On Thursday, MPs asked for ideas from the public on how parliament can be changed and standards raised. To which an inevitable response is that, if MPs want this, they should probably not be starting from here. The furore about gifts and freebies for ministers is rumbling on. Public confidence in politicians, already in decline under past governments, could now hardly be lower.
Much, but not all, of the problem lies in the larger context. Modern governments have not done enough to show they can solve the big public needs – things such as secure jobs, reasonable living costs, housing, care and health – that shape people’s lives. The state has been relentlessly weakened, locally and nationally, for decades. Parliament can sometimes come across as an alien irrelevance, in which politicians spout platitudes offering little hope to stressed lives. If that could change, then so might confidence in politicians.
Parliament’s all-party modernisation committee is now focused on three more particular problems: parliamentary standards, Westminster workplace culture and Commons processes. Chaired by the Commons leader Lucy Powell, the committee now wants suggestions from the public. For cost reasons alone, this is, sadly, unlikely to include the wholesale transformation of the increasingly dilapidated Palace of Westminster into an appropriate modern parliamentary workplace.
Yet the committee’s work is anything but trivial. In July, the Commons put necessary curbs on payments to MPs for outside lobbying jobs. They must now decide whether to go further, by limiting payments for media work and speeches. This is likely to become a partisan issue, since few of the biggest media earners, of whom the largest is currently Nigel Farage, are Labour members. A few Conservatives are said to be thinking of quitting if curbs are introduced. The nettle must nevertheless be grasped. But let’s have some creative responses. One solution might be to cap such earnings, not abolish them. Another could be to require them, or a proportion, to be paid into a parliamentary charitable fund.
Most voters, though, never go near parliament. That is not going to change, but parliament could certainly also make a better reputational case for itself through the media. Improved conduct and stronger rules to control it are certainly vital. But is it necessary for the Houses of Parliament to have as many bars as it does? Not many other workplaces allow alcohol on their premises, especially subsidised alcohol. British politics would benefit from a burst of ostentatious frugality here.
MPs should also look for ways to make their work more accessible. Too much Commons process is needlessly difficult to follow. MPs should consider whether prime minister’s questions has had its day in its current form. The weekly session is now a pointless shouting match. There is a strong case, too, for events such as the king’s speech debate and the budget to be rethought with the public interest in mind. The formal state opening and the political king’s speech debate could be separated, so the latter becomes an annual address to parliament and the nation by the prime minister, akin to the US’s state of the union speech. Though few of these ideas will be taken up, MPs must understand that mere tinkering will not suffice.
