OU blog

Personal Blogs

Barnhill, Jura. June 2015. (Thanks to the kindness of the Fletcher family).

Who has control when ‘taking back control’?

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by John Gynn, Thursday, 10 Jan 2019, 20:18

In A Business Statement today the Leader of the House, Andrea Leadsom, MP for South Northamptonshire, seems to have decided not to let lie the contested issues arising in yesterday’s fractious Points of Order.

Northamptonshire is, of course, the county famed for the quality of its cobblers.

There is more than a little that is (understandably) personal in the persistence shown by the Leader of the House. In May 2018, Andrea Leadsom’s parliamentary reputation was, if not charred, at least singed, in a less than flattering aside regarding the merits of some issues she had been discussing in May 2018:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/17/john-bercow-accused-of-making-stupid-woman-remark-to-andrea-leadsom

The parliamentary flames have been fuelled by a tension between the Government’s determinedly (perhaps obsessively) strict shepherding of Parliamentary business relating to the parliamentary process of withdrawal from the EU- with all the delicacy of a frantic sheep dip - and the concerns, more widely in the Commons, that the process is so frenetic as to be unedifying: Sheep are being dipped backwards, sideways and upside-down.

The Executive seems to have unilaterally bagged exclusive ‘control’ - now crystallizing in parliamentary scheduling as it is absorbed from the referendum rhetoric. The subtle emphasis in control like a wraith manifesting from swirling sulphurous smoke.

It is as if the Government has been bewitched by the notion of ‘control’ as if it were some Arkenstone or Ring of Power from the imagination of J.R.R. Tolkein.

The widespread concern in the Commons - regarding the obsessive shepherding of the parliamentary schedule  - encompasses politicians from across the party spectrum including several, at least, from the Government’s own back benches.

Overwhelmed by the proximity of control Mrs. May seems to be suffering from the treasure sickness that befell Thorin Oakenshield in Tolkein’s ‘The Hobbit’.

Reports indicate that the Prime Minister is unwilling to countenance counsel even from her own Cabinet. Those with a (justifiable) claim to the treasures released from the clutches of the Dragon (SmEUg?) have gathered like the assembled coalition at the gates of the Lonely Mountain to argue for a share of the spoils against an intransigent Theresa/Thorin.

But the Government have the high ground. Like Thorin and his dwarves, they are in a formidable, near impregnable, defensive position.

Mrs May and the Leader of the House certainly have dominant control of the parliamentary schedule. Moreover the Government is construing the rule book that helps to regulate their control of business in a manner that takes literal interpretation to a new level.

For example, the Leader of the House argued for a literal interpretation to be given to the words of parliamentary process in Erskine May that had sparked the flames in yesterday’s Points of Order:

“If the honourable gentleman looks at Erskine May he will see that ‘forthwith’ means unamendable and not debatable”. She continued by asserting that the role of the Speaker is to uphold the rules of the House not “arbitrarily” to change them

The Speaker, forthrightly and immediately, challenged any suggestion that there had been anything arbitrary in what was done.

There might be some, tenuous, legitimacy for an Executive to seek to maintain the rigidity of the rulebook in its favour where it has a significant majority.

For a minority Government, supported by a minority party, to dominate Parliament runs counter to proper parliamentary balance. That is for the tail to wag the dog.

Particularly in such circumstances, there is an exceptionally strong argument that the Speaker is entitled to adopt something of a purposive approach in interpreting the rules of parliamentary procedure in order to address any constitutional imbalance arising from the dominant parliamentary position held by a minority.

To do otherwise would be to reflect Lord Hailsham’s elective dictatorship in the form of a minority Executive with tyrannical control over parliamentary business.

The same Speaker who, in 2013, selected an amendment which gave impetus to the movement that saw the EU referendum take place can hardly be charged with partiality.

Nancy Pelosi, a similarly forceful speaker in circumstances that are not too different, is set to undertake very much the same role in balancing the constitutional bow-waves caused by an Executive bent on using emergency powers in order to implement their policy.


Permalink 1 comment (latest comment by John Gynn, Friday, 18 Jan 2019, 10:02)
Share post

This blog might contain posts that are only visible to logged-in users, or where only logged-in users can comment. If you have an account on the system, please log in for full access.

Total visits to this blog: 191037