U.K. shows the road not taken

In Westminster, power is more decentralized

My suggestion in this space Wednesday that Canada has a fake Potemkin parliament — provoked by the Harper government’s attempts to delegitimize opposition MPs on the security file — seems to have touched a nerve.

The idea that our parliamentary traditions have been usurped seems to be widely held; the belief that the House of Commons has regressed into a rubber-stamp for the executive almost universally so.

The governing executive’s mindset is that the opposition, and the occasional dissident Tory, cannot be trusted with serious affairs of state, so they should get out of the way.

Which suggests the question: Does Parliament matter?

Yes, it retains its role in deciding which party forms government; it can even remove that party from office in a confidence vote. Yes, it remains a forum for public debate and it continues to perform a representative role by linking the House of Commons to the people through their constituency MPs.

But it has been emasculated in its role initiating and influencing public policy by a powerful and disciplined government that seeks to quash any dissenting opinion, even when it emerges as friendly fire.

Much of the reaction has manifested itself in despair that this descent into impotence is irrevocable. But, as a study into the inner workings of the British system reveals, Parliament has the power to take up its bed and heal itself.

Meg Russell, professor of British politics and deputy director of University College London’s Constitution Unit, said the study revealed growing levels of backbench independence, buoyed by structural changes to the committee system, which mean even majority governments have to fear the power of Parliament and factor defeat in the House of Commons and House of Lords into the equation when crafting policy.

“Tony Blair had an overwhelming majority — more than 400 MPs in a 650-member Parliament. It created a situation where it didn’t matter if the odd backbencher voted against the government — the parliamentary party was too big to be cohesive. But people get into a habit of rebelling and once the culture of independence has developed, it’s hard to go back,” she said in an interview.

The UCL study discovered a system in which MPs were not cowed by the party whips. Reforms mean committee chairs and members are now chosen by MPs, not the whips, while backbench MPs have been given more control over what goes on the parliamentary agenda.

An analysis of special committees between 1997 and 2010 looked at seven committees, 695 reports, 13,216 conclusions and recommendations, and conducted 56 interviews.

It concluded that even though the committees did not have formal powers to make the government do anything, 44% of their recommendations were implemented. Their power went beyond just investigating — inquiries focused attention and often exposed malfeasance, as media magnate Rupert Murdoch discovered when he appeared at the culture, media and sport select committee.

Another line of inquiry looked at the legislative process — the passage of 12 bills and 4,361 suggested amendments. While most of the 752 agreed amendments came from the government, Prof. Russell said, many were traceable to nongovernment suggestions.

The sense that Parliament actually wields the power to send a badly crafted bill down to defeat focuses the minds of ministers — one responded to the UCL study, saying: “I always say to people, ‘You don’t know how much Parliament preys on everyone’s minds.’ We have a much stronger Parliament than we think.”

It also weighs heavily on the people writing the policy. “Departments will have a sense of what they think they can ask Parliament, where they might need to concede and what they shouldn’t even ask,” said one civil servant.

Using an academic model to gauge conceptions of power, the study suggested that not only was Parliament able to make government do what it asked, government does what Parliament seems likely to ask, without being asked.

The evidence suggests that in the British parliamentary system, the government works hard to avoid conflict where it can. Even when the prime minister seeks to get his way — as last week when the coalition government was defeated in an attempt to unseat the Speaker of the House John Bercow — the House has a tendency to tell him to go forth and multiply. (Mr. Bercow, incidentally, is running in the British election as Speaker and will be unopposed — another idea from which we could learn).

All this is a far cry from where we are in Canada.

There is very little empirical evidence to compare the influence of committees and opposition MPs in the Canadian House of Commons, but you don’t need to spend much time on Parliament Hill to know that the average ministerial driver wields more clout than an elected member of the opposition.

There have been analyses of the role of MPs, such as Kelly Blidook’s book Constituency Influence in Parliament, that looked at the relationship between constituency representation and policy proposals. But any influence wielded by the individual MP is invariably in the form of a private member’s bill, usually marginal legislation that politicians use as a hobby-horse and the executive treats as a safety valve.

In Canada, unlike in the U.K., Parliament doesn’t matter all that much.

“Theodore Roosevelt once said the most effective strategy is to speak softly and carry a big stick,” said Prof. Russell. “Parliament has always carried a big stick but reforms have enhanced the size of that stick.”

In 2015 in Canada, the defenders of our parliamentary tradition are left waving twigs.

In the U.K., 44% of committee proposals were implemented