History > 2007 > UK > House of Commons (I)

2pm update

Security services

inadvertently aided US rendition case,

say MPs

Wednesday July 25, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

A parliamentary committee has found no evidence that the UK was directly involved in controversial American renditions of terror suspects.

But the intelligence and security committee said the security services "inadvertently" helped in one case after the US ignored caveats placed on supplied information.

And it said Washington's "lack of regard" for UK concerns had "serious implications for the intelligence relationship" between the two countries.

Ministerial approval should be required in future in such cases and a complete ban placed on approvals for renditions which could lead to suspects being held in secret prisons, it recommended.

The committee also levelled criticism at the government over inadequate records and demanded an improvement in what was "a matter of fundamental liberty".

In parliament today, Andrew Tyrie, the Tory MP for Chichester, complained that Gordon Brown was not making a statement on rendition, and asked him to condemn any such US policy.

The prime minister replied: "I'm not going to condemn the US authorities in the way that he suggests," and urged Mr Tyrie to read the report put out today on the issue.

    Security services inadvertently aided US rendition case, say MPs, G, 25.7.2007, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,2134431,00.html

12.15pm update

Galloway facing suspension from Commons

Tuesday July 17, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Matthew Tempest and agencies

George Galloway should be suspended from the Commons for 18 days, the standards watchdog recommended today.

The finding comes in the wake of an investigation by the commissioner for parliamentary standards into payments to the now-defunct Mariam Appeal charity.

The suspension - which would see the controversial Respect MP stripped of his salary and barred from the Commons - will now be formally voted on by the House of Commons.

The suspension is for 18 sitting days and would begin once the house returns in the autumn.

The Bethnal Green & Bow MP reacted angrily to the judgment, issuing a statement reiterating that he had never personally benefited from any monies used by the charity.

Mr Galloway said: "Once more and yet again I have been cleared of taking a single penny or in any way personally benefiting from the former Iraqi regime through the oil for food programme or any other means.

"After a four-year inquiry - costing a fortune in public funds - the report asks me to apologise for not registering consistently the Mariam Appeal I established (the Commissioner concedes that I did so, but randomly) and for using House of Commons resources allocated to me to campaign against the policies of those now sitting in judgment on me."

The Commons standards and privileges committee of MPs acknowledges that "had these been the only matters before us, we would have confined ourselves to seeking an apology to the house".

But the committee criticised Mr Galloway's conduct aimed at "concealing the true source of Iraqi funding" for a charity he set up and failure to cooperate with the parliamentary commissioner for standards.

The mammoth three-volume report has more than 20 conclusions, but only two recommendations - that Mr Galloway's use of parliamentary resources to aid the Mariam Appeal was "unreasonable" and would have resulted in a call for an apology.

However, the report states that because of Mr Galloway's unwillingness to cooperate with their inquiry, and his attitude and "calling into question of the commissioner's and our own integrity", the MP had damaged the reputation of the House of Commons and should be suspended for 18 sitting days.

That punishment is expected to commence on October 8, the day parliament returns from the summer recess.

It is subject to approval from a vote of all MPs.

The specific areas in which the report agrees with the findings of the investigation of the commissioner for parliamentary standards, Sir Philip Mawer, are that Mr Galloway:

· Did not register his interest in the Mariam Appeal, or the individual donations it received above the registration threshold;

· Did not declare his interest in the Mariam Appeal on all occasions when he should have done so;

· Used his parliamentary office and staff in support of the Mariam Appeal to an excessive extent;

· Breached the advocacy rule in the terms in which it was in force at the time.

Speaking at an impromptu press conference outside parliament, Mr Galloway accepted the suspension, joking: "To be deprived of the company for 18 days of the honourable ladies and gentleman behind me [in parliament] will be painful ... but I'm intending to struggle on regardless."

But, pointing out that the suspension only came about because of the way he conducted his defence, Mr Galloway insisted: "What really upset them [the committee] is that I always defend myself.

"I am not a punchbag. If you aim low blows at me, I'll fight back."

He complained he had been convicted by a committee of "Sir Humphrey...Sir Bufton and Sir Tufton".

In a 20-minute rebuttal, accompanied by a large dossier put out by Respect, Mr Galloway admitted he never asked the three main donors to the appeal, the King of Saudi Arabia, the late Emir of the United Arab Emirates and Farwaz Zureikat, where their money came from, but complained he had been convicted by a "overwhelmingly pro-war House of Commons".

Other MPs who have in the past been suspended from the Commons include Labour's Keith Vaz and the Tory Jonathan Sayeed.

Mr Vaz was suspended for a month for "wrongly interfering" with a second investigation by a previous parliamentary commissioner, Elizabeth Filkin, into his business dealings, while the Tory MP Mr Sayeed was suspended for taking payments for showing guests around the Houses of Parliament.

    Galloway facing suspension from Commons, G, 17.7.2007, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/commons/story/0,,2128304,00.html

2pm update

Brown outlines legislative programme

Wednesday July 11, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Deborah Summers and agencies


Gordon Brown today pledged to build 3m new houses by 2020 as he broke with centuries of tradition and gave MPs a preview of the Queen's speech.

Unveiling a blueprint for his first year in power, the prime minister put housing at the top of the political agenda as he announced plans for three new bills to tackle the shortage of affordable homes.

In a Commons statement lasting less than 10 minutes, Mr Brown also indicated that education and the health service would be priorities in the Queen's speech this autumn.

Defending the decision to announce his proposals before the state opening of parliament on November 6, the prime minister promised a series of region-by-region public consultations on the proposals before the programme was finalised.

Announcing new laws to overhaul the planning system and to encourage local authorities to provide more affordable housing, Mr Brown demanded a 25% increase in the number of new homes being built over the next 13 years, bring the total to 3m by 2020.

He said that the government would be releasing 550 publicly-owned, brownfield sites for housing development.

There will also be a new regime on "covered bonds" to help mortgage lenders finance 20- to 25-year fixed-rate mortgages.

In other measures, Mr Brown said that a new educational opportunity bill will require all young people to stay in education and training until the age of 18, while a pensions bill will require all employers to provide staff pension schemes.

The Queen's speech will also include a health and social care bill and a children in care bill as well as introducing new measures in the criminal justice bill which will be carried over into the next parliament.

And a constitutional reform bill will include measures to limit or surrender royal prerogative powers exercised by ministers - such as the power to make war.

The Tory leader, David Cameron, said that the statement sounded "very much like all the ones we have heard before".

"I know this is meant to be some great constitutional innovation, but I have to say most of what the prime minister announced sounds rather like the Queen's speech last year, the year before and the year before that," he said.

"A long list of bills, the same priorities and the same failures, and I have to say we've heard it all before...

"For 10 years, he has plotted and schemed for the top job, but all we have got is a sort of re-release of the 1997 manifesto. The country has moved on, but he simply hasn't."

However, the Tory leader promised to "work with the government" on anti-terror legislation, and called on Mr Brown to leave open the possibility that this autumn's Queen's speech would include measures to create a national border police force.

Earlier today, Mr Brown told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We are in a new world. People have a right to be consulted and involved. Therefore you have got to be outward looking.

"That's different from what people call 'sofa government' or what people call 'armchair government'. This is going out listening to the people."

Ahead of today's announcement, the new health minister, Sir Ara Darzi, told the Guardian of radical plans to transform the health service in London, with super-specialised health centres rather than general hospitals.

Mr Brown yesterday briefed the cabinet on his proposals saying that an "over-arching theme" would be meeting the aspirations of people in the three key areas of health, education and housing.

Mr Brown's spokesman said that the prime minister made his presentation to colleagues at an hour-long cabinet meeting yesterday.

Yvette Cooper, the housing minister, is expected to outline how reforms could help young families and first-time buyers, including possible reforms to the planning system and offering more public sector land for building plots.

The government has published a 50-page document outlining details of the bills to be included in the Queen's speech, which Mr Brown's spokesman said would include the main points of the proposed legislation.

    Brown outlines legislative programme, G, 11.7.2007, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gordonbrown/story/0,,2123591,00.html

Brown's first PMQs - the verdict

While he is less nimble on his feet than his predecessor, the new PM can be fairly happy with his performance today, writes Michael White

Wednesday July 4, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

How did Gordon Brown cope with his first session of prime minister's question time? Quite well, I thought, though he lacks Tony Blair's affable charm - his talent for bullshit, if you prefer - and may always find it an ordeal.
Brown is heavier, but like any heavyweight champion he is also less nimble on his feet.

Don't underestimate how difficult this form of public accountability is. The Commons chamber is much smaller than it looks on TV.

When it is full, as it was today, it is a bear pit, MPs shouting encouragement or hurling scorn from all quarters.

All prime ministers find it hard, even Margaret Thatcher. Harold Wilson had a brandy; Harold Macmillan felt sick and that was before televised proceedings raised the stakes.

Mr Brown stumbled only when David Cameron pressed him hard to ban the radical Islamist group, Hizb ut-Tahir, because, the Tory leader claimed, it supports the murder of Jews. The new prime minister hesitated, then reminded his inquisitor: "I have been in this job for five days..."

Actually it's seven, but Mr Brown was often criticised for his maths as chancellor.

Generally speaking he answered sensibly and gave some of substance: NHS recruitment procedures, for instance, will be tightened and reviewed by new "big tent" recruit Admiral Sir Alan West - soon to be a minister in the Lords.

The other striking feature of the exchanges was that he constantly offered to discuss issues with the opposition parties and with the wider public - in the search for consensus on, for example, the use of telephone intercepts as evidence in court.

It remains a very tricky issue - as do most of the terror-related questions the Tory leader raised. Brown was cautious, but generally conciliatory, though he did lapse into Brown-ese when he taunted Mr Cameron that "an unfunded change means nothing at all" without extra cash which Tory tax policies may not find.

Ex-home secretary, John Reid, weighed in to show public support for his old Scottish sparring partner.

The generally conciliatory and inclusive formula was also deployed on local issues raised by MPs - local government reorganisation in Shrewsbury, for instance.

But willingness to talk was offset by steeliness on other controversies. Sir Ming Campbell urged the new broom to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq and was told that the Brown government would fulfil its obligations to the UN and the Iraqi government.

Labour's Paul Flynn, another critic from the left, urged a similar course for Afghanistan where little progress is being made on reconstruction or on poppy crop eradication - yet 56 UK soldiers have been killed in the past year.

Same answer: a Nato mandate to build security, political reconciliation and reconstruction if the Taliban is to be held at bay, Mr Brown replied.

It was clear that both leaders - Sir Ming less so, but he is under pressure now - were trying to sound constructive and not be the first to resort to rough party politics. It couldn't last - and didn't.

When Mr Brown cited new Tory recruit, the ex-intelligence chief, Pauline Neville-Jones, as pro-ID cards, Mr Cameron quoted the normally cautious Alistair Darling's disdain for them (no date given) back at him.

The new PM seemed well briefed, over-briefed even, as he fought to get hostile balls back over the net. Sir Ming tried Iraq, nuclear power, green taxes and local income tax - and was batted back on them all.

But he did get in a good joke. When Mr Brown said: "my door is always open" to the Lib Dem leader, he replied that - after last week's "secret" talks - it looked more like a trapdoor than anything else. ' Early days for Mr Brown, of course, but no disaster today. He will have returned to No 10 much relieved and hoping it will get better.

Stop press

Since filing my lunchtime report on Gordon Brown's first PMQs, the media pack at Westminster has reached what may look like a consensus that Brown was a disaster. It happens that way sometimes, as it did the day David Cameron made his breakthrough speech in the leadership hustings at the 2005 Tory conference.

Cameron was good (so, unexpectedly, was Liam Fox), but not as stunning as TV correspondents told each other in the next hour or so. The newspapers felt obliged to follow suit, it was such a dramatic twist.

At PMQs Brown wasn't brilliant. But he was good enough. He was certainly nervous, his hands gripped the dispatch box and we were reminded by the way he parks his notes on two bound volumes of Hansard that he has only one good eye and not that good either.

He may never relish these duels or be a star. He's not an extrovert like Blair. But he wasn't a flop.

    Brown's first PMQs - the verdict, G, 4.7.2007, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gordonbrown/story/0,,2118318,00.html

Brown hands key powers to parliament

· Sweeping plan to boost role of MPs
· Voting age could be reduced to 16

Wednesday July 4, 2007
Guardian
Patrick Wintour, political editor

Gordon Brown yesterday unveiled a startling package of reforms designed to surrender centuries-old government powers and strengthen the role of MPs.

Setting out a series of initiatives that could fundamentally change the balance of power in the UK, he also launched a cross-party debate on a new bill of rights that could for the first time enshrine the rights and responsibilities of the citizen. The age of voting could also be reduced to 16 and elections held on Sundays.

Mr Brown's route map for constitutional reform was unveiled in his first Commons statement as prime minister. It was intended as a clear rupture with the Blair administration, and a shock to critics who fear he is a centralising autocrat.

Setting out his thinking to MPs he said: "We will only meet the new challenges of security, of economic change, of communities under pressure - and forge a stronger shared national purpose - by building a new relationship between citizens and government that ensures the government is a better servant of the people."

The proposals have been germinating in Mr Brown's mind for years, but have been refined over the past month following discussions with Buckingham Palace.

In his trademark machine-gun delivery, Mr Brown announced his government was surrendering or limiting the executive's powers over the right to declare war. He set out proposals that would also block the government's ability to recall parliament and choose bishops.

There could also be limits on the executive's power to ratify international treaties, grant pardons and make key public appointments. He proposed that MPs hold US-style pre-appointment hearings initially for senior public officials such as the chief inspector of prisons.

A green paper, The Governance of Britain, published alongside Mr Brown's statement and overseen by the justice secretary, Jack Straw, even suggests some senior judges could be subject to parliamentary affirmative hearings.

In addition, he announced he was launching a review this summer into changing the role of the attorney general so the new office holder, Lady Scotland, could no longer stop individual prosecutions, such as in the cash for honours inquiry. Her predecessor Lord Goldsmith insisted he must have an oversight.

Much of the attorney general's legal advice including on the legality of war will be published, Mr Straw said. Lord Goldsmith had battled to suppress his legal advice on the Iraq war on the grounds that all such advice must be confidential.

The prime minister is, however, expected to retain the right to stop potential prosecutions for reasons of national security, the grounds chosen by Tony Blair to stop the Serious Fraud Office inquiry into alleged BAE bribes to Saudi Arabia.

A new national security council is to be set up to "coordinate military, policing, intelligence and diplomatic action and [attempt] also to win hearts and minds in this country and round the world". Its aim will be to bring together the government's overseas, defence, security and community relations strategies to counter terrorism.

Suggesting there could be a bill of rights and duties, or a more declaratory statement, Mr Brown said: "In Britain we have a largely unwritten constitution. To change that would represent a fundamental and historic shift in our constitutional arrangements."

Sir Menzies Campbell broadly welcomed the reforms, but highlighted the absence of any commitment to look seriously at electoral reform. David Cameron pointed out that many of the ideas echoed his own party's recommendations, adding Mr Brown had not offered a referendum on the new European Union treaty or addressed the anomaly of Scottish MPs voting on exclusively English questions.

    Brown hands key powers to parliament, G, 4.7.2007, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/constitution/story/0,,2117883,00.html

PM offers to hand power to the people in constitution debate

Proposals may change relationship between citizen and state

Wednesday July 4, 2007
Guardian
Will Woodward, Patrick Wintour, Tania Branigan and David Hencke


Gordon Brown yesterday laid out proposals for "a new British constitutional settlement that entrusts more power to parliament and the British people". Some of the ideas, such as a British bill of rights and a British constitution, are very much at the formative stage: what he described as a route map, not a final blueprint. But many, in particular on reducing the power of the executive and the prime minister, are more concrete. Supporters and critics acknowledged that if all or most of the plans were implemented they would amount to a significant redrawing of the relationship between citizen and state.
Limiting powers

Mr Brown unveiled proposals to inhibit his powers, and his successors', as prime minister. "While constitutional change will not be the work of just one bill, for one year, for one parliament, I can today make an immediate start by proposing changes that will transfer power from the prime minister to the executive," he told MPs. "For centuries they [PMs] have exercised authority in the name of the monarchy without the people and their elected representatives being consulted. So I now propose that in 12 important areas of our national life the prime minister and the executive should surrender or limit their powers, the exclusive exercise of which by the government of the day should have no place in a modern democracy."

The powers in question are to:

· Declare war.
· Request dissolution of parliament.
· Recall parliament.
· Ratify treaties without decision by parliament.
· Make top public appointments without scrutiny.
· Restrict parliamentary oversight of intelligence services.
· Choose bishops.
· Help appoint judges.
· Direct prosecutors in particular criminal cases.
· Set rules governing the civil service.
· Set rules for entitlements to passports and pardons.

The Ministry of Justice green paper says the "executive should draw its powers from the people through parliament". Many of the powers, the paper says, "derive from arrangements which preceded the 1689 Declaration of Rights".

The Commons should formally approve "significant, non-routine deployments of the armed forces", but consultation was needed to ensure that a means could be found to do this "without prejudicing the government's ability to take swift action to protect our national security, or undermining operational security or effectiveness". Mr Brown said a resolution may spell out circumstances when approval would and would not be sought.

On dissolving parliament, he proposes a convention (not legislation) requiring the prime minister to seek approval. But any arrangement would have to contain a way of getting round the instance of a hung parliament where "parliament refuses to dissolve itself". A majority of MPs would be able to request a recall of parliament, subject to the Speaker's approval.

Mr Brown vowed to make good at last the 1854 Northcote-Trevelyan report - to "make a legal reality of the historic principle of appointment on merit following fair and open competition", ensuring the civil service is not vulnerable to the whim of the government of the day. He also plans to ban special advisers from giving orders to civil servants, as Jonathan Powell and Alastair Campbell did for Tony Blair.

In other changes, the prime minister would no longer choose from one of two names for diocesan bishops, nor choose the poet laureate, regius professors, and astronomer royal. The government will consider whether parliament should play a role in appointing top judges.

Mr Brown proposes not to change the award of peerages and other honours.

Public appointments

Gordon Brown signalled his determination to end charges of cronyism with plans to allow MPs to scrutinise key public appointments such as those of the chief inspector of prisons and the governor of the Bank of England.

The measures echo the system in the United States, where the Senate approves major appointments, but would be non-binding - unlike the often highly charged American confirmation hearings - allowing ministers to proceed with their choices even if parliament disapproves.

The system was last reformed following Lord Nolan's report in 1995, creating the independent Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments to oversee and audit choices. But ministers retain ultimately responsibility for approving around 21,000 appointments to organisations ranging from health service bodies to museum boards.

Under Mr Brown's plans select committees would scrutinise many candidates before they were officially appointed, examining not just their suitability and the way they were selected but also their priorities. The local government ombudsman, the civil service commissioner and even the commissioner for public appointments would all be vetted. But where appointments could affect the financial markets - in the case of utility regulators, the governor and deputy governors of the Bank of England and the chairman of the Financial Services Authority - hearings would be held after candidates had been appointed, but before they took up their new posts.

Reinvigorating democracy

The paper proposes that Britain should consider transferring the day of general and local elections from Thursday to Sunday in an attempt to increase turnouts. It says holding general elections on a weekday puts the UK in a minority among western democracies. Since the second world war there has been a statutory requirement that elections in Britain are held on a weekday, with the last weekend general election taking place on Saturday December 14 1918.

The government recognises that any change would need to consider the views of religious groups. The review will look into the cost and whether weekend voting in local elections might lower turnout. The government will reinvestigate the potential benefits of remote electronic voting.

The paper also suggests the government should extend the experiment in e-petitioning at Number 10 so that it can also apply to parliament. It points out that more than 4.4m e-petitions have been sent to Downing Street in less than a year.

The paper promises to review new restrictions on the right to protest outside parliament contained in the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. There will be a presumption in favour of freedom of expression, implying the requirement for protesters to obtain police permission before demonstrating near parliament will be dropped.

The paper refers to Lords reform, but with no proposal to break the deadlock. The government's determination to introduce a largely elected house, including the removal of hereditary peers, is restated.

A long-promised review of electoral systems is to be published by the end of the year.

Attorney general

The attorney general has given up her power to decide for or against prosecution in criminal cases - such as the cash-for-honours inquiry - as the first step in major reforms to her role, the prime minister revealed yesterday.

The government will publish a consultation paper on possible changes within the month, in response to the increasing clamour over the job's potential conflicts of interest. Lady Scotland's predecessor, Lord Goldsmith, was dogged by rows over his involvement in decisions on charges over the honours investigation, his role in ending the BAE fraud inquiry and his legal advice on the Iraq war.

Both opposition parties have called for reform and the constitutional affairs select committee has begun an inquiry into the five-century-old post's patchwork of roles.

The attorney general is the crown's chief law officer, offering advice in complex situations, supervising the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office and deciding whether to prosecute in serious or difficult cases, such as terror inquiries. She also has a duty to the public interest, for example by appealing against unduly lenient sentences. "The role of attorney general needs to change," Mr Brown told the Commons.

Citizen state

Mr Brown announced a consultation on a bill of rights and duties and a written constitution, changes which would transform the historic settlement of the state and would require cross-party consensus. David Cameron, the Conservative leader, said the British bill of rights should replace the Human Rights Act. The green paper rejects abolishing the HRA but says it "should not necessarily be regarded as the last word on the subject". Any additions in a British bill would need to be "of real benefit to the country as a whole".

The green paper promises to launch a national debate on British values. It acknowledges that "our relative stability as a nation is reflected in a relative lack of precision about what we mean to be British".

But it adds: "There is room to celebrate multiple and different identities, but none of these identities should take precedence over the core democratic values that define what it means to be British."

The green paper adopts the idea proposed by ministers Ruth Kelly and Liam Byrne for naturalised Britons to receive a more specific outline of their duties as well as rights. Lord Goldsmith is to carry out a review of citizenship.

The prime minister launched a debate on whether the voting age should be lowered, and a youth citizenship commission will be established to improve young people's understanding of Britishness.

Ministerial code

Ministers taking up lucrative jobs after leaving government will need to have the appointment vetted by an anti-sleaze watchdog under new rules in a revised ministerial code of conduct.

The move closes a loophole that allowed David Blunkett, the former home secretary, and other ministers to avoid scrutiny by the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments before they took up jobs. It puts ministers on a par with senior civil servants, who have to gain clearance from the committee to take up new appointments.

The changes are part of the reform of the "outdated and unwieldy" ministerial code. They promise a new independent adviser to examine ministers' existing interests when they take up jobs in the cabinet. The adviser will be able to investigate alleged breaches of the code. But crucially, Mr Brown is retaining the power to initiate an inquiry into allegations of sleaze against a minister.

Parliamentary code

Big changes to scrutiny of the intelligence and security services are among measures to give parliament more powers and make ministers more accountable to MPs. The prime minister is to give up powers to appoint the chairman and MPs who serve on the intelligence and security committee. Future appointments will be made by parliament and the committee will have its own secretariat and an independent investigator, and the right to meet in public. These changes will be paralleled in Whitehall by the setting up of a new national security committee, chaired by the prime minister, which will replace three separate cabinet committees covering defence and overseas policy, security and terrorism, and Europe. The changes are among a raft of measures which include nine new regional select committees to hold ministers to account; giving select committee chairmen the right to debate critical responses from ministers to their reports on the floor of the Commons; and a chance for opposition parties to present to parliament an alternative to the Queen's speech before it is announced by the monarch.

    PM offers to hand power to the people in constitution debate, G, 4.7.2007, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/constitution/story/0,,2117920,00.html

Simon Hoggart's sketch

You lucky, lovely people

Wednesday July 4, 2007
Guardian

It was Gordo's great giveaway. In his first words to parliament since becoming prime minister, he handed over stacks of his powers to the lads and lasses around him. Were they grateful? Some of them almost were. Though his tone was gentle - husky, soft-spoken Gordon, the clunking fist hidden in the velvet glove - I was reminded of one of those traders you see in markets.

"Awight, here you are, you lovely people, how about the right to declare war? Lissen, and while we're at it, 'ood like to be able to vote to dissolve parliament? I'll throw that in - and look at this, look at that craftsmanship, I'm also giving away the right to ratify international treaties. You're not going to believe this, but you can have it all, look, in this bag, oversight of the intelligence agencies. Now, I can't say fairer than that, can I?"

The tone becomes faintly desperate. It's raining and some of the crowd are beginning to shuffle off. "C'mon, you lot, how about giving the church the right to choose bishops? And worrabout civil servants? I'm robbing myself here, I'm robbing myself!"

We realised he was running out of excitements to offer when we got on to letting parliament vote on the chairman of the new Independent Statistics Board. That's going to get the juices flowing! Kids who now spend their time on Facebook will come racing back to join the political process!

But the statement was, on the whole, well received. David Cameron, however, wanted to be bitter and angry. You felt he'd been working on bitter and angry for the last few months.

He would have done bitter and angry even if Gordon had announced the award of a leather bag of gold coins to every family in the land.

He wanted a solution to the West Lothian question. "He has had 30 years to answer it, and [a new] question time for the regions just doesn't cut it!" (Answer: without Scots MPs' votes, there would never be another Labour government.)

Was he going to give a referendum on the new European treaty? (Of course he won't. The government would probably lose. Giving power to the people is all very well, but not if they abuse it by coming to the wrong decision.)

"Constitutional change is not the solution to broken trust," Mr Cameron said, sounding bitter and angry. "The constitution is not the cause of broken trust. It's broken promises that are the cause of broken trust!" The Tory leader, his face thoroughly twisted into an expression of bitter anger, sat down and fumed. I doubt very much whether Gordon Brown was too worried by his response.

Scarier for any Labour leader was getting support from Bob Marshall-Andrews. The Labour MP for Medway hated Tony Blair from the off (when Blair had 93% approval ratings, Marshall-Andrews said: "Seven per cent! We can build on that!") Now he gushed congratulations, praised "the abrupt departure from the past" and "the spirit in which it was made". After which he astonished the house by letting rip with an extraordinary exhalation, a sort of "bleurghhh" noise, like a walrus that has drunk too much Fanta.

Mr Brown waited for the fumes to die away, then said that being praised by RMA was "a completely unique occasion". But his scowl told the real story. Three are some supporters even a new prime minister doesn't need.

    You lucky, lovely people, G, 4.7.2007, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,,2117933,00.html

Raising the bar of expectation


Wednesday July 4, 2007
The Guardian
Michael White


Now we know what Gordon Brown was doing while Tony Blair was taking his laps of honour. Yesterday's Commons statement on constitutional reform was both unleaked (itself a novelty) and sensational in its own high-minded way. It won bouquets from the usual suspects who have been hurling radical brickbats at Labour for years.

As laudatory press releases poured in from the thinktanks, Tony Wright MP, Labour's Professor Constitution, called it "constitutional Christmas - all our prezzies at once", while the truculent Andrew Mackinlay, another reformer, likened it to Pope John XXIII's decision to modernise the church. Even the Tories seemed quite impressed.

It can't last and it won't. The Sun will see it as a missed chance to stuff Europe and David Cameron was quick to stir up "English votes for English issues at Westminster", a divisive domestic sub-plot. The Great Clunking Fist of No 10 quoted Ken Clarke against him. But Mr Brown has prised open a Pandora's warehouse of controversies which could be looted for years.

As thinktanks such as the Constitution Unit at UCL point out, the new prime minister has been banging on since the 90s about the relationships between state, community and individuals; liberty, fairness and obligation; and, yes, Britishness. He has now coopted the ever-flexible Jack Straw and put his own ally, Michael Wills MP (a major contributor to yesterday's green paper), into Mr Straw's Ministry of Justice to chivvy debate along.

Why do something one MP called "both necessary and dangerous"? Why raise expectations on myriad anoraky issues, ranging from electoral reform and the Human Rights Act to the right of MPs to vet the poet laureate? For example, do ministers realise that, in giving up No 10's say in the appointment of Anglican bishops, they expose the moderates to evangelical zeal?

The answer is partly that Mr Brown knows that modern British government has a trust and over-centralisation problem, partly because it's a New Labour problem, his as well as Tony Blair's. What MPs witnessed yesterday was the equivalent of a drunk signing up for the Band of Hope.

There was less than met the eye to some of yesterday's eyecatchers. Thus Mr Brown will not "surrender" some powers, only limit them; he will still decide if ministers have transgressed and the attorney general will still decide future BAE investigations. Discussion of a possible bill of rights or written constitution will take a long time if a consensus is to emerge. This rare liberal hour may pass.

Sceptics may also murmur that Mr Brown often talked a big game in No 11 but failed to deliver: sometimes a lack of will, sometimes an unrealistic goal. In a paper for the Brownite Smith Institute (relaxed rules for campaigning charities was in yesterday's small print), Professor Dawn Oliver warns that Westminster's "main tribes" actually enjoy the spoils of unreformed power; and even trying to define our existing rights or constitution, let alone improve them, might involve "disproportionate energy".

The irony may be that Brown in 2007 is trying to be different from Blair in 1997, but has raised the same high bar of expectation.

    Raising the bar of expectation, G, 4.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2117926,00.html

10.30am

Soldiers quitting overstretched armed forces, MPs warn

Tuesday July 3, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Press Association

Disgruntled British soldiers are leaving the armed forces in droves - fed up with repeated tours on the front line, MPs warned today.

Staffing shortages have hit nearly 6,000, meaning that there are not enough servicemen and women to meet the demands placed on them by military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, an influential MPs' committee said.

Frequent overseas deployments, heavier workloads and the difficulty of combining service with family life were among the reasons why numbers leaving some parts of the armed forces early have reached a 10-year peak, warned the House of Commons public accounts committee.

Shortages are particularly marked among specialist personnel like vehicle mechanics, armourers, linguists and nurses, said the committee in a report published today.

The committee's chairman, Edward Leigh, said: "The MoD has been relying for too long on the goodwill and courageous spirit of our servicemen and women to compensate for the increasing shortages of personnel in all three services.

"The staffing situation has reached the point where there are simply not enough service people to meet levels of military activity planned some years ago - let alone the heightened demands now being placed on them by commitments such as the Iraq and Afghanistan operations."

Today's report found that the overall shortfall in armed forces personnel stood at 5,850 - or 3.2% of full strength - in April this year, up from 5,170 the year before.

Numbers leaving early have risen for the past two years and are now at a 10-year peak for army and RAF officers and other RAF ranks, said the report, entitled Recruitment and Retention in the Armed Forces.

"The impact of continuous downsizing, pressures and overstretch is affecting the department's ability to retain and provide a satisfactory life for armed forces personnel," it warned.

Several key factors prompting decisions to quit early, such as workload, inability to plan for life outside work and the impact on family life, "have not been addressed", the report said.

Since 2001, the armed forces have continuously operated above the highest level of activity envisaged in their defence planning assumptions, said the MPs.

But, despite the extra operational burden, the MoD has not boosted staffing levels in that period.

Meanwhile, past cuts in recruitment activity implemented in the 1990s have had a knock-on impact on staffing levels now.

The committee backed MoD efforts to retain staff in key specialist areas by offering financial inducements to stay, and welcomed last year's £2,240 tax-free allowance for personnel deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia.

But it said that money alone would not solve the problem, and urged the MoD to introduce measures such as longer notice of upcoming deployments, higher staffing levels for the most stretched trades and flexible pay structures.

"It is no surprise that increasing numbers of servicemen and women are deciding to quit the armed forces, many unwilling to accept ever more frequent overseas deployments and heavier workloads in the UK, with the impact both have on family life," said Mr Leigh.

"A number of measures can be taken to provide more certainty about work patterns and ease overstretch in specialist trades.

"But the MoD has no long-term strategy to deal with the outflow, especially among highly qualified specialist personnel.

"The MoD must think hard when it makes cuts in recruitment about the consequences for manning levels some years along the line."

These consequences were almost impossible to rectify speedily, Mr Leigh said, and any measures taken seemed to cost "more than was saved by the original cuts".

"The MoD does not consider our armed forces with their current numbers of service personnel to be 'overstretched'," the chairman went on.

"Let us fervently hope that it will not take some future operational failure on the battlefield for the department to change its mind."

Derek Twigg, the junior defence minister, acknowledged that the high tempo of operations was putting pressure on the personnel involved, but he insisted that the forces could cope.

"The chief of defence staff himself has said that the armed forces are very stretched but can sustain what they are currently doing," he said.

"With the draw down of troops in Bosnia, Northern Ireland and the reductions already made possible in Iraq, some of the pressure should soon start to ease.

"I accept that there are manning challenges and shortages in some specific areas, but we are taking action."

    Soldiers quitting overstretched armed forces, MPs warn, 3.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,2117394,00.html

Brown cedes historic powers to Parliament

Gordon Brown: the proposals are aimed at re-establishing public trust in politicians

July 3, 2007
From Times Online
David Byers

Gordon Brown announced today that he would "surrender" a host of centuries-old prime ministerial powers to Parliament, as part of sweeping reforms to rebuild public trust in politics.

In his first statement to the House of Commons since becoming Prime Minister, Mr Brown said he would hand over to MPs 12 powers traditionally given to him under the "Royal prerogative," including the power to declare war, along with the power to dissolve the House, and the right to appoint judges and bishops.

"I now propose to surrender or limit these powers to make for a more open 21st century British democracy which better serves the British people," he told MPs, to loud Labour cheers.

In addition, as part of a green paper unveiled today, Mr Brown announced a public consultation on establishing a US-style Bill of Rights, which would set out the rights and responsibilities of British subjects for the first time, as well as a possible lowering of the voting age from 18 to 16.

He added that he also wanted to change the laws restricting the right to demonstrate in Parliament Square.

Mr Brown said that the powers he intended to remove from the Prime Minister's jurisdiction and place with Parliament were:

* The power to declare war

* The power to request the dissolution of Parliament

* The power to recall Parliament, which would be passed to the Speaker of the House of Commons

* The power to ratify international treaties

* The power to make key public appointments without effective scrutiny

* The power to restrict parliamentary oversight of the intelligence services

* The power to choose bishops

* The power to appoint judges

* The power to direct prosecutors in individual criminal cases

* Power over the civil service

* Executive powers to determine the rules governing entitlement to passports

* The granting of pardons

Mr Brown said the proposed alterations would be a "route map" to change, but that they would be open to discussion and none was cast in stone.

"The changes that we propose today and the national debate we now begin are founded upon the conviction that the best answer to disengagement from our democracy is to strengthen our democracy," he said.

"It is my hope that this dialogue of all parties and the British people will lead to a new consensus, a more effective democracy, and a stronger sense of shared national purpose."

However his statement was greeted with scepticism by David Cameron, the Conservative leader, who said Mr Brown had in the past instigated authoritarian moves which removed, or concealed, decisions from Parliament and the people.

In particular, he cited "stealth taxes not mentioned in his Budget" and the imposition of "3,000 central targets on our public services" as being indicative of Mr Brown's desire to control decision-making, not delegate it.

Mr Cameron added that the Prime Minister had failed in his statement to suggest a solution to the so-called West Lothian Question, whereby Scottish MPs in the House of Commons - like Mr Brown himself - still have the power to vote on English laws, but English MPs do not have the power to vote on Scottish ones as they are covered by the Scottish Parliament.

"Constitutional change is not the solution because the constitution is not the cause: the cause is broken promises. People will ask how the person who broke this trust can be the person to mend it," he said.

The Tory leader did, however, say he welcomed "much of what is in his statement," in particular the delegation to the House of Commons the power to declare war.

Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell also backed the transfer of war-making powers.

“People have become alienated from the political process,” he said. “They are less likely to vote, more likely to express disillusionment with politics and politicians, and often feel powerless to change things.”

    Brown cedes historic powers to Parliament, Ts, 3.7.2007, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2020309.ece

House of fools

May 18, 2007 5:15 PM
The Guardian
Anne Perkins

The Freedom of Information Act is one of the undimmed jewels of the past 10 years. This great corrective to the power of the state and its bureaucracy is slowly transforming the mindset of the men and women in Whitehall, and prising open the relationship between government and the governed.

So maybe it should be no surprise that it is under severe attack from the very ministers and the very government that (perhaps a little reluctantly) put it on the statute book. Happily there appears to be a lull in the official attempt to introduce prohibitive charges and limit multiple requests; perhaps - one can always hope - Gordon Brown really means it when he talks about bringing openness and accountability to government.

Sadly, his campaign manager, Jack Straw, in his role as Leader of the House, has been backing a move that offers little reassurance. As David Hencke reported last week elsewhere on this site, he emailed backbenchers encouraging them to turn up and vote to support an unofficial bill aimed at exempting parliament from the Freedom of Information Act.

This afternoon, they did. More than 70 Labour MPs, and 20 Tories, led by their chief whip David Maclean, forced through the bill against the sterling efforts of assorted Lib Dems like Norman Baker, David Heath and Simon Hughes, and Labour backbenchers like Mark Fisher, Fiona MacTaggart and Jim Cousins.

In fact, MPs were forced to climb down from their earlier ambition to exempt every aspect of Westminster life from public inspection. Their expenses will still be in the public domain. But, if the bill gets through the Lords, all correspondence will be exempt - even though the information commissioner, Richard Thomas, has said he has had no complaints about its release so far, and even though existing data protection safeguards private correspondence.

Mark Fisher summed it up: "People will be aghast and horrified and totally contemptuous of parliament that we could place ourselves above the law in this country. We are going to bring this house into derision, contempt and discredit with this Bill. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves." Quite so.

    House of fools, G, 18.5.2007, http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/anne_perkins/2007/05/house_of_fools.html

3.15pm update

MPs back 'squalid' curbs on FoI

Friday May 18, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Hélène Mulholland and agencies


MPs today backed a controversial bid to exempt themselves from the Freedom of Information Act - a move described by opponents as "squalid".

The Tory private member's freedom of information (amendment) bill secured its third reading by 96 votes to 25, a majority of 71.

Supporters of the legislation claim it will protect the confidentiality of correspondence between constituents and MPs.

But opponents said the real aim of the bill was to block embarrassing disclosures about MPs' expenses and allowances and accused the government of quietly endorsing a watering down of its own legislation, first implemented in 2005.

Introduced by David Maclean, the former Tory chief whip, it now passes to the Lords for consideration, where it is likely to face a further mauling.

Senior Labour MP David Winnick (Walsall North), a leading opponent, condemned the proposed changes as a "squalid" measure.

"I believe it is wrong. I believe it is against the interest of parliament. I believe we are in danger of bringing ourselves into disrepute," he warned.

And he exhorted MPs: "The House of Commons should set an example to the country of honesty and integrity, not find some squalid little way in order to get out of the law."

Most bills tabled by individual MPs fall at the first hurdle unless they has government support.

Both the government and Conservative frontbench insist their position is "neutral" towards this bill, but both have given tacit support in previous votes.

As today's highly-charged debate got underway, Mr Maclean insisted his bill was not intended to strike a general blow against transparency laws.

A cross-party group of MPs unsuccessfully battled for five hours to kill the bill, using every procedural tactic in the book to eat up the parliamentary time available.

These included presenting a series of petitions, debating amendments at length, raising points or order and taking multiple interventions.

They argued that any threat to correspondence should be tackled by amending data protection laws not by exempting parliament in its entirely from its own FOI Act.

Mr Maclean sought in vain to reassure MPs that the measure would not block detailed disclosure of MPs' expenses.

The Speaker, Michael Martin, had made it "absolutely clear" that this information would still be published, he added.

But a number of MPs hit back that there was no guarantee this assurance would be given by a future speaker.

Amid increasingly heated - and often personal - exchanges, Bridget Prentice, the constitutional affairs minister, said that several MPs had raised the matter with her and Jack Straw, the leader of the Commons.

Stressing that it was for MPs to decide whether the FOI Act was robust enough, Ms Prentice said she would not be voting on the amendments or on the bill's third reading.

The shadow solicitor general, Jonathan Djanogly, said: "We are neutral on this bill and believe it is for parliament to take a view on how best to proceed on a free vote basis."

Simon Hughes, the president of the Liberal Democrats, described today's vote as a "shameful day" for the House of Commons.

"David Maclean's bill and the way it has got through the Commons will clearly diminish respect for parliament," he said. "But the battle will go on and hopefully the Lords will deliver us from this terrible mistake.

"I hope the public will make their views very clear to the MPs who supported the bill and to the next prime minister that this is absolutely the wrong direction for open, accountable government."

Critics thought they had killed the measure off after an earlier marathon debate, but a quirk of parliamentary procedure revived the bill.

    MPs back 'squalid' curbs on FoI, G, 18.5.2007, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foi/story/0,,2082846,00.html

Ban on human-animal embryos is unacceptable, MPs say

· Government plan is threat to UK science, says report
· Ministers accused of using flawed consultation

Thursday April 5, 2007
Guardian
Ian Sample, science correspondent

Government plans to outlaw the creation of embryos which are part-human, part-animal are "unacceptable" and threaten to undermine Britain's leading position in stem cell science, MPs will say today.

A report by the Commons science committee calls on ministers to scrap the proposed ban and accuses the government of basing its opposition to the research on a "deeply flawed" consultation.

The committee's demands - which follow a letter to the prime minister signed by 223 medical charities and patients' groups supporting the research - leave the government increasingly isolated in its intention to prohibit the experiments.

Many scientists believe the research will pave the way for new treatments of diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and cystic fibrosis. They want to create animal-human embryos to understand the molecular minutiae behind such conditions. The researchers would pluck a cell from a patient and insert it into a hollowed cow or rabbit egg and stimulate it with a jolt of electricity. The two cells then fuse to make an embryo which is 99.9% human and 0.1% animal. Embryonic stem cells extracted from the embryo could be grown into nerves and other tissues, giving scientists insight into how the disease develops. Under existing laws, the embryos must be destroyed no later than 14 days old and cannot be implanted.

Using plentiful animal eggs will allow the researchers to overcome a major stumbling block caused by the shortage of fresh human eggs that would otherwise be needed for the work. The proposed ban has already drawn criticism from scientists, including Sir David King, the government's chief science adviser, the Human Genetics Commission and the Medical Research Council and Wellcome Trust.

Plans to outlaw the research were revealed in December by the public health minister, Caroline Flint, in a white paper which has become the basis of a wide-ranging overhaul of fertility laws. It recommends a blanket ban on the creation of embryos which are part-animal, part-human, with a provision for some research in the area to be conducted under licence.

The Department of Health defended the proposal by citing a public consultation in which many respondents said they were opposed to the research.

The committee's report calls for the proposals to be dropped from the fertility draft bill, due to be published on May 8. It concludes: "We have found the government's published proposals for future regulation in this area to be unacceptable and potentially harmful to UK science."

At a briefing in London, the committee chairman, Liberal Democrat MP Phil Willis, criticised the public consultation exercise used to defend the ban. The consultation attracted around 300 responses, with 277 opposed to the research, but many came from groups opposed to any research on embryos, he said.

The MPs called for permissive legislation, allowing research into human-animal embryos to go ahead under licence after scrutiny by the fertility regulator, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. The technique was pioneered by Hui Sheng, a developmental biologist in Shanghai. Scientists at Newcastle University and King's College London have already applied to the HFEA to create animal-human embryos for stem cell research, but their licences are not expected to be granted until the authority completes its consultation in September.

In a statement, a spokesman for the Department of Health said: "Whilst we have proposed an initial ban in general terms, we recognise that there may be potential benefits from such research and are certainly not closing the door to it."

How are hybrid and chimeric embryos made?

There are three different types. Hybrid embryos are made by fertilising an egg with the sperm of another species, the same technique used to make a mule. For a hybrid to fertilise, the egg and sperm have to come from very closely related species. Chimeric embryos are made by injecting cells or genetic material of one species into the embryo of another. Scientists at Stanford University plan to use this to create a mouse with 10% human brain cells.

The third type of embryo is called a cytoplasmic hybrid, created by inserting a cell, or DNA, from one animal into the hollowed-out egg of another species. Scientists in London and Newcastle hope to create these by fusing human cells with cow and rabbit eggs. All research embryos must be destroyed within 14 days and it is illegal for them to be implanted.

    Ban on human-animal embryos is unacceptable, MPs say, G, 5.4.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2050279,00.html

MPS MAKE HISTORY IN LORDS AXE VOTE

STRAW HAILS PLAN FOR FULLY ELECTED SENATE

08/03/2007
The Mirror
By Bob Roberts Deputy Political Editor 

MPS last night voted to get rid of the 1,000-year-old House of Lords and replace it with a fully elected chamber.

A majority of 113 MPs backed the historic move paving the way for a new House, probably to be called the Senate or Second Chamber.

And MPs also voted by a massive 280 majority to axe the remaining 92 hereditary peers.

Triumphant Commons Leader Jack Straw said: "This is an historic step forward on an issue which has been a matter of debate for decades.

"The House of Commons has broken the deadlock. It is a dramatic result in the history of the British Parliament."

Labour former minister Denis MacShane said: "At long last Britain can have a democratic elected parliament."

During a complex series of votes, MPs were asked if they wanted a chamber partially appointed and partially elected and in what proportions.

A proposal for the Lords to be 80 per cent elected and 20 per cent appointed got a majority backing of 38 but the most support came for a fully elected Lords with 337 for and 224 against. One MP said voting areas in the Commons were so crowded for that vote that members were body-surfing through the division lobbies.

The vote to abolish the hereditary peers was passed with 391 for and 111 against. It is expected that the hereditary peers will be kicked out when the first elected members of the second chamber take up their seats. The 540 new members are likely to be voted in using a system of proportional representation for a period of 15 years.

A senior Government source: "What is clear now is that the hereditaries are gone. The House of Lords is gone. "Their days are not only numbered - they are finished."

Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell said: "This is a truly historic occasion. After nearly 100 years, the House of Commons has at last taken the momentous step to reform the Upper House and make it fit for a modern democracy."

The result will also be seen as a blow to Tony Blair who wanted an allappointed House. Last night, he voted for a 50 per cent elected, 50 per cent appointed second chamber.

The House of Lords will debate the reform proposals next week. Then Mr Straw will bring a cross-party group together to discuss what to do next.

The decisions of both Houses will not become law but are expected to form a blueprint for future legislation which will face a battle to get through Parliament.

Mr Straw will not say if he will use the Parliament Act to enforce any future legislation through the Lords.

But several MPs claimed the vote for a 100 per cent elected chamber was playing tactics and it would never be approved by the Lords.

Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith said: "It was a brilliant parliamentary tactic. Some of those voting for 100 per cent elected did so because they knew it would kill it off."

Chris Mullin, Labour MP for Sunderland South, said: "The meaning of all this is that nothing much is going to change in the foreseeable future."

Many MPs claim that Gordon Brown, if he becomes Prime Minister, will not waste time on the issue because voters think it is not very important.

Labour MP Sir Gerald Kaufman attacked the "chaotic" way the decision was taken.

He said: "This is an utterly irresponsible way to try to create a new House of Parliament from scratch. After 800 years of evolution of the other chamber, the Government wants to abolish it and start anew."

But a Government source said: "We now not only have a mandate to act.

We have an obligation. There has been a change of sentiment. The public mood has moved on. People feel change has got to happen."

    MPS MAKE HISTORY IN LORDS AXE VOTE, DMi, 8.3.2007, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/tm_headline=mps-make-history-in-lords-axe-vote%26method=full%26objectid=18721599%26siteid=89520-name_page.html

MPs thrilled as, against the odds, history is made

March 08, 2007
From The Times
Ann Treneman, Parliamentary Sketch

The entire day was devoted to preparing for the Great Vote Marathon. This tortuous event, devised by Jack “Cruella” Straw, involved up to ten votes on options for a reformed House of Lords. All were free votes. This means that MPs had to think and vote at the same time. Riot police were on standby, for this always leads to scenes of chaos at Westminster.

You may think that voting is easy but you would be wrong. MPs do not tick boxes, they troop through lobbies. In all it can take from 13 to 20 minutes per vote, and it is strenuous work. Apparently, you can burn up to 224 calories an hour doing it, which is the more than an entire Kit-Kat bar.

To be fit to vote you need to be fit on nights like these. Preparation is all. MPs packed in the pasta carbs over lunches and guzzled high-energy (not to say high-alcohol) drinks. They were advised to limber up and some were seen in the Central Lobby doing some light hamstring stretches. This was followed by some brisk power-walking in the committee corridors.

A few took a break in the Chamber to listen to the debate. The opinions were ricocheting like bullets. Everyone was speaking in shorthand. There was the 50 option (half elected, half appointed), the 60 and the 80. Sir Gerald Kaufman was withering as he described the entire exercise as “constitutional su doku”.

Andrew Tyrie, a smart but obsessive Tory with the physique of a pipe-cleaner, urged MPs to think before they voted. This was controversial. Last time, he noted, several MPs got confused and voted for the wrong thing and the wrong time. An MP shouted. “They should be put in the Lords!”

Sir George Young, the modernising Tory, who seems more patrician than it is legal to be in the Commons, noted drily: “I hope the House can exercise some collective ingenuity this evening . . .”

No one was betting on this. Jack Straw was showing signs of frazzling. He was desperate for a hybrid Lords; any hybrid would do. When one MP noted that the cost of this would be £1 billion, Jack exploded. “That is absolute and utter balderdash!” Mr Straw rushed out, possibly to console himself with a Kit-Kat which, of course, he could always burn off later.

At 5.30pm came the Speaker’s dramatic cry: “Clear the lobbies!” MPs began milling around like sheep in a thunderstorm. Cabinet members, delivered by their magic-carpet limos, flowed in. They were pounced on by backbenchers, who see voting as just another cocktail party networking opportunity. After eight minutes the Speaker cried: “Lock the doors!” Gordon was there early. David Cameron walked in, the sea of MPs parting before him. The Prime Minister, a rare sight indeed other than at PMQs, was there. (Well, it is his legacy.)

Mr Straw kept consulting his grid. The 50 per cent option was voted down. “All right, Jack?” shouted a Tory. Jack smiled back, lopsidedly. Then, 60 per cent crashed and burned.

“Clear the lobbies!” cried the Speaker, for the vote on 80. Everyone milled. The hubbub was deafening. Jack sat on the front bench, looking tense. An MP came up and spoke to him and his face broke into a huge grin and we knew that he had won. A few seconds later it was confirmed. Jack was, finally, all right.

No one could believe it when MPs then voted for 100 per cent. MPs were flushed with the thrill of it all. They had actually done something! Against the odds, and not without pain, history had been made.

    MPs thrilled as, against the odds, history is made, Ts, 8.3.2007, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/article1485357.ece

6.45pm update

MPs vote for 80% elected Lords

Wednesday March 7, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Matthew Tempest and Paul Owen

MPs have tonight voted for an 80% elected upper chamber, after rejecting six other options for change.

The House of Commons approved an 80% elected, 20% appointed upper house by a majority of 38, after having previously rejected both a 60% elected house and a 50-50 split.

In the first vote, MPs opted to keep an upper chamber by 416 to 163, a majority of 253.

They then voted heavily against a fully appointed upper chamber, with 375 against and 196 for, a majority of 179.

MPs then rejected the 80% appointed and 60% appointed options without a vote, and went on to reject the idea of a 50-50 split - the favoured option of the leader of the Commons, Jack Straw - by a resounding 418 to 155, a majority of 263.

In a surprise development, they also voted to reject a 60% elected body, by 392 to 178.

However, they voted narrowly for an 80% elected body.

MPs are now voting on a fully elected house.

In a mammoth succession of votes, MPs are also voting separately on whether to abolish the final remaining 92 hereditary peers.

A similar series of votes in 2003 ended in stalemate and the status quo, after MPs narrowly avoided approving any one particular option.

Tonight's result, however, is only advisory.

Although the final proportion of elected to appointed peers will probably be assumed, the government - and the next prime minister - will have to decide how much time to devote to pushing a Lords reform bill through parliament - including a potentially rebellious House of Lords.

MPs have a free vote, although the Liberal Democrats have agreed to vote en masse for the 80 and 100% elected options.

Mr Straw had indicated a preference for 50-50.

Particular attention will be paid to how Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the chancellor and Mr Blair's heir apparent, vote.

Reform of the House of Lords was first mooted by the then Liberal party in 1911.

In 2003, the option of an 80% elected upper house failed by just three votes.

A group of senior Labour figures, including nine cabinet ministers and former leader Lord Kinnock, wrote to MPs at the weekend asking them to back the 50%, 60%, 80% and 100% options.

Signatories included the transport secretary, Douglas Alexander, the environment secretary, David Miliband, the Northern Ireland secretary, Peter Hain, and the education secretary, Alan Johnson.

The defence secretary, Des Browne, the trade and industry secretary, Alastair Darling, the culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, the international development secretary, Hilary Benn, and the health secretary, Patricia Hewitt, also signed.

Today votes came at the end of two full days of debate, which showed some unexpected divisions within the parties as well as between them.

The former Liberal party leader David Steel, now a peer himself, came out in favour of an entirely appointed chamber - despite campaigning on manifestos through the 1980s for an elected upper chamber.

Robert Marshall-Andrews, a serial rebel and member of Labour's "awkward squad" said that he favoured abolition of the Lords in 1999, favoured a substantially elected second chamber in 2003 and tonight would support the status quo.

Mr Marshall-Andrews, a frequent critic of the government, put his change of mind down to the Lords' record in opposing government attacks on civil liberties and the closed-list voting system suggested for elections to the second chamber.

Chris Mullin, a former radical leftwing Labour MP, said he would vote for an all-appointed chamber.

Veteran Labour MP Sir Gerald Kaufman called today's options "gibberish", saying that the only logical positions were abolition, wholly appointed or wholly elected. Frank Dobson, the former health secretary, said that an elected Lords would be a "constitutional shambles" unless its powers were decided first.

Meanwhile, Tories such as Oliver Letwin and Sir George Young came out firmly in favour of a predominantly elected Lords.

Mr Straw rejected a estimate today from the Labour peer Lord Lipsey that a reformed and largely elected upper house could cost £1bn.

The peer warned that the cost could deter the general public from backing future reforms.

"My estimate is a conservative one," he said. "Given inflation and given the capacity of elected politicians to insist on more resources, the outcome could easily be much more expensive.

"At the moment, the Lords provides value for money as a legislature. It taps the expertise of its members, who are unpaid. That is why the cost per member of the Lords amounts to only £149,000 by comparison with £726,000 for each member of the Commons."

But a government source said: "These figures are preposterous and back-of-an-envelope calculations."

A separate stand-alone vote on reform will take place in the House of Lords next week.

A future bill could also see the name of the upper chamber changed from the House of Lords. The white paper promises to consult on a new name.

Under the white paper, elected peers could serve only one term, but that would be of 15 years.

Elections of a third of members every five years would mean a complete change of personnel every 15 years.

Some form of proportional representation would be used, with party lists for candidates, and constituencies based on the European parliament regions.

    MPs vote for 80% elected Lords, G, 7.3.2007, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/lords/story/0,,2028642,00.html