House of Commons crumbles amid a culture of decay
Politics is profoundly destabilised, so the latest scandals may achieve lasting change
by Bronwen Maddox
.
© Jonathan McHugh
The physical decay of the Palace of Westminster is more than a metaphor. Like the culture and conventions inside, the building’s failings contribute to the problems of running a respected 21st-century democracy. Scaffolding obscures the view of Big Ben, the world’s most famous clock, its bongs silenced to allow repair.
In the subterranean dining rooms, carpets reek from years of spilled alcohol, and one MP memorably tweeted that urine was leaking through his office ceiling (from toilets, not another member’s office, he later clarified). Contractors peer at the wiring wondering what they can safely patch up — and if they win the tender for the great renovation, whether it will prove a poisoned chalice. Yet MPs duck a decision on repairs, fearing that public opinion will damn them for the costs if work is done while they are still in residence, or prevent them returning if they decamp.
The culture is the greater problem, though. It is hard to get a better illustration of how it needs to change than Michael Fallon’s assertion on resigning that “what might have been acceptable 15, 10 years ago is clearly not acceptable now”. As the former defence secretary would have it, he was wrongfooted by the passage of a few years — not that he was wrong back then. Even more tone deaf was his remark that his inappropriate advances to women had “fallen below the high standards that we require of the armed forces”. Not those of Westminster.
Revelations about Harvey Weinstein, the predatory Hollywood producer, have triggered a cascade of accusations of sexual harassment in parliament. The firestorm, fanned by the fragility of the government and fractures in the main political parties, is driven too by MPs’ own impatient fear that something needs fixing if they are to have a chance of countering public contempt. With a new taste for Twitter and referendums, many voters seem to be questioning the value of a representative in parliament.
What should be done? For a start, this latest round of sleaze shows how odd it is that MPs’ offices are like mini fiefdoms, with members employing their staff directly. MPs are the main recourse for complaints — but what if the complaint is about the MP?
Recent weeks show that parties cannot be the ultimate regulators of MPs’ behaviour. They want to preserve the reputation of their MPs and will have every temptation, as recent stories suggest, to tell aggrieved staff with a complaint to shut up if they want a career.
Theresa May is right to call for a new independent regulator. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, created in 2010 after the expenses scandal, covers only pay and expenses. That earlier scandal has made it impossible to debate whether MPs should be paid more, or whether members of select committees, as well as the chair, should be paid for that work: a pity.
The strains, risks and sheer career uncertainty of being an MP have rarely been greater. How they are to be compensated needs discussion. Select committees, whose healthy contribution to the scrutiny of government and legislation is growing, depend on MPs putting in time to master specialist areas.
In general, the parties have been poor defenders of their MPs, at a time when being a politician is ferociously tough. They have been slow to clamp down on abuse and threats — which can, as the murder of Jo Cox appallingly showed, be lethal.
But the problems go deeper than MPs’ behaviour and conditions of work. Parliament is faltering in its basic job of holding the government to account, passing well thought out legislation, and doing so in a way that commands public trust.
Brexit has squeezed out almost all other legislation from the timetable. A minority government’s struggles to survive mean that much debate is stalled or simply avoided. The general election result this year gave an entirely misleading picture of the health of the two main parties; the rifts within them are deep — over region, generation and wealth, as well as Brexit. They are barely functioning within Westminster as conventional parties, and voters have every reason for struggling to see their own concerns reflected there. It would not be surprising if the question of changing the voting system reared up again. Above all, the EU referendum set up a clash between the people’s vote and their representatives in parliament.
True, some things have improved. There are far more women MPs, and more younger ones. John Bercow, Commons speaker, encourages more backbenchers to speak. The committees are stronger and — almost — offer a satisfying career outside government. The whips are correspondingly less powerful. Portcullis House offers modern, secure offices for some MPs.
Most of all, there is some attempt at reform. Mrs May has tried to press ahead with the boundary review, cutting the number of MPs from 650 to about 600, but while she may be too weak to get it through, the principle is right. Even more worthwhile is the proposal to cut the number of peers in the Lords from around 800 to about 600 and to limit terms to 15 years is sensible.
These steps will not on their own repair trust. Public distaste for Westminster has deep roots. The financial crash a decade ago, and the expenses scandal, bear much blame; but voters resent many of the messages that politicians feel obliged to deliver, such as the constraints on spending. Meanwhile, MPs are braced for Brexit to disappoint even those who voted for it. People are angry, and have got used to saying so.
Those are issues with which the UK has grappled for years. But the fury about sexual harassment promises to achieve what those debates failed to — forcing a change in how Westminster runs itself. In theory at least, that should be quicker and cheaper than repairing eight acres of a gothic revival building on the banks of the Thames.
The writer is director of the Institute for Government, a think-tank
0 comments:
Publicar un comentario