The Carmichael debate

Reactionaries on the Tory benches are wont to herald the government's decision to quit the European Union as a triumph for democracy, of bringing back power to the assembly of the British people, the House of Commons. With the honourable exception of Peter Bone, they are not quite so quick to condemn the contemptuous way the government treats the Commons or their own complicity in the way representative democracy has been eroded under the Cameron and May administrations.

Alistair Carmichael, the Lib Dem spokesman on Home Affairs, brought this to a head  a fortnight ago in a debate granted by Mr Speaker Bercow, who one suspects from this and similar statements has sympathy with the line Mr Carmichael took. One concern was the flouting of the long-standing practice whereby Bill Committees reflected the composition of the House. In practical terms, in the present situation of minority government, there would have been a minority of government MPs on the standing committees examining Bills, or at best equal numbers of opposition and government MPs. Instead, the government has given itself a majority on crucial standing committees, notably the one on the contentious European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

The more immediate concern was the failure of the government to take action as a result of Opposition Day debates (note that these were on official Opposition motions, not the result of back-bench committee choices) on public sector pay and on student tuition fees. Since it was clear that the DUP, Mrs May's supporters in government, were on the side of the Opposition on both issues and that the Conservatives were on a loser, the latter chose not to participate in a vote on either motion.

As Mr Carmichael said:

The issues before the House on 13 September were questions of substantial significance. If they are issues on which the Government do not command a majority in this House, then the Government should not get their way. The Prime Minister went to the country in June seeking a larger majority than the one she had, but the people of Britain denied her such a majority. However difficult that may make life for her and her colleagues, the verdict of the people on 8 June ought to be respected in this House. It is the job of all of us in this House to ensure that it is, and Opposition day debates are one important way in which that should be done. Occasionally, it is possible for the Government and the Opposition to agree on a motion and for it to be passed without a Division. Until now, there have been very few examples of a motion being disputed in debate, but still passing without a Division.

Very rarely, the Government of the day are defeated in a Division. In my time in the House, that was most memorably accomplished in 2009, when the rights of Gurkha soldiers who had served the Crown to settle in the UK was at issue. Matters came to a head on 29 April 2009, when on a motion from the Conservative party in opposition the then Labour Government ​were defeated. It is worth going back and reading the Hansard of that debate. It is apparent, even just reading the words on paper, that that debate meant something. That debate was more than just a debate; it was a vehicle for righting a wrong and a vehicle for change.

The sentiments were echoed by Valerie Vaz for the Labour party.

The Conservative response was naturally to play the man, not the ball. Rather than address the issue, Mark Harper chose to concentrate on poor Lib Dem attendance at debates. Unfortunately, he had been ill-briefed, because he accused Wera Hobhouse of being absent from a debate which she had in fact attended.

It was outside the scope of the Carmichael debate, but I would add a third way in which government (and I include New Labour) treats the Commons with contempt, namely announcing policy to the media before bringing it to the House.

There is every sign that the government is intent on ignoring criticism and maintaining its course on all three matters. I would like to think that a Cable- or Corbyn-led government would have more respect for the people we send to Westminster to represent us.