predict where we are going to be in future.

The shadow sponsor body has always felt, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has previously so passionately described, that the renewal of Parliament is not just about the building—that is extremely important to us. When we think about overall renewal, some of the issues are matters of operation - about how we do things - some are procedural and some are cultural. The Houses of Parliament are extremely conservative organisations that are quite resistant to change, so we have to accept that there is also cultural thinking. 

A lot of these matters need attention from Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was right to talk about the need for close working between the shadow sponsor body - the sponsor body, going forward - and the rest of Parliament, and how we do these things together. It is certainly not for the sponsor body to start telling Parliament what its procedures should look like and so on—so there is very much a need for close working on that.

My final point is that it has become clear to me, having chaired a number of sessions - particularly on the question of accessibility, but the point is wider - that there is an awful lot that we could do now. We do not have to wait for the physical restoration of this building. I urge the House to find ways of exploring some of the things that could be done right now to make the building more accessible - and I mean accessible in its full sense in terms of the language that we use and the way that people engage with this place - while we wait for more tangible physical accessibility improvements further down the road. 

We need to think about how Parliament creates the space to think about those things when there is so much else going on. If Parliament is to come through what is a particularly torrid time at the moment, we really must give some attention to these matters.

Brexit: Parliament sticks it to the (wo)man...

This Parliamentary democracy thing is an interesting concept, isn’t it? The idea that we, the people, after a campaign in which candidates attempt to persuade us to support them and their ideas, send our chosen tribune to Westminster to listen to arguments and sift data before taking the decisions that affect our lives seems like quite a good one.

Of course, this is the theory. It relies on a number of increasingly heroic assumptions;

1. That voters actually have an open mind.
2. That candidates tell the truth, or are at least honest about the options.
3. That media coverage is objective.
4. That, once elected, Members of Parliament are not whipped like dogs.

Don’t laugh...

All of that said, our system of democracy contains a series of checks and balances that protect us - a neutral Civil Service, an independent judiciary - and which we can mostly rely upon to protect us from an over-mighty Executive.

And, occasionally, Members of Parliament act according to their conscience, as in last night’s vote on Amendment 7 to the EU Withdrawal Bill. In truth, one should really wonder about the 305, mostly Conservative, ones who concluded that Parliamentary sovereignty is only really necessary when they’re in opposition.

It’s funny really, in that I had rather more respect for those Brexiteers who purported to be most concerned about a loss of sovereignty. It is true that, in pooling sovereignty with others, you lose personal autonomy. If that loss is counterbalanced (or better) by benefits of various kinds, that is probably a decent trade-off. “Sovereignty” Brexiteers don’t believe that the benefits meet that test, and whilst I think that they’re wrong, it is at least an honourable argument.

At least, it was, until they were offered an opportunity to take a stand on the right of Parliament to have the final say. It turned out that they actually believe that Parliament is only sovereign if it agrees with them. Just like their concept of freedom, their belief in sovereignty turns out to be conditional, partial, incomplete.

In other words, in order to deliver something they want, they are willing to sacrifice the very principle which underpinned their stance on Brexit. It’s hardly an edifying stance...

Meanwhile, my Conservative MP, Jo Churchill, clearly doesn’t believe that she should be allowed a say on the terms, and trooped loyally through the lobbies as per instructions, despite her stated support for remaining in the European Union.

Brexit may well continue to its fruition, the rebel Tories may decide to back the deal in the end, but at least tonight, we saw the Executive thwarted and a glimmer of democracy return to the Mother of Parliaments. And a damned good thing too...

Ros in the Lords: Bus Services Bill (Report Stage, Day 2)... again...

Ros was back again, later in the debate, supporting a Labour amendment on a subject close to the heart of Liberal Democrats everywhere...

Baroness Scott of Needham Market

My Lords, I offer the support of these Benches for the amendment. It would be rather strange if we did not, because the ​Social Value Act 2012 was a Private Member’s Bill taken through this House by my noble friend Lord Newby. I raised the question of the use of this Act in Committee, so I am grateful to the Labour Benches for picking this up and transferring it into an amendment.

As we have heard, the Social Value Act allows public bodies to take a much broader range of issues into account than conventional procurement practices do, so they can think about the environment, community well-being and the local economy. It actually goes one stage further, because the Act makes people think about the considerable financial power of public procurement in an area and is a way of local authorities and local health authorities harnessing their own commissioning power for the benefit of their communities.

As we have heard, the evaluation last year by the noble Lord, Lord Young, was that, while there had been some real success stories, the Social Value Act was not being used enough and was not sufficiently understood. I have a lot of sympathy with an amendment which puts this on the face of the Bill because it forces commissioning authorities to really think about whether they have given sufficient consideration to this. Overall, it is a way of ensuring that compliance improves.

I was very taken with the conversations I had on this matter with HCT, formerly Hackney Community Transport, which is a social enterprise that provides bus services in a range of areas as diverse as London boroughs and Jersey. It feels very strongly—and made the point to me—that current procurement practices often freeze out smaller businesses. That is a great pity because some of the best bus operators in the country are the small, local ones. It is important to find ways to strengthen this aspect of the Bill and really help local authorities, in their various forms, to make the most of this considerable new power.

In response, the Minister noted that the guidance associated with the Bill would include appropriate references to the 2012 Social Value Act, which seemed to provide sufficient reassurance to allow the withdrawal of Baroness Jones of Whitchurch's amendment.

Ros in the Lords: Bus Services Bill (Report Stage, 2nd Day)

Ros has been a part of the Liberal Democrat Bill Team on this relatively unremarked upon piece of legislation, and was keen to make sure that the Government's proposals to allow franchising schemes for Mayoral authorities were properly monitored...

Baroness Scott of Needham Market (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, Amendment 28 returns to the question of an independent audit of proposals for new franchising schemes. I thank the Minister for meeting me in September to discuss this matter and for his subsequent letter. The purpose of the amendment is to provide the House with an opportunity to look again at the question of an independent audit and for the Minister to elaborate and build on the letter that he sent me.

The issue here is protecting the public against the careless use of local taxpayers’ money. I have always believed in devolution; indeed, I have long thought it was a scandal that our major cities constantly have to go cap-in-hand to government whenever they want to undertake a capital programme. But I am also a great believer in democratic accountability, and there is a real problem in mayoral models in that the very concentration of power in the hands of one individual that makes it such an attractive option to government also runs a significant risk of poor decision-making because it is untested by debates in traditional committees or through effective scrutiny.

The Public Accounts Committee published a report in July in which it said:

“There has been insufficient consideration by central government of local scrutiny arrangements, of accountability to the taxpayer and of the capacity and capability needs of local and central government as a result of devolution”.

The committee went on to talk more about its concerns about capacity issues, particularly financial and technical skills, which have been exacerbated by budget cuts. Providing a requirement for a mayor to give information that proposed new schemes, potentially worth millions of pounds, have been independently audited is an important safeguard. The auditor usually engaged by a local authority may very well have their independence compromised by their wish to hold on to the contract.

Equally importantly in terms of public confidence is that the audit should be seen to be independent. The Public Accounts Committee had this to say:

“Robust and independent scrutiny of the value for money of devolved activities is essential to safeguarding taxpayers’ money, particularly given the abolition of the Audit Commission … Currently, local auditors focus on individual bodies’ financial statements and arrangements for securing value for money, rather than assessing value for money itself”.

In his letter to me, the Minister referred to the guidance on the matter that he had agreed to develop, and I would be grateful to hear more about that today. He referred to the availability of freedom of information as a means of achieving transparency. I wonder whether he can confirm today that such freedom of information requests will not be met with commerciality exemptions. I beg to move.

The Minister, Lord Ahmed, was sympathetic, but felt that existing safeguards would be sufficient. I'm not sure that he's right, but only time will tell, as Ros then withdrew her amendment in the light of Government opposition.

Creeting St Peter invites you to Parliament – we’ve got a site with existing planning permission…

The Palace of Westminster, Mother of Parliaments, nada, nada, nada. Yes, very nice, and don’t get me wrong, it’s very attractive… from the outside. The inside is nice in parts too, but only in parts. You wouldn’t want your office to be there for one thing – dark, gloomy, cramped (even for senior Parliamentarians). And yes, it’s convenient for the eight-minute dash to the voting lobbies – another absurdity in itself – but the offices in the surrounding Parliamentary Estate are much nicer, with windows that let in light, facilities that work reliably and space to keep all of the research material that a modern Parliamentarian still needs.

“Ah, but,”, I hear you say, “it’s a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and Grade 1 listed to boot.”. Well, yes, but is it really worth something north of £3.5 billion to keep it standing up and drag it up to twenty-first century building standards?

credit - www.Greatbuildings.com

Well, in truth, you could just hand back the keys to Her Majesty – it’s a Royal Palace, after all – and opt to establish a new Parliament, but where in central London could you find a site big enough to build such a replacement? And even if you could find one, how much would the land cost, let alone the building work that would be necessary?

The obvious answer, if my fellow provincials are to be believed, is to move the whole show out of London, to Bradford, or the Midlands, or somewhere that isn’t London. And yes, I can see the attractions. I myself have noted the London-centric nature of our politics and of our decision making, exacerbated as it is by the fact that so many of our key players – Civil Service mandarins, corporate heads and politicians – live in or around London, and spend much of their time in it.

But a capital is what it is for a reason, as a focal point for governance (note I don’t say government), and it is helpful to have all of the key personnel in one place. And don’t believe that video conferencing will replace face to face networking and random encounters any time soon. If you move the Parliamentarians, you would need to move all of the key civil servants, policy advisors, and other paraphernalia of government with them. Think of the cost, the disruption and the likelihood that the mindset would merely change to reflect the attributes of the new location. You will feel no nearer to government in Bristol if MPs and Peers sit in Creeting St Peter or Cromford (although the mill does sound nice).

And it isn’t just government. All of those lobbyists, voluntary sector representatives, national organisations, embassies and high commissions, would want to move too. They want to influence, or meet with, government too.

So, moving Parliament is not as simple as it might be, at least, not on a permanent basis. It requires all sorts of support services, accommodation and infrastructure, all of which is currently available in, or around, London SW1.

On the other hand, you could just move Parliament out for a while, knock down the old Palace and build something fit for purpose. That’s almost as radical an option as moving out of London, and equally unlikely, I fear…

Quietly, quietly, Suffolk is going to become just a little bit more influential. That's bad news for some...

Be afraid, be very afraid...

The newspaper headline at the station newsagent this morning reminds me that, whilst the population of the United Kingdom is growing, it is growing fastest in some unexpected places.

My quiet corner of the English countryside is one of them, and that means that the county has to manage that growth despite planning policies that rule out additional housing in the many small villages that dot the landscape, such as Creeting St Peter. Instead, towns such as Stowmarket, Sudbury and Haverhill come under pressure to absorb the new residents.

And, to complicate matters further, it is predicted that the county's population is aging too, with projections indicating that more than a quarter of Suffolk residents will be 65 or older by 2031.

That makes for a set of 'interesting' challenges for our political leaders over the next decade.

But it does also have an effect on the rest of you. One of the unexpected outcomes of the aborted Boundary Commission effort to draw up new Parliamentary constituencies was that, despite the proposed reduction from 650 to 600, Suffolk was slated to gain representation, not lose it, with a new 'Ely and Newmarket' constituency making seven and a bit, as opposed to the original seven.

Suffolk's seven MP's are currently all Conservative - they held on in both Ipswich and Waveney, much to my surprise - and adding the new seat will simply dilute a series of huge Conservative majorities to little political advantage for their opponents.

Oh well, I suppose that I might have to console myself that we might get some more services to deal with all of these newcomers. And, you never know, there might be a few more liberals about the place...

I'm not only here for the beer

I'm on my way home after another night in the big city. As part of Ros's programme to ensure that I don't become completely disconnected from urban life, I was invited to a CAMRA reception at the House of Commons, and the opportunity to spend a midweek evening with Ros and drink free beer was too good to miss.

The recent controversy concerning the MP for Falkirk has meant that the spotlight has fallen on politicians and their drinking. In a building which has a surprising number of drinking holes, and with far too many evenings when MPs and Peers have to hang around waiting to vote, the scope for excessive drinking is great.

Perhaps it wasn't surprising that 150 Parliamentarians had registered for the event, but it was evident that whilst some were clearly 'only here for the beer', others are keen to support CAMRA's campaigning to save pubs and break the pubcos and their grip on the licenced trade.

For those of us who live in rural communities, pubs are important, and we're particularly fortunate in Suffolk in that the survival rate of village pubs is relatively high, helped by the emergence of gastropubs where the quality of the beer is a key element in their success.

Using pubs as more than just a place to eat and drink helps too, and bringing things like community shops and post offices under one roof creates potentially sustainable community hubs.

And, of course, Suffolk is a major producer of ale, with Greene King at Bury St Edmunds, Adnams at Southwold, plus a number of smaller breweries - St Peters in the Elmhams, the Rougham Brewery (purveyors of fine ale to Creeting St Peter pub nights) and the Earl Soham Brewery to name but three of my favourites.

So, pubs and beer are important, and well worth a trip to London to support. And I even squeezed in a polite chat with Gareth Epps. Beer - it's good for a surprising number of things...