NO2ID CAMPAIGN

The ever-reliable John Lettice at The Register reports that those excellent folk at NO2ID (website here) are calling in the donations offered as part of its 2005 'refuse' pledge (relevant details here). I urge everyone and anyone to contemplate lending this very worthwhile campaign their support

The NO2ID introductory editorial has it spot on:

"In 2005 a still-popular Labour government was re-elected against an "unelectable" opposition. One manifesto commitment, sold on that occasion as immigration control, was a National Identity Register. Policy makers thought it was a pretty good idea. The public scarcely noticed.

"But when they are summoned to an official interview about who they are and where they live - they'll notice."

And, as they say: "Now the government seems to have started work on the [ID Cards] scheme in earnest" with no doubt the tabling of a welter of statutory instruments to give effect to their plans now imminent.

John Lettice's article makes the wholly valid point that, in respect of these items of secondary legislation:

"... little or no debate takes place, and many of them are barely noticed. "They come before Parliament on a wet Wednesday," says Herbert. "Or they're even tabled over a recess, so that at the end of the recess three men and a dog vote them through" and virtually nobody notices."

That said - and I'm trying to be constructive and helpful here - a very useful and effective vehicle does exist for legitimate objections to be raised in the shape of the "House of Lords Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments" (homepage here). In fact, in recent times it has been instrumental in giving expression to justified concerns over a wide range of issues arising out of statutory instruments (as with Super Casinos here, HIPS (Home Information Packs) here and here, and the National Children's Database here). In fact, so far as the first of these is concerned, the relevant statutory instrument was debated on the floor of the House (here + subsequent pages), following which the Lords voted the measure down. Corresponding debates (without being taken to a vote) took place on the other two issues (here and here respectively) with all three being informed by the overtly trenchant (to varying degrees) criticisms of the Merits Committee. In effect, while not perfect, its existence does guarantee some degree of scrutiny of these insidious bits of legislation, provided of course appropriate representations are made to it.

So I hope NO2ID are up-to-speed about this and are actively considering using the Committee as a conduit to permit pledgees to make their views known about any nasties that the Government might drop in our laps. I'm sure they are!

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH DEBATE

It can be quite revealing to see which Ministers/Spokesmen are allocated to which days in the debates on the Queen's Speech (or more correctly, "on the Motion that a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty").

So, on Wednesday in the House of Lords the expected topics for debate will be "Consumer Affairs, Industry, Energy and Economic Affairs". All good and well. Now, normally one would anticipate that the Government would put up their Treasury spokesman (as it happens Lord Davies of Oldham) either to open or close the day's debate, the more so given that substantial Treasury bills were trailed in the Queen's Speech - certainly the proposed legislation "to protect depositors and ensure confidence in the banking system" (in the wake of Northern Rock) and, perhaps not quite so meaty, the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill. But, as revealed here on the Government Whips' web-site, the Government will in fact be represented by Lord (Digby) Jones of Birmingham (DBERR and FCO) and Lord McKenzie of Luton (DWP).

Of course the former is a Minister of State and the latter is a PUSS so, nominally, they are both 'senior' to Lord Davies (as Deputy Chief Whip in the Lords) and that may account for this slightly off-key arrangement. But equally could it not be possible that Lord Davies is being 'punished' for his gaffe a month or so back - as commented upon by Iain Dale here? Or - and probably more likely bearing in mind the gist of Iain's last paragraph - could it be that the Government's business managers are trying to circumvent their Lordships from being able to indulger in detailed and effective scrutiny of the current state of the UK economy?

It seems to me that this could be a trend well worth watching.

Unforeseen consequences (?) re Queen's Speech duties

I am reliably informed that there is a certain amount of consternation amongst (some of) the membership of the HoL. Whatever you may feel about the 'pomp and circumstance' of the State Opening of Parliament - personally, I think it retains measures of usefulness as a means of properly defining the start (and end) of the parliamentary year, a significant consideration particularly for the Opposition - it is important, I think, that the status of the respective Houses should be maintained.

Against that background, there has been some speculation as to who, in fact, will hand the speech to the Queen on the day. Of course this was traditionally the duty of the Lord Chancellor. But, on the back of the Government's reforms, there is no longer such an office-holder in the Upper House. Indeed Jack Straw, as the Secretary of State at the MoJ, is the heir-presumptive to the post. So, could we shortly be seeing him walking backwards on the floor of the HoL having delivered GB's text to Her Majesty? Not surprisingly this prospect doesn't sit comfortably with some of the older (it's relative) heads on the red benches! Could Baroness Ashton - as Leader of the House - be delegated with the task? And, if so, who then would be in charge of the Cap of Maintenance?

All silly stuff I know. But it does underline a persistent thread within the Government's thinking, namely that so many of their back-of-envelope 'reforms' are precisely that; they fail to be properly thought through to take account of their forseeable/unforeseen/unintended consequences.

Introductory

First post.

Just a brief intro. I don't count myself as being too 'techie' so it'll take me a little while to sort out design/add-ons/&c of the blog. So I hope you'll bear with me as I work my way (slowly) through those issues - not that I imagine for a moment that I have more than a readership of one at the moment!

As for my aim(s) with the blog, I hope to be able to shine a bit of light on some of the darker recesses of the parliamentary/ political process. All the head-line stuff gets pretty good coverage. But it's only a miniscule fraction of what goes on in the febrile atmosphere of Westminster. So, I'm aiming to keep people up-to-speed about a bunch of stuff - be it gossip, rumour, debates, or what-have-you - that does not find any other outlet.