Thursday 25 February 2010
The Pope on Thought for the Day?
The news that Radio 4 is in discussions with the Pope about the Pontiff appearing on Thought for the Day during his upcoming visit to Britain is most welcome. As one would expect, the programme’s producers consider the Pope to be the dream ticket for the show. Let us hope that both parties involved can dot the I’s and cross the T’s on the necessary agreement which would no doubt add to what will be an historic and wonderful visit.
Wednesday 24 February 2010
A Pleasant Surprise
The Children, Schools and Families Bill, which had its’ third reading in the Commons yesterday, has received a welcome amendment from an unlikely source. The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families Ed Balls has tabled an amendment regarding the teaching of sex education in schools, specifically with regards to contraception and homosexuality.
Originally the Bill proposed obligations on all schools, faith or otherwise, to teach children about contraception and homosexuality in a way that gave both sides of the argument. This ended the right of schools to opt-out of any type of teaching on either subject. However, it also prevented faith schools from explaining their faith’s position on the matter. What Mr Balls’ amendment does is to allow faith schools to teach on the subject “within the context and ethos of their faith”. In other words, for example, a Catholic school can teach that contraception is wrong, but they must provide its pupils with teaching about contraception.
This amendment is a fine example of common sense prevailing over the drive for political correctness and is the result of our long-term campaigning on the issue.
In a new and encouraging move Parliament has shown a willingness to work together with faith schools (who provide roughly one-third of the education in the UK) and been sensitive to their views.
Originally the Bill proposed obligations on all schools, faith or otherwise, to teach children about contraception and homosexuality in a way that gave both sides of the argument. This ended the right of schools to opt-out of any type of teaching on either subject. However, it also prevented faith schools from explaining their faith’s position on the matter. What Mr Balls’ amendment does is to allow faith schools to teach on the subject “within the context and ethos of their faith”. In other words, for example, a Catholic school can teach that contraception is wrong, but they must provide its pupils with teaching about contraception.
This amendment is a fine example of common sense prevailing over the drive for political correctness and is the result of our long-term campaigning on the issue.
In a new and encouraging move Parliament has shown a willingness to work together with faith schools (who provide roughly one-third of the education in the UK) and been sensitive to their views.
Thursday 11 February 2010
Gordon's gone bananas
It has been reported that Gordon Brown has taken to eating bananas instead of his favourite Kit-Kats in a bid to stay healthy in the run up to the election. This, coupled with his recent taking-up of jogging, hints that he has recognised the need to stay healthy in what must have become an increasingly stressful job.
Of course, the average life of a regular MP, with the regular meetings, long hours and frequent journeys to and from the constituency can also be stressful. And that’s even before the expenses scandal.
So to counter this, during the week come rain or shine (or, more recently, ice), I take a daily swim in the Serpentine in Hyde Park. I would wholeheartedly recommend this to the Prime Minister as an excellent way to start the day, even if my dog, William, doesn’t necessarily agree.
Of course, the average life of a regular MP, with the regular meetings, long hours and frequent journeys to and from the constituency can also be stressful. And that’s even before the expenses scandal.
So to counter this, during the week come rain or shine (or, more recently, ice), I take a daily swim in the Serpentine in Hyde Park. I would wholeheartedly recommend this to the Prime Minister as an excellent way to start the day, even if my dog, William, doesn’t necessarily agree.
Tuesday 9 February 2010
Debating the Equality Bill
Last Thursday in the Chamber I had the opportunity to question the Leader of the House, Harriet Harman, on the subject of the Equality Bill. I asked her that since the Government are not now overturning their defeats on the amendments to the Bill, could we take it that the Government now accepted the principle that the Churches must be allowed to regulate their own clergy according to their own conscience?
This suggestion that the Government were running up the white flag on the issue did not go down too well with Miss Harman. She replied that they had “never sought to, or indeed even unintentionally, propose non-discrimination laws covering bishops, rabbis, archbishops or priests” and accused me of trying to spread a misapprehension.
This is all very well if it had been the case, but the fact that the Pope, who of course picks his words carefully, felt it necessary to make an unprecedented intervention on the matter demonstrates that this clearly wasn’t the case.
His intervention was in relation to the amendment that would end the right to freedom for churches to discipline clergy who act outside of church ethos. Of course, the Pope’s interest lies in the welfare of his clergy who should be allowed to run their own lives and space in the way they want and he is not trying to impose his ideal on anyone else.
So despite the fact that the government have been unable to accept defeat in this matter it is encouraging that their amendments have not been passed, not least for the Archbishop of York, who, had they gone through, would have been deemed not to have the freedom to carry out his own work according to his own ethos.
This suggestion that the Government were running up the white flag on the issue did not go down too well with Miss Harman. She replied that they had “never sought to, or indeed even unintentionally, propose non-discrimination laws covering bishops, rabbis, archbishops or priests” and accused me of trying to spread a misapprehension.
This is all very well if it had been the case, but the fact that the Pope, who of course picks his words carefully, felt it necessary to make an unprecedented intervention on the matter demonstrates that this clearly wasn’t the case.
His intervention was in relation to the amendment that would end the right to freedom for churches to discipline clergy who act outside of church ethos. Of course, the Pope’s interest lies in the welfare of his clergy who should be allowed to run their own lives and space in the way they want and he is not trying to impose his ideal on anyone else.
So despite the fact that the government have been unable to accept defeat in this matter it is encouraging that their amendments have not been passed, not least for the Archbishop of York, who, had they gone through, would have been deemed not to have the freedom to carry out his own work according to his own ethos.
My Week
Even after 27 years I love my job. I still get a thrill of pride and a sense of history every time I walk into the Chamber of the House of Commons. But it’s also the feeling that you can make a real difference on the issues that matter and that you can help people.
Last Monday I chaired the Public Accounts Committee hearing on Dementia. We were grilling Sir David Nicholson the Chief Executive of the NHS. Our committee has done a lot to bring Cinderella type services like Dementia and Stroke to the forefront of NHS thinking: Today I gave a hard time to Sir David on his promise to me, repeated ten times during the last hearing, that dementia was going to be a national priority. It may still not be one, but it is no longer the hidden disease.
On Tuesday I spoke in the Chamber on the Constitutional Reform Bill. I was the only MP arguing that a fully elected second chamber would only reflect the political classes and be stuffed with ministerial job seekers. The House of Lords is filled with experts. The few remaining hereditary peers do a good job and should be left alone. I predict that whatever the major parties say in public, in practice that are quite happy to leave well alone.
On Wednesday it was back to the PAC. We meet twice as often as any other committee. I am proud that in the eight years of my chairmanship working with the National Audit Office we have made recommendations that, having been accepted, have led to savings of £4 billion for the tax-payer. Today we were interrogating the heads of the Naval, Military and Civilian arms of the Ministry of Defence on the £6 billion black hole in their budget. With the NAO we have proved that either a major programme must be scrapped or commitments scaled back, otherwise the black hole will balloon to £30 billion or more.
In the evening I hosted a Cornerstone Group reception for 70 MPs and PPCs (Prospective Parliamentary Candidates). We founded this socially conservative Group seven years ago with just twelve MPs and now have over 30 parliamentary members and an active website. It was a great honour to have Margret Thatcher joins us. She is an inspiration to all who believe in core Conservative values.
On Thursday I returned to the Chamber to make interventions on a Private Bill to regulate Peddlers. A small group of us have used, shall we say, long speeches; filibustering is out of order, to ensure concessions to protect this ancient trade which has no powerful trade unions to represent it.
On Friday I had a busy day working in the constituency. I visited some impressive projects of West Lindsey District Council providing real jobs, not just training schemes, in forestry. We had surgeries in Gainsborough and Market Rasen. I think it is through these surgeries that MPs really can help people with their tax, housing and planning problems and I met with the headmaster of the Grammar school to promise to help his campaign to refurbish his wonderful school.
Do MPs provide value for money? That’s for you to decide. But there are only 646 of us overseeing one of the largest budgets in the world, £600 billion and half a million workers in the public sector would. Would things be any better if the bureaucrats had no scrutiny? I don’t think so.
Last Monday I chaired the Public Accounts Committee hearing on Dementia. We were grilling Sir David Nicholson the Chief Executive of the NHS. Our committee has done a lot to bring Cinderella type services like Dementia and Stroke to the forefront of NHS thinking: Today I gave a hard time to Sir David on his promise to me, repeated ten times during the last hearing, that dementia was going to be a national priority. It may still not be one, but it is no longer the hidden disease.
On Tuesday I spoke in the Chamber on the Constitutional Reform Bill. I was the only MP arguing that a fully elected second chamber would only reflect the political classes and be stuffed with ministerial job seekers. The House of Lords is filled with experts. The few remaining hereditary peers do a good job and should be left alone. I predict that whatever the major parties say in public, in practice that are quite happy to leave well alone.
On Wednesday it was back to the PAC. We meet twice as often as any other committee. I am proud that in the eight years of my chairmanship working with the National Audit Office we have made recommendations that, having been accepted, have led to savings of £4 billion for the tax-payer. Today we were interrogating the heads of the Naval, Military and Civilian arms of the Ministry of Defence on the £6 billion black hole in their budget. With the NAO we have proved that either a major programme must be scrapped or commitments scaled back, otherwise the black hole will balloon to £30 billion or more.
In the evening I hosted a Cornerstone Group reception for 70 MPs and PPCs (Prospective Parliamentary Candidates). We founded this socially conservative Group seven years ago with just twelve MPs and now have over 30 parliamentary members and an active website. It was a great honour to have Margret Thatcher joins us. She is an inspiration to all who believe in core Conservative values.
On Thursday I returned to the Chamber to make interventions on a Private Bill to regulate Peddlers. A small group of us have used, shall we say, long speeches; filibustering is out of order, to ensure concessions to protect this ancient trade which has no powerful trade unions to represent it.
On Friday I had a busy day working in the constituency. I visited some impressive projects of West Lindsey District Council providing real jobs, not just training schemes, in forestry. We had surgeries in Gainsborough and Market Rasen. I think it is through these surgeries that MPs really can help people with their tax, housing and planning problems and I met with the headmaster of the Grammar school to promise to help his campaign to refurbish his wonderful school.
Do MPs provide value for money? That’s for you to decide. But there are only 646 of us overseeing one of the largest budgets in the world, £600 billion and half a million workers in the public sector would. Would things be any better if the bureaucrats had no scrutiny? I don’t think so.
Wednesday 3 February 2010
Liaison Committee - 2nd Febuary 2010
Yesterday I had the opportunity to question the Prime Minister on the subject of Defence, with particular reference to the MOD budget and the situation in Afghanistan, during the twice-annual Liaison Committee hearing.
Firstly, I asked Gordon Brown whether during his time as Chancellor he had put heavy pressure on the Defence budget which had led to not only a fatal delay in providing the money necessary for the procurement of helicopters, but the real possibility of resignations from senior officers. This question was with reference to the evidence submitted by Lord Walker (Chief of Defence Staff 2003-2006) and Geoff Hoon (Secretary of State for Defence 1999-2005) at the ongoing Chilcot inquiry.
To this he replied that the MOD where given an overall budget and it was up to the senior officers to use it as they saw fit. This answer was in contrast to Lord Walker’s claims that the MOD had been given line by line instructions on procurement from the Treasury.
I then questioned the Prime Minister on the briefings from his office to the press regarding Defence spending. Despite a recent National Audit Office report highlighting a black hole of £6bn in the MOD budget over the next 10 years (even if there is an increase in spending of 2.7%!) No. 10 had still put out that they would maintain both the spending commitments to Afghanistan and the delivery of aircraft carriers. So I put it to Mr Brown, did he accept that this black hole was there, and that, if so, he simply couldn’t go briefing the press on maintaining spending commitments if the money wasn’t there.
He answered that the Urgent Operational Requirements (UOR) fund, taken from the Treasury reserve, would meet the needs in Afghanistan.
However, he neglected to mention the MOD black hole, so I put it to him that if he planned to ring fence Health, Education and International Development (as he had stated earlier, under questioning from Peter Luff) what was going to be done about the £6bn shortfall.
He once again reiterated that Afghanistan would be covered by the UOR and that regarding the Defence budget, there would be a Strategic Defence Review in due course, a white paper and a debate about future defence commitments.
Finally, I pushed him on whether he was still fully committed to the procurement of the aircraft carriers. This he did confirm, but emphasised that the priority was to make sure that the mission in Afghanistan was properly financed.
Although perhaps not having always been the case, it was encouraging to hear the Prime Minister emphasising the commitment to Afghanistan as his number one priority. However, his acceptance that there would be a Strategic Review in due course demonstrated that his briefing of the press about maintaining defence commitments across the board was more about scoring political points. After all, one could promise a whole raft of spending prior to the election if one knows that there will be a Strategic Spending Review soon after the election.
Firstly, I asked Gordon Brown whether during his time as Chancellor he had put heavy pressure on the Defence budget which had led to not only a fatal delay in providing the money necessary for the procurement of helicopters, but the real possibility of resignations from senior officers. This question was with reference to the evidence submitted by Lord Walker (Chief of Defence Staff 2003-2006) and Geoff Hoon (Secretary of State for Defence 1999-2005) at the ongoing Chilcot inquiry.
To this he replied that the MOD where given an overall budget and it was up to the senior officers to use it as they saw fit. This answer was in contrast to Lord Walker’s claims that the MOD had been given line by line instructions on procurement from the Treasury.
I then questioned the Prime Minister on the briefings from his office to the press regarding Defence spending. Despite a recent National Audit Office report highlighting a black hole of £6bn in the MOD budget over the next 10 years (even if there is an increase in spending of 2.7%!) No. 10 had still put out that they would maintain both the spending commitments to Afghanistan and the delivery of aircraft carriers. So I put it to Mr Brown, did he accept that this black hole was there, and that, if so, he simply couldn’t go briefing the press on maintaining spending commitments if the money wasn’t there.
He answered that the Urgent Operational Requirements (UOR) fund, taken from the Treasury reserve, would meet the needs in Afghanistan.
However, he neglected to mention the MOD black hole, so I put it to him that if he planned to ring fence Health, Education and International Development (as he had stated earlier, under questioning from Peter Luff) what was going to be done about the £6bn shortfall.
He once again reiterated that Afghanistan would be covered by the UOR and that regarding the Defence budget, there would be a Strategic Defence Review in due course, a white paper and a debate about future defence commitments.
Finally, I pushed him on whether he was still fully committed to the procurement of the aircraft carriers. This he did confirm, but emphasised that the priority was to make sure that the mission in Afghanistan was properly financed.
Although perhaps not having always been the case, it was encouraging to hear the Prime Minister emphasising the commitment to Afghanistan as his number one priority. However, his acceptance that there would be a Strategic Review in due course demonstrated that his briefing of the press about maintaining defence commitments across the board was more about scoring political points. After all, one could promise a whole raft of spending prior to the election if one knows that there will be a Strategic Spending Review soon after the election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)