³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

In one way or another, much of the coming week in parliament will be about the implications of the government's Spending Review and the state of the UK economy.

Monday

In the Commons, the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Secretary Theresa May takes questions, and then David Cameron is expected to report back to the Commons about the European Summit in Brussels - there will be much interest in the response from Conservative backbenchers. Monday also sees the beginning of the end of the Commons debates on the Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill - day one of the "remaining stages" after five days of committee stage debates on the floor of the House. Meanwhile their Lordships debate the Spending Review.

On the committee corridor the launches into its detailed examination of the Spending Review (see my earlier post on this), with the views of the Institute of Fiscal Studies, among other expert witnesses. And with a Localism Bill, which aims to give local authorities and local communities more power over local issues as part of the "Big Society", due before parliament soon, the starts its inquiry into the whole concept of localism

Tuesday

MPs will perform the last rites over the Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill, before sending it off to the Lords. Meanwhile, the Lords debate future energy policy and climate change.

On the committee corridor, the publishes what may prove to be a pretty critical report on the government's proposed immigration cap on non-EEA immigrants to the UK - I understand dozens of amendments were put down when they considered the draft report last week. And the will publish a report on tackling inequalities in life expectancy in areas with the worst health and deprivation.

There are also some meaty evidence sessions: the continues its look at the NHS commissioning process - where the government is moving to a much bigger role for GPs. The Treasury Committee continues its inquiry into the Spending Review with evidence from more experts - and they will take evidence about proposed cuts to housing support and welfare. Energy Minister Charles Hendry will be questioned by the about the decision not to introduce a moratorium on UK deepwater drilling in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. And the will propose cuts in funding to preserve British heritage. Witnesses include the Historic Houses Association, Heritage Lottery Fund, and Lloyd Grossman, chair of the Heritage Alliance.

Meanwhile, the goes to Hull (and back) to take evidence for its transport and the economy inquiry. And witnesses from the Cumbrian shootings together with their local MP, Copeland's Jamie Reed, discuss the implications of the Cumbrian shootings for gun control, with the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Affairs Committee.

Wednesday

The Commons will debate the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. The Lords will debate a series of reports from their select committees - including on Private Finance Initiative projects, and the European Social Fund.

The select committees are busy too - most now cram their hearings into a crowded Wednesday.

The Lib Dems' man in the Treasury, Chief Secretary Danny Alexander, is the next contributor to the Treasury Committee's scrutiny of the Spending Review. How strategic was the review, or is it merely a cost-cutting exercise?

Gordon Brown advisor, turned Conservative Minister Lord Freud, gives evidence to the on the impact of the changes to housing benefit announced in the Budget. The starts its inquiry on Shrinking the Quango State, with evidence from two of the arms-length bodies destined for the chop, one that is being merged - and the man wielding the axe in the Cabinet Office, Francis Maude. The examines the decisions made over the volcanic ash cloud. Was sufficient evidence provided to justify the flight ban? British Airways, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Met Office and government departments give evidence.

The questions former schools inspectors on Ofsted in its first session examining the inspectorate's governance, remit and performance. And the take evidence on the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ World Service and the British Council, following the CSR reductions in spending for both.

Thursday

The main business in the Commons is a debate chosen by the Backbench Business Committee. This week they're talking about child poverty and proposed changes to housing benefit - both subjects raised by the Spending Review at the Department of Work and Pensions. The Lords debate the impact of the Budget and Spending Review on housing need and provision, and then discuss plurality of media ownership in the UK.

The Public Accounts Committee publishes an important-looking report on whether the Treasury's value for money savings have, in fact, improved value for money across government. The programme aims to achieve government-wide annual savings of £35bn by 2011.

Chancellor George Osborne will be the final witness for the Treasury Committee's inquiry into the CSR. The committee will then produce a report as rapidly as it can.

Top civil service mandarin Sir Gus O'Donnell gives his account of the formation of the coalition government to the in its final session on the issues which emerged following the May 2010 general election. The will take evidence on the potential for job creation in the private sector from BIS officials, and from the TUC, UK Commission for Employment and Skills and the Work Foundation.

The journeys to Cardiff for its inquiry into the Severn Crossings. Have tolls damaged business in Wales, or improved it with better transport links? Witnesses include Severn River Crossing plc, and Ieuan Wyn Jones, Deputy First Minister for Wales and Minister for the Economy and Transport.

(And neither House sits on Friday).

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The government's housing benefit changes could soon put a handful of coalition MPs into a very uncomfortable position indeed - and not just because of constituency implications. For once in the Commons, individual MPs may find themselves the swing vote in making, or not making, the actual changes to regulations.

Some of the government's benefits changes will need legislation - bills will have to be voted through Parliament. But some will only require changes to regulations which can be made through what are known in the trade as statutory instruments.

Legislation on issues like benefits frequently give ministers the power to make changes, usually on issues around implementation, without having to pass a further bill. Instead, they can lay orders before Parliament. Sometimes these are automatically debated, sometimes someone has to formally object. But you can bet that the Opposition will demand a debate on each and every change - or, to use Westminster-speak, will "pray against" them.

At that point a debate has to be held, not in the chamber of the Commons, but before a specially-convened committee. A hung Parliament means hung committees, so in each of these gatherings there will be a Liberal Democrat who will hold the balance of power. And they can expect the spotlight to be turned on them at Westminster, and at constituency level.

And the Liberal Democrat won't be the only target - the whips will have to be very careful not to nominate any Conservatives who might have constituency problems with housing benefit - and given the pronouncements of Boris Johnson, that could include just about anyone in London and its commuter belt, just for starters. So simply filling the seats on the committee won't be a simple exercise.

At least three of the government's proposed changes will be made via this route - on the housing benefit cap, on Local Housing Allowance and on Increased Non-Dependent Deducts (it says on my cribsheet).

So someone's about to experience real pressure. Maybe three people. I wonder how fireproof they will prove to be?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Ouch! The knives are out in the Transport Select Committee, where the chair, , has just press-released a well-nigh unprecedented rebuke to the

She has publicly denied a claim - press released by Mr Baldry - that the committee is about to hold an inquiry into HS2, , which would cross through Mr Baldry's Banbury constituency. It is a huge constituency issue for all the MPs along the proposed route - and it looks as if opponents were keen to question the economics and priority of the scheme through a select committee inquiry.

But it seems Mr Baldry has jumped the gun - and the smack of firm chairpersonship resounds, despite the usual antiseptic prose of a committee statement:

"The Transport Committee has a long and informed interest in HS2 and has already taken evidence on this topic at various points during several recent inquires. As any member of the House should not fail to appreciate, a select committee is independent and takes it own decisions about when to hold an inquiry or whom to call for evidence. As I shall remind Mr Baldry, it cannot help the cause of any single interest group to make misleading claims about their ability to 'bounce' a select committee into addressing particular concerns."

The press release adds that Ms Ellman will be writing to Mr Baldry to make plain her views on his conduct. I'm sure this kind of thing happens all the time behind the scenes - but I've never seen the protagonists break cover to this extent. And I doubt we've heard the last of this...

UPDATE: a rather puzzled and wounded rejoinder from Tony Baldry: "HS2 is undoubtedly one of the most significant issues in the UK transport policy at the moment...and you make it clear that your committee has agreed to take oral evidence from HS2.

"No-one has suggested that you should scrutinise the proposed route, or make value judgements about the route. My suggestion to you was that it was perfectly proper for the select committee to consider the principle of HS2 and I think it is very difficult to see how the select committee can take oral evidence from HS2 without at the very least being willing to accept written evidence on the principle from those who believe that HS2 does not necessarily give good value for money. Otherwise, on what basis are you going to be able to test HS2's evidence? "

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

As the Two Ronnies would doubtless put it, the will have a packed programme next week - as it puts the government's Spending Review under the microscope.

On Monday, the committee will be talking to the independent experts, including a contingent from the Institute for Fiscal Studies - the pointy-heads' pointy-heads. (Incidentally IFS criticism of the coalition's housing benefit changes has annoyed Conservative backbencher Robert Halfon to the extent ).

On Tuesday, it's the TUC and the CBI; on Wednesday, Treasury officials and then the Lib Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, who is the minister in charge of public spending. Then on Thursday, it's the Chancellor George Osborne, himself.

By the normally sedate standards of the committee corridor, they're operating at warp speed. (Oh dear, I've strayed into another TV metaphor...the dilithium crystals can't take much more, Cap'n Kirk.)

They may also be taking evidence about the impact of the spending cuts on particular departments, particularly the Ministry of Defence. But the key question for committee chair Andrew Tyrie is whether, on this ultra-partisan, hyper-important issue, he can shepherd his flock to a unanimous verdict on the review, without pulling its punches to the point where they become mere love taps.

In fact, that is the challenge the Spending Review poses across all the select committees. In different ways, all of them will have to examine the impact of these very deep spending cuts on their particular patch. I keep hearing how the new-look committees, with their elected chairs and elected members are keen and dedicated scrutineers of the executive, with the light of duty glowing in their eyes - apparently the new bugs on the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Affairs Committee put down 30 amendments to their latest draft report on the coalition's immigration cap, which would have been an unheard-of impertinence in the last parliament - but this is the first big test of whether they are for real. Can they produce effective, forensic and objective assessments of the SR? Or are the issues raised by the spending squeeze so controversial that they result in a spate of majority and minority reports. And if they do, who will be the majority and who will be in the minority? Most departmental committees have five Conservative members, five Labour and one Lib Dem. And it's not inconceivable that a particular Lib Dem, on a particular committee, might side with the opposition, rather than the government, resulting in an official select committee condemnation. That would not be too devastating, since it could be portrayed as a partisan verdict made possible by a maverick Liberal....

But a condemnation of - say - the defence cuts, by a united Defence Committee would be pretty wounding. I suspect the whips will be stalking the committee corridor in the next few weeks.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It was government whip John Randall who administered the coup de grace to the bill to reform MPs' expenses with a murmured "object" at 2.30pm on Friday. So, despite my conspiracy theories, Tory backbencher Parliamentary Standards (Amendment) Bill was not waved through to committee consideration without any debate. His line is that his bill is intended to stimulate discussion in Westminster and help trigger reform of the current system - which almost all MPs loath with a passion.

An alternative path for the bill might be provided via the - they could allocate Commons time for a second reading debate, but may be loath to set a precedent for giving time to private members bills, and in particular for a bill on this particular subject. Mr Afriyie could try for a ten-minute rule bill or find some other cunning manoeuvre - but his options look rather thinner today.

Elsewhere on Friday, it looks as if the "new politics" has yet to enter the strange world of private members' bills. was talked out by a band of determined Tory backbenchers - and now stands little chance of rising from the dead. For a private members' bill to be voted on, debate must either come to a natural end, in the sense that no-one else has anything left to say, or be shut down by a so-called "closure motion".

Despite the Labour front bench's refusal to support the bill, 87 backbenchers were present to support a closure, which would have allowed the Commons to vote on whether or not to give the bill a second reading - but 100 are needed to validate such a vote. So the attempt to end the debate was lost, and a kind of zombie debate, designed purely to stop proceedings petering out and allowing a vote by default, continued for an hour.

(see below) demonstrated a talent for droning remorselessly on, and invoked Cicero and Palmerston as his colleagues chortled at his erudition. Labour's eventually became irritated enough to suggest that Mr Rees-Mogg's only shop floor experience had been at Fortnum and Mason's - but the target of his ire was unruffled.

There were occasional glimpses of a rather important debate about whether current laws on the conduct of strike ballots were unreasonably restrictive - and given the level of Labour backbench support for the bill, it may well be raised again - but this was mostly an exercise in deliberate time-wasting.

Undemocratic? An abuse of process? Maybe. But if an issue is that important, shouldn't it be possible to attract 100 MPs to close the debate? The process may be pretty inglorious, but there is a certain rough and ready logic behind the working of the rules.

And it will be interesting to see if something similar happens on the next private members' Friday - when Labour's is first up, with his Sustainable Livestock Bill.

Will disciples of the , who regarded most private members' bills as flabby and vexatious, strike again?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Some new select committee inquiries for next week: the has announced a short inquiry into the cost of motor insurance, focusing on the reasons for and consequences of recent increases in the cost of motor insurance, and in particular the impact on young people. They'll also cover the extent to which the cost of motor insurance is influenced by factors like the level of accidents, insurance fraud, legal costs and the number of uninsured drivers, and whether there are public policy implications from the rise in premiums and, if so, what steps the government might take.

The will be examining the procedures for revalidation of doctors. This follows recommendations about the regulation of doctors in the reports of the public inquiries into Bristol Royal Infirmary and Harold Shipman, which prompted the last government to produce a white paper, Trust, Assurance and Safety. The key issue was revalidation, ie ensuring that medical practitioners are still safe and competent.

The is looking at of services beyond the school/college day for young people aged 13-25. They will cover youth clubs, sporting, musical and cultural activities - and targeted services for vulnerable groups. But they won't include careers services.

Next week's Westminster highlights include:

Monday
In the Commons, Day 5 of the committee of the whole house on the Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill - including Charles Walker's amendment on the number of ministers (see below).

The probe the government's recent decision to revoke and abolish regional spatial strategies (RSSs). The committee will be considering the impact of this change on the strategic planning system, focussing particularly on the implications for new house building. It will also consider the government's proposed new incentives for house building (the "New ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖs Bonus").

Tuesday
In the Commons it's Nick Clegg's second question time as Deputy Prime Minister - an occasion at which Labour backbenchers and Tory awkward squaddies vie to land a blow on him.

On the committee corridor, the has a session on firearms control, with the Police Complaints Commission, the Countryside Alliance and others.

The will hold its second evidence session on public expenditure - witnesses: National Health Service Confederation, the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Adults' Social Services.

Business Secretary Vince Cable and Higher Education Minister David Willetts will give evidence on the effects of the Spending Review to the . And the is taking evidence on the funding of arts and heritage.

And watch out for the hearing on operations in Afghanistan, where the witnesses are two Ministry of Defence spin doctors talking about how they present operations to the media.

Wednesday
In the Commons PMQs is followed by the second reading of the Postal Services Bill - which would allow for the privatisation of the Royal Mail (the sorting and delivery part of the operation - not the Post Offices) and possibly for the mutualisation of the Post Offices - perhaps as some kind of cooperative. Former minister Pat McFadden, who worked on Labour's plans for part privatisation of the Royal Mail, said in an interview for Today in Parliament that colleagues who opposed his bill should realise that the result has been a Coalition Bill that they like even less.

In the Lords, there's a debate on the Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance.

The will be looking at youth unemployment and the Future Jobs Fund, and the will continue its probe into the University of East Anglia's climate change e-mails saga.

And the Education Committee continues its examination into behaviour and discipline in schools, with evidence from head teachers and school governors. Finally, the Transport Committee will be quizzing Secretary of State Phillip Hammond on where the spending axe will fall within his department.

Thursday
The Commons will hold a general debate on George Osborne's Spending Review, and the Lords will debate the NHS.

The will begin its inquiry into the Spending Review with the former Cabinet Secretary Lord Turnbull - they're expected to focus on whether the Whitehall machine can deliver the savings required of it. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee continues its inquiry into the practical and constitutional issues that emerged following the general election in May 2010. They'll question expert academic witnesses, following their earlier evidence sessions with David Laws, Lord Adonis and Oliver Letwin. Meanwhile the Public Administration Committee will be hearing from the head of the Civil Service, Sir Gus O'Donnell.

Friday
The Commons chamber is taken over by the UK Youth Parliament for a series of debates, chaired by the Speaker, on subjects including whether sex and relationships education be compulsory from primary school onwards? Should university tuition fees rise? Should the school leaving age be raised to 18 immediately in order to lower youth unemployment? And should we withdraw all British troops from Afghanistan by 2012?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

It's the first day of debate in the new House of Commons and the times, they are a-changing, a bit.

Mr Speaker Bercow was in the chair for the first hour and has already made it clear that he won't tolerate gratuitous time-wasting speeches being used to "talk out" bills. The rules mean that a private member's bill cannot be voted on unless a second reading debate has either come to a natural end, or been closed by a vote of 100 MPs - so bills can be killed if their opponents just keep on talking.

As I write the Bury North Conservative, has been speaking for 45 minutes in the debate on John McDonnell's Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill - and he has already been gently rebuked both by Mr Bercow and . It looks as if the Speaker wants to apply the rules more rigorously, so those wanting to talk out a bill will have to offer more than a general ramble around the subject.

Mr Nuttall, with the assistance of assorted backbench allies, who're intervening to ply him with helpful comments and soft questions, has so far kept on the right side of the line, while treating the House to a history of employment law since the dawn of time. The chair has to be seriously provoked to require an MP to sit down and shut up, but the threshold may be lower than it was under Speaker Martin.

And by the way, Mr Nuttall's has now been speaking for 65 minutes.....and counting....

UPDATE: MP Kerry McCarthy has blogged about this - . doesn't have a post about this: will scour the blogsphere to see if anyone else does.

UPDATE: David Nuttall has just sat down after speaking for 98 minutes. It's a little too early for the chair to entertain a closure motion on this debate, but it may be that enough Labour MPs are lurking in their offices to move this bill into committee. We shall see.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Continuing my series of weird and wacky moments in Parliament...

A surreal moment in the House of Lords this afternoon, when regaled peers with "an obscene account of Herman Goering having sexual congress with a lady kangaroo, which ultimately proved fatal to him because it wouldn't stop jumping..."

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

After the schooling they've had over the last couple of years, MPs are painfully aware that they need to be seen to be sharing the economic pain.

In comments on the post about IPSA below, Turron asked if MPs are cutting their costs in line with the rest of the public sector. Well, here's a press release I've just received from the House of Commons Commission, the administrative body for MPs' half of Parliament...

"The House of Commons Commission is very aware that we are in an era of much tighter financial constraint and it recognises the important role the House must play in responding to the severe budgetary pressures on public services.

The Commission has agreed already to reduce expenditure by at least 17% in real terms by 2014/15*.

Initial savings this financial year amounting to £12m from the budget of £231m have been announced previously by the Commission but a wider savings programme is underway to identify and achieve the 17% reduction in budget over the longer term. No areas of House spending have been ring-fenced in this process.

The Commission has now concluded that the level of savings demanded by the current financial climate calls for a fundamental review of the services provided by the House. House management will work to identify where and how it can best be re-structured to run most efficiently in future while more effectively achieving its aims. The Commission will take a decision on how best to proceed by the end of the year.

*In December 2009, the Commission announced plans to cut House expenditure by 9% by the end of 2012/13 before the Government had revealed its plans. However the wider public sector is calculating its saving programme over a longer period to 2014/15. The Commission has decided therefore to re-express the target for the House of Commons using the same assumptions as regards inflation and timescale as those used by the wider public sector. This equates to a reduction in expenditure of 17% in real terms by 2014/15.

Details of current areas of savings to be made this financial year can be found "

Meanwhile , who has a private members bill to reform IPSA on the Commons agenda for Friday, has issued a statement emphasising that his proposals will save the taxpayer £4m, or 5% of the total expenses bill.

He is asking party leaders to allow the bill to go forward to debate at committee stage this Friday, which can be done by instructing the whips not to object to the bill - and then hoping no individual member does so.

Money quote: "Given the cuts in government expenditure announced this week, this is the right time to look at reducing the cost of MPs and the huge administration costs of the IPSA. I want to start the discussion about cutting the massive waste of tax-payers' money by introducing a simpler, more transparent system that cannot be abused and which costs less than the current system.

"That is what this bill seeks to achieve. It may be too early for this bill. It may fall at the first hurdle, especially given the on-going expenses revelations, but I think we have a responsibility to begin looking at what might save money and improve the current system. I am asking the leaders of the main political parties to avoid making political capital out of this issue and allow it to pass the first stage on Friday, so that the matter can be considered in committee."

Mr Afriyie is one of the few MPs never to have claimed the personal expenses or allowances - he regarded the pre-IPSA system as a minefield which could only result in trouble; an analysis which, to say the least, has been vindicated by events. And he is wealthy enough not to have needed to claim. That, incidentally, is one of the major class divides in the Commons - those MPs who are wealthy enough not to need expenses - and those who're not.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I tend to refer, rather glibly, to the "detailed scrutiny" being given to the Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill by the full House of Commons.

It turns out that it is more detailed than I imagined, probing the Latin roots of the word "alternative", the better to understand what an "alternative vote" actually is. As a public service here's a taste of the full majesty of that committee stage scrutiny:

Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con): The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) made a good point about some people effectively having three, four or five votes. However, is it not the case that the meaning of the word "alternative" is "one of two", from its true Latin derivation, "alter"? My hon. Friend's amendment is therefore technically and linguistically absolutely correct. If the system is to be called the alternative vote system, the sense of "one of two" must come into it somewhere, not the sense of "one of four or five".

Mr Chope:

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. She and I have not colluded on this, but I took the precaution of looking up the definition of "alternative" and its usage in the "Shorter Oxford English Dictionary", which says:
"Some traditionalists maintain" - I think that she and I are both in that category - "from an etymological standpoint, that you can only have a maximum of two alternatives (from the Latin alter 'other (of two)') and that uses where there are more than two alternatives are erroneous."

However, the dictionary then says: "Such uses are, however, normal in modern standard English."

More is the pity, but that is the factual situation as described in the dictionary. However, the sense that I have described is how those of us who are traditionalists, as well as a lot of other people, understand the word "alternative". Indeed, although I am reluctant ever to criticise a word that he says, earlier on we heard the Prime Minister use the word "less" when he meant "fewer".

Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP): The hon. Gentleman is giving us a lecture on the difference between prescriptive and descriptive grammar. ...
[...]

Mr Chope: I want to draw another analogy. If the alternative vote system proposed by the Government in the Bill were adopted, people would be encouraged to rank the number of candidates from one to however many, in order of preference. I think that a lot of our constituents have difficulty in being sure about the relative merits of one or two candidates, yet we would be expecting them to list perhaps nine candidates in order of preference. If we tried to rate fast-food outlets in order of preference, we would need not only to work out which one we liked the most, but to rank Starbucks, McDonald's, Subway, Café Nero, KFC, Burger King and Pret A Manger in order of preference. It is quite complicated for people to rate, say, one as their sixth preference and another as their seventh. Such a voting system would be demanding and result in people having to spend a lot more time in the polling booth poring over the information about the candidates. Indeed, they would need to get a lot more information before they could exercise an informed choice.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Are MPs about to strike back against what they regard as the evil empire - their expenses watchdog, ?

It could happen this Friday, if they're prepared to weather the inevitable media storm.

Friday in the Commons is private members' bill day, and we can expect some quite lively debate on Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill, which seeks to prevent strike ballots being ruled illegal because of what he regards as trivial procedural errors. There are bills on sports ground safety, (from ) secured lending (where a house or some other property is used as a security for borrowing - from ) and electoral law (from .)

So it looks unlikely, though not impossible, that MPs will reach the fifth bill on their agenda, Parliamentary Standards (Amendment) Bill. Mr Afriyie is offering MPs a chance to reform the great bugbear of parliamentary life - the new look expenses system overseen by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA). I've finally laid my hands on a copy of the bill - which seeks to replace the whole elaborate edifice constructed since the expenses scandal with a simple regional allowance system.

The argument is that the result would be impossible to cheat, much cheaper to administer, and would save the taxpayer several million pounds - while freeing MPs from a massive and hated bureaucratic burden.

MPs would get a single, simple allowance, depending on the region in which their seat was located. But since there would be no item-by-item accounting for how the money was spent, it would arguably be less transparent - although there could be amendments to address that point.

Behind the scenes Mr Afriyie has lobbied just about every authority figure in the Commons and hundreds of individual MPs. So will all that effort come to nothing on Friday, if the bill is not debated? That will depend on whether someone objects to the bill going forward - if it is debated, it is unlikely there would be enough MPs present to vote it through, if someone opposed it.

If not, at 2.30 on Friday, the clerks will read out a list of bills that which have not been discussed, and after each title is announced, a government whip normally shouts "object". This ritual pushes the bills onto a future agenda. But if no-one (and it doesn't have to be a whip) says "object", the unobjected bill is deemed to have received a second reading, and goes forward for detailed consideration in committee. It looks as if Mr Afriyie is hoping that this will happen to him.

Even after the arrival of a new, untainted, generation of MPs, the issue of expenses remains radioactive - and it may well be that the government whips, or even some individual, decides to block the bill. Plenty of MPs hate the current system and almost no-one would die in a ditch to protect it...but many also fear the return of the dread and angst which pervaded Westminster when the scandal was at fever pitch, and a 2pm phone call from the Daily Telegraph could signal the end of a parliamentary career. But if the bill does go into committee, the system could be transformed - although the fear and loathing factor should mean that there is no return to pre-crisis troughing.

Alternatively, Mr Afriyie could ask the Backbench Business Committee to allocate time to allow him a second reading debate. IPSA is certainly a matter of concern to all MPs - but there is some question over whether the committee has the power to put bills before the Commons. It would certainly be a precedent-setting move, but then almost every action they take is precedent-setting at the moment.

What is obvious, looking at the bill, is that a great deal of careful work has gone into it - far more than would be necessary for a token, doomed piece of legislation. I think Mr Afriyie has a plan...

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

In the not-too-distant future some unfortunate minister is going to have to lay before the Commons a bill that none of the parties wants anything to do with. It will be a bill to give at least some of the guests residing in Her Majesty's prison system the vote.

The Franchise for Felons Bill (and you can bet someone in the Ministry of Justice has been tasked with thinking of a better title) is one of the nasty little time-bombs left in the coalition's in-tray by the previous government - as a result of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights.

The ECHR has ruled in a series of cases, and in particular in that the current blanket removal of all prisoners right to vote was a violation of Article 3 of the First Protocol to the - the right to "free and fair elections".

The Council of Europe warned in March that prisoners' right to vote should be secured in time for the forthcoming general election, or their rights would be breached, but nothing was done - and probably nothing could have been done at that late stage.

Since then there have been further euro-rumblings, and prisoners could go to court to seek compensation if they are not able to vote in next year's Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland elections, and in the referendum on electoral reform. But things get a bit more fraught come the next European Parliament elections, in 2014. UK elections are held under UK law, but euro-elections are held under European law, which means that European courts could award compensation and the British government could be fined.

The terms of the various ECHR rulings don't mean that every prisoner would have the right to vote - but that a simple blanket ban amounted to a breach of human rights. So the coalition will have to work out which prisoners should be allowed to vote and which should not. And since no political endeavour is more unwelcome than the business of drawing lines, all sorts of Opposition merriment will doubtless result.

Of course there those who think that giving prisoners the vote would help them re-integrate into society - including the and the former Chief Inspector of Prisons, Lord Ramsbotham. But the enfranchisement is unlikely to be confined to serial parking offenders - the perpetrators of some quite serious crimes would probably be included - and so a blast of wrath can be expected when the deed is done.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

If we're going to cut the number of MPs, shouldn't we also cut the number of ministers? That's the question which will be posed next week by

The Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill includes plans to cut the size of the House of Commons from 650 seats to 600 - and he argues that if we don't cut the current number of ministers in proportion (or preferably by more) the tentacles of patronage will slither into a tighter grip on the windpipe of Parliament. The phalanx of ministers bound to vote for whatever the government does, or to resign, will form a greater proportion of the Commons, and government will become incrementally more powerful.

So he has proposed an amendment to the bill requiring a proportional cut in the number of ministers, if the cut in MPs goes through. His new clause 7 may or may not be called, and it's not clear at what point it would come up in the three full days of committee stage deliberation planned for next week. But there is an important argument about the burgeoning size of the executive in Parliament - the payroll vote has grown inexorably, and equally important in MPs' career calculations, so has the prospect of joining it.

It's a handy instrument for a prime minister to wield, when there's a tough economic situation and the political awkwardness of a coalition to sustain. Twice this week there have been instances of extreme whipping - on the AV Bill itself, and on the EU Budget debate.

And if those arguments don't impress MPs, those awaiting the cull that will follow when the cut in Commons numbers is agreed might be tempted by the prospect of inflicting a similar cull on their ministers. Revenge is a dish best served with some sauce on the side.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Thanks to those who took a moment to comment on what I should put in my weekly parliamentary preview.

I can try to give some advance warning of forthcoming select committee reports - but it may be a while before most committees are publishing reports, because most of their inquiries are only just getting under way. I'm afraid it would be impossible for me to provide a comprehensive review of committee business - I just don't have the time. To date there are 15 Commons select committees scheduled for next week, mostly crammed into Tuesday and Wednesday - and I can't watch them all and analyse their conclusions, let along glean gossip and behind the scenes intrigue. My colleagues on Today in Parliament report the highlights, and ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Parliament broadcasts the best action at weekends. I can only comment on the few I do manage to watch and investigate, I'm afraid.

Anyway, this is what's happening next week:

Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday in the Commons chamber are devoted to further committee stage consideration of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill - including the really touchy bit, as far as MPs are concerned: the plans for the wholesale redrawing of constituency boundaries.

But the mega-event of the week will undoubtedly be George Osborne's unveiling, on Wednesday, of the Spending Review (apparently, it's not a Comprehensive Spending Review, perhaps because that is a Brownism that has been abandoned in the coalition era, although Sir George Young apparently didn't get the memo in time for this week's Commons Business Statement). The Chancellor will set out how he plans to eliminate the deficit within four years - and indicate where his spending axe will fall.

As an appetiser, on Tuesday the prime minister will be unveiling the conclusions of the Strategic Defence and Security Review - which is a mega-event in its own right. The advance billing suggests this will be done in two parts - the first spelling out the "context" for the reshaping of the armed forces, which presumably means the estimate of the security threats to Britain - and the second the actual details of which nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, fighters etc will stay and which will go.

But it is extremely interesting that it is David Cameron who will make the statement, rather than the Defence Secretary Liam Fox - whose leaked letter warning that the review looked like a damaging cuts exercise rather than a strategic rethink is bound to be quoted extensively by opposition - and government - MPs. He will doubtless be sitting next to his boss, on the front bench, and will have to remain pretty impassive. The slightest frown will be taken as more evidence of a split.

Friday sees the first debates on private members' bills in this parliament - starting with Labour left-winger John McDonnell's Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill, which aims to stop strike ballots being ruled invalid by the courts, because of minor procedural errors.

Those big statements will be repeated in the Lords - and look out for the reaction to the SDSR from the phalanx of generals, admirals and top brass who sit in the upper House.

In the last parliament, they launched a sustained bombardment of the Labour government's defence policies - and they may prove to have equally strong views on the coalition's approach. Otherwise it's a pretty humdrum week in their Lordships' House, although Wednesday's debate on the economic and cultural benefits of immigration and Thursday's debate on special educational needs, look promising.

And there's a packed programme on the committee corridor where almost every session will boil down to an examination of the impact of spending cuts on some area of government activity.

Monday sees a report from the about the UK's national strategy (on defence and foreign policy issues). Judging by the evidence sessions, the committee may have to report that it has failed to detect any evidence that this elusive beast actually exists. (Most committees are some way from producing reports from their current inquiries - but since readers have asked, I'll do my best to trail any that I discover are about to appear.)

On Tuesday, the will be looking at how the new GP-led commissioning system will work in the NHS. The answer seems to be "nobody knows". The Department of Health insists it won't dictate a central solution and expects local approaches to evolve. With former Health Secretary Stephen Dorrell in the chair, and NHS Chief Executive Sir David Nicholson giving evidence, this could be a highly informed and possibly painful occasion.

The will be talking to the Business and Enterprise Minister Mark Prisk about the replacement of Regional Development Agencies with slimline new Local Enterprise Partnerships. The will hear the parting shot of the soon to be axed UK Film Council; the will ponder the impact of spending cuts on transport infrastructure and the will examine the effectiveness of the government's funding to develop renewable energy sources.

There will also be an entertaining-looking session at the Public Administration Committee - where ex-ministers Peter Lilley, Jeff Rooker and Chris Mullin will discuss what ministers actually do all day, and whether we need quite as many of them as we have at the moment.

The , meanwhile, will be looking into the commissioning of legal services and the issue of "advice deserts" where no solicitor is available for miles. But there may be problems because the Law Society is taking the Ministry of Justice to court over the way it awarded the latest round of contracts, so much of the subject matter could be considered sub judice unless Mr Speaker gives his dispensation to relax the Commons' normal rules.

On Wednesday, the considers the impact of the changes to housing benefit announced in the Budget, and the will look at the future of flood protection and water management, and the impact of spending cuts in that area.

It is noticeable that the arrival of Army officer-turned-diplomat Rory Stewart on the seems to have resulted in some unexpected but highly informed and vocal expert witnesses in their inquiry into Afghanistan and Pakistan. Expect more at their next hearing on Wednesday.

Justice Committee members will have something to crow about on Thursday when their report from the last parliament on Justice Reinvestment will be debated in Westminster Hall, the Commons' parallel chamber. The idea of Justice Reinvestment is to divert money from prisons and punishment to forestalling crime - an approach they say has now been picked up by the coalition's Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

And the new will be hearing from Conservative negotiator Oliver Letwin about the formation of the coalition - following on from their earlier sessions with the Lib Dems' David Laws and Labour's Lord Adonis.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

New generations are very much in vogue in Westminster - but one of the most significant emerged on Wednesday night - when a new generation of eurosceptics backed an amendment from the Conservative radical Douglas Carswell, calling on the government to reduce the British contribution to the EU budget.

Ministers argued that it would be illegal, 37 Conservatives defied an intensive whipping operation - and if some future EU-related vote ever pitted Labour against the coalition, they would be sufficient to tip the balance, and potentially defeat the government.

Now, admittedly, this would require an issue which would allow hardline eurosceptics to vote the same way as the generally more euro-friendly Labour party, but as events during the Maastricht rebellions of the late 1990s demonstrated, such conjunctions can be arranged. And incidentally, for those with long memories, the debate on the Draft EU Budget 2011 contained a piquant moment when, for the first time in history, a government minister (Economic Secretary to the Treasury Justine Greening) accepted an amendment from arch-sceptic Bill Cash on an European issue.

But the spotlight was firmly on the new generation of eurosceptic MPs - Steve Baker, Guto Bebb, Andrew Bingham, Bob Blackman, Nick de Bois, Caroline Dinenage, George Eustice, Zac Goldsmith, Robert Halfon, Chris Heaton-Harris, Gordon Henderson, Pauline Latham, Jason McCartney, Karl McCartney, Stephen Mosley, David Nuttall, Andrew Percy, Mark Reckless, Simon Reevell, Andrew Stephenson, Bob Stewart and Martin Vickers who came out to bat, at the first opportunity. There were a number of new MPs who signed Mr Carswell's amendment, but in the end were absent or abstained - Richard Drax, Chris Kelly, Kwasi Kwarteng, Andrea Leadsom, Stephen McPartland and Priti Patel.

They reinforce the old-guard eurosceptic ranks - but they may do business in a different way. More informal and less keen on set-piece confrontations. There are no plans for any new full-dress sceptic grouping, and I anticipate a more amorphous operation with a "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee" strategy, designed to ensure that what should in theory be a very eurosceptic set of Conservative ministers stick to their pre-election rhetoric. Already the European pronouncements and policies emerging from the coalition are being studied and parsed with deep suspicion.

With the spending review and defence cuts due to be announced next week, they were on strong ground when they complained that the EU could not keep expanding its budget while member states were forced into huge public-spending cuts. They have now put down a marker for the future - and the traditional pre-eurosummit debates and post summit statements could be about to become rather livelier.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Good news for the individual MPs, maybe bad news for the select committees. Ed Miliband's decision to catapult a fair number of newly-minted Labour MPs into his front-bench team may cause a bit of havoc up on the committee corridor.

Take the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee - three of its five Labour members (, and ) now have front bench jobs. By convention, they now have to quit the committee - and now that MPs are supposed to be elected, I'm really not sure what the mechanism is for choosing replacements. The elections take place within each party - so do they hold a new poll, or do the runners-up from the vote back in July gain an unexpected promotion?

The most interesting question mark hangs over , who has already established himself as one of the characters on the Treasury Committee, but is now one of his leader's two bag-carriers - his parliamentary private secretaries.

At the moment, the word is that he plans to stay on the committee. But he will have to be careful to avoid accusations that he is not speaking with his leader's voice.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It was a world weary Nick Clegg who appeared before the this morning. There were no "gotcha" moments or dramatic clashes, but there were a couple of occasions when the deputy prime minister's mask slipped - revealingly.

Asked by the Tory constitutionalist, Lord Norton, if his constitutional reforms - to the voting system, to the Lords, to parliamentary terms - would promote good governance, he responded:

"I think in terms of good governance you're talking about a government which can get on and do difficult things and, heaven knows, I know about doing difficult things, this week above all weeks..."

It sounds as if the process of compromise on student financing - and never forget how many Lib Dem MPs, Mr Clegg included, represent university seats - has taken its toll. As he uttered those words, he sounded absolutely exhausted.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The coalition emerged undented from day one of the committee stage of the Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill, thanks to a sure-footed performance by Nick Clegg's deputy, Mark Harper, and, according to the senior Conservative backbencher Bernard Jenkin, thanks to some hard-line whipping.

In yesterday's debate, Mr Jenkin lamented the failure of many of the Tory , to follow through by backing an amendment he had put down to move the date of the referendum on switching to the alternative vote away from the date of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland devolved elections, next May. Some had been made parliamentary private secretaries, one had been made deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, and others had faced "career ending threats".

By whatever means, the government swatted away amendments from the SNP's Angus McNeil (by 323 votes to 28) and from Mr Jenkin (a little closer, by 326 votes to 264) on the date. Then an interesting alliance of Green MP Caroline Lucas, Conservative radical Douglas Carswell and Labour veteran Austin Mitchell, plus the Scottish and Welsh nationalists attempted to widen the question on the referendum ballot, so that voters would be asked if they would prefer the single transferable vote system to AV or the present first past the post. STV is the system the Lib Dems would really like, but can't get the Conservatives to put to the electorate, and Dr Lucas and others had fun taunting them with their own policy. Austin Mitchell added a wounding phrase about "a thousand excuses for gutlessness" but their amendment was defeated by 346 votes to 17.

But the most obvious feature of the debate was the lack of backbench Conservatives willing to defend coalition policy. People like Julian Lewis, Eleanor Laing and Bernard Jenkin administered quite a kicking to the bill. Only uber-Cameroon new boy Nick Boles - who has already argued that the coalition should evolve into a Con-Lib electoral pact - stuck his head over the parapet to argue for the official party line. And he was the target of some pretty withering interventions and heckling, including shouts of "promotion, promotion!" when his speech was referred to later on.

I suspect this will set the pattern for the three further committee stage days scheduled for next week - although the votes may be rather tighter as MPs move on to consider the mechanism which will cut their numbers from 650 to 600. Mr Harper's considerable tact and amiability may face ever sterner tests in those debates.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Normal service is resumed at Westminster next week, when both the Lords and the Commons will swing into action.

In the past, I've tried to offer a weekly preview of the main action on the committee corridor, but I'm wondering if I should broaden it out, to preview highlights of the main business in the two houses? Below is my first stab at doing that. Any advice from readers gratefully received...

The big Commons event is on Tuesday when MPs begin detailed consideration of the - the bill to authorise the referendum on changing the voting system, and cut the number of MPs from 650 to 600 (see endless blogposts below). Because this is constitutional legislation, the clause-by-clause consideration of committee stage is taken on the floor of the House, and any MP can take part.

And further committee stage days are scheduled for Monday 18, Tuesday 19 and Wednesday 20 October. The government whips are said to be pretty confident, even joking with Tory awkward squaddies, who are planning all kinds of amendments to the bill.

But it is interesting that David Cameron thought it necessary to include an appeal not to mess with it in his conference speech. He said: "Now I know there will be compromise and I know we'll have to do things we might not like. Next May, there'll be a referendum on electoral reform. I don't want to change our voting system any more than you do. But let's not waste time trying to wreck the bill - let's just get out there and win the vote. Because you know what? At its best this party always puts country first."

Well, it's the referendum section of the bill coming up on Tuesday - when debate is expected to focus on the date, and whether it is right to hold the referendum alongside the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections. It will be a test for the amiable , Nick Clegg's Conservative deputy (the deputy deputy prime minister?) and Lib Dem Deputy Leader of the Commons David Heath, who'll be leading for the government, but my spies tell me that the focus of rebellion is moving to the constituency-cutting provisions, because the penny's dropped about the implications for individual MPs.

The debates chosen by the Backbench Business Committee on Thursday will be on compensation for NHS blood contamination, and on Anti-Slavery Day - which will cover people trafficking.

Former ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Office minister Fiona MacTaggart was instrumental in persuading the committee to let MPs debate this particular subject - she has a particular concern about women trafficked into Britain and forced into prostitution - and she'll be pressing the government to sign up to the EU directive on people trafficking, which among other things protects victims from instant deportation. (Trafficking is also debated in Westminster Hall on Tuesday, where newly elected Labour MP Emma Reynolds has an adjournment debate, and ministerial answers there could be taken down and used in evidence on Thursday.)

In the Lords, next week's most interesting-looking debate is on the report of the - a "take note" motion will be moved by the Lib Dem whip Lord Shutt of Greetland, who is the government's spokesman on Northern Ireland in the upper House. Watch out for the maiden speech from the former Director of Public Prosecutions Lord Macdonald of River Glaven - who'll be sitting as a Liberal Democrat. Maiden speeches are, by tradition, uncontroversial - but how uncontroversial can someone who's been at the centre of the legal system be, on a subject like this?

On the committee corridor, on Tuesday, the Culture Media and Sport Committee will be asking whether government funding cuts will lead to an arts apocalypse in Britain. The Arts Council's chief executive, Alan Davey, leads a panel of witnesses from the arts world - and they're expected to warn of permanent damage to the creative economy if cuts go much beyond 15%. There could also be some fun and games around the problems at The Public - the £65m digital arts centre in West Bromwich - one of the committee members is local MP Tom Watson.

With Education Secretary Michael Gove seeking to strengthen the disciplinary powers of head teachers, the Education Committee is talking to the teachers' unions and to psychologists about school discipline. And the Transport Committee is taking evidence on the law on drink and drug-driving.

On Wednesday, the from the financial watchdog the criticising the management of the Ministry of Defence budget - including the management of weapons programmes, where changes to specifications, renegotiations of contracts and postponements have run up considerable bills for the taxpayer. They will also be looking at the scope for savings in the management of the MoD's £20bn holdings of land and buildings. The witness is the Permanent Secretary at MoD, Bill Jeffrey.

The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee will hold an evidence session with Lord Saville, chairman of the Bloody Sunday inquiry.

And the Business Committee will be probing political scar tissue when it examines the coalition's decision to cancel a multi-million pound loan to Sheffield Forgemasters, which would have enabled them to manufacture parts for nuclear power stations - a decision which had constituency implications for Nick Clegg who's a Sheffield MP. The committee will be quizzing the Business Secretary Vince Cable on Thursday.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Close observers of the House of Lords may have spotted that a low level conflict that has been raging since the election ended - with defeat for the Lib Dem peers.

With the formation of the Coalition, the Lib Dems had to abandon their traditional seats, on the Opposition side nearest the throne. But they were keen to find a place where they could sit as a distinctive bloc, and opted for the simple solution of taking the seats opposite their former territory.

The snag was that those seats are, by ancient tradition the Bishops' Bench - and Right Reverend prelates, whose predecessors had defied Bloody Mary and James II, were not going anywhere. I don't think there was anything as un-lordly as actual jostling for position - it was more like pre-emptive towel-placing to secure a poolside lounger, in a hotel with large numbers of German guests.

But there was a certain irritation.

Anyway, now the Lib Dems have folded, and laid claim to a different set of seats. Metaphorical orange towels have now been placed on seats at the other end of the government side - between the middle set of benches where ministers sit at the front, and the overspill occupied by crossbench or independent peers who have been crowded out of the actual crossbenches.

Alas, new noses are now out of joint. The front bench of that section is traditionally (and tradition is almost everything in their Lordships' House) occupied by senior privy counsellors on the government side. Now it is being patrolled by Lib Dem peers who are also Right Honourable - so Shirley and Paddy and David and Bill are making sure their claim is well and truly staked.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Last week I went on the road with Mr Speaker Bercow on one of his tours to promote Parliament.

He addressed a voluntary sector conference in Manchester, then met sixth formers and people from deprived estates in Newcastle, then spoke to a politics seminar at Northumbria University, before delivering a set-piece lecture.

Everywhere, he urged people and groups to engage with their MP, and with Parliament, telling them it had never been more vital to make a case than in the era of spending cuts.

His speeches referred again and again to the fallout from what he called "the expenses disaster" which had left Parliament "looking into the abyss" - and he floated all kinds of ideas for rebuilding credibility and reconnecting with the British public, such as: select committees should "get out more" to visit the regions and nations when they were taking evidence connected to a particular area, and there should be much more use of the internet to communicate with people about what Parliament is doing, and consult with them about new laws.

Mr Bercow has already chaired a session of the UK Youth Parliament in the chamber of the Commons, and will do so again later this year - and he was keen to encourage more parliamentary-style debate of issues. Inspired by Norman Collins' 1945 novel, which featured a pre-war mock parliament, he suggested setting up an online virtual parliament which would closely follow the concerns and activities of the real one.

And on the credibility side of the equation, he hailed the performance of the "dramatically refreshed" new House of Commons, which was, he said, debating and scrutinising with far greater enthusiasm than its predecessor. He had called ministers in to answer 33 urgent questions in 15 months since taking the chair - compared to two in the last year of the previous Speaker. And the new Backbench Business Committee had facilitated the Commons first vote on British involvement in Afghanistan.....

He was also planning to ask David Cameron and Ed Miliband to use their influence to cool down the tribal clashes at prime minister's questions, which, he said, the public hated.

All this public engagement is not without its risks - and at one point Mr Bercow was drawn into opposing a law banning the burkha. There is a private member's bill proposing this in play at the moment - from the Conservative Phillip Hollobone. But there are scores of bills and motions sloshing around in the lower reaches of the Commons order paper, so perhaps something of the sort was bound to happen eventually.

He also defended his wife's right to express her views on Twitter - insisting his obligation to be impartial didn't extend to her.

Most of the audiences he spoke to were polite and politically engaged - but the best bit of the trip, for me, at least, was the session with people from Newcastle's deprived estates, part of an event organised by Barnardo's and other groups. This was an audience who were not interested in the constitutional nuances of the role of Speaker. They were all concerned about impending benefit cuts - and the poverty traps that lurk within the present system... One told the Speaker he didn't like being preached to about the necessity for cuts, by MPs who were living in the lap of "*$£@*&!** luxury".

I couldn't help thinking that everyone who is concerned about the welfare system should have to sit in a room like that.

Mr Speaker is in Birmingham on Friday for a similar exercise. And he insists that the Commons has to demystify itself and reach out to voters who don't see what parliamentary politics has to do with them.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Back in September, Dr Malcolm Jack, the Clerk of the Commons, the House's resident expert on procedural questions, caused a few ripples when he suggested that there were serious legal complications with the coalition's Fixed Term Parliaments Bill.

This is the bill which seeks to set the date of the next general election for May 2015 - and require that all parliaments serve for a five year term, unless a two-thirds majority of the Commons voted for an early dissolution. It was given a second reading in the Commons in September, and will come back for detailed committee consideration by the whole House. In effect the bill would take away a prime minister's right to call an election at a moment of their choice - a right which gives a considerable tactical advantage to a governing party. But this simple-sounding idea requires a whole series of mechanisms to make it work. You have to define a two thirds majority, and the bill would require the Speaker to certify it had been achieved.

A government can still lose office on a simple majority vote - but the bill would mean that an election would not automatically follow. (I'm not sure that is the letter of the present constitutional convention, but it's what would usually happen) Instead, there would be a 14 day period for negotiations to form a new government - and only if none appeared would an election be triggered.

Dr Jack's worry about all this was that the very act of setting down in law the requirements for a dissolution vote, would allow the courts to rule on whether the vote had been properly taken - and in the worst-case scenario, to call off a general election in mid campaign. All kinds of issues could be in play. Had some MPs missed the votes because of a defective division bell in some remote corner of the Palace of Westminster? Had someone been double counted? Should the required two-thirds majority take account of the Sinn Fein MPs who don't take their seats in Westminster? The potential flaws in a vote are almost endless.

But the deputy prime minister need not fear for his bill, the Lords Constitution Committee heard on Wednesday, thanks to .

Bradlaugh was an atheist, a republican and an ultra-radical. And when he was elected he was prevented from taking the oath by an alliance of Tory MPs, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other bishops in Parliament. He fought for six years to be admitted to the Commons, winning re-election in Northampton four times in the process, and even being imprisoned in the cells in the Clock Tower.

But his contribution to the current bill came when he challenged the Commons authorities in the courts, to try to win the right to enter the House. His case was dismissed by Mr Justice Stephens in brisk style. He ruled that the courts had no right to interfere in the internal procedures of the Commons, and that ruling stands to this day.

So the very high-powered membership of the (it includes former Lord Chancellor Derry Irvine, former Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith, former Leader of the Lords Lady Jay, former Welsh Secretary Nick Edwards, now Lord Crickhowell, constitutional savant Lord Norton, and uber-barrister Lord Pannick among its distinguished cast) were treated to a rather brusque dismissal of Dr Jack's claims. "A very poor argument," said Oxford professor Anthony Bradley. "Highly unlikely," added UCL's Professor Dawn Oliver.

So one less issue for Nick Clegg to address when he appears before the committee next Wednesday - unless Dr Jack comes up with a counterblast. But they still have plenty of nits to pick. Should the fixed term for a parliament be five years, or maybe four? Should an election be triggered by a change of prime minister? Does this bill really stop a governing party manipulating an election date to its own advantage? Is it wise to limit the option to go to the country?

And above all, isn't this very profound change being pushed through without proper scrutiny, merely to suit the current requirement to handcuff the coalition partners together? The DPM can expect a tough time.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

There can't be many occasions when news of someone's elevation (sic) to the House of Lords sends a ripple of pleasure through the political world. But the arrival of Peter Hennessey, Attlee Professor of Contemporary British History, , will surely be one.

He's the master analyst of British public policy - and has forgotten more about the way our system works than many cabinet ministers ever discover. More than that, he's an interviewer's dream - entertaining as well as incisive.

I had the pleasure of interviewing him for ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Parliament's BOOKtalk about his newly updated book, back in the summer.

He was able to make frankly terrifying material about how Britain would have responded to nuclear attack fascinating and morbidly funny. Did you know that nuclear scientists working for the MoD included a "spot the mushroom cloud" competition in their super-secret house magazine, in which contestants had to guess where a nuclear weapon had detonated, in order to produce a particular pattern of fallout? Tee hee, the long weeks in the bunkers would have just flown by.

He has written about Whitehall, the prime ministers, the British constitution and he has traced public policy through the 1940s and 1950s, and is soon to dispose of the 1960s too. So, in the best tradition of the Lords, he has a huge amount of knowledge to deploy - the only snag is that many of the sources for his best information will be sitting around him in the Upper House, a legion of elder statespersons, senior civil servants and diplomats and academics, which might constrain his muse a little.

* Also appointed: Sheila Hollins, professor in psychiatry of disability at St George's, University of London. Her research has focussed on clinical and social aspects of the mental and physical health of people with learning disabilities, with a particular focus on bereavement, palliative care and sexual abuse. She practised as a consultant psychiatrist and also co-authored a book with her husband, Martin Hollins, You and Your Child with a Learning Disability.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

As Ed Miliband indicated his personal support for changing to the Alternative Vote (AV), at the referendum the coalition wants to hold next year, suggests that if the last election had been fought under that system, we'd have had an even more hung parliament.

The article by David Sanders, Harold Clarke and Paul Whitely of the University of Essex, and Marriane Stewart of the University of Texas, uses data from the authoritative 2010 , which asked a sample of voters to give their second preferences, to predict an AV result of Conservatives 284 (actual result 307) seats, Labour 248 (258) and Lib Dems 89 (57). (Northern Ireland seats were not included in their calculations).

I'm no polling expert, and couldn't make any serious comment on the validity of their methods and calculations, but if they're right, AV would have transformed the post-election bargaining. I never believed the "rainbow coalition" of Labour, the Lib Dems and the Nationalists was a workable alternative to the Lib Con coalition that eventually arrived. First, too many disparate parties would have had to be signed up - the lone Green and Alliance Party MPs, for example, would have been important players.

Second, many people on the Labour side thought that the price of SNP and Plaid support would, naturally, have been a better deal for Scotland and Wales than was received by England - and paying it would have been electoral suicide in England. But on the figures projected in the study, a Lib-Lab deal could have provided a working majority without recourse to other parties. And armed with another viable choice, Nick Clegg would have gone into the negotiations with a much stronger hand - whoever he emerged with.

All this will doubtless feed into the calculations around the detailed Commons consideration of the Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill, which starts on Tuesday 12 October. MPs have been making all kinds of assumptions about who would get who's second preferences in a future election - and applying them to their own circumstances, as they imagine they will be come the next rendezvous with the voters.

There's an assumption that almost all UKIP voters would put the Conservatives as their second preference, but in this study, 49% of voters in England who'd put UKIP as their first choice would put the Tories second, 17%would put the BNP second, 14% the Lib Dems and 12% the Greens - only 8% would go for Labour as their second choice. So the routine adding of the UKIP vote to the Tory vote, to assert that UKIP cost the Conservatives X seats, has to be approached a bit more carefully.

Labour would be the second choice of 40% of English Lib Dems, compared to 27% who'd put the Conservatives second and 21% the Greens. There are some interesting variations across the UK - in Wales the Lib Dems are the overwhelming second choice of Plaid voters - 58% - but in Scotland Labour would get the biggest share of SNP transfers, 32%, ahead of the Lib Dems at 27%. And in Scotland the Conservatives don't do well at all on the transfer market - they get second preferences from 54% of UKIP voters, which is not all that many actual voters, and from 16% of Lib Dems, but not much else.

Another table provides some intriguing data about the workings of the transfer market in the English regions - the Lib Dems would have received around two-thirds of Labour second preferences pretty much everywhere - although the figure dropped to 59% in London. How will the experience of the coalition change that, I wonder? Equally, Lib Dem voters were a bit more likely to give their second preferences to Labour in every region but the South East - how will five years of a governing partnership change that? And how will it influence the more than half of Conservative voters across England who would have given their second preferences to the Lib Dems?

And how would all of these projections have played out in seats? Helpfully, the paper includes a projection for English constituencies (excluding Mr Speaker's Buckingham and late-polling Thirsk and Malton). They found that under AV the Conservatives would have been 19 seats worse off, mainly because they would have failed to gain any from the Lib Dems, who would have ended up with 69 seats rather than 43. And, interestingly, they project that the Greens would not have been denied the Commons breakthrough and would have succeeded in capturing Brighton Pavilion - although they admit a bit of guesswork was applied to that particular seat.

Other English seats where an AV voting system would have meant a different result include Hove and Brentford and Isleworth which they believe would have been held by Labour, and Islington South and Newcastle North which would have gone to the Lib Dems.

But of course, if the coalition manages to get its bill to cut the number of parliamentary seats to 600, many - perhaps most - constituency boundaries will be rather different come the next election, so the constituency projections start to look rather more like historical speculation. What these projections do achieve is to ensure any MP who didn't get close to 50% of their constituency vote should be feeling more than a little nervous, if AV is approved in the referendum. Take the three-way marginal of Norwich South, where the Lib Dem Simon Wright triumphed on 29.4% of the vote, with Labour on 28.7% and the Conservatives on 22.9%, with a substantial Green vote of 14.9% as well. Who knows how the preference game might play out there, come the next election.

A while ago, on Today in Parliament, I interviewed the Conservative MP Mark Menzies about his experiences helping out in the Australian elections, which are already fought on a version of AV. He told me the parties cut deals to recommend second preference votes to their supporters and campaign aggressively to get those vital second and third choice votes. He wasn't a convert to AV - but he reported that it made for a very different kind of politics and national and constituency level. This paper bears him out.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

, listing some of those who're racking up considerable outside earnings "in addition to my duties in this house".

Some of the earnings are indeed pretty impressive and the figures, as the Mail comments, could well "re-open the row about 'part time MPs'". Only 87 of the 650 MPs declared no outside interests, in the first official register of such interests to be compiled in the new Parliament. Hmmm.

Let me stick my neck out a little - I've always thought the argument against such interests is a bit of an easy hit. Here's why. One of the most compelling complaints against the Westminster village is that it has become a hermetically sealed environment, in which the polliterati never have to encounter the outside world - so I worry about any tightening of the rules which would block another avenue of contact between village people and "real life".

When MPs began to complain about the bureaucratic horrors they experienced dealing with their new expenses system, many commentators welcomed them to the experience of ordinary citizens dealing with bureaucracy...so having MPs who run businesses, practice law, or medicine, or (in at least one case) dentistry, sit on boards, advise community groups or whatever, is one way of breaking through that Westminster insulation.

Second, just how do we judge what is an appropriate workload? There are plenty of jobs that will absorb every effort their holder can offer... and still demand more. For MPs, there is always another event to attend, another meeting to go to, another vote in the Commons, another committee where they could contribute. Most invitations to an MP to appear on the Friday night Today in Parliament result in protracted negotiations with a harassed aide - and the task of getting three busy people into the same studio at the same time to discuss some Commons subject can be a nightmare. So my experience is that our MPs are pretty busy people, working hard at a demanding job.

(And incidentally, the statistics can be misleading. An impressive number of questions put down may be the product of some diligent American intern, the total of speeches may be imposing, but was the House bored rigid, or empty?).

Which brings me to my central argument on all these issues. The judges of an MP's performance should be their constituents. Not working hard enough? Vote 'em out. Flouting their views? Vote 'em out. Stained by scandal? ....you get the picture. What I dread is the idea that someone is going to sit down and pen a specific job description that will become binding - or even suggest a standardised way of doing the job against which they come to be judged. It has always been for individual MPs to work out how best to do their job, and for their constituents to pass judgement on their performance at each election. Specifying X constituency surgeries and Y votes in the Chamber and Z speeches to be delivered puts MPs on the road to utter irrelevance, and imposes an unrealistic and misleading definition on the subtle, multi-faceted and almost indefinable task of providing democratic political representation.

And I thought the target culture was being scrapped.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?