MPs set to debate public's petition demands

BBC News brings news of an interesting development—long-talked about, now coming to some fruition—that might work to enhance British democracy and participation:

Campaigners who gather more than 100,000 petition signatures could have their ideas debated in Parliament, via a newly launched government website.

The e-petitions site, which will ask the public for proposals, is aimed at "building confidence" in MPs' work.

House of Commons leader Sir George Young said politicians could not afford to be complacent and had to give a "megaphone" to people's concerns. But Labour has said the petitions could lead to debates on "crazy ideas".

The system, launched on Friday, replaces the existing e-petitions pages on the Downing Street website, set up under Tony Blair. It allows popular petitions to be discussed by the backbench business committee of MPs, which has the power to propose debates on non-government matters.

But some proposals, including those judged to be "libellous or offensive" or "related to honours and appointments" will be barred from the website. Posting more than one petition on a single subject is also banned.

Sir George, a Conservative, said: "Today's launch represents another step towards a more accessible and transparent Parliament." He added: "In recent weeks, Parliament has been at the centre of public interest, by leading the debate on phone-hacking allegations.

"But this shouldn't mean that Parliament becomes complacent. There's much more that we can do to build confidence in the work of the House of Commons and we should continue to find new ways of encouraging people to engage.

"The public already have many opportunities to make their voices heard in Parliament, and this new system of e-petitions could give them a megaphone."

However, Sir George said: "Of course, parliamentary time is not unlimited and we want the best e-petitions to be given airtime - so we will monitor the site closely over the coming months to assess whether the 100,000 figure is an appropriate target."

Deputy Leader of the House, Lib Dem MP David Heath, said: "The e-petitions website is the latest example of how the coalition is continuing to take forward its programme for government.

"It underscores our commitment to reform of the parliamentary process, and will help to reinforce the aim of greater engagement by people in the politics of this country."

Petitions will be moderated by government departments, with oversight from the Office of the Leader of the Commons. The plans were first set out in the Conservatives' 2010 election manifesto.

Petitions were introduced to the Downing Street website by Tony Blair. The most popular, with more than 1.8 million people in support, opposed road pricing. More than 70,000 backed the one-word suggestion that Gordon Brown should "resign". And almost 50,000 signed up to the idea that TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson should become prime minister.

Time to salute the post-2010 election Parliament (?)

Mark D'Arcy, Parliamentary correspondent for BBC News, writes today that—in his opinion—we're now seeing "a stronger Parliament" as we enter the second summer recess for the present House:

The dust is settling, the parliamentarians are gone and the workmen have moved in to begin Westminster's usual summer programme of renovation and repair work.

Like the Forth Bridge, the Palace of Westminster, with its cast iron Victorian roofs, its Neolithic heating systems and endless need for maintenance and repair will be crawling with builders and craftsmen rather than politicians - the institution it houses, though, is in unexpectedly good order.

The horrible, doom-laden slog to the last election is a receding memory; the new MPs elected in 2010 (and the considerable number of new peers appointed since then) sit in a more open, more independent and powerful parliament than has been seen for decades.

The House of Commons has won some limited power to set its own agenda and has used it to some effect.

The select committees are more powerful and independent-minded than ever before. And the willingness of MPs and Peers to defy their whips is clearly high - rebellion in this Parliament is already routine; the Tory right, the Lib Dem left, Blairite diehards, eurosceptics, europhiles, libertarians, animal-lovers, NHS reform-sceptics and ultras, all have at least flexed their muscles.

After just one year, new MPs from the 2010 intake - a third of the total, remember - are more likely to have defied their party line than those of the 1997 intake were after four years in the Commons. In short, the Commons in particular, and Parliament in general, is a healthier institution, rather closer to what the public expects of their lawmakers.

Observers offer varying opinions of the performance of the Home Affairs and Culture committees in grilling those enmeshed in the hacking scandal, but the simple fact that the mighty Murdochs were forced to appear before MPs has reminded parliament of its own latent power.

And the trouble with treating select committee hearings as drama rather than inquisition is that reviewers look for "gotcha" moments and the visible collapse of witnesses, when the real importance may lie in the micro-details of answers given. Remember, these inquiries are not over.

More generally, the select committees have amassed more power and respect in the year or so since they resumed operations after the election.

The Treasury Committee has acquired a vet over the hiring and firing of the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility, the watchdog tasked with validating the Chancellor's economic projections and the Public Administration Committee persuaded a nominee to head the UK Statistics Authority to withdraw, with its chair, Bernard Jenkin remarking pointedly that "there was a perception it was the regulated choosing the regulator".

This kind of thing is clearly going to happen more frequently. As is searing criticism of Government policy in committee reports - take a look at the output of the Public Accounts Committee or of the Defence Committee. Look at the role played by the Health Committee with the Health and Social Care Bill, or the critique of Big Society localism offered by the Communities Committee.

In the Chamber, term ended with the Prime Minister facing a long and gruelling interrogation over the hacking scandal - one which he survived pretty well, but which none the less signalled that it is still essential for senior ministers (and the Leader of the Opposition) to convince in the Chamber.

More generally, a combination of the new Backbench Business Committee facilitating debates on subjects MPs want to talk about, and the Speaker allowing many more urgent questions - and, memorably, the emergency debate on phone hacking - have created a much more vibrant Commons.

To be sure MPs are still members of political parties and mostly vote according to the party line. But there is far more sign of individual judgement being exercised along the way and the Government has to take account of that in advance.

On the other side of the building, the Lords is a pretty vibrant place, too. Peers have already fought one massive, if ultimately, fairly fruitless, battle over the Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Act.

They can be expected to take to the trenches again over elected police commissioners, over the Government's proposed health and welfare reforms and over the future of their own chamber. You may be in favour of these measures, or against them, but they are all big important subjects and deserve robust debate and scrutiny; and they're going to get them.

Mostly missing from the scene is the expenses issue which so dominated the last parliament. MPs now groan about IPSA, and press for it to exercise a lighter touch. But it will be pretty hard for any future freeloaders to help themselves to the kind of extraordinary perks enjoyed by earlier generations.

So I'm afraid, as I head off for my holidays, I'm going to indulge in a little optimism. A stronger Parliament is doing a better job. And that is a good thing for the country. Blogging will resume when Parliament resumes - and barring an emergency recall, that will be on 5 September.

Tories outspent Labour by £14.3m in election year

This is the stark news reported today by BBC News, using data from the Electoral Commission:

The Conservatives outspent Labour by nearly £15m in 2010, according to the Electoral Commission.

In the period, which includes the general election, the Conservatives spent £49.2m - some £6m more than they collected in income. Labour spent £34.9m, including £1.05 from the Co-operative Party, an affiliated organisation.

The Liberal Democrats spent just under £10m, with the SNP on £2.2m and Plaid Cymru on £932,708

The commission said it was considering whether to impose sanctions on the BNP after it failed to submit its accounts. The party - which is already facing financial difficulties - could be fined up to £20,000 for late submission under new powers handed to the commission to prevent abuses. The BNP has been given 28 days to file its 2010 accounts or provide a reasonable explanation for why they are late. The party was not available for comment.

The Christian Party also failed to submit its accounts by the deadline and faces similar sanctions.

Electoral Commission chairman Peter Wardle said: "This is not acceptable. We have commenced formal case reviews into the circumstances.

"If we are satisfied that the rules have been broken and the parties concerned do not have a reasonable excuse, we will use our new powers to impose sanctions in accordance with our published enforcement policy, to ensure future compliance with the law."

Both parties could also be issued with a compliance notice, demanding that they hand over all financial documentation and appoint an auditor, at their own expense, to examine them.

The BNP was criticised last year by the electoral watchdog for failing to keep a proper record of who was donating money to it - but it could not take any action at that stage as it lacked sufficient powers.

Twelve parties, with expenditure of more than £250,000 in 2010, have submitted their accounts to the Electoral Commission.

The Labour Party has seen donations from wealthy individuals all but dry up since Tony Blair stood down as its leader and is now mostly reliant on support from the trade unions.

Figures released in December showed that the Conservatives had spent twice as much as Labour on campaigning at last year's general election. The Conservatives spent £16.6m, less than their £17.8m outlay in 2005. Labour's expenditure more than halved from £17.9m in 2005 to £8m.

A £14.3m overspend and the Conservatives still couldn't win the election outright! These figures are also fraught with significance for the Labour Party and its leadership...

Mark Easton (BBC): Introducing Cameronism

Home Editor at BBC News Mark Easton has today submitted an interesting article "Introducing Cameronism":

I suspect every modern prime minister secretly wants to have their own "ism".

High honour indeed to have your name ism-ised, evidence that your ideas are radical and coherent enough to be classified as a distinct philosophy or school of thought.

People will have their own views about Thatcherism or Blairism (isms tend to divide opinion), but having a full Wikipedia entry - better still a reference in the OED - dedicated to one's political vision is truly to have made one's mark.

Majorism and Brownism are unconvincing stubs. History appears to have decided they may have re-upholstered the settee and scattered a few cushions but they didn't alter the feng shui of the room.

The current occupant of No 10 hopes today marks the unveiling of a convincing definition of Cameronism.

His Open Public Services paper is less a policy document and more an attempt to join the dots of domestic reform into a coherent whole.

"The reason for having a paper is that, though it won't be packed with policies, we need to try and change the culture so that people can see there is a consistent line of thought," he told me at a briefing in the cabinet room in No 10 last week.

Easton goes on to explore some of the main tenets of emergent "Cameronism", namely, 'upside down accountability' and affirming the importance of private sector profit... Worth a read for insight into developing Conservative party ideology, as represented by the Tory leader.

BBC News: New MPs 'struggle' with long hours and workload

BBC News reports on survey findings into the lives of recently-elected MPs:

New MPs are finding the combination of long hours and a heavy workload a struggle, and worry the job is harming their family lives, research suggests.

A survey by the Hansard Society of the 227 MPs elected for the first time in 2010 suggest the new intake are working an average of 69 hours a week. One said the demands of Westminster and constituency work had a "devastating" impact on their private life.

MPs' hours were changed in 2005 because they were not "family friendly". The chamber decided to start its proceedings earlier on some days amid complaints that long hours and post-midnight finishes were putting off many people from becoming MPs. But the man who oversees the parliamentary expenses system has said the Commons schedule - which includes 2.30pm-10.00pm sessions on Monday and Tuesday - remains "idiosyncratic" and moving to more regular working hours could save money.

Last year saw an above-average number of newcomers to the Commons after a swathe of former MPs were either forced to stand down, following revelations about their expenses, or chose to retire.

Political research body the Hansard Society canvassed all the new MPs - about a quarter of whom responded - about their experiences during their first year in Parliament. It found that the "vast number" believed the job - which requires MPs to divide their time between Parliament and their constituency - was having a "detrimental" effect on their private lives.

While most MPs had expected to work a 60-hour week, on average they were doing nine hours more. The respondents said they spent more time on constituency casework than any other matter and that they passed 63% of their time in Westminster compared to 37% in their consituency.

The new MPs also expressed dissatisfaction with how the new expenses system was working - with 79% saying they were not happy with how the independent watchdog Ipsa was performing. MPs have complained the new system is too "costly and bureaucratic" and last month voted for it to be reviewed - although Ipsa has said the principles of independent oversight and greater transparency cannot be changed.

The Hansard Society, which conducted similar research after the 2005 general election, said it was too early to say whether these concerns would make any MPs reconsider their future in Parliament and their political ambitions. But Matt Korris, who compiled the report, said it provided an insight into the challenges faced by MPs.

"We need effective MPs in order for Parliament and our system of representative democracy to function successfully," he said. "These findings underscore the need for a review of the role of MPs, not just to build an improved political system, but for the very well-being of MPs themselves."

The report also suggests that more than half of the new MPs took a pay cut when they entered Parliament. MPs earn a salary of £65,738 and voted to forgo a 1% pay rise this year.

Worrying news in regard to the effectiveness of Parliament overall.

Guardian: Lords united against Nick Clegg's reform plans

Overwhelming majority of peers believe an elected upper house would be unconstitutional

...is the byline in today's Guardian newspaper, reporting on potential threats to Coalition Lords Reform plans:

The scale of the fight facing Nick Clegg as he tries to reform the House of Lords has been made clear by a newspaper survey revealing an overwhelming majority of peers believe the change would be unconstitutional. The deputy prime minister published a plan last month to replace the Lords with a wholly – or 80% – elected chamber of about 300 peers. They would be elected by thirds every five years and serve single 15-year terms.

Clegg, faced with hostility to the plan and bruised after the failure of the alternative vote referendum campaign, is attempting a more sensitive approach this time, bringing in a package of measures that would appeal to ordinarily sceptical MPs and peers. Because of the intrinsic unpalatability of the proposals, it had been suggested that the government use the Parliament Act to force its will on the upper house should it transpire that peers do not back the change.

While all three main parties committed to the policy in their manifestos, there are large pockets of sceptics beneath the surface.

A survey of peers by The Times newspaper found evidence that the government could face a constitutional crisis if it tried to exert its will. The overwhelming majority of peers believe it would be unconstitutional for the government to create an elected chamber in the face of their objections.

The poll also uncovers deep splits among Clegg's Liberal Democrats despite reform being a flagship party policy. It is known that Lord Steel, the former party leader, and others are opposed, but it had been assumed that the majority of Lib Dem peers supported the current leadership.

Tory leader David Cameron and Labour leader Ed Miliband also face mass revolt by their peers.

The Times sent questionnaires to each of the 789 people entitled to sit in the Lords, although only 400 are regular attenders. A total of 310 responded, in almost precise proportion to how their parties are represented on the red benches. Of those, 80% oppose a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber; 74% believe that it would be unconstitutional to use the Parliament Act; and 81% believe the Lords works well as it is.

Clegg's peers are deeply split, with 64% believing the Lords works well, 46% opposing a large elected element and 54% saying it would be unconstitutional to use the Parliament Act.

The act is used infrequently to permit the Commons to enact measures without the consent of the upper house. It was last used to pass the 2004 Hunting Act.

Party leaders in both chambers will shortly select 26 peers and MPs to sit on a committee to draw up a final proposal. The committee may be chaired by a Labour figure. The government intends to have a bill ready for the Queen's Speech in spring next year.

Riddell: Battle between Parliament and judges only just begun

The conflict over human rights will test our constitution to breaking point, writes Mary Riddell in The Telegraph today (small extract follows):

The rage unleashed by the verdict in the Shoesmith case is illustrative of the mounting hostility between the judiciary and Parliament. Judges and politicians do not, and should not, always agree. The danger is that their differences, for which the catalyst is usually though not invariably human rights, become a power battle leading to constitutional meltdown. That zero-sum game has begun.

The fight is not merely arm-wrestling between two different limbs of the constitution. The third player is the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights, with a jurisdiction stretching from Reykjavik to Vladivostock and encompassing the 47 member states of the Council of Europe.

Tensions between these three have already brought Britain to what some regard as the brink of constitutional crisis. In fact, the stand-off has barely started. Coming over the horizon are three issues that may test the current settlement to breaking point. The first is prisoner voting. In February, Parliament decided, by a majority of 212, to defy a 2005 ruling by the Strasbourg court to outlaw a blanket ban. With the appeal process exhausted, Britain now has no legal option but to offer some prisoners the vote, as is the common European practice.

There's more, obviously. Take a look!

BBC News: Clegg unveils plans for elected House of Lords

BBC News has news of the latest announcement (with video), made today, for Lords' Reform:

Nick Clegg has set out options for replacing the House of Lords with a mainly elected upper chamber.

The deputy prime minister outlined plans for a legislature with 300 members, 80% of which could be elected. While it was up to MPs and peers to decide the final balance, he said the first elections should happen in 2015. The plans would give Parliament "greater democratic legitimacy", he argued, but many MPs said it would threaten the supremacy of the Commons.

Labour said the plans were a "dog's dinner" lacking detail and a number of backbench MPs said any proposals should be put to the people in a referendum.

Alongside Prime Minister David Cameron, Mr Clegg announced the proposed reforms to the Commons but was barracked by many Tory MPs while doing so.

He described reform of the House of Lords as "unfinished business" but said he was "open-minded" about how to get to the government's ultimate goal of a mainly elected chamber to replace the existing appointed one.

A future government draft bill would contain plans for an 80:20 split but there would be a provision for a fully elected chamber if that is "what people want", he told MPs, appealing for a cross-party consensus on the issue.

A joint committee of 13 MPs and 13 peers to be set up in the next few months will consider plans for members of the new legislature to be elected for 15-year terms under the single transferable vote system.

Under the government's plans, members would be elected on a staged basis - a third every five years - with the first elections for the new chamber to take place in 2015 - on the same day as the next general election.

Read the rest!

Coalition 'losing way' on green policies - campaigners

BBC News brings news of high level representations made to the Coalition government regarding its current approach to environmental matters:

The heads of 15 green campaign groups have written to the prime minister (pdf link) warning the government is in danger of losing its way on environmental policy.

The letter says the coalition should promote a green economy with "urgency and resolve" if it is to follow its vow to be the "greenest government ever". The groups include Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the RSPB.

Downing Street says it stands by its record of protecting the environment and delivering a low carbon economy. A year ago, David Cameron said the environment would be a top priority.

In their letter the campaign groups describe the pledge as a "great ambition" and cite the cancellation of the third runway at Heathrow, the decision to set up a green investment bank and a commitment to a Natural Environment White Paper as examples of a "promising start". They say the coalition "started with a strong sense of purpose on the environment but is now in danger of losing its way".

They point to the proposed changes in the planning system which they claim will not provide enough protection for wildlife and the countryside. The letter also suggests a zero carbon homes policy has been weakened and point to delays in giving borrowing powers to the new green investment bank. It says foreign policy should take account of natural resource security.

The letter adds: "Most critically we urge you to set out the case that a green economy is central to the future prosperity of the UK and not a cost to be endlessly debated and watered down... "We believe there is still scope for your government to be the greenest ever, but it will require both urgency and resolve."

There's more - take a look! A great insight into perceptions of coalition policy on a critical issue and a useful current example for the role of pressure groups within the UK.

Police reform bill defeat for government in Lords

The Guardian—amongst many other news outlets—carries news today of the defeat in the House of Lords of the Coalition government's legislation on police powers:

The government suffered a major defeat in the Lords when a rebellion by Liberal Democrat peers helped carry an amendment that could bury the government's central policy of elected police and crime commissioners.

In an apparent show of the "muscular liberalism" Nick Clegg had promised would mark a new phase in the coalition as it enters its second year, Lib Dem peers threw out the plans to introduce American-style elected commissioners.

It marks a serious defeat on the coalition's first anniversary, including for Clegg, who at the last minute sent whips round to convince his party's members to back the bill. Some 188 peers voted for the amendment, which knocked out plans for elected commissioners, with 176 opposing it. The vote carried with backing from 13 Liberal Democrat peers including Lord Oakeshott; some also defied the government by abstaining and allowing the amendment to squeak through.

Clegg had indicated support for a rival amendment that would have shelved the plans for three years to allow time for pilots, but that was passed over in favour of the stronger change which, in effect, removes the policy of elected commissioners from the legislation.

The police reform bill will return to the Commons, where it is more likely to pass, paving the way for a lengthy period of "ping-ponging" between the houses.

Ministers insisted they would try to overturn the amendment. A Home Office spokesman said: "The election of police and crime commissioners is a clear coalition agreement policy. So while we will consider the debate in the Lords, we will look to redress this in the Commons."

 The Guardian article goes on to discuss the ramifications of the Lord's rejection and the political capital being made from it by various parties.

This government defeat, of course, represents an important—and timely—current example of peers exercising their power of review in forcing a government rethink.

There is talk of using the Parliament Act to force the legislation through, regardless of Lords' opposition.... This is fraught with constitutional dilemma, however, as the understanding is that this mechanism can only be used when ensuring the implementation of a government manifesto item—what should happen when the legislation concerns something not in either coalition party manifesto, but only in the subsequent Coalition agreement?

BBC News: Number 10 shuns EU flag tradition

BBC News reports today on an apparent outbreak of mild Euro-skepticism within the Conservative sections of the Coalition government—including the PM's office:

Downing Street will not fly the EU flag over Number 10 during Europe Day on Monday unlike previous years, the BBC has learned.

Some other departments, including the Treasury and Foreign Office, will also not hoist the European symbol. But the Liberal Democrat Vince Cable's Department for Business will raise the blue and gold flag.

Downing Street denied there had been any instruction from the prime minister to departments to end the tradition. However, Number 10 did hoist the flag last year.

The UK's relationship with Europe is a potential source of tension between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition partners.

The government's own published guidance still does suggest that departments should mark the day by flying the EU flag.

A spokesperson from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills told the BBC its permanent secretary had taken the decision to fly the flag as in previous years. Meanwhile, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, led by another Liberal Democrat, Chris Huhne, told the BBC it did not have a flagpole.

 More cosmetic than substantial in this instance—but may betray internal viewpoints...

Dan Snow goes for AV

Historian and television presenter Dan Snow has weighed into the the AV / FPTP debate with two very useful videos... One video provides a convenient explanation of how AV works by looking at preferences amongst a group of friends for going for coffee or going to a pub:



The other video provides a valuable historical perspective on the value of the Alternative Vote system:



Take a look!

Vote for AV to end Tory dominance – Vince Cable

The Guardian brings news of Vince Cable's appeal to progressive voters:

Vince Cable today calls for a "progressive majority" of Labour and Liberal Democrat voters to join together and say yes to the alternative vote to prevent the next century being like the last one and "dominated by Tory governments".

In a marked escalation of Lib Dem language about their coalition partners in the runup to the AV referendum on 5 May, and talking for the first time about the effect a yes vote could have on the next general election, the business secretary explicitly raises the prospect of an anti-Conservative coalition victory in an effort to boost the Yes to AV campaign and shore up Lib Dem support in the local elections.

Cable says the moment has come to end the dynamic in which votes for Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens are split. Appealing to Labour voters more clearly than any of his Lib Dem colleagues, he says the "progressive majority" accounts for 50% of the electorate but their votes are shared between the three parties, which has allowed the Tories to win overall majorities on a minority of the vote.

If the supporters of all three parties can be persuaded to vote yes in the referendum the next election would be run under AV, and supporters of one party could vote for the others as second and third preferences, the business secretary points out.

The article goes on to describe Mr Cable's dissatisfaction with David Cameron's handling of AV smears and several (not so) veiled Tory attacks on the LibDem leader, Nick Clegg:

"I was surprised and alarmed to see a leaflet from the No to AV campaign put through my door with a brutal personal attack on Nick Clegg for his having loyally supported coalition policies including difficult public spending cuts. The claims that he promised not to embark on tough economic policies are simply false. I find it difficult to reconcile this leaflet attacking coalition economic policy with the fact that Mr Cameron is personally leading the no campaign and the leaflet is produced by a leading Tory donor. He [Cameron] may not directly control what his supporters are up to. But he must make it clear that he doesn't condone and will endeavour to stop personal attacks on his deputy for loyally supporting coalition policy.

"To stand by and let this happen is dangerous and puts considerable strain on the coalition. I haven't really reacted to this spat. But that leaflet was absolutely dreadful. It does take it on to a different level." Senior Lib Dems believe a TNS poll published today gives them cause for hope after previous polls have suggested leads for the no campaign of as much as 16%. The new poll found that 34% of people oppose AV but 32% support it.

Johann Hari: If you get the X Factor you'll get AV

Former Lyonian and present-day commentator for The Independent newspaper, Johann Hari today imparts his own wisdom regarding the May 5 referendum for electoral reform:

Privacy law should be made by MPs, not judges, says PM

The Guardian has the story today - demarcating a novel, fraught area of separation between Parliament and the judiciary:

Prime minister 'uneasy' over superinjunctions and judges' role after high court prevents identification of sex scandal footballer

The prime minister has waded into the debate on the use of superinjunctions by the rich and famous to avoid allegations of scandal, declaring that parliament and not the courts should decide where the right to privacy begins.

David Cameron said the development of a privacy law by judges based on European rights made him feel "a little uneasy". His comments, made while touring a car factory in Luton, follow judgments in the high court this week that prevent the identification of a married Premier League footballer and someone who works in the entertainment industry, both of whom are said to have had extramarital affairs.

Cameron said: "I think there is a question here about privacy and the way our system works. What's happening here is that the judges are using the European convention on human rights to deliver a sort of privacy law without parliament saying so. … we do need to have a proper sit back and think: is this right, is this the right thing to happen? The judges are creating a sort of privacy law, whereas what ought to happen in a parliamentary democracy is parliament – which you elect and put there – should decide how much protection do we want for individuals and how much freedom of the press and the rest of it. So I am a little uneasy about what is happening."

He added: "It might be odd to hear it, but I don't really have the answer to this one, I need to do some more thinking about it. It is an odd situation if the judges are making the law rather than parliament."

Although superinjunctions refer strictly only to legal orders whose existence cannot even be reported, the term has been used more loosely to describe injunctions aimed at suppressing the identification of individuals who claim they are entitled to anonymity under "the right to respect for private and family life" incorporated in Article 8 of the European convention on human rights.

There is disagreement within the legal profession about whether there has been a significant increase in such injunctions, which have been granted in the past to victims of blackmail or, for example, in the case of the killers of James Bulger amid fears they would be at risk if identified.

Mark Stobbs, the Law Society's director of legal policy, said: "This is a new development and it is something which needs to be watched very closely. There is a huge debate between the right to privacy and the right to public knowledge. We support open justice and transparency as a basic principle, but there must be occasional cases where there is a public interest in privacy. You might get it sometimes in the context of terrorist trials where there are real national security implications."

But Cameron Doley, of the law firm Carter Ruck, which has obtained privacy orders for clients, doubted there had been an increase in their frequency over recent years.

"The newspapers have decided that the way to change policy is to shout about it from the rooftops," he said. "There's a lot to be said for a reasoned debate about it that won't be one-sided. But judges will still have to interpret the Human Rights Act."

One of the problems, he added, was that people comment about cases in which they had not seen the evidence, while the most widely reported cases were those where the courts ruled there was insufficient justification for maintaining an injunction – such as the one involving the England football captain, John Terry.

"We do use these injunctions occasionally but not with any more frequency than we did in previous years," Doley added. "They don't always work. The worst thing to do from a PR point of view is to try and get one and fail. The rich and famous can't pay their way out of scandal."

A committee established by the master of the rolls, Lord Neuberger, to examine the use of injunctions and super-injunctions to muzzle press reporting is due to report next month.