Politics
Sleaze is the lesser problem in tackling the crisis of politics
Published 07 February 2008
A week ago, on these pages, we drew attention to the level of surveillance being conducted in the UK, noting that the abuse of power had been barely reported. Days later, thanks to the discovery that the Labour MP Sadiq Khan had been bugged while visiting a prison inmate, the issue has swept to the fore - but mostly for the wrong reasons. Instead of using the controversy to open a broader debate about individual liberty, most commentators have confined their musings to the question of political status. How dare the police listen in on the confidential conversation of an "honourable member"?
Britain's parliamentary system is based on the notion of privilege. Our representatives, by dint of being elected, have long seen themselves as following a higher calling. As a group, they are resistant to change and hostile to scrutiny, buckling only in times of scandal. Now is one of those times, when various miscreants - from Labour deputy leadership candidates and their funding arrangements, to the Wintertons and their flat, to Derek Conway and his offspring - highlight the stupidity or self-enrichment of our politicians. Action on expenses is promised, but the composition of the inquiry team does not give cause for optimism.
Whenever Britain's political class is put under scrutiny, a standard defence is made. Ours may be a little naughty at times, but its corruption is as nothing compared to those of other countries. It goes without saying that states such as Russia and Italy (note the impending return of Silvio Berlusconi) are in a different league. France's political-corporate scandals are of a higher order, too. But it seems that we are catching up fast.
Though new regulations on our MPs are welcome, they are only part of the answer to improving Westminster's battered reputation. More fundamental questions must be addressed. Are our MPs worthy of their status? Are there too many of them? And do they perform the right functions? The first is a largely subjective judgement. There has always been a core of politicians who rival the best in other professions. They usually find their way to senior ministerial level. Many parliamentarians excel in the unglamorous task of representing their constituents, helping to solve problems at their local surgeries or bringing their cases to the attention of government.
Elsewhere, however, MPs fall short. One need only sit in on a select committee hearing to see the inability of many MPs to carry out their most important task: to hold the executive to account. This applies starkly to areas of security and secrecy, and to criminal justice in general. Even when they perform well, these committees have little power to ensure change.
The key to unlocking these different but interconnected problems may lie in reforming the workings of the Commons itself. There is simply not enough work to justify the number of members of our lower chamber. Perhaps cut the total back to 600. But the most important change lies in giving select committees considerably greater power to call ministers and officials to account. At present, the authority of these bodies is circumscribed. Ambitious politicians should see a committee chair as being at least as prestigious as any government job, like in the United States.
Each time someone seeks to drag the fusty club into the modern world - for example, with changes to the sitting hours - others seek to reverse the reforms. Parliament's record of policing and reforming itself is poor (last summer's report of the House of Commons modernisation committee demonstrated a weak understanding of the extent of the problem). MPs must accept that only outside bodies have the credibility with the public to tackle political sleaze. They must hand over all rights to determine MPs' salaries and regulate expenses. They simply cannot be trusted with these tasks.
In an ideal world, our parliament should enjoy an elevated status. It should be the fulcrum for our national debate. It is not. The first task is to improve Westminster's financial probity. The second, and harder, task is to vest in its members an authority properly to hold our executive to account. If they fail in that, not only are our liberties at stake, but so is our democracy.
The right time to talk business
A journalist attending the Quoted Company Awards at the Grosvenor House Hotel in London at the end of last month disclosed that so few women were expected that the ladies' toilets were closed for the evening. In fact, out of the thousand or so guests, some 150 were female. She did not say whether the high-fliers who made it to the party were obliged to share the gentlemen's facilities.
It might have been a good idea. Among explanations offered for the persistent low representation of women on the boards of Britain's FTSE-100 companies is that women miss out on the informal chats men have at work. In a new book, Why Women Mean Business, a top banking CEO explains that these determine the mood of a firm, build mutual trust, and determine new leaders: unsurprisingly, men.
So, should we dictate who talks to whom, and when? No, let's be radical. A century after the first mass protests for women's suffrage in this country, there are just three female FTSE-100 company chief executives. Ninety years after women were allowed to stand for parliament, they still make up only 20 per cent of MPs. We could change it at a stroke. As we have noted here before, since Norway imposed minimum quotas for women on boards, 36 per cent of its directors are female. Britain is still stuck at 11 per cent. Sweden imposes quotas for candidates on parties. Forty-seven per cent of its MPs are women. Cautious politicians note: enacting change is not so hard.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
