29 32 Tory MPs rebel against Britain's £9.3 billion EXTRA contribution to IMF bailouts

By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter. 

Last night at least 32 Tory MPs (listed below) voted with Labour against an 88% hike in Britain's contribution to the IMF. The hike is to partly fund the IMF's ability to fund bailouts. I write "at least" because I've only quickly scanned the voting list. Please email [email protected] if I've missed anyone off the list.

1. Steve Baker
2. Brian Binley
3. Peter Bone
4. Douglas Carswell
5. Bill Cash
6. Chris Chope
7. James Clappison
8. Philip Davies
9. David Davis
10. Zac Goldsmith
11. James Gray (added at 9.30am)
12. Gordon Henderson (added at 9.30am)
13. Chris Kelly
14. Edward Leigh
15. Julian Lewis
16. Anne Main
17. Karl McCartney
18. Nigel Mills (added at 11.30am)
19. David Nuttall
20. Matthew Offord
21. Andrew Percy
22. Mark Reckless
23. John Redwood
24. Simon Reevell
25. Richard Shepherd
26. Henry Smith
27. Graham Stuart
28. Peter Tapsell
29. Andrew Turner
30. Martin Vickers
31. Charles Walker
32. John Whittingdale

The Government won the vote to increase Britain's contribution from £10.7 billion to £20.15 billion by 274 votes to 246. This is the first time that the Labour frontbench has voted with Tory Eurosceptics. Labour was voting against an increase in the IMF subscription that was largely agreed during Gordon brown's time in office.

On his blog John Redwood suggests that the 29 rebels are only one sign of Tory discontent. Given that there are more than 300 Tory MPs he calculates that AT LEAST 80 Conservatives were unavailable, abstained or voted against the government. He writes:

"Some of us want the UK government to use the influence it says it has at the IMF to halt the futile bail outs of Eurozone members. The debt markets show the markets do not believe that Greece can repay all its debts in full and on time. Yesterday was a day when market worries spread beyond Greece, Ireland and Portugal to Italy. Those in  charge of the Euro scheme need to get a grip. It is doing a great deal of financial and economic damage, and they no longer seem to be in control of their project. The IMF should decline to bail out rich countries that have shackled themselves to a currency scheme that was badly put together and needs a thorough re think."

10.30am Douglas Carswell has just blogged this:

"The decision to raise our IMF subscriptions by 88 percent was first mooted when Gordon Brown was in charge – but was okayed by the current government last October.  While Canada, Switzerland, Holland and Belgium all managed to keep the increase in their subs low, whoever negotiated the deal on our behalf seems to have preferred to have UK taxpayers assume greater debt liabilities so that they could sit on a bigger chair at the various international summits they attend on our behalf. Alongside fiscal policy and monetary policy, our approach towards the bailouts and the IMF shows that there has been remarkably little change in economic policy at the Treasury since Gordon Brown was in charge." 

More from Douglas Carswell.

Fifteen Tory MPs back rebel amendment to recognise marriage in the tax system

MPs began debating the report stage of the Finance Bill yesterday, and voting did not finish until nearly 2am this morning.

The most notable point is that there was a rebellion in favour of a new clause to provide for the transfer of personal income tax allowances between spouses.

The new clause was tabled by Congleton MP Fiona Bruce but then moved by Gainsborough's Edward Leigh.

When it was put to the vote, it was defeated by 473 votes to 23, with the following fifteen Tories among the 23 (the others being DUP MPs and three Labour MPs):

1. Peter Bone
2. Fiona Bruce
3. Douglas Carswell
4. Chris Chope
5. Philip Davies
6. Nadine Dorries
7. Gordon Henderson
8. Philip Hollobone
9. Edward Leigh
10. Karl McCartney
11. David Nuttall
12. Matthew Offord
13. Mark Reckless
14. Andrew Turner
15. Martin Vickers.

Continue reading "Fifteen Tory MPs back rebel amendment to recognise marriage in the tax system" »

Tory MPs voiced their scepticism about an elected second chamber during yesterday's debate in the Commons

By Jonathan Isaby
^{Follow Jonathan on Twitter}

I have already covered Conor Burns' sideswipe at Lord Heseltine from the debate on Lords reform, but what else happened during the debate?

Overall, one got the impression that (with a few exceptions) the Conservative benches were highly sceptical about an elected second chamber - including many who are usually deemed to be supporters of the Government.

Later in his speech, Conor Burns spoke in favour of the status quo - ie a fully appointed chamber - and then considered what parties had promised in their manifestos:

"I wish to deal briefly with the argument that reform was in every party’s manifesto. It was, to some degree, and the Liberal Democrats, who had the most pro-reform manifesto commitment, got 23% of the vote in the general election. Labour, which was slightly more lukewarm, got 29%, and the Conservatives, who were the most lukewarm, got 36%. There is almost an argument that if we want to do things on the basis of what was in the manifestos, we should remember that the most people voted for the party that was most lukewarm on the issue. We have to ask ourselves, as at the time of Maastricht, when all three Front-Bench teams are united on something, how do those who dissent make their view known?

Continue reading "Tory MPs voiced their scepticism about an elected second chamber during yesterday's debate in the Commons" »

Tory MPs queue up to call on Clegg to dilute or ditch plans for Lords reform

By Jonathan Isaby
^{Follow Jonathan on Twitter}

Questions to the Deputy Prime Minister in the Commons yesterday saw a long line of Conservative MPs seeking to ask Nick Clegg about his plans to reform the House of Lords.

I think it's fair to conclude that the scepticism about meddling with the composition of the second chamber exhibited yesterday from the Tory backbenches is representative of widespread opposition within the parliamentary party.

Here's a selection of the exchanges:

Mel Stride: Given the country’s firm rejection of AV in the recent referendum and the fact that the Government’s proposals include the possibility of some form of proportional representation for election of Members of this Parliament, will my right hon. Friend at least consider giving the people of this country a referendum on this important constitutional change?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The first point of which to remind my hon. Friend is that this was a manifesto commitment of all three parties. It is something that we as a country have been discussing for around 100 years or so, and we have introduced changed electoral systems to a number of Assemblies and Parliaments in the UK without referendums in the past.

Continue reading "Tory MPs queue up to call on Clegg to dilute or ditch plans for Lords reform" »

A Bone to pick with the BBC

by Paul Goodman

As some MPs prepared for the Easter recess, one in particular was still in the Commons yesterday - that inveterate attender, Peter Bone (Wellingborough).  He moved the second reading of his Broadcasting (Public Service Content) on behalf of Christopher Chope (Christchurch), which succeeded the Broadcasting (Television Licence Fee Abolition) Bill, also originally introduced by Chope  -

"The aim of the Broadcasting (Television Licence Fee Abolition) Bill was fairly modest: it just wanted to abolish the licence fee in total. I do not think that that is right. I want to retain the licence fee, but I want it to cost a lot less, and I want its benefits to be available to non-BBC broadcasters. At the moment, it is not so much a licence fee as a BBC fee. All the money goes to the BBC, and none goes to other broadcasters...I am told that the current licence fee, which is in effect a poll tax, is £145.50 a year. Almost no one can avoid paying that if they are under the age of 75. Anyone who has more than one television set in more than one location has to pay more than one licence fee. It is a very regressive tax. Also, anyone who does not have a television is still hounded as though they do have one. I had a constituent—this is not made up—who told the BBC licensing authorities that he did not have a television set. They did not believe him. They sent inspectors around to inspect every room in his home to see whether there was a hidden television. That is the sort of thing we might get in a totalitarian state, but surely it is not acceptable in the United Kingdom at any time, and certainly not in this century?"

Bone went on to explain what the effect of his Bill would be, if passed -

"The public service content is mentioned in clause 1(1) and is defined in some detail in clause 1(2). Let me outline the idea behind the Bill. The licence fee will be available to all broadcasters and it will be paid out in return for public service broadcasting content. It will not be left purely to the BBC, but be open to ITV, Channel 4, Sky and any other broadcaster and to local radio. The licence fee, which many people think is paid directly to the BBC, is, in fact, paid to the Secretary of State, who then dishes it out. I believe that the licence fee should be allotted for a specific purpose—in this case, the provision of public service content broadcasting. That is what my Bill would do."

Continue reading "A Bone to pick with the BBC" »

Conservative MPs pay tribute to Lord Tebbit on his 80th birthday

By Jonathan Isaby

It was remiss of me not to realise that yesterday was the 80th birthday of Lord Tebbit as I would have been delighted to note it in ConHome's Gazette.

However, this landmark in the life of the former Cabinet Minister did not escape the notice of several Conservative MPs, resulting in the following somewhat tenuous points of order in the Commons yesterday:

Dr Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are certain politicians who arouse very strong feelings both in favour and against their political initiatives. One such politician is Lord Tebbit. I wonder whether there is any way within the rules of order that we may place on the record our appreciation of his long political career on this his 80th birthday, noting that he has gone from bovver boy to blogger in successive generations.

Mr Edward Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Although you are impeccably impartial, I know that deep in your heart there still lurks a little Tory. You will know the love and esteem in which Lord Tebbit is held on these Benches. May we not have some suitable memorial erected to him — perhaps a bicycle draped in the Union flag and carved in solid British oak?

Mr Speaker: The House should hold to the phrase “impeccably impartial”. I say to the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) that the short answer to his question whether that could be done within the rules of order is no. However, he and the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) have found a disorderly but very far from disagreeable way to pay tribute to their illustrious colleague. I think that I can safely say that the remarks of both hon. Gentlemen will be appreciated by the noble Lord’s admirers and detractors in this House, the other place and around the country on the occasion of his 80th birthday.

Edward Leigh warns that BBC World Service cuts may give Iran and China opportunity for soft power dominance

In the Commons yesterday evening, Edward Leigh MP secured an Adjournment debate on the future of the BBC World Service's Hindi Service.

• The Service's audience: This is an important Adjournment debate about the future of the BBC’s Hindi radio service. At the moment, it is broadcast for three hours a day, divided between the morning and the evening, and reaches no fewer than 10 million listeners, mostly in the northern Hindi-speaking regions of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand. Hindi is the second-largest language audience of the BBC World Service worldwide—of course, English is the first—and it is precisely these three poorer states in India that the Department for International Development has committed to support until 2015 to the tune of £280 million.
• Little money will be saved by ending the Service: The BBC is cutting its shortwave Hindi service, which costs £1 million a year, but once cut, it will save just 2.5p per listener. This, I contend, is the wrong saving to make, and I very much hope that the BBC will think again. The BBC Hindi service began in May 1940, on the very same day that Churchill became Prime Minister, and it employed I. K. Gujral, who later became the 13th Prime Minister of India. The Hindi service was also the first news outlet to break the news of Indira Gandhi’s assassination.
• Reprieve is inadequate: There has been a so-called partial reprieve—I would call it a climbdown—after the massive outcry over the total abolition of a radio service that serves 10 million people, and which most radio stations in the world would give their eye tooth to have. However, all that will do is save one hour of Hindi broadcasting for just one year, and that is not enough.
• If we abandon listeners they may turn to Iran or China: We often talk about soft power, and about proclaiming our values. Service such as these represent soft power. They are increasingly recognised as a hugely effective means of delivering diplomacy and our values, with few of the risks associated with more heavy-handed foreign policy interventions... Many BBC Hindi service listeners might be forced to switch to China Radio International or, for Muslim listeners, Radio Voice of Iran, if the service is shut. I would point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) that the only domestic competition that the BBC Hindi service faces is All India Radio, which has a poor reputation for news and current affairs programmes and is often seen as a Government mouthpiece. In contrast, the BBC Hindi service has built up a strong reputation based on its unbiased coverage of news and current affairs.

In his reply David Lidington MP, Foreign Office Minister, noted the declining Hindi Service reach and the possibility of use of DfID funds to ensure some continuation of service beyond the planned reprieve:

• "According to the World Service, the shortwave audience in India has been falling for some time. In 2007 there were 19.1 million listeners, but by 2010 the number had fallen to about 11 million. That is still a large audience, but it represents a reach of just over 1% of the population, although—as my hon. Friend made clear—the areas covered by the shortwave broadcasts include some of the very poorest parts of India. There is only a small audience for shortwave in any of the urban areas, and the service was broadcasting for only three hours a day."
• "Some World Service activity may count as official overseas development assistance. We are discussing with DFID and the OECD how BBC World Service expenditure may be reported as official development assistance. I understand that the World Service is discussing funding for specific projects with DFID, which already supports the BBC World Service Trust, the charitable arm of the World Service."

More in Hansard.

Edward Leigh and John Glen demand that the right to free speech includes the right to be "insulting"

By Jonathan Isaby

Yesterday saw the Second Reading of the Protections of Freedom Bill, which - in the words of the Homes Secretary, Theresa May, "gives us a chance to roll back the creeping intrusion of the state into our everyday lives, and to return individual freedoms to the heart of our legislation."

Among other things, the Bill will:

• remove innocent people's DNA from the police DNA database
• crack down on the abuse of CCTV cameras
• ensure the state's power of of entry into people's homes or business premises are reasonable and proportionate
• stop abuse by rogue wheel clampers
• scale back excessive counter-terrorism legislation
• stop the disproportionate use of stop and search powers
• make the vetting, barring and criminal records checks less draconian
• restore the right to trial by jury in serious or complex fraud trials

But in their speeches during the debate, two Conservative MPs expressed their desire to see the Bill go further in terms of enshrining freedom of speech, relating to restrictions introduced by the Public Order Act 1986.

I'll let Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) explain:

"Section 5 of the 1986 Act outlaws "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour" if they are likely to cause "harassment, alarm or distress". The proposal that I wish to make, which I and the Liberals supported before, is the deletion of the lowest threshold of that offence, which is the word "insulting". That would still leave the two higher thresholds of "threatening" and "abusive".

"The 1986 Act was brought in to replace the Public Order Act 1936, which had worked very well in dealing with the blackshirts and all that. The 1986 Act does not define the terms "threats" and "abuse", but we all know them when we see them. The courts have often said that. Threat is obvious, is it not? It is when someone is in your face and there is a fear of violence, and abuse is when someone uses obscene language. Insult, however, is clearly something less serious and more subjective, and that is the problem. I believe that removing the word "insulting" would be enough to stop section 5 being misused and generating a chilling effect on free speech."

Continue reading "Edward Leigh and John Glen demand that the right to free speech includes the right to be "insulting"" »

Why did no-one ask how military intervention in Libya would work?

by Paul Goodman

I've glanced back at the Prime Minister's Commons statement on Monday about Libya, and found the following:

• Richard Ottoway asked whether defence co-operation with Gaddafi was misjudged.
• Edward Leigh demanded no further cuts in the Royal Navy.
• James Arbuthnot asked about Hamas's refusal to hold elections in Gaza.
• John Baron inquired what effect support for democracy would have on our autocratic allies in the region.
• Tobias Ellwood asked about mercenaries sent by African governments to support Gaddafi.
• David Tredinnick wanted to know about planning for regime change.
• Tony Baldry said that Gaddafi should be referred to the International Criminal Court.
• Bill Cash urged arming the resistance.
• Robert Halfon attacked the LSE for taking Gaddafi's money.
• James Gray said that contractors should make better plans for evacuations.

These were all fair questions.  But I'm struck on reading them by one that was missing.

David Cameron did nothing to discourage speculation, raging that day, that Britain would play a part in military operations against Gaddafi - including the imposition of a no fly zone (which Labour's Mike Gapes referred to).

It's striking that not a single backbench question tried to pin down Cameron on the matter, ask how a British contribution to a no fly zone or other intervention would work; how it might be affected by the coming defence spending scaleback - and, above all, how we could avoid being further drawn in.

Today's news is that the Government's backing off military intervention, and the media's beginning to ask questions about how it would work.  What can we glean from the fact that no Member of Parliament did so? (Though Tredinnick deserves a mention in dispatches for coming closest.)

Damian Green announces reduction in pre-charge detention limit for terror suspect from 28 to 14 days

By Jonathan Isaby

Answering an Urgent Question from Ed Balls - in his last outing as shadow home secretary - Home Office Minister Damian Green yesterday confirmed that the Government is next week reducing the maximum period for pre-charge detention of terrorist suspects from 28 days to 14 days.

Here's how he made the announcement to the Commons:

"On 13 July last year, the Home Secretary announced that she was renewing the current order for 28-day pre-charge detention for six months, while the powers were considered as part of a wider review of counter-terrorism powers. As the Home Secretary will be giving a full statement to the House on Wednesday on the outcome of that review, it would be wrong of me to pre-empt her statement by giving details of the review today.

"This Government are clear that the power to detain terrorist suspects for up to 28 days’ detention before they were charged or released was meant to be an exceptional power—that was always Parliament’s intention. But under the last Government, it became the norm, with the renewal of 28 days repeatedly brought before the House, despite the power rarely being used. Since July 2007, no one has been held for longer than 14 days, despite the many terrorists arrested since then. That is a testament to the efforts of our prosecutors, our police and our intelligence agencies.

"As I said, the Home Secretary will, next Wednesday, announce to the House the findings from the wider review of counter-terrorism and security powers. She will set out the detailed considerations of the Government in determining whether the current regime of 28 days should be renewed and, if not, what should be put in its place. In the interim, I can announce that the Government will not be seeking to extend the order allowing the maximum 28-day limit and, accordingly, the current order will lapse on 25 January and the maximum limit of pre-charge detention will, from that time, revert to 14 days. We are clear that 14 days should be the norm and that the law should reflect that. However, we will place draft emergency legislation in the House Library to extend the maximum period to 28 days to prepare for the very exceptional circumstances when a longer period may be required. If Parliament approved, the maximum period of pre-charge detention could be extended by that method.

"In the Government’s announcement on the wider review, the Home Secretary will set out what contingency measures should be introduced in order to ensure that our ability to bring terrorists to justice is as effective as possible. This country continues to face a real and serious threat from terrorism. That threat is unlikely to diminish any time soon. The Government are clear that we need appropriate powers to deal with that threat but that those powers must not interfere with the hard-won civil liberties of the British people. There is a difficult balance to be struck between protecting our security and defending our civil liberties. The outcome of our counter-terrorism powers review will strike that balance, and it is this Government’s sincere hope that it will form the basis of a lasting political consensus across the House on this fundamentally important issue."

The statement was widey welcomed by Conservative MPs with Dominc Raab, for example, saying:

Continue reading "Damian Green announces reduction in pre-charge detention limit for terror suspect from 28 to 14 days " »

Ken Clarke's Criminal Justice Green Paper gets a mixed reaction from Tory backbenchers

By Jonathan Isaby

Yesterday Justice Secretary Ken Clarke presented his Green Paper on Criminal Justice, “Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders”. ConHome has already covered some of the announcements contained therein here and here, but here are some of the highlights of what Mr Clarke said in presenting the Green Paper to the Commons and the reaction he got from Tory backbenchers.

Mr Clarke told the Commons:

"Of course, criminals must face robust and demanding punishments. This means making them work hard both in prison and in the community. More prisoners will face the tough discipline of regular working hours. This has been lacking in most prison regimes for too long. Community sentences will be more credible, with more demanding work and greater use of tough curfew requirements. There will be greater reparation to victims through increased use of restorative justice and by implementing the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996. We will bring forward other changes to make sure that more offenders directly compensate the victims of crime.

"But we will take a new approach to the reform of offenders. I regard prison first and foremost as a place of punishment where people lose their liberty as reparation for what they have done, but on top of that, prison cannot continue to be simply an expensive way of giving communities a break. We must give higher priority to ensuring that more prisoners go straight on release.

"Offenders will face a tough and co-ordinated response from the police, probation and other services. It will mean that they must either address the problems that fuel their criminal activity or be caught and punished again."

"The sentencing framework must provide courts with a range of options to punish and rehabilitate criminals and keep the public safe. The sentencing framework has developed in an ad hoc fashion recently, with over 20 Acts of Parliament changing sentencing in the past 10 years. This has left it overly complex, difficult to interpret and administer, and hard for the public to understand. We need to make better use of prison and community sentences to punish offenders and improve public safety, while ensuring that sentencing supports our aims of improved rehabilitation and increased reparation to victims and society. We will therefore simplify the sentencing framework in order to make it more comprehensible to the public and to enhance judicial independence. We will reform community orders to give providers more discretion, and we will encourage greater use of financial penalties and improve their collection."

"Let me assure the House that public safety remains our first priority. We will continue to ensure that serious and dangerous offenders are managed effectively and their risk is reduced through appropriate use of prison and then through the multi-agency public protection arrangements... Any adult who commits a crime using a knife can expect to be sent to prison, and serious offenders can expect a long sentence. For juveniles, imprisonment is always available and will also be appropriate for serious offenders."

There were some voices of considerable scepticism from some Tory MPs sitting behind him:

Continue reading "Ken Clarke's Criminal Justice Green Paper gets a mixed reaction from Tory backbenchers" »

MPs give IPSA four months to change its ways over the handling of their expenses

By Jonathan Isaby

Yesterday MPs passed the following motion without the need for a division:

"That this House regrets the unnecessarily high costs and inadequacies of the systems introduced by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA); calls on the IPSA to introduce a simpler scheme of office expenses and Members’ allowances that cuts significantly the administrative costs, reduces the amount of time needed for administration by Members and their staff, does not disadvantage less well-off Members and those with family responsibilities, nor deter Members from seeking reimbursement of the costs of fulfilling their parliamentary duties; and resolves that if these objectives are not reflected in a new scheme set out by the IPSA in time for operation by 1 April 2011, the Leader of the House should make time available for the amendment of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 to do so."

The motion had been tabled by a cross-party group of MPs, but it fell to Conservative MP Adam Afriyie - who does not himself claim expenses - to move it, giving IPSA four months to change the way it handles MPs' expenses or face being reformed by new legislation.

Mr Afriyie said he wanted to highlight the way in which the current expenses system "unintentionally discriminates against MPs with family commitments and those who come from a less well-off background":

"The system seems almost designed to create a Parliament for the wealthy. If a Member does not have sufficient resources to subsidise themselves, they become ensnared in a vice-like grip designed to bring them into disrepute—they have to produce every single receipt for some sort of personal item. Wealthier Members or those with independent means, of course, can simply not claim. As I look around both sides of the Chamber, I know that probably not a single Member here has claimed everything that they are entitled to claim—first, through fear of the public and the media really having a go, or secondly, because it is too complicated and time-consuming to do so. We have to ask ourselves whether the public want such a system for their Parliament. The wealthy swan through, buy their way out of the system with no trouble at all and are treated as saints when they are nothing of the sort, and everyone else is stuck in the system."

"The current system causes inconvenience and makes things very difficult for Members with families and Members who are less well-off. It also causes problems, because Members are not making claims. Looking back at this year, and certainly over the past six months, I know that virtually every one of my colleagues—I have spoken to 350 MPs one-to-one—has not made the claims that they are entitled to make. That may be seen externally as a great success—“Look, IPSA has crushed the MPs, and they cost far less!”—but we all know that that is not the situation. We know that Members are borrowing from their parents, having to borrow cars from friends, and still sleeping on floors of offices, which they are not supposed to do, because they are not claiming what they rightfully should be able to claim. It is not a good situation.

"However, I am not moaning on behalf of existing MPs. I love all the MPs here, but I am not whingeing on their behalf. What I am concerned about is the functioning of Parliament for the next 100 years. Where will we be in 30 years’ time if we continue down this route where only the wealthy can serve? That is where we were before; I thought we had moved on. IPSA, I hope you are listening."

"The motion asks not for a system that involves looking into the individual lifestyle of every Member, but merely for a simplified system that recognises the variability in family arrangements. The motion asks not for a system that investigates the lifestyle, family arrangements and travelling habits of every MP, but for a simpler system that saves the taxpayer money, so that MPs can focus on the job at hand, whether or not they have a family."

"I am begging IPSA please to propose a scheme that sorts the problems out, and I hope that it will. It has the mandate of the House of Commons already, so it can do so. However, the motion states that if a scheme that can be put into operation by 1 April 2011 is not proposed, this place will act—not in our interests, but in the interests of our constituents and Parliament.

"I am now on the record as encouraging IPSA to come forward with a scheme, but we must be clear on timing. If a proposal is not forthcoming by, say, mid-January, it will be impossible to introduce a scheme before the beginning of the next financial year. Therefore, if the motion is carried, it is necessary for us to introduce a Bill or a statutory instrument or something, probably this side of Christmas, in case IPSA’s proposal is not the right one. Otherwise, we are trapped within the current system, and our constituents will suffer. The costs will be astronomically high for at least another year to a year and a half, and I fear that Members will begin to leave Parliament. The work of Parliament will continue to be impeded unless such changes are made."

"This is a sensitive issue and the public are understandably concerned. I am certain that tomorrow this debate will be reported as, “MPs whinge about their conditions and the independent body that controls them”, but that is not what the debate is about. The debate is about saving the taxpayer money and ensuring that MPs’ voices are heard and not hidden through fear of speaking out."

Other Conservative MPs contributing to the debate made a variety of points.

Continue reading "MPs give IPSA four months to change its ways over the handling of their expenses" »

Tory backbenchers raise questions about the deal with France on aircraft carriers

By Jonathan Isaby

Yesterday saw a debate in the Commons on the recent Strategic Defence and Security Review.

Several Conservative MPs took the opportunity to raise questions about the deal signed this week between David Cameron and President Sarkozy for Britain and France to share aircraft carriers.

James Arbuthnot, who chairs the Defence Select Committee, said:

"In relation to the French-UK treaties that were signed this week, I am in no doubt that they are a good thing, and that we are moving in the right direction. I have a reservation relating to the aircraft carriers, but I repeat that the treaties are a good thing. Actually, I believe that we should go further and give reality to the treaties, so that the warm words that they contain might be translated into tangible progress in training, doctrine, equipment-sharing, acquisition and research with our good friends and allies, the French. My reservation about the aircraft carriers, however, has been wrongly depicted as some great showdown between myself and the Secretary of State. I shall explain my reservation.

"When the SDSR was announced last month, the Prime Minister said of the aircraft carriers: "We will build both carriers, but hold one in extended readiness." And we all know that "extended readiness" in Ministry of Defence-speak means exactly the reverse. But, in the press conference after the signing of the treaties this week, my right hon. Friend referred to our "carrier". As I understand it, we have not yet decided to sell one of the two carriers, and I hope that we do not. To talk of our "carrier" might be to build an expectation that we shall definitely mothball and almost certainly sell the other one. It is pre-empting a discussion that needs to take place much later, when we can see the economic circumstances of this country and, more importantly, the threats against us.

"Two carriers would be a good idea, and no carriers would be a fairly good idea, but one carrier? Surely not. Every time it went into refit would we not prove to the Treasury that we were able to struggle on without it? Furthermore, are we really yet close enough to the French position that we can utterly rely on being allowed to use theirs? The answer is no, not yet. Our deployment to Iraq took place in the last decade. I do not say that we never will be close enough to the French, because I hope and expect that at some stage in the reasonably near future we shall, but it will come about only after a decent length of time operating alongside them, and after the treaties have been given detail, teeth and funding, none of which has yet happened.

"How about another idea? How about deciding between the two of our countries that the French will contribute to the cost of the second carrier and, in return, have the right to use it when their carrier is in refit? That would mean that the two countries had three operational carriers between them, which should surely be acceptable. Having said all that, let me repeat that the French treaties are, in the words of "1066 and All That", a "Good Thing".

And this is what Gainsborough MP Edward Leigh had to say on the topic:

"My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) has done a wonderful job as Chair of the Defence Committee - he is shaping up to be a superb Chair - in questioning the decision on the future shape of the carrier fleet. I am not a Francosceptic; I am a huge Francophile. Both my parents were brought up in France, I went to a French school, and I speak French, so I am all in favour of every kind of co-operation with the French, but... Hon. Members and the public are right to be wary about such co-operation. The public do not really understand - and why should they? - a lot of these details about joint strike fighters, Typhoons and Tornadoes. However, they can visualise aircraft carriers without aircraft, and they can visualise sharing an aircraft carrier with the French, and they do not like it - and they are wise not to like it. We all know what would have happened had we been sharing an aircraft carrier with the French during the Falklands war or the Iraq war."

"I do not doubt for a moment that it is a wonderful idea to have increased co-operation with the French on procurement and to work together more closely, but on this basis it is an extremely dangerous decision. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire was right. There is no way in this debate that we can change the decision on the Ark Royal, the Harriers or Nimrod, and I do not think that I will still be in this Chamber when the two aircraft carriers retire, because I will be about 120. However, for the next 10 years, we can together mount a campaign. Its nature must be clear: that we would make ourselves ridiculous, as one of the world's greatest maritime nations, if we built the greatest and most powerful ships we have ever constructed and then sold one of them to India, Brazil or elsewhere.

"As my right hon. Friend said, extended readiness is not good enough. Our commitment, as with Trident, must be that at all times an aircraft carrier will be available. That means that we must keep our two aircraft carriers and ensure that when one goes in for a refit, the other is available."

A small Conservative rebellion took place on Tuesday over the date of the AV referendum

by Paul Goodman

It's worth keeping an eye on the progress of the NAME bill - the measure that paves the way for a referendum on AV and a reduction in the number of Commons seats.

On Tuesday evening, Bernard Jenkin argued that the May 5 poll date should be moved - because some parts of the country are voting on that day while others aren't.

He said -

"The real reason for avoiding the combination of polls with referendums is fairness. Whatever the merits of combining referendums with elections throughout the referendum constituency, all voters should at least be treated the same. It is obvious from the date on the table at the moment that voters are being treated differently in different parts of the country."

He also attacked the Electoral Commission's volte-face on the matter -

"The quality of the commission's consultation and research has been lacking, which probably reflects the fact that most of its people have changed since 1992. However, the fundamental point about the paper is that it does not address substantively any of the arguments advanced in 2002 in favour of separate polls."

Edward Leigh, Julian Lewis, Eleanor Laing and Nick Boles also spoke from the backbenches during the debate, and the following Conservative MPs voted against the Government:

1. Peter Bone
2. Chris Chope
3. Philip Davies
4. Philip Hollobone
5. Bernard Jenkin
6. Dr Julian Lewis
7. Mark Reckless
8. John Redwood
9. Richard Shepherd

Earlier this year, this vote, long-expected, was mooted to mark substantial number of Conservative MPs voting against the Government.

Tory MPs raise questions about the cost of the proposed parliamentary nursery

At questions to the MP representing the House of Commons Commission (Nick Harvey) yesterday, a succession of Conservative MPs raised issues about the cost of the recently refurbished Bellamy's Bar being turned into a nursery for the children of MPs and House of  Commons staff...

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold):  This important issue has not suddenly arisen before the House. I believe that the process so far has been unacceptable and undemocratic. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that £400,000 has recently been spent on refurbishing Bellamy's bar, and that this proposal will cost an additional £400,000? Will he confirm whether that has been included in the House budget estimates for this financial year?

Nick Harvey: The recent refurbishment in Bellamy's involves a significant amount of work and furnishing that can be reused-certainly about a third of the cost can be used directly. The hon. Gentleman says that this has come about swiftly, but I would point out that there have been constant surveys of the need for child care provision here, and the decision has been taken to move swiftly with this project so that the option is available to new Members as early as possible in the new Parliament to take up this facility if they need it.

Peter Luff (Worcestershire Mid): I entirely share the perception of the need for such a day nursery, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the House of Commons should establish any such facility on an exemplary basis. Given that, as on this particular occasion, a nursery cannot comply with statutory guidance to providers, I hope he will search urgently for an alternative site - one that would comply with that guidance.

Continue reading "Tory MPs raise questions about the cost of the proposed parliamentary nursery" »