CentreRight

Daniel Kawczynski MP: A full public enquiry should be held into the release of the Lockerbie bomber by the Scottish Executive

An open letter to the Prime Minister from Daniel Kawczynski MP, chairman of the  All-Party Parliamentary Libya Group.

Dear Prime Minister,

In the run-up to the release of the Lockerbie bomber, I attempted to interact with the Scottish First Minister and Justice Secretary, asking them to reconsider their intention to release Mr Al-Megrahi.

As you know, they refused to heed the concerns of many people throughout the UK and abroad and release was sold to us on compassionate grounds stating the prisoner had only three months to live.  Now, of course, we hear the medical advice was inaccurate and Mr Al-Megrahi, ten months on, continues to live in Tripoli and there are predictions he may live for more then ten years.

Today I have learnt of calls by senior American Senators for an enquiry and investigation into this release, given the fact the Scottish Justice Secretary made such a dreadful mistake.  The Scottish Executive has made a decision of a profoundly misguided nature which has had an impact on the standing of the United Kingdom in the eyes of the Arab world and beyond.

I therefore ask you as Prime Minister to assess how your government can hold the Scottish Executive to account and urge you to work towards holding a full public enquiry into the release.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours,

Daniel Kawczynski MP

Daniel Kawczynski MP: The AV electoral system would unfairly create two classes of voter

By Daniel Kawczynski MP

We now know the date for the referendum when the British public get the opportunity to decide whether we change from our traditional first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system to the Alternative Vote (AV).

As co-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the promotion of first-past-the-post, my views on this are somewhat obvious but always worth repeating.  First-past-the-post is tried and tested, simple, it brings about quick results, is relatively cheap, which given the economic mess left by Labour is an important consideration, and it allows voters to clearly demonstrate which party they feel should form the Government.  It is this last point where a deeply unacceptable side affect of AV becomes apparent.

When we go to the polls as a nation, the majority of us are voting to support the philosophy and policy of one political party.  Even though an individual's vote may change from election to election for varying reasons, at the end of the day when we enter the polling booth, we enter it hoping that our vote will help bring to power the party we support.  AV doesn’t essentially change this.  I can still cast just one vote and make it for the party I most favour, but herein lies the problem.  Whilst I and millions of other individuals have more or less fixed party allegiances and will only vote for one party, others will cast their alternatives, twice or maybe three times.  What AV allows is two classes of voter, those who will cast one vote and those who will have two or three bites of the cherry.

In a tight contest where no overall majority is achieved, the second preference votes are then counted up and have the same weighting as the original votes.  My key question is this, why should someone’s second preference vote, essentially the “I don’t like this candidate much, but will allow them as an alternative” count as much as my original vote?

It is this unfair weighting of votes between those who support and often campaign on behalf of a certain party and those who are happy to vote two or three times which highlights my clear concerns about AV.  This is why I will gladly be throwing my support behind retaining FPTP in the run up to the 5 May 2011.

Daniel Kawczynski MP: Any referendum on changing the electoral system should be subject to a threshold of approval from 40% of the electorate

By Daniel Kawczynski MP, Chairman of All Party Group for the Promotion of First Past the Post

In light of the result of the recent General Election, and the subsequent coalition agreement between my party and the Liberal Democrats, the issue of electoral reform has been propelled to the political centre-stage. Our tried-and-tested First Past the Post electoral system now faces an unprecedented level of scrutiny from all angles, much of which is, at best, misinformed. At such a fast-paced and chaotic period of political history, it is important that we take time to reflect on the merits of a system that has served us well for so long.

The effects of proportional representation should not be underestimated. In January of last year, for example, two Green MSPs managed to prevent the passage of a new budget in the Scottish Parliament. These are two out of 129 MSPs in Parliament, elected by proportional representation. Proponents of the system argue it is by far the fairest way to reflect the voting intentions of the people as a whole. The argument goes that the legislative assembly is more truly ‘representative’ of the people under PR, as it reflects the proportion of the votes cast. By extension, proponents suggest that this makes the legislature more legitimate and democratic. Though I recognise the merit of these arguments, I find it astonishing that, eighty-two years after women were given equal voting rights, some commentators still find the time to call our electoral system undemocratic.

These same commentators ignore the fact that, in stark contrast to the current system, legislatures elected under proportional representation often fail to achieve the most vital aspect required of it: decisiveness. The SNP has bumbled through as a minority government since it was elected in 2007, struggling to operate effectively, having failed to get an overall majority from the Scottish population. The two Green MSPs were able to humble the SNP, despite an £11 million sop offered to them, precisely because no party held a clear majority required for the passage of a budget. The entire budget was thrown out the window; and with it the truth behind ‘merits’ of proportional representation were revealed.

It is no wonder then, given the experience of the Scottish Parliament, that Scottish members of the Westminster Parliament are some of the most enthusiastic supporters of the All Party Parliamentary Group for the Continuation of First Past the Post - indeed the member for Central Ayrshire is the co-Chairman of the Group. They have seen the mayhem in Scotland and are best placed to know an unworkable mess when they see one.

Daniel Kawczynski MP: It's time to rally support in the Commons in favour of First Past The Post

By Daniel Kawczynksi MP

Below is a letter I have just sent to all MPs regarding the proposed changes to our electoral system and inviting them to join the all-party group which seeks to defend the First Past The Post voting system.

I would ask all ConHome readers who feel passionately about FPTP to contact their MP and urge them to join the group.

Dear Colleague,

During the course of the last Parliament I set up the All Party Parliamentary Group for the Promotion of the First Past the Post electoral system.  Together with my friend and Co-Chairman Labour MP Brian Donohue, we interacted with the previous government to campaign against abandoning our precious, tried and tested voting system.  I am convinced that it is down to the good work of many Labour MPs in the previous Parliament, objecting to a full blown version of PR, which prevented Gordon Brown from pursing complete destruction of our voting system.

We now face the prospect of a referendum on the alternative voting system.  This I must admit is the least worse option considering it allows you to continue representing a specific constituency, a link I believe we must always retain for direct accountability.

It is vital however that those of us who believe in the FPTP system should work together constructively on a cross Party basis, both in Parliament and across the country.  For the sake of a well informed and fair referendum it is pivotal for us to be able to explain the great benefits of FPTP and its inherent fairness, which proponents of AV incorrectly denigrate.

With this in mind, I would very much like to invite you to join the reformed All Party Parliamentary group for Promotion of First Past the Post.  This is to continue to ensure a collective and strong voice is heard in support of our current voting system, and that our legitimate concerns of the other systems are raised at every opportunity.

Please call or email my office in order to register with the group.

Thank you, and I look forward to working closely with you on this important cause.

Yours sincerely,

Daniel Kawczynski MP
Shrewsbury & Atcham

Daniel Kawczynski MP: A response to Power 2010

Further to Philip Davies' piece this morning, Shrewsbury and Atcham MP Daniel Kawczynski responds to Power 2010's targeting him as an MP who is "failing democracy".

One of the most important advantages of elections is that they regularly stimulate debate, offering people the opportunity to learn more about issues which will affect them and their families.  Given the dreadful effects of Gordon Brown's recession, most people I meet on the doorstep are talking about jobs, training, education and their overall financial security, particularly in old age.  But other issues should not be neglected, which is why I welcome the interest an organisation called Power 2010 has shown in this constituency and my own views on three issues important to them: our electoral system, the House of Lords and trust in politics.

While a "WANTED" poster featuring my picture may not fully set out their views on these subjects, I thought it would be helpful to share my views on each of them more fully. Their campaign has heartened me greatly as we have had so many calls from constituents rallying to our cause as a result of seeing their negative campaign. I don’t think that Power 2010 have realised that people are sick and tiered of negative campaigning but instead want to hear positive debating about what people believe in without attacking others for their views. This organisation is funded by Lib Dem activists in London and as we all know Lib Dems are not always the most honourable of opponents.

Power 2010 have not singled me out to campaign against after evaluating my local hard work for constituents or the hundreds of different causes I have promoted in Parliament over the last five years on behalf of my constituents. Instead, this London-based lobby group want local voters to throw me out because I am against an elected House of Lords and I am Chairman of the All Party group for the promotion of First Past the Post.

Daniel Kawczynski MP: Why was a Labour MP allowed to use a room in Parliament to promote his book when I was told by the Commons authorities that it would be an abuse of taxpayer-funded facilities if I did the same thing?

Daniel Kawczynski is Conservative MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham. Here he shares the letter he has written this week to John Lyon, the the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, seeking an investigation into a Labour MP allegedly using parliamentary facilities for his own commercial benefit.

Dear Mr Lyon,

I write to request your attention with regards to a matter that has caused me considerable frustration. I hope that given the flagrant disregard shown towards the rules governing the Parliamentary estate, you will investigate the following matter and take the serious action the situation warrants.

On March 8th, from 18:00 – 20:00, the Thatcher Room in Portcullis House was booked for a private event by the Hon member for Newport West, Mr Paul Flynn MP. It is my understanding however that the event in question is promoting the honourable member’s book that has recently been published.

The rules of the House with regards room bookings are clear, and to quote the Parliamentary commissioner for standards:

The Rules on booking rooms make clear that they can be booked for purposes connected to the Parliamentary duties of the Member booking the room. This excludes "events of a commercial nature."

Any disregard of these rules causes me great frustration, as it brings the House, through use of its facilities by members, into disrepute; causing the standing of Parliament to fall even further in the eyes of the electorate. This case becomes even more pertinent to myself as in my own endeavours to be as transparent and accountable as possible in using facilities that have been funded by the taxpayer, I recently held the launch of my book, a biography of Colonel Gaddafi, at the Royal Institute of Mechanical Engineers on Birdcage Walk. This I did at considerable cost as I felt and was indeed advised by Commons Authorities that to use a room in the Commons to launch my book would be inappropriate and an abuse of taxpayers' money.

For Mr Flynn to be able to use facilities on the Parliamentary estate in order to host an event which promotes his own book I find to be a blatant breach of Commons rules and is wholly unacceptable.

I implore you therefore to take up this matter with the honourable member, as I believe him to be entirely culpable for breaching regulations governing the use of rooms on the Parliamentary estate. Should this be the case, I feel the right course of action would be for the member to be invoiced with the equivalent rates for hiring the same sized room for duration of two hours in a central London location in SW1A.

I sincerely hope that this matter will be dealt with the utmost seriousness and vigour, and I look forward very much to receiving your response in due course.

Daniel Kawczynski MP

Daniel Kawczynski MP: Getting at the truth behind the flamboyant and almost mythical figure that is Colonel Gaddafi

Daniel Kawczynski is Conservative MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham and chairman of the all-party Libya group in the House of Commons. Here he gives a taste of some of the themes he has covered in his new biography of Colonel Gaddafi, Seeking Gaddafi, which is published next week. Click here to buy it via Amazon.

I have long been interested in the Arab world and its strategic and trade importance to Britain. And in the long, often turbulent, history of Arab-British relations, the figure of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi stands out a mile. A flamboyant, charismatic and inscrutable statesman, Gaddafi has ensured that his small country, with a population today of six million, has punched above its weight in international politics.

Famous throughout the world, Gaddafi has given Libya a remarkably high profile, though few there will remember him as a wise or a beneficent ruler. The West has often dealt closely and, sometimes, violently with regimes it has understood poorly. Isolating the dictators of the world can be counter-productive and the argument goes that by exchanging ideas, technology, and cultural insights, we can help to encourage change for the better. Yet the fate of those who suffer under regimes like Gaddafi’s – from vanished journalists and dissidents to British victims of the Libyan-sponsored IRA - must not be forgotten in the course of our dealings.

In writing about Gaddafi I wanted to get to the truth behind the almost mythical figure of the man, and to expose some of the great dilemmas of the improving Anglo-Libyan relationship, a relationship representative of the problems that British foreign policy faces in the 21st Century.

Gaddafi and clothes
There can be few world leaders whose wardrobes warrant a fashion spread in Vanity Fair. Any article on Gaddafi is obliged to begin with a carefully constructed description of the clothes he is wearing. From flowing peach and purple silk robes to meet the Portuguese Prime Minister in April 2000; a long shirt emblazoned with photographs of African heroes to meet President Mubarak of Egypt in August 2005; an aviation-themed leather and fur ensemble for a visit to Versailles in 2007, to a blinding white suit covered by an Arab bisht for the 2009 G8 summit, Gaddafi’s outfits are becoming increasingly bizarre in the twilight years of his reign, and many have commented on the thick layers of make-up he wears, and also on the carefully judged height of his shoes.

In official photos, Western politicians who shake his hand just barely smile, standing as far back as possible, looking as though they feel slightly ill, in the hope this will satisfy Gaddafi while fending off tabloid attack at home. It is hard to judge whether the look of slight queasiness is down to the policies of Gaddafi’s regime or to the glaring tastelessness of the outfit he has chosen that day.

Daniel Kawczynski MP: Veterans suffering combat stress should qualify for severe weather payments

Daniel Kawczynski MP makes his point by way of an open letter to Gordon Brown:

Dear Prime Minister,

You claim to be committed to our veterans who have suffered from combat stress. Yet your Government has excluded our combat stress veterans from extra funding during cold weather.

Your Government is today providing an extra payment to help towards extra heating costs incurred during the severe weather conditions for people on a low income and in receipt of the following benefits:

• Income Support
• Employment and Support Allowance (income-related)
• Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
• Pension Credit

This payment is paid automatically when the average temperature in each area is recorded as, or forecast to be, zero degrees or below over seven consecutive days during the period from 1 November to 31 March.

However, many people who do not qualify for this payment still have trouble heating their homes, including combat stress veterans. It is often our most vulnerable citizens who have the most difficulty making ends meet. Quite simply, hard-pressed families should not have to choose between keeping warm and getting into debt.

The sacrifices made by veterans in service of this country are nothing short of inspirational, and they deserve not only the respect and gratitude of its citizens but the support and empathy of its government.

My constituent, Jim Geraghty, and other combat stress veterans have been told by the relevant department in Walsall that they are not entitled to this payment. I would like to ask you why your Government is not offering more support for combat stress veterans who are suffering as a result of this severe weather. Please use your position to change the eligibility criteria so that our combat stress veterans get their extra £25 payment during the severe weather we have experienced.

Yours sincerely,

Daniel Kawczynski MP

Daniel Kawczynski MP: My complaint to Ofcom about the edition of Channel 4's Dispatches, Inside Britain's Israel Lobby

Below is the text of a letter of complaint which I have today sent to Ofcom. It concerns the edition of the Channel 4 Dispatches programme, Inside Britain's Israel Lobby, which was screened last month.

Dear Sir,

I am writing in complaint regarding the journalistic and editorial standards of the recently screened Channel 4 documentary regarding the ‘Israel lobby’ in the UK.

This programme was clearly presented as an exposé to some sort of illicit, underhand or immoral influence by the ‘Israel lobby’ over the UK and international political leadership, but failed to demonstrate any evidence or facts of substance, relying instead on implication, association and prejudice.

Had the programme revealed inappropriate behaviour or activity, or information about activities contrary to the public good, it should have been applauded.  But in completely failing to do this, it was a disgraceful piece of supposed investigative reporting, out of place in an open democratic society and unworthy of the high standards we expect of British journalism.

The programme essentially argued that individuals and communities who are concerned for the welfare of the state of Israel, and specifically Jews, were using money to subvert and wield inappropriate influence over our political leaders to steer British and international policy.

As with all ‘reporting’ of this type, the media has a responsibility to be clear, unbiased and to act in ways that do not feed hatred. Unfortunately, in failing to meet these obligations, the programme appears not to have been made with good intentions.

Daniel Kawczynski MP: More must be done to help British businesses export their goods into foreign markets

By Daniel Kawczynski MP

Our country's historic wealth came from our ability to export goods around the world. Today many British businesses are deeply concerned about the levels of commercial assistance from British Embassies. All too often Commercial attachés are inexperienced with little or no high level commercial pedigree. Many do not have adequate resources to support the numbers of British businesses looking for their help. They have too few high-ranking business contacts and in some cases lack motivation to help British businesses cut through local red tape.

I am currently writing a report which I intend to present to David Cameron and William Hague on the situation. We are taking evidence from high-ranking British Chief Executives and Export Directors about their experiences of trying to get assistance, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa.

The report will show just how small our total exports are to some key strategic countries and demonstrate the lost opportunities. It will then go on to recommend what needs to be done to change the situation so that Embassies around the world are matching their French and German counterparts resource for resource and helping British businesses to export on comparable levels to France and Germany.

With the right staff in British Embassies and the right resources our country could easily be exporting tens of billions of pounds more than we currently are, gaining  the hard currency which will be vital to our country in these difficult times. Increasing the calibre and size of Commercial attaché support will cost the State a tiny fraction of what we will get back from additional export revenues. I hope that my report will also be able to demonstrate the need to recruit highly experienced retired businessmen who have successfully exported to assist us in this task.

If any reader has their own evidence of trying to get assistance from an Embassy to help them export I would be grateful if they could email me with their experiences.

Daniel Kawczynski MP: An open letter to David Miliband demanding that he meet the mother of PC Yvonne Fletcher

Daniel Kawczynski MP, Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Libya, writes an open letter the Foreign Secretary

Dear David,

Following the release of the Lockerbie bomber to the Libyan authorities, I am sure that you will agree that the time has come to press the Libyans for the release of the killer of PC Yvonne Fletcher. 

I have been in contact with PC Yvonne Fletcher’s mother, Mrs Queenie Fletcher, and sister and they are very keen to meet with you. Regrettably, their previous letters to you on this urgent matter have gone unanswered, leaving them very disappointed and disillusioned with the Foreign Office.

I am sure you will agree, that our country must send out an unequivocal message that any murder of a British police officer will lead to a determined resolve to bring their killers to justice, at any cost.

I look forward to hearing from you shortly to arrange this meeting.

Yours sincerely,

Daniel Kawczynski MP

Daniel Kawczynski MP: An open letter to the Scottish Justice Secretary

By Daniel Kawczynski MP, Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Libya 

Dear Mr MacAskill,

By potentially handing over Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi to the Libyans without the UK Government getting the murderer of PC Yvonne Fletcher in return, our country is being made to look weak and ineffective. For you alone to make this decision without ensuring a fair exchange take place is deeply concerning. We cannot just look at Lockerbie as a separate issue, but as part of an overall package of outstanding issues between the UK and Libya which includes PC Fletcher and Libyan funding for the IRA and the need to get compensation for those families affected by IRA atrocities from the Libyans. I am taking a delegation of DUP MPs to Libya shortly to discuss this issue about which they feel so strongly.

We have a prisoner exchange programme signed between the UK and Libya. Why have you not asked the UK Government to ensure that this is implemented so that an exchange can take place? Failure here will mean that the killer of PC Yvonne Fletcher will go unpunished. Please understand that the parents of PC Yvonne Fletcher desperately want the killer of their daughter to be brought to justice. This series of issues can only be negotiated at government-to-government level between the UK and Libya. By making a decision on Al-Megrahi now you are in effect throwing away a major bargaining chip for us in these protracted negotiations. Met Police officers have been to Tripoli on three occasions and have identified the killer of PC Yvonne Fletcher.

I am writing to you to ask you to ensure that a release of Al-Megrahi is part of a prisoner exchange programme and that you work with Westminster to ensure this happens.

Yours sincerely,

Daniel Kawczynski MP

Daniel Kawczynski MP: Why I am challenging the Electoral Reform Society to debate changing the voting system

By Daniel Kawczynski MP

The Electoral Reform Society is a well-funded, well-resourced and influential organisation. It seeks to change the voting system for parliamentary elections in the UK to a model of proportional representation. The favoured model of the Society is the Single Transferable Vote (STV).

The Society is making a great deal of headway in its efforts to lobby the Prime Minister on this subject.  This is a matter of real and immediate concern, and cannot be left at the mercy of back-room deals in smoke-filled rooms.

So, as Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on First Past the Post (FPTP) – the electoral system currently in place – I have been in touch with the Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society to challenge him to a public debate on electoral reform.

Such a debate is urgently needed, for there is a strong possibility that Gordon Brown, who has no personal mandate from the people of Great Britain, could use the dying months of his administration to engineer a referendum on electoral reform, to take place on the same day as the General Election.

Daniel Kawczynski MP: Local planning decisions must not be overruled by unelected, unaccountable quangos

Daniel Kawczynski MP writes an open letter to David Cameron seeking an assurance that a Conservative Government would change the law to ensure that locally-made planning decisions cannot be overturned.

Dear David,

You have long talked about the existing imbalance of responsibility and power that has developed under this current Government, and championed the need for people to be given a meaningful say in the decisions that affect them.  I should like to draw to your attention an issue that has occurred in my constituency of Shrewsbury & Atcham.  It is an issue that not only highlights the despicable flaws in the current top-down planning system, but which also demonstrates why local people feel such apathy towards the British political system.

After reading this letter, I hope you will agree that our planning system needs to be overhauled radically so that it is built upwards on the wishes of local residents.  Only when there is a democratic, accountable, and decentralised planning system in Britain can people feel empowered over the local decisions that most affect them.  I also hope you share my belief that, only if elected politicians and councillors are given substantive authority over all local planning issues, can they be effective representatives of the communities they act on behalf of.   We can have a Planning inspectorate if needs be but they should only have authority to overturn local council's decision if they are of national strategic importance. At present this inspectorate can intervene and challenge decisions on the smallest of development plans.

The next Speaker must disregard seniority when calling MPs to speak in the Commons

By Daniel Kawczynski, MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham

On all sides of the House and across the country it is accepted that, whoever fills the Speaker’s Chair, he or she needs to be a reformer .One area in which there is huge scope for reform is that of the complex, pompous, and in many instances outdated, protocols of the House.

A case in point is the way in which Members are called to speak in debates. Constituents might reasonably expect those contributing to have a profound interest in the subject of discussion, be an expert in the field, or be representing some of them personally.

But, alas, this is not the case. Backbench Members speak in order of seniority. It is the old grandees and old timers that are always called on to contribute first.

And yet, it is a fundamental principle of our democracy, that all people are created equal. All constituents are equal. But not all Members are equal before the Chair. This fundamentally undermines democratic representation. If a constituent’s Member is a ‘grandee’, he or she can raise their case on the floor of the House with ease. If their Member is new or relatively new, their voice will often go unheard.

Daniel Kawczynski MP: An open letter to Polish President Kaczyński, urging him to withhold his signature from the Lisbon Treaty

Below is the letter which Daniel Kawczynski, Conservative MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham, sent yesterday to the President of Poland, Lech Kaczyński, urging him to "be a friend to the British people" and withhold his signature from the Lisbon Treaty until a Conservative Government is elected and has the opportunity to hold a referendum on the matter.

Dear President Kaczyński,

I write to you to acknowledge Britain’s debt of gratitude to the Polish people and to ask you for assistance.

The history of Polish heroism and support for the British people is long and glorious. During our darkest hours in World War Two, when the Battle of Britain hung in the balance, the contribution of Polish airmen helped tip the balance in the Allies’ favour. Eight Polish fighter squadrons formed within the RAF shot down 629 Axis aircraft by May 1945, with the Polish 303 Fighter Squadron claiming more kills than any other squadron during the war.

Winston Churchill, as ever, expressed this debt most compellingly, when he said of the Battle of Britain that, “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”

As we commemorate the Normandy landings on their 65th anniversary, we in Britain should remember that Poles fought there with us, as your countrymen did in so many theatres of operation. Often forgotten are the less publicised contributions, of Polish spies who are estimated to have contributed as much as 45 per cent of all intelligence reports from continental Europe, and Polish cryptographers, who, in helping to break the Enigma code, assisted in one of the key turning points in the war.

Daniel Kawczynski MP: The case for keeping First Past The Post

By Daniel Kawczynski MP, Chairman of All Party Group for the Promotion of First Past the Post

In January of this year, two Green MSPs managed to prevent the passing of a new budget in the Scottish Parliament. They are two out of 129 MSPs in Parliament, elected by Proportional Representation. Proponents of the system argue it is by far the fairest way to reflect the voting intentions of the people as a whole. Indeed, this argument has some merit: by reflecting the proportion of the votes cast, the legislative assembly is more truly the ‘representation’ of the people. It is, by extension, more democratic, more legitimate and has the potential to produce more balanced legislation. That is until it actually has to do anything.

Back to January in Holyrood. The SNP has bumbled through as a minority Government since it was elected in 2007, struggling to operate effectively having failed to get an overall majority from the Scottish population. In January, however, it was humbled by those two, suddenly extremely powerful, Green MSPs. The SNP even offered an £11 million sop to the Greens, which they turned down. The entire budget was thrown out the window. Proportional Representation provides a perfectly colour-coded debating chamber: yellow, orange, red and blue all neatly distributed. For all that, during the vote on the budget, the chamber might as well have been painted completely green, such was the influence that that party wielded.

It is no wonder then, given the experience of the Scottish Parliament, that Scottish members of the Westminster Parliament are some of the most enthusiastic supporters of the All Party Parliamentary Group for the Continuation of First Past the Post - indeed the member for Central Ayrshire is the co-Chairman of the Group. They have seen the mayhem in Scotland and are best placed to know an unworkable mess when they see one. There are many different types of PR, but the one proposed by Alan Johnson recently, much to the annoyance of the Justice Secretary, is known as ‘Alternative Vote plus’. In this system voters have two ballot papers, one for their constituency representative and another for their favoured party. It is seen as a good compromise between keeping the link between constituency MPs and providing a more accurate representation of the will of the people.

Justice for Equitable Life policy-holders must be delayed no longer

By Daniel Kawczynski MP

Even by the standards of the peculiar atmosphere that has descended on the Commons, it is fair to say that MPs on all sides reacted with incredulity when Yvette Cooper found a further, “deeply disappointing” way to delay justice for Equitable Life policy-holders.

I have sought to harness this sense of genuine disbelief and injustice among colleagues by establishing an All-Party Group on Equitable Life. Our aim is simple: to block all Government attempts to lose this issue in the thick rough. We already have 100 Members.

There is insufficient space here to run through the full timeline of delays and dead ends that policyholders have been put through. The Government needs no reminding that these poor people have pursued justice at the highest levels, from the House of Lords, to the European Parliament and through our own Parliamentary Ombudsman. Yet the Government could not be shamed into belated action, even following a finding by the Public Administration Select Committee that Ministers’ actions have been “shabby, constitutionally dubious and procedurally improper”.

The Prime Minister promised me in the House that we would have a proper statement from the Treasury at some point last year. Mr Brown’s word proved nothing more than a further stalling tactic. Parliament did not get its statement. This year, Alistair Darling eventually caved in to pressure and asked his number two, Ms Cooper, to make a statement. Incredibly, the statement rejected the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s central recommendation that payment should be made to policyholders to reflect the relative loss resulting from maladministration, subject to the state of public finances.

An open letter to Gordon Brown on Equitable Life from Daniel Kawczynski MP

Dear Prime Minister,

As you will be aware, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Anne Abraham, yesterday laid a second report on Equitable Life before Parliament under section 10 (3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman has described the Government’s response to her 2008 report ‘Equitable Life: a decade of regulatory failure’ as “deeply disappointing”, and has stated explicitly that the injustices highlighted in her original report will not be remedied by this Government’s response.

Because of this the Parliamentary Ombudsman has taken the extraordinary decision to publish a second report under section 10 (3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. Section 10 (3) provides the Ombudsman with the right of reply when the response of the Government will clearly not remedy the injustices originally highlighted by the Ombudsman’s original report. The fact that this mechanism has only been used four times since the establishment of the Parliamentary Ombudsman 42 years ago underscores just how inadequate the Government’s response on Equitable Life has been.

This Government has consistently failed to face up to the suffering caused by the regulatory failure of Equitable Life, and it is as a direct result of this new report by the Parliamentary Ombudsman that I write to you today in my capacity as co-Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Justice for Equitable Life Policy Holders to ask that a Minister of the Crown come urgently to the House to make a statement on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Daniel Kawczynski MP

We must review the list of countries eligible to receive British overseas aid

By Daniel Kawczynski MP.

I recently returned from an International Development Select Committee trip to Kenya and Tanzania.

We currently give Kenya and Tanzania £50 million and £150 million respectively each year in international aid, yet a great deal of what our money is being used for in Kenya could easily be provided by Microfinance.

All the local newspapers in Nairobi during our stay had stories about how the President and senior ministers are about to spend £100 million on buying new  helicopters for themselves from Russia.

Can an incoming Conservative government really continue to give so much to Kenya?

British pensioners are cutting back on meals to save money as Kenya spends so much on luxuries for its government. And guess what the monthly salary and expenses package is for a Kenyan MP? It is £8,000!

The Conservative pledge today not to cut back on aid must therefore come with a review of which countries continue to get it.



The All Party Group for Justice for Equitable Life Policy Holders

By Daniel Kawczynski MP.

When Equitable Life, the word’s oldest mutual insurance company (Established in 1762) nearly collapsed in 2000 it had to greatly reduce the size of payouts to its customers. Some customers, including constituents of mine, saw their savings reduced by as much 50 percent. These people were not just let down by the company they had trusted to assure their quality of life after retirement, they were also let down by the Labour government who were supposed to ensure the proper regulation of companies like Equitable Life.

In the wake of various enquires into the Equitable Life scandal, the Parliamentary Ombudsman reported last summer that there was evidence of “serial regulatory failure” on the part of the now defunct Department of Trade and Industry, the Financial Services Authority and the Government Actuary’s Department. The Ombudsman ultimately made two recommendations: that the government should apologise to Equitable Life customers who have lost out, and that they should establish a system of compensation to help those who have lost their savings.

It has now been almost a year since the Ombudsman originally made her recommendations, and whilst the Government has apologised, those who lost money in Equitable Life are still no closer to being properly compensated by this Government for their loss. Having taken over six months to respond, the Government have come to the table with an almost total rejection of the ombudsman’s report, and have offered a piecemeal hardship fund in the place of the compensation fund recommended by Parliament’s Ombudsman. 

Why I voted against the Tory whip - and partial privatisation of the Royal Mail - this week

By Daniel Kawczynski MP.

I know that in 2005, when I was elected as MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham, many people in the constituency voted for my party ticket rather than for me as an individual.  I continue to be very aware of this fact.  I am also in the fortunate position of agreeing, in a pragmatic and ideological sense, with the Conservative leadership on both the great issues of the day and the long-standing policies of our party.

That is why, up to this point, I have so faithfully followed my party line on each and every one of the issues upon which I have spoken and voted in Parliament.  However, this week, for the first time in my Parliamentary career, I voted against the Conservative whip.  I had no choice, for my conscience will not let me support the privatisation – whether in part or whole – of the Royal Mail.

Over the last four years, I have built up contacts, friendships and a broad base of understanding within our local Royal Mail sorting office.  It is a tight, efficient and well-run unit, where day in, day out over 800 Royal Mail employees work hard to provide a communications link with the most remote parts of the constituency, and indeed much of the rest of the UK.  Indeed, this sorting office has responsibility for a truly enormous area, stretching into Wales as well as covering Shropshire.  The work these people do is of extraordinary benefit to the community and wider economy.

Against this background, I could do nothing else but give my commitment to the workers of the Shrewsbury sorting office that I would oppose privatisation of the Royal Mail, in any form.  They have convinced me that privatisation is not the solution to dealing with the problems Royal Mail is facing.  That is why I had to keep that promise and vote accordingly in the House of Commons on Wednesday night.

Melanie Phillips must be the most incompetent journalist in Britain

This person lambasts me on the report published yesterday from the International Development Select Committee of which I am a member without even bothering to pick up a phone to check her facts. Why do people accept such lazy and inaccurate reporting. I enclose below two communications I have had with the Chairman of this Committee.

Guardian's sloppy journalism needs to be checked

This week Conservative MPs have published expenses online. I nearly choked on my cornflakes when I read in the Guardian that I had claimed over £945 for the last three months in food allowances. As I was the only one mentioned for food claims in the article it clearly gave the inference that I must have claimed more for food than any other Conservative MP. I knew this could not be true and checked with the Commons Finance Office. They confirmed to me that I had claimed a total of £526.62 significantly below the published figure, below the average so not worthy of exceptional reporting in article.

I urge the Guardian to get its facts straight in future cases as such sloppy journalism creates great confusion and potential cause for redress. Mr Patrick Wintour, Political Editor of Guardian has confirmed that the Guardian has made a mistake and put my name in print instead of another MP. He has assured me that an apology and correction will appear in the Guardian and I look forward to seeing that.

Belgium and Holland boycotting British cattle imports

I am gravely concerned by the unofficial boycott of British cattle imports by Belgium and the Netherlands as a result of the imports testing positive for bovine TB. These two countries account for more that 40% of all British cattle exports and this move is extremely disturbing. In light of the unofficial boycott by Belgium and the Netherlands, I will be writing to the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barrosso, demanding that a full investigation is carried out into the legitimacy of the ban imposed by the two Member States and for the relevant action to be taken.

There are also talks in the EU Parliament of a move towards an EU-wide ban on exports of British cattle by the end of next week which is deeply worrying. The National Farmers’ Union is working with British officials in Brussels for any bans to remain voluntary. I am extremely concerned that if an official ban is imposed, it could take months for it to be lifted, and will have a terrible impact on the beef and dairy sector.