Petty politics is harming our parliament

Amidst the crisis of Brexit, Parliament goes on. Bills, both from the government and from private members, are still debated, adjournment debates go on, and select committees continue to sit. The system that has developed over hundreds of years weathers both the Brexit paralysis and a hostile Prime Minister yet to notice that she heads a minority government responsible for the greatest constitutional challenge in living memory.

This chaos does, however, manage to take the eye off of some of the other functions of our Parliament. The week before last, this was to the detriment of two long serving, dedicated servants of House of Commons. Mike Gapes and Ian Austin, former Labour MPs who left the party in response to the damaging actions and behaviours of the party leadership, were forced out of their roles on the select committee for foreign affairs by that same party leadership, despite good sense and standard procedure.

On Tuesday, these two parliamentarians sat in the chamber while their colleagues and opponents debated a motion to remove them from their roles, brought by Bill Wiggin on behalf of the selection committee (the select committee responsible for the appointment of MPs to select committees). It is perhaps noteworthy that Bill Wiggin is recorded in Hansard as speaking precisely twice, once to open the debate - in which he noted that the Selection Committee is not compelled to replace the members - and once again to clarify a point of nomenclature. He did not once recommend the adoption of the motion by the House, but rather that the House consider for itself the merits of the motion. It is also telling that LabourList (which is independent of - but closely linked to - the Labour party) refers to the motion as “Labour’s motion.”

Select committees have the responsibility of holding government to account to Parliament. The role of the select committee for foreign affairs in particular is to act as Parliament’s experts in foreign affairs, and to scrutinize the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. As with all select committees, the composition is intended to be roughly proportional to party representation in the Commons; the chair is elected and members appointed at the start of the Parliament, to serve for the duration of that Parliament.

This is the smokescreen that Labour are using to attack former members. As Mike Gapes and Ian Austin used to sit on the select committee for foreign affairs under the Labour banner, the party has lost two representatives on that select committee. This is indisputable. The argument that this has damaged the select committee to the point of it no longer being fit for purpose, however, is fallacious.

To be sure, the principle of rough proportionality is not a trivial point. It is important that the government is not unduly represented, so as to avoid either the fact or the appearance of the governing party marking its own work. Further, this principle of rough proportionality prevents the accumulation of any significant party influence dominating any particular policy area. The intention is that all policy areas and all parties have an appropriate sense of balance, and indeed it is the case that no major party is overrepresented in the select committees.

This principle - and it is a principle, rather than a rule codified within a standing order - should be employed to serve these purposes. It should not be used as a tool for political point scoring, or as a front for punishing those who have failed to pass the Labour leadership’s test of purity by standing up  to the anti-semitism gripping the party. We should be in no doubt, however, that this was why this principle was exploited here. Contrary to the convention that this sort of business of the House is not whipped, and instead left as a matter for the will of the House to be determined, Labour enforced a three-line whip on this motion, as Siobahn McDonagh bravely revealed during the debate. The full force of the whip’s office was threatened to be brought to bear upon those who decided for themselves the merits of those occupying their places in the select committee, and did not blindly pursue what Corbyn perceives as justice for the slight against him.

The role of a select committee member is not partisan. The modernization committee has gone to great efforts to ensure that select committees are appointed and act in the service of the House of Commons, which is to say the entire House of Commons, not the party of which they are a member. Select committees are the instruments Parliament have to give it strength in expertise and knowledge relative to the executive; the conflict is not between parties in Parliament, but between the legislature and the executive. Of course parties have a part to play in this dynamic, but more important are the individuals in the room. It was not that the Labour party institutionally believes that Mike Gapes, for example, is not well suited to the select committee on foreign affairs.

Few question the credentials of Mike Gapes. He had served on the foreign select committee for twenty-seven years, since 1992, and was chair from 2005 to 2010. He has also sat on the defence select committee since 1999 - twenty years - and has no doubt accrued great experience on the relationship between diplomacy and security, including a great understanding of our relationship with the other twenty-seven NATO countries, vital partners that have tremendous bearing on global politics.

A great number of parliamentarians from a variety of parties spoke to his credit, including a number of conservatives, who have seen Mike Gapes act as the de facto representative of Parliament to foreign diplomats and officials, had comments to that effect recorded in debate. One might argue that these are politicians who would frustrate any of Labour’s efforts, and spoke only for partisan gain. This is not likely.

For one thing, the party calculus within the foreign select committee from the perspective of the government is unchanged. The number of opposition members is the same; Gapes’ function within the committee would be the same. He is a member steeped in experience of foreign affairs and the workings of Parliament and it is not reasonable to suggest that he would discharge his duties any less responsibly now that his twitter bio no longer includes the word “Labour”. He is the same man; if he was a thorn in the Tories’ side then he would continue to be; if he was a friend, he would continue to be. As it was, he was whatever was necessary for Parliament’s interests - and therefore the country’s interests - in any given situation.

Further, others among the Labour party, the Lib Dems, and The Independent Group joined the defence of both Gapes and Austin, speaking highly of their experience and speaking against the bullying by the Labour party, which serves only to weaken the effectiveness of our legislature.

The same facts present themselves to the Labour leadership and the PLP; that select committees work only by shedding partisan colours at the door; that the opposition to the government remains unchanged; that these men are men of experience; and that they will present the same challenge to the government that they always have. They know that these are the same men that they deemed acceptable when they wore the right colours.

Jeremy Corbyn, the man that made the entirely unconventional decision to evict members from roles they loyally served has only eleven years of select committee experience to his name, versus Gapes’ forty-seven, five as chair. There have been many reformations to the selection of members for select committees, all with the intention of divorcing their function from party politics and instead emphasising the work of MPs as individuals in parliament. The entirely unconventional decision to whip this vote - against the intentions of these reforms - was not made because of the MPs’ service.

The motivation was that of petty party politics, the same pettiness that leaves Corbyn unable to sit at a table with Chukka Umunna despite the national crisis we face. It is a politics that doesn’t care for experience, expertise, or demonstrated talent, but cares simply about whether a politician is in with the right people. It is a politics in which those in power intervene to hide allegations of racism committed by those they consider their friends, and condemn in harsh terms those who even speak of building bridges between those they do not.

Mike Gapes and Ian Austin weren’t friends with the right people. They were friends with those who believe the UK prospers within the EU, or that the public should at least be asked to confirm the terms of our departure. They were friends with those who oppose racism, including the antisemitism that has ballooned and subsequently whitewashed within the Labour party under the current leadership. As a result, Parliament has lost from its arsenal of tools with which improves governance in the UK through oversight of the executive two esteemed members with proven track records in one of the most vital select committees it has.