Westminster still matters

As Tony Blair's re-elected labour government set out (in the queen's speech) its proposed legislative programme, the attention of many thoughtful commentators turned to the role of parliament. The government, blessed in 1997 with a large majority, showed itself more and more inclined to ignore parliament. Now labour is back in power with a similarly large majority, many assume, and fear, that the process will continue.

The message that is going to Parliament from many quarters is that this should not be allowed to happen. Parliament must reassert itself. The Financial Times put it succinctly in an editorial: "The pomp of the occasion (the State opening of Parliament) suggests that Westminster is still the centre of national life. Yet it is failing in its duty to hold the Executive to account between elections".

Much will depend, many people suggest, on the approach of Robin Cook, the former Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, now appointed - some say demoted - Leader of the House of Commons. The Leader's role is an odd one. He, or she (Margaret Beckett was the previous Leader) is a member of the government, but should not be merely its agent in handling the Commons.

Does it all matter? Could it not be argued that the Government was returned with a massive majority, and that reflects the unequivocal will of the people?

One glaring weakness in that argument is that the massive majority was achieved in an election in which the poll was the lowest for over 80 years. The Government claimed that this reflected satisfaction with its performance but the claim is untenable and, as I suggested in my last article, the low turnout has worrying implications for democracy.

In attempting to understand why the voters were so apathetic, one has to recognise that what their apathy really reflected was most probably a cynicism about the political process, and a feeling that the politicians are not likely to take much notice of the electorate. There is also a feeling that politicians at the national level have only the most limited capacity to influence events in an increasingly globalised world.

It is not just the recent British election which provides evidence of this sense of hopeless disillusionment. Internationally, the demonstrations, and riots, which greeted European Union leaders in Sweden recently, and now demonstrations around trade talks in Genoa, may well be symptoms of the same malaise. To suggest that is not, of course, to justify rioting; expressing political opinions through lawlessness is unacceptable in a civilised society. It is, however, important to look beneath the superficial for causes. It is too simple to put it all down to deliberate trouble-makers.

Essentially, if people feel that their views are not listened to, they will inevitably become frustrated, and in their frustration express those views outside the "proper" democratic channels.

This is why proper processes of consultation are important. In Britain, in addition to the concerns about the capacity of Parliament to restrain government, two other current issues have raised similar concerns. One is European. It is the, sensible, decision of the British Government to implement the EU directive on minimum standards for the right of employees to be informed and consulted by their employers. The Confederation of British Industry, and the Institute of Directors, have reacted negatively, suggesting that such consultation encroaches on the prerogatives of management.

This is nonsense. It is surely better for managers to carry employees with them than for a "them and us" culture to prevail. If consultation is properly carried out, and properly informed, employees will of necessity share in the responsibility to take external economic pressures into account.

The other example came in a speech by the Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, who is about to retire. Like many of his reports on prisons, the speech was devastatingly frank. Among other things, he said he was disappointed that the advice given by him and his inspectors was not taken into account by Government in formulating policy.

A belief in their inevitable rightness is a common disease of governments and many other large and powerful organisations. Ensuring that the belief is examined critically is intrinsically sensible: believing that one is right is no proof that one actually is; the belief needs to be tested. It is also necessary, if we are to avoid the kind of cynicism that can easily be manifested not only by apathy in elections but by the use of violence to express opinions about major controversial issues.

BILL KIRKMAN

The writer is an Emeritus Fellow of Wolfson College, Cambridge. E-mail him at wpk1000@cam.ac.uk

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Moments from a bygone era
Next     : Lessons from the West