• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

| THE CONSTITUTION UNIT NEWSLETTER | ISSUE 33 | MAY 2006 | MONITOR PARTY DONORS, PEERAGES AND THE CONSTITUTION IN THIS ISSUE Much British constitutional debate in recent agreement, with polls showing that the public months has centred on the row over ‘cash don’t favour state funding, whilst overseas PARLIAMENT 2 for peerages’, which has reignited interest experience demonstrates that it does not end in Lords reform and the funding of funding scandals. Some forms of state support political parties. could also weaken links between parties and their POWER REPORT 2 members and supporters. The Conservatives The row began when a list of proposed Lords hope to use the debate to limit trade union appointees was leaked to the press in November. funding for Labour, and all the major parties would Rumours suggested that the House of Lords be concerned about a funding scheme which BROWN, CAMERON AND 3 Appointments Commission – responsible for channelled state funding to UKIP and the BNP. CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM vetting the propriety of party nominees, as well as choosing independent members – was Ironically the episode illustrated how reform concerned about some of these names. Following to date has failed to boost faith in political PREROGATIVE POWERS 3 four months of silence one nominee, Dr Chai institutions. The Appointments Commission acted UNDER SCRUTINY Patel, took the unusual step of demanding to block certain nominees, yet appointments publicly to know what objections there were to his have fallen into greater disrepute. New party nomination. It was known that some nominees funding rules greatly tightened up the disclosure were major party donors. However, Dr Patel requirements, but created loopholes that have MONARCHY, CHURCH 3 revealed that he had provided Labour with funds been exploited. In both cases transparency AND STATE in the form of a loan, which did not have to be exposed long-established practices which declared to the Electoral Commission. the public do not like, but where there is little agreement on the alternatives. CONSTITUTIONAL 3 The story took a new turn when party Treasurer WATCHDOGS INQUIRIES Jack Dromey revealed that he knew nothing of these loans. In April a confirmed list of peers THE ‘ABOLITION OF PARLIAMENT’ BILL was finally announced, minus five of the original DEVOLUTION 4 names (four Labour and one Conservative, all The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill of whom were major lenders to their parties). (LRRB) is promoted by the government as A further twist came when the Metropolitan a means by which ministers can more easily Police launched an investigation under the 1925 remove regulatory burdens on business. It is thus FREEDOM OF INFORMATION 5 Honours (Prevention of Abuse) Act. This extended an heir to the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, which to allegations that academy school sponsors, as enables ministers to pass Statutory Instruments well as party donors have been rewarded with (SIs) to remove burdens using the super- ELECTIONS AND PARTIES 6 peerages. The Electoral Commission is also to affirmative procedure for parliamentary scrutiny. investigate whether the political parties have breached the Political Parties, Referendums The powers in Part 1 of the LRRB, however, JUDICIARY 6 and Elections Act 2000. are considerably greater. Ministers can by order amend, repeal or replace any legislation subject to The episode helped to move Lords reform back limited exceptions such as imposing or increasing up the political agenda (see page 2). Concern taxes, and creating new serious criminal offences. PEOPLE ON THE MOVE 6 about appointments boosts those campaigning There is no requirement that the order remove for election to the upper house. But divisions in a burden on business and orders may even be both main parties have prevented such a reform passed by means of the less stringent affirmative CONSTITUTION UNIT NEWS 7 so far. Less attention has focussed on how or negative procedure for SIs. the appointments process could be improved – despite most reformers accepting the likelihood The House of Lords Constitution Committee of a partly-elected house. The Appointments expressed a fear the bill could ‘markedly alter BULLETIN BOARD 8 Commission remains non-statutory and its role the respective and long-established roles of in scrutinising political appointments is limited Ministers and Parliament in the legislative and advisory only. Continuing confusion about process’, while in the Commons, the Regulatory whether a peerage is a job or an honour only Reform Committee thought the bill ‘the most worsens the problem. Both of these difficulties constitutionally significant Bill that has been could be dealt with by relatively minor reform. brought before Parliament for some years’. The The Labour nominations also raised questions Public Administration Select Committee added its 33 about internal party democracy, with Labour peers criticism (HC 1033), and Cabinet Office Minister being chosen by Number 10. In contrast, the Lib Jim Murphy has said he will look into making The Constitution Unit Dems (and Greens) now involve members in the powers in the bill more clearly focussed. But UCL Department of Political Science this process. with the Constitution Committee and others on Director: Professor Robert Hazell the case, and in view of the Lords’ recent track www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit The other major area of reform relates to political record of opposing the government, a major Email: [email protected] party funding, with a review now established constitutional battle seems likely when the bill Phone: +44 (0) 20 7679 4977 under Sir Hayden Phillips. Here too there is no reaches the upper house. Fax: +44 (0) 20 7679 4978 | THE CONSTITUTION UNIT MONITOR | ISSUE 33 | MAY 2006 | 2 PARLIAMENT Lords Reform Speakership of the House of Lords The Lords defeated the government five times and ultimately compromise The ‘cash for peerages’ row (see page The House of Lords Committee on the was reached. Here opponents in the 1) reignited debates about reform of Speakership of the House reported to the Lords claimed that they were upholding the House of Lords. A proposed joint chamber on 31 January. In July 2005 the the government’s manifesto, which had committee to consider reform options had House had resolved in favour of an elected promised a voluntary scheme. In a further been delayed due to Liberal Democrat speaker and established the committee to extraordinary development in February the objections to its remit, which government look into the matter in more detail. government backed down over another proposed should cover only powers and manifesto commitment, on smoking in conventions rather than composition. The committee was sensitive to the notion public places. Under heavy backbench To generate movement the government that the chamber should essentially remain pressure a free vote was granted and backed down and a new committee will a self-regulated one. The primary role the Commons supported a complete ban now consider all related issues. Another of the speaker would be to preside over – rather than the exemptions that had been free vote on composition is promised proceedings within the chamber. This promised. See briefing paper at www. in the autumn and may have a greater would require the speaker to spend more revolts.co.uk. chance of success than previously given time in the chamber, take the chair when the positions of the party leaders. David the House was in Committee and give Cameron sees an opportunity in supporting procedural guidance where appropriate. POWER REPORT a largely elected house whilst Tony Blair is Despite some discontent about aspects of said to have ‘dropped his opposition’ to a the recommendations (particularly relating In March the report was published hybrid membership. Less often mentioned to the role of the speaker at question time) from the Power Inquiry, a Joseph is that Iain Duncan-Smith took the same the report was approved unamended. As Rowntree funded project seeking to position as Cameron but failed to bring a result the first election for the position of explain political disengagement and more than half his backbenchers with Lords speaker will be held no later than 30 make recommendations for change. A him in February 2003, whilst Blair had June 2006. ten member commission, chaired by supported hybridity until that very point. Baroness Helena Kennedy, took evidence The DCA has a bill team in place to Parliamentary Strength Continues and deliberated for 18 months before implement the manifesto pledges to to Grow producing the 300-page report (www. define the Lords’ powers in statute and powerinquiry.org/report/index.php). The remove the remaining hereditaries. But Following the Blair government’s first commission rejected many explanations the opportunities for disagreement remain defeats in the Commons in November, for disengagement, including apathy, legion. Whilst agreement on composition both parliamentary chambers have contentment or an aggressive media, has thus far proved impossible, powers continued to assert their strength. Despite and instead concluded that political have now also been added to the pot. fears that a stronger upper house would institutions have not kept up with the pace And whatever the leaders propose there pit the Lords against the Commons, the of social change and that radical reforms is heartfelt, albeit probably minority, chambers have often acted together in are needed. Recommendations included opposition to elected members on both extracting concessions from government. state funding of political parties, reform sides of the Commons. A Times poll in of the voting system, a largely elected April meanwhile showed the public to be The most obvious example was the second upper house, greater decentralisation, in at least two minds, with large majorities pair of Commons defeats, on 31 January, more powers for Commons committees, agreeing both that the Lords should be over the Racial and Religious Hatred citizen-initiated legislation and votes at largely appointed, to retain independence Bill.

Load more

  8

Copy Link