Parliamnent's shame and 'GIVE WAR A CHANCE' Brigade

Some questions raised in the House today:

 

 

 

Prison Hope?

 

Rory Stewart is the welcome new broom at the Justice Department. He is NOT the average minister because he is burdened with high intelligence and an extraordinary hinterland. It's rare event for me to praises a new Tory Minister but this is exceptional. Will he face up to the truth of half a century of populist prison policies that, at great costs, have delivered no lasting reforms?  Recidivism has not been reduced by one iota since the 1960s.

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

When can we take advantage of the pragmatic and progressive views of the new prisons Minister, who has acknowledged that the crises of overcrowding and self-harm in our prisons are the result of 50 years of error by all parties? May we compare the crisis here with the situation in the Netherlands, where there is a shortage of prisoners and 19 prisons have had to be closed? Is that not the kind of problem we would like to have here?

• Andrea Leadsom (Leader of the House of Commons)

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is the kind of problem that we want to have. He is right to mention the commitment of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry for Justice, to clean and safe prisons that are places of discipline and rehabilitation, not harm and violence. This Government gave greater powers last year to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons through the urgent notification system, by which specific issues in prisons can be raised immediately. We have also invested £100 million in recruiting 2,500 new prison officers, and we should be at full complement by the end of 2018. There is more to do, but progress has been made.

 

Cyber fearmongering

There was widespread world indifference to the Russian Cyber attack on Estonia ten years ago. We should have been worried then. The Tories denied the effects of Russian cyber manipulation in the Brexit and General Election 2017 votes in spite of evidence and their policy of dividing Europe. Now it's convenient to up the scaremongering in a budget grab for more money on 'defence'. It was ever thus in the cold war to try to frighten us with the Russian bear.

·         Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

Is not the wild and petulant infantilism of the statements by our world leaders a great threat to the security of the world, and does not history tell us that the greatest accelerant to war is an expectation of war, which we are fuelling at the moment? Would it not be far better for us to look to the great work we could do now in peacekeeping on the border in Bangladesh, rather than be thinking of war making?

·         Gavin Williamson (Secretary of State for Defence)

We are one of the most active nations in making sure we bring peace right across the globe. We have a great history and we should take great pride in everything we have achieved in the past, and I have no doubt we will achieve in the future. But we have to understand that people who are threatening Britain do not respect weakness; if we were to disarm, or get rid of our nuclear deterrent, or diminish or get rid of our conventional forces, that would make them no less likely to attack us. We have to have an effective deterrent, and that is not just a nuclear deterrent; it is a conventional deterrent as well.

Revolving door at heart of politicians' corruption.

There is still no recognition by the political class, civil servants and retired military of the potentially deeply corrupting character of a revolving door spinning freely. Parliament has disgraced itself again in the conduct of the past PM and Chancellor.

 

·         Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

The Government’s conduct in responding to the report reinforces the public’s view that we here are acting in our own private interests, not in the public interest. Is it not significant that a Prime Minister who did not lift a finger during his period in office in answer to pleas for reforms to jam the revolving door has now taken advantage of that period of office to take a job in China, with which he worked when in Government? Will the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee explain to us why George Osborne did not come to the Committee to explain why he had five meetings with BlackRock, why he altered the law in its favour and why, after losing office, he took a job with them on £650,000 a year for one day’s work a week? If that is not an egregious example of the abuse of the revolving door, it is hard to see what is. We have a shameful record, and perhaps the Chair will agree that the public will rightly regard us with contempt and as unfit to police our own affairs.

·         Mr Jenkin (Chair – Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee)

Sadly, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As a member of my Committee, he has been instrumental in drawing the Committee’s attention to these issues. I would almost describe him as the conscience of the Committee on the issue, and long may he continue to encourage us in this work. As he knows, it is not the practice of the Committee to prosecute individual cases, and we should resist that because it would divert attention from the substance of the work that we need to undertake. I am actually quite pleased about how obviously carefully drafted the Government’s response is to our report because the points we are making in our report are having a telling effect. We have a long way to go, however, and that is why the hon. Gentleman has been one of those encouraging the Committee to continue pursuing the subject with a further inquiry. I thank him for his work for the Committee

 

Comments

[Ad]

There has to be a sense that a decision/position can be wrong if it leads to problems further down the line, not just if it is immediately and obviously wrong e.g. belligerence, inhumanity. If a door is opened a crack for disaster down the line, that is wrong. We instead require honesty, principle; this does matter. There are always temptations to deviate from reason (and the consequences can be enormous), and traps to be avoided. Having good people doing things for the right reasons (trustworthy and reliable) really does pay off for all of us at home and abroad.

So, unnecessary toughness, divisive rhetoric and hard stances are harmful. I would speculate that the likes of the Rohingya get left behind in such a climate. Yes, they, the establishment, DO have to be practical. They also have to restrain themselves. Vainglory is a problem. I'm not making specific accusations. It is a common enough frailty.

You spoke about Iraq: there really are lessons. Its not some boring lesson or sidetrack issue. It is vital that rigour, honesty and reason come to the fore. There are temptations as I say, allowing doors to creak open, traps. That is where they (we all) have to be hard-headed. That is simply common sense, survival.