It was a storming debate packed with sincere passion from all corners of the House.
How could Downing Street have got it so wrong? The Public Administration Committee (PASC)were on full throttle in the Commons today on the Iraq War Inquiry.
We know about Inquiries. In fact we did an Inquiry into Inquiries. Last Thursday we rushed out a report on the proposed Inquiry into the Iraq War. It was packed with bright practical ideas and based on a seminar of the great and the good that we held.
In today's debate, neither the Foreign Secretary or his fellow wind-up ministers mentioned the report. This is not difficult politics. The Iraq War was our worst parliamentary decision since Suez. A million people died. The UK need not have backed Bush's War. 179 British soldiers died because parliament got it wrong.
The shape of the Inquiry should have been agreed between other political parties, the military and the families of the fallen. None were consulted. Today was the chance to do a deal. One with PASC would be a start. Three members of our committee spoke. We all asked for the issue to be brought back to parliament after consultations for parliament to decide. It was not much to asked for. Repeatedly the Government refused.
The only honourable choice was to hold ours noses and walk through the Tory lobby. A backbencher sitting next to me tonight said that the Government had lost the debate by a mile. But he was in the Government lobby because he feared a Government defeat would mean an early election.
For the first time in my life I agreed with Iain Duncan Smith. We both know that establishing this supremely important inquiry is not the decision of Government. It should be the decision of Parliament. Too much of the power of backbenchers has been usurped by the Executive.
Tonight's revolt cut the Government's majority in half. A simple compromise would have averted the row.
It was not too much to ask.
Life changing
The Guardian's Michael White hit a bull's eye on his blog yesterday. I had a chat with him about his suggestion that MPs' characters are changed by the experience of having a child with health problems.
He cited three Tory MPs who had defected to Labour in the past. All had children with handicaps. Michael suggested that John Burcow has mutated from his 'Hang Mandela' phrase to his present cuddly phrase because one of his children has a health problem. I cannot vouch for all the MPs that Michael mentioned but I told him it was certainly true of Alan Howarth my neighbour MP in Newport East. I had observed him progress from heartless Thatcherite of the 80s to a convinced socialist of the 90s. As a Tory MP he attacked the Tory Jobseekers' Allowance as 'Seek and you shall not find.' He did a good job as MP for Newport East.
Michael White has doubts about John Bercow's change. I am always optimistic. I believe he is genuine. After only two days, he seems a natural in the chair. The House respects him. But anything would be better that the Turnip.
Yesterday in Parliament
Ann Winterton: Some studies have shown that heavy users of skunk are much more liable to develop schizophrenia. In fact, the risk to them is 40 per cent. greater. How can the Government combat that, because there are serious long-term effects? In fact, the problem could be described as a mental health time bomb.
Gillian Merron: I am sympathetic to the points made. It is for that reason, and because of public concern and the kind of issues that have been raised, that despite the fact that what we know so far is that there is a probable but weak causal link, we have promoted the FRANK campaign, which has the slogan, “cannabis can mess with your mind”, and we will continue to do that. Of course, while it is true that cannabis use is declining, the use of more potent cannabis such as skunk is increasing, and we are aware of that. We will continue our research and continue providing messages and information to the public.
Paul Flynn (Newport, West) (Lab): In considering the problem of skunk cannabis, will the Minister promise to disregard the hysterical, evidence-free hyperbole, an example of which we heard this afternoon, and heed instead the scientific, evidence-based advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs?
Gillian Merron: As I said earlier, we are looking forward to further research to establish the link between cannabis use, including skunk cannabis, and the effects on health, including mental health, and we will respond to it in the proper fashion.
Paul Flynn (Newport, West) (Lab): Is there not a case for considering the problems of the revolving door whereby former Ministers trade on their contacts and experience to seek salaries in the private sector? Is there not a strong case for arguing that if there is transparency about the amount of time that Members spend on their other jobs, we should consider appropriate reductions in their salary, on the basis that no Member can do two or more full-time jobs adequately?
Ms Harman: My hon. Friend is quite right.
The public expect that if we are elected to the House, our focus should be on public representation of our constituents or work in Select Committees more widely. The rules on Ministers subsequently taking work are clear. There will be a difference in future because of transparency. Members will have to think harder about what is acceptable when they know that their constituents will be fully in the picture about how many hours they spend doing work other than representing them or working as Ministers.
Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): Will the Minister explain a little about the time-spent declaration that will have to be made? I have only ever had one job that in any way impinged on my ability to spend at least 60 and often many more hours a week working for my constituents, and that was as a Minister for 10 years. Will Ministers have to spell out how many hours they spend on ministerial work? If not, why not?
Ms Harman: When somebody acts as a Minister, what they do is absolutely in the public domain, it is quite evident to the public that they are a Minister and their pay, which is published and transparent, is also in the public domain. Let us face up to it: in this House, quite a large number of Members have had jobs that are nothing to do with being a Member of Parliament and nothing to do with serving the public interest, but to which they have devoted their time and for which they have been paid. We are simply saying that, in future, that information should be in the public domain. It is very important, indeed, that the public are able to see it. The right hon. Gentleman will well know that Ministers’ diaries are subject to the Freedom of Information Act and that everything that we do is totally in the public domain.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): The Public Administration Committee recommended five months ago a mandatory register of lobbyists. Will that be covered by the Parliamentary Standards Bill?
Ms Harman: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked what other registers might be considered, and, as I said in my statement, further progress can be made on regulation and ensuring that things are put on an independent footing. That proposal has been made in the past, and it has been subject to consultation, not least in the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill.
claims for defence cotspapa, Newport says...
3:21pm Sat 20 Jun 09
Paul Flynn dropped himself into the shyte and expects Joe Public to bail him out, he wrote and said a libellous statement, not one other person in the world did and he expects us to bare that debt, all costs relating to that law suite should be borne by him and him alone.
How on earth can any MP claim £140,961 in expenses for one year?, obviously Paul Flynn is useing the gravy train for his own pocket.
I thought MP's salaries were about £30,000 and if so look at the amount claimed for one year by Paul Flynn. That figure can never be justified.