Manifesto: On the Systems of Government

Relationship between Executive and Legislature

An affirmation of the principle that the Executive (Ministers) and the Legislature (sitting MPs) are equals in our system, that the Legislature is entitled to consultation on any matter it deems requires it, and very significant weight is given to the views it expresses. If at all possible, this should be enshrined as more than a 'convention' that can be broken at will.

A particular aspect of the current system I find objectionable is that of 'whipping' MPs. While the Executive informing MPs of their opinion is of course acceptable, there should not be any requirement by the Executive for any MP to vote in a particular way: to require this is to subvert the relationship referred to above. It also negates the trust put in the MP by their constituents, who have voted for that person as their representative who is responsive to the their concerns, not simply as an Executive prop.

Relationship between Executive and Courts

An affirmation of the position of the courts as the impartial implementer of legislation, and not a valid target for antipathy; that if cases don't go the way the Executive want that is (usually) because the Laws were incorrectly drawn up, not because the Courts were wrong. If at all possible, this should be enshrined as more than a 'convention' that can be broken at will.

A corollary of this is of course to take additional care in the drafting of legislation and the especially the way it interacts with existing law. A priority should, in my view, be made of radical simplification of the law to enable people to more easily understand and follow it, and also to reduce the opportunities to evade it.

Relationship between Executive and the Civil Service

Recognition that the status of the Civil Service is that of informed consultants and implementers of the work of Government, and their expertise in their chosen fields must be taken into account. As such, Ministers should not and do not need "special advisers" or similar extra people brought in (at public expense or otherwise). Should additional experience of the matters at hand be needed this need must be raised with the relevant Civil Servants for resolution.

Responsibilities of MPs

I know that many MPs are very hard working individuals, but it is also very dispiriting watching debates in parliament that are of national importance where only a very few MPs are present, and where it seems very little is achieved. Points are expressed, but it seems very rare that anyone makes a change as a result. I would like to see progress made in the nature of debates, moving towards a meeting of minds and away from confrontation. How this may be achieved is currently beyond me. I am more encouraged by the meetings of the various select committees, which do seem to be somewhat more effective. Perhaps the parody of debate in the Commons is already being replaced?

In general, MPs need, it seems to me, to be reminded that their collective work in Government is to promote the safety and welfare of the whole of the UK (and consequently, of the Earth). Welfare is a social goal, not a financial one, and while finance and commerce play a part, it must be remembered that some of the least wealthy people in the world consider themselves to be fulfilled, while richer people are more likely to consider themselves not rich enough. We all live in a Society with common goals and constraints and in which people strive in concert to achieve things not possible alone. Without Society there would be chaos and, in the long term, death. Therefore, I view it as paramount that the Government promote and nurture our shared Society.

Government Communications

It is important that all of those involved in Government act in ways that does not breach the legal or moral constraints expected of them, and as such the use of private communication systems (be they smartphone or otherwise) must always be subject to the controls already applied to most Civil Servants.

Because of the position, place, and hours of work of members of the Legislature and Executive, it may be the case that this should include any and all personal communication systems they may use or have access to. Appropriate oversight is required of these communications, although I do not know what form that would take.

Personal Gain

Too many of those involved in Government have made use of their positions to personal gain (sometimes directly at public expense) or gain for family & friends, both during and after their service. While limiting this may result in unforeseen consequences it seems the known consequences are bad enough that steps taken should include:

1. A requirement that anyone involved in Government must relinquish their connections to other entities, including those of employment, directorships, societies and trusts, excepting being simple members of charities.
2. Severance of connections must be completed within 1 month of taking up such a post.  Full time Government employees are expected to work full time for the Government.
3. An undertaking, enforceable in law against the employed person, that the family and friends of those in Government will not benefit (either financially or by "advancement") from such a position.

In general, being an MP or Minister should be a goal in itself, not a means to enrich themselves or others.

One form of personal gain is by "gaming" the rules around accommodation. I propose that the Government maintain what amounts to a Parliamentary Hotel, with allocated suites for all those MPs whose constituencies warrant it (e.g. over 1.5hr minimum travel time door-door), and some number of additional 'as required' rooms. No other provision will be available. Allocated rooms may be furnished by the occupant at their expense but must be returned to the standard state on leaving.

Status of Public Inquiries

A change of status of Public Inquiries, such that:

1. Inquiry recommendations must normally be released promptly and also implemented by the Government without undue delay;
2. Where the Government decides that Inquiry recommendations cannot be implemented it must issue a detailed explanation why not that can be challenged in Parliament. In particular, "because we don't like it" is not an acceptable reason: Inquiries are expensive in both money and social effort and their results must be respected.
3. Prompt release of Inquiry results is necessary for similar reasons. Should "National Security" be invoked as a reason not to release results or implement recommendations, the Government must seek the agreement of both the Legislature and the Courts in some way. This is intended to be hard.
4. An Inquiry can be set up not only by the Executive, but also by the other two arms of Government if required. This is to impose a form of constraint on the Executive.