Thursday, May 23, 2013
Senior civil servants on the town
Yes Prime Minister's portrayal of government mandarins was never a flattering one. Fortunately, their characterisation was often over-the-top exageration and certainly does not reflect modern day civil servants at any level.
Nevertheless, this story in the Telegraph earlier this week, must have set some hares running. The paper says that thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money is being used to hire formal evening dress for civil servants:
The biggest beneficiary appears to have been the Ministry of Defence, which has spent £18,616.71 on hiring evening dress over the past five years.
This coincides with the armed forces, who have already complained of being poorly equipped, being in the firing line for sweeping spending cuts.
It has settled 103 claims, equivalent to just over £180 a time. In the last financial year alone, taxpayers spent just over £3,000 ensuring that MoD officials looked the part at formal gatherings.
Meanwhile over at the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, the bill for reimbursing 23 claims for formal dress hire was £2,807.85 – working out at £122 a time.
The Solicitor General’s department said it had recorded one claim of £75 for full evening dress in 2008.
Details from other departments, such as the Foreign Office, are expected to emerge over the next few days.
However according to the Moss Bros website formal dinner wear can be hired for as little as £38 a time.
Perhaps a review of terms and conditions is overdue.
Nevertheless, this story in the Telegraph earlier this week, must have set some hares running. The paper says that thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money is being used to hire formal evening dress for civil servants:
The biggest beneficiary appears to have been the Ministry of Defence, which has spent £18,616.71 on hiring evening dress over the past five years.
This coincides with the armed forces, who have already complained of being poorly equipped, being in the firing line for sweeping spending cuts.
It has settled 103 claims, equivalent to just over £180 a time. In the last financial year alone, taxpayers spent just over £3,000 ensuring that MoD officials looked the part at formal gatherings.
Meanwhile over at the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, the bill for reimbursing 23 claims for formal dress hire was £2,807.85 – working out at £122 a time.
The Solicitor General’s department said it had recorded one claim of £75 for full evening dress in 2008.
Details from other departments, such as the Foreign Office, are expected to emerge over the next few days.
However according to the Moss Bros website formal dinner wear can be hired for as little as £38 a time.
Perhaps a review of terms and conditions is overdue.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Five full years
As a Liberal Democrat I will not deny that it has been an interesting couple of weeks. Who would have thought that it would be my party that showed better than our coalition partners the discipline and unity necessary to govern.
For all the speculation the Liberal Democrats stand full square behind Nick Clegg in delivering the party's agenda of lower taxes for the poorest in our society, taxing wealth and excess profits from the banks, better pensions and a greener Britain. The danger is that the Tory Party's disunity and infighting will undermine the consensus we have helped to build for a fairer society.
That is why I was pleased to see Nick Clegg yesterday trying to steady the ship. As the Guardian reports the Liberal Democrats leader warned Tory MPs off "arcane, shrill and tongue-twisting manoeuvres in parliament", saying it distracted the public from the government's main goal of sorting out the economy:
Insisting he was confident of his place in the coalition, he said: "Anyone who is wargaming about what may or may not happen in my party is wasting their time. I am going to be leader of this party up to, through and beyond the next general election. The Liberal Democrats, despite all the predictions to the contrary, have proved to be the calmest, most resilient and most united party in British politics today."
Cameron, pressed on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, whether the coalition would last the full five years, said: "That is absolutely my intention and has always been. To anyone who doubts what life there is left in the coalition, I would argue there is more to come – very bold reforming, and strong government, and that is what we'll be right up until polling day."
Of course there will always be differences between us, especially on Europe, civil liberties and constitutional reform, but the national interest dictates that we finish the job we started of trying to steady the ship and put the economiy back to rights.
For all the speculation the Liberal Democrats stand full square behind Nick Clegg in delivering the party's agenda of lower taxes for the poorest in our society, taxing wealth and excess profits from the banks, better pensions and a greener Britain. The danger is that the Tory Party's disunity and infighting will undermine the consensus we have helped to build for a fairer society.
That is why I was pleased to see Nick Clegg yesterday trying to steady the ship. As the Guardian reports the Liberal Democrats leader warned Tory MPs off "arcane, shrill and tongue-twisting manoeuvres in parliament", saying it distracted the public from the government's main goal of sorting out the economy:
Insisting he was confident of his place in the coalition, he said: "Anyone who is wargaming about what may or may not happen in my party is wasting their time. I am going to be leader of this party up to, through and beyond the next general election. The Liberal Democrats, despite all the predictions to the contrary, have proved to be the calmest, most resilient and most united party in British politics today."
Cameron, pressed on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, whether the coalition would last the full five years, said: "That is absolutely my intention and has always been. To anyone who doubts what life there is left in the coalition, I would argue there is more to come – very bold reforming, and strong government, and that is what we'll be right up until polling day."
Of course there will always be differences between us, especially on Europe, civil liberties and constitutional reform, but the national interest dictates that we finish the job we started of trying to steady the ship and put the economiy back to rights.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Progress at last on new school
Today's South Wales Evening Post reports on an important investment in my council ward with the news that a new school to replace two existing dilapidated buildings is likely to be built in the very near future. The Evening Post piece is slightly overspun by the Council officers who contributed to it but that does not change the fact that this is very good news indeed.
As the interim Director of Education says: "The current Burlais school is split across two ageing buildings which need huge amounts of investment to bring them up to modern standards fit for the 21st century." A new school is the best solution, it is just a shame that options for sites are so limited.
This investment has not happened overnight. It has come about after years of work by local councillors, officers and both the present and previous administration in putting together grant applications to the Welsh Government, identifying matching funds, approving plans and arranging the merger of the two old schools into one so that we can access and use the money as soon as possible. All three councillors have been actively involved in initiating and supporting that process.
Also Cwmbwrla Park is not rundown. There has recently been a major investment in a new play area and a shelter for older kids. Ward Councillors continue to stay on top of issues as they arise in the park. The only dereliction is the changing rooms which were burnt down four years ago and were not rebuilt partly due to the cost but mostly because this school investment was on the cards. Once they are rebuilt then football can be played in the park again as it has been for generations.
I spent the weekend delivering a leaflet to every home in the area advertising a public meeting on the Manor Road site this Thursday at 7pm. There is an exhibition at 6pm showing the extent of the plans. There is still a long way to go before this school is delivered and it is imperative that we take the community with us.
As the interim Director of Education says: "The current Burlais school is split across two ageing buildings which need huge amounts of investment to bring them up to modern standards fit for the 21st century." A new school is the best solution, it is just a shame that options for sites are so limited.
This investment has not happened overnight. It has come about after years of work by local councillors, officers and both the present and previous administration in putting together grant applications to the Welsh Government, identifying matching funds, approving plans and arranging the merger of the two old schools into one so that we can access and use the money as soon as possible. All three councillors have been actively involved in initiating and supporting that process.
Also Cwmbwrla Park is not rundown. There has recently been a major investment in a new play area and a shelter for older kids. Ward Councillors continue to stay on top of issues as they arise in the park. The only dereliction is the changing rooms which were burnt down four years ago and were not rebuilt partly due to the cost but mostly because this school investment was on the cards. Once they are rebuilt then football can be played in the park again as it has been for generations.
I spent the weekend delivering a leaflet to every home in the area advertising a public meeting on the Manor Road site this Thursday at 7pm. There is an exhibition at 6pm showing the extent of the plans. There is still a long way to go before this school is delivered and it is imperative that we take the community with us.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Too important for politicians
If there is one thing that is clear about the current controversy over Europe it is that the consequences of any decision to pull out are so serious that maybe there is a case for keeping politicians out of the debate altogether.
That is just a whimsical remark of course. After all many of those expressing a view on this matter could not and should not be silenced. But it does underline a basic point, which is that so far the real issues are not being discussed.
That is why an article in today's Independent is so important. They report that some of Britain’s most successful and eminent business leaders have accused Eurosceptic MPs of putting “politics before economics” and abandoning the national interest in their calls for Britain to leave the European Union.
They add that in a letter to the group issue a trenchant riposte to politicians who have argued that Britain’s economic interest would be better served outside the EU:
They also call for David Cameron to “strengthen and deepen” the European single market to boost Britain’s economy by £110bn.
The letter, which is signed by senior figures including the current and next presidents of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) as well as the chairmen of BT, Deloitte, Lloyds and Centrica, is the first co-ordinated response from the business community to increasing anti-European political rhetoric.
It reflects growing concern in the City that anti-European feeling is not being effectively countered by mainstream political leaders in the wake of last month’s local council elections.
The paper adds that in their letter the businessmen write that on a purely economic basis, exiting the EU would be deeply damaging to Britain:
“The economic case to stay in the EU is overwhelming,” they say. “To Britain, membership is estimated to be worth between £31bn and £92bn per year in income gains, or between £1,200 to £3,500 for every household.
“What we should now be doing is fighting hard to deliver a more competitive Europe, to combat the criticism of those that champion our departure. We should push to strengthen and deepen the Single Market to include digital, energy, transport and telecoms, which could boost Britain’s GDP by £110bn.”
Addressing concerns that European banking legislation is adversely affecting the City of London, the 19 business leaders say that the right answer is to fight for Britain’s interests inside the EU – rather than attempting to go it alone. “The City of London is Europe’s global financial centre,” they say. “Some of the EU’s ideas such as a cap on bankers’ bonuses put this standing at risk. So the Government needs to work hard to protect it.
“But there is also a huge opportunity to promote London’s capital markets to help solve the problems of the EU banking system. We should promote the cause of EU membership as well as defend our position.”
They conclude: “The benefits of membership overwhelmingly outweigh the costs, and to suggest otherwise is putting politics before economics.”
Some businessmen privately express concerns that were Britain to leave and place restrictions on foreign workers, other European countries would retaliate and make it harder for Britons to work in the EU.
There is also a non-economic case for staying the European Union, not least that it it provides an invaluable level of social and political cohesion to Europe and has helped us maintain peace on the continent for several generations. This really is more important than politics.
That is just a whimsical remark of course. After all many of those expressing a view on this matter could not and should not be silenced. But it does underline a basic point, which is that so far the real issues are not being discussed.
That is why an article in today's Independent is so important. They report that some of Britain’s most successful and eminent business leaders have accused Eurosceptic MPs of putting “politics before economics” and abandoning the national interest in their calls for Britain to leave the European Union.
They add that in a letter to the group issue a trenchant riposte to politicians who have argued that Britain’s economic interest would be better served outside the EU:
They also call for David Cameron to “strengthen and deepen” the European single market to boost Britain’s economy by £110bn.
The letter, which is signed by senior figures including the current and next presidents of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) as well as the chairmen of BT, Deloitte, Lloyds and Centrica, is the first co-ordinated response from the business community to increasing anti-European political rhetoric.
It reflects growing concern in the City that anti-European feeling is not being effectively countered by mainstream political leaders in the wake of last month’s local council elections.
The paper adds that in their letter the businessmen write that on a purely economic basis, exiting the EU would be deeply damaging to Britain:
“The economic case to stay in the EU is overwhelming,” they say. “To Britain, membership is estimated to be worth between £31bn and £92bn per year in income gains, or between £1,200 to £3,500 for every household.
“What we should now be doing is fighting hard to deliver a more competitive Europe, to combat the criticism of those that champion our departure. We should push to strengthen and deepen the Single Market to include digital, energy, transport and telecoms, which could boost Britain’s GDP by £110bn.”
Addressing concerns that European banking legislation is adversely affecting the City of London, the 19 business leaders say that the right answer is to fight for Britain’s interests inside the EU – rather than attempting to go it alone. “The City of London is Europe’s global financial centre,” they say. “Some of the EU’s ideas such as a cap on bankers’ bonuses put this standing at risk. So the Government needs to work hard to protect it.
“But there is also a huge opportunity to promote London’s capital markets to help solve the problems of the EU banking system. We should promote the cause of EU membership as well as defend our position.”
They conclude: “The benefits of membership overwhelmingly outweigh the costs, and to suggest otherwise is putting politics before economics.”
Some businessmen privately express concerns that were Britain to leave and place restrictions on foreign workers, other European countries would retaliate and make it harder for Britons to work in the EU.
There is also a non-economic case for staying the European Union, not least that it it provides an invaluable level of social and political cohesion to Europe and has helped us maintain peace on the continent for several generations. This really is more important than politics.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Labour's opportunistic opposition to housing benefit reform stumbles again
Many politicians hold genuine and deeply-held views in opposition to the coalition government's reform of housing benefit.
There is no doubt changes that will reduce entitlement for those who have a spare bedroom are controversial and will initially cause problems for many people.
That is why the government has put in place additional funds for Discretionary Housing Payments and have altered a number of the regulations to ease specific issues. It is my view that more needs to be done, but that is not the point of this post.
The position of the Labour Party on this issue has been particularly hypocritical. They have been virulent in their opposition to what they have termed 'the bedroom tax' and yet they piloted this reform when they were in government and introduced it for the privately rented sector in 2008.
What is more they have put forward no alternative nor have they pledged to repeal it. That hypocrisy has been brought into stark contrast this weekend with a clarification of the position of the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
According to this article, Liam Byrne went to Newcastle empty-handed and left his audience sorely disappointed on this very issue.
Labour's opportunism on welfare reform is disgraceful. They quite rightly initiated it, now they are opposing it despite not having any intention of undoing the reforms. No wonder they are struggling in the polls.
There is no doubt changes that will reduce entitlement for those who have a spare bedroom are controversial and will initially cause problems for many people.
That is why the government has put in place additional funds for Discretionary Housing Payments and have altered a number of the regulations to ease specific issues. It is my view that more needs to be done, but that is not the point of this post.
The position of the Labour Party on this issue has been particularly hypocritical. They have been virulent in their opposition to what they have termed 'the bedroom tax' and yet they piloted this reform when they were in government and introduced it for the privately rented sector in 2008.
What is more they have put forward no alternative nor have they pledged to repeal it. That hypocrisy has been brought into stark contrast this weekend with a clarification of the position of the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
According to this article, Liam Byrne went to Newcastle empty-handed and left his audience sorely disappointed on this very issue.
Labour's opportunism on welfare reform is disgraceful. They quite rightly initiated it, now they are opposing it despite not having any intention of undoing the reforms. No wonder they are struggling in the polls.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
The 'loons' have it
So what has happened to the Tory party? We have not seen this level of in-fighting since the John Major years and even then their cabinet ministers and SPADs stopped short of slagging off their own activists.
As the Telegraph reports the pressure is starting to get a bit much for some of the occupants of the Number 10 bunker. So much so that a a senior figure in the Conservative Party who has strong social connections to the Prime Minister decided to excuse the 116 rebels who voted to amend the Queen's speech by saying that: “The MPs just have to do it because the associations tell them to, and the associations are all mad swivel-eyed loons.”
Presumably the same reason will be wheeled out to justify the 150 plus Conservative MPs who are expected to vote against Mr Cameron’s plans to legalise same-sex marriage next week when the legislation returns to the House of Commons.
When we entered this coalition, commentators predicted that the Liberal Democrats would not last the pace. Instead it is the more experienced but less disciplined Tory Party who are falling apart.
As the Telegraph reports the pressure is starting to get a bit much for some of the occupants of the Number 10 bunker. So much so that a a senior figure in the Conservative Party who has strong social connections to the Prime Minister decided to excuse the 116 rebels who voted to amend the Queen's speech by saying that: “The MPs just have to do it because the associations tell them to, and the associations are all mad swivel-eyed loons.”
Presumably the same reason will be wheeled out to justify the 150 plus Conservative MPs who are expected to vote against Mr Cameron’s plans to legalise same-sex marriage next week when the legislation returns to the House of Commons.
When we entered this coalition, commentators predicted that the Liberal Democrats would not last the pace. Instead it is the more experienced but less disciplined Tory Party who are falling apart.
Friday, May 17, 2013
A modern circle of hell
I reference this article in the Daily Telegraph as a public service, because I for one an fed up with phone trees. The paper reports that some multi-national companies have almost 80 menu options when you try to call them. If you are able to find a shortcut then it is believed that this could save a person up to eight minutes per call.
The paper say that a Lloyds TSB home insurance customer who wishes to report a water leak would normally have to wade through 78 menu options over seven levels to get through to the correct department. Two thirds of call centres (68%) use introductions or additional advertising between options
IT manager Nigel Clarke, 53, who spent seven years making 12,000 calls to automated phone centres, has come up with a solution. He has painstakingly catalogued the option sequences of 130 leading companies, and has now published online which numbers to press to reach the required department. Thus, the Lloyds TSB customer referred to above will find that the combination 1-3-2-1-1-5-4 will get them straight through, saving over four minutes of waiting.
Mr Clarke, who has been working on the list for seven years, cites the HMRC as one of the worst offenders, where callers can take up to six minutes to reach the correct department.
As one of the UK's busiest call centres, the Revenue receives 79 million calls per year, or a potential 4.3 million working hours just navigating menus.
Mr Clarke believes that with better menu design, at least three million caller hours could be saved here alone.
He said he became increasingly “frustrated” by the lists. "I thought to myself 'Why don't companies make life easy for their customers and simply show me the menu options before I call so I know what numbers to press to get through much more quickly?'.
"I realised I could often save a minute or two at least per call. That soon adds up in time and money with all the calls I make each year."
My only beef with this article is that it does not give the website address.
Update: The website is here
The paper say that a Lloyds TSB home insurance customer who wishes to report a water leak would normally have to wade through 78 menu options over seven levels to get through to the correct department. Two thirds of call centres (68%) use introductions or additional advertising between options
IT manager Nigel Clarke, 53, who spent seven years making 12,000 calls to automated phone centres, has come up with a solution. He has painstakingly catalogued the option sequences of 130 leading companies, and has now published online which numbers to press to reach the required department. Thus, the Lloyds TSB customer referred to above will find that the combination 1-3-2-1-1-5-4 will get them straight through, saving over four minutes of waiting.
Mr Clarke, who has been working on the list for seven years, cites the HMRC as one of the worst offenders, where callers can take up to six minutes to reach the correct department.
As one of the UK's busiest call centres, the Revenue receives 79 million calls per year, or a potential 4.3 million working hours just navigating menus.
Mr Clarke believes that with better menu design, at least three million caller hours could be saved here alone.
He said he became increasingly “frustrated” by the lists. "I thought to myself 'Why don't companies make life easy for their customers and simply show me the menu options before I call so I know what numbers to press to get through much more quickly?'.
"I realised I could often save a minute or two at least per call. That soon adds up in time and money with all the calls I make each year."
My only beef with this article is that it does not give the website address.
Update: The website is here
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Tax avoidance and international companies
Today's Independent reports the appalling fact that Amazon paid less in UK corporation tax last year than it received in government grants.
The paper says that its official company accounts have revealed that last year it paid just £3.1m in total taxes on sales of £4.2bn. Its corporation tax bill was £2.44m, less than the £2.5m it received from the Scottish Government in inducements to build a new distribution warehouse in Dunfermline. And it is not just them:
The news comes as MPs say Google employees have turned whistleblower to describe how the Internet search giant misleads Britain's tax authorities over how much business they carry out in this country.
Giving evidence to MPs on the Public Accounts Committee the head of Google sales in Europe Matt Brittin insisted that all its sales were completed in Dublin.
This allows the company to pay tax at a lower rate than if the sales were completed in the UK.
But MPs told Mr Brittin that they had been contacted by former employees who described the extent of sales operations in the UK.
This includes pay-slips showing UK based staff being paid substantial bonuses depending on their 'sales' and evidence that big clients were being dealt with almost exclusively in the UK.
I will be in the Hay Festival over the Whitsun bank Holiday weekend and have tickets to see Eric Schmidt, the founder of Google. There may be questions. I am looking forward to it.
The paper says that its official company accounts have revealed that last year it paid just £3.1m in total taxes on sales of £4.2bn. Its corporation tax bill was £2.44m, less than the £2.5m it received from the Scottish Government in inducements to build a new distribution warehouse in Dunfermline. And it is not just them:
The news comes as MPs say Google employees have turned whistleblower to describe how the Internet search giant misleads Britain's tax authorities over how much business they carry out in this country.
Giving evidence to MPs on the Public Accounts Committee the head of Google sales in Europe Matt Brittin insisted that all its sales were completed in Dublin.
This allows the company to pay tax at a lower rate than if the sales were completed in the UK.
But MPs told Mr Brittin that they had been contacted by former employees who described the extent of sales operations in the UK.
This includes pay-slips showing UK based staff being paid substantial bonuses depending on their 'sales' and evidence that big clients were being dealt with almost exclusively in the UK.
I will be in the Hay Festival over the Whitsun bank Holiday weekend and have tickets to see Eric Schmidt, the founder of Google. There may be questions. I am looking forward to it.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Coalition Minister needs to reconsider his rash statement
It is bad enough having to introduce changes to housing benefit so as to make it more affordable, without Ministers putting their big feet in it so as to rub in the impact of their policies on some of the poorest members of our society.
Today's Western Mail reports that Lord Freud, who serves as an unpaid minister at the Department for Work & Pensions, suggested to the House of Commons Welsh Affairs Committee that separated parents could either pay the additional rent for an extra bedroom or make use of a sofa bed when children were staying.
The paper characterises it as Families hit by bedroom tax 'can go out to work or use a sofa bed' which puts the comment on a similar level to Norman Tebbit's off-paraphrased statement that the unemployed should get on their bikes and look for work.
The Minister went on to explain his position in less confrontational terms by saying: “The issue is dual-provision of those bedrooms is expensive; basically giving a child a bedroom in two places is a very expensive thing for the state to do and currently we can’t afford that.” However, I am afraid that the damage was already done.
As if to compound the error the Chair of the Committee, Monmouthshire MP, David Davies dug even deeper. He said: “Do you not think it is entirely wrong that up until now many local authorities have apparently had a policy of just handing out large houses to people who don’t even have families or at least one child on the basis that one day they may well have one. I mean, surely we should be expecting everyone, whether they are on benefits or in work, to live by the same disciplines that those of us who are in work live by...
“Surely it is rather discriminatory to expect people on benefits to live in some kind of different world without those constraints.”
It is not the case of course that local councils have handed out large houses to people who would under-occupy them. All social housing providers have allocation policies that fit the property to need. The reason why people under-occupy homes is complex but essentially it is down to changes of circumstances such as divorce or death. Perhaps both Lord Freud and David Davies need to get out more.
Today's Western Mail reports that Lord Freud, who serves as an unpaid minister at the Department for Work & Pensions, suggested to the House of Commons Welsh Affairs Committee that separated parents could either pay the additional rent for an extra bedroom or make use of a sofa bed when children were staying.
The paper characterises it as Families hit by bedroom tax 'can go out to work or use a sofa bed' which puts the comment on a similar level to Norman Tebbit's off-paraphrased statement that the unemployed should get on their bikes and look for work.
The Minister went on to explain his position in less confrontational terms by saying: “The issue is dual-provision of those bedrooms is expensive; basically giving a child a bedroom in two places is a very expensive thing for the state to do and currently we can’t afford that.” However, I am afraid that the damage was already done.
As if to compound the error the Chair of the Committee, Monmouthshire MP, David Davies dug even deeper. He said: “Do you not think it is entirely wrong that up until now many local authorities have apparently had a policy of just handing out large houses to people who don’t even have families or at least one child on the basis that one day they may well have one. I mean, surely we should be expecting everyone, whether they are on benefits or in work, to live by the same disciplines that those of us who are in work live by...
“Surely it is rather discriminatory to expect people on benefits to live in some kind of different world without those constraints.”
It is not the case of course that local councils have handed out large houses to people who would under-occupy them. All social housing providers have allocation policies that fit the property to need. The reason why people under-occupy homes is complex but essentially it is down to changes of circumstances such as divorce or death. Perhaps both Lord Freud and David Davies need to get out more.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
The price of rebellion
The Tory rebellion over Europe took yet another unusual twist today with the Prime Minister effectively embracing it by announcing his intention to introduce a draft Bill to guarantee that an in/out referendum on Europe will be held by 2017.
According to the Independent the draft Bill, which is to be unveiled by the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, will be seen as a way to strengthen Mr Cameron’s promise of a referendum if his party wins the 2015 general election. They continue:
It is unlikely to be introduced as a government measure because the Liberal Democrats oppose the idea. But it could make progress through Parliament as a backbench Bill. A Conservative source said on Monday night: “We will examine all the options to bring this Bill before Parliament, including a Private Member’s Bill, in keeping with what the Prime Minister has said.”
More than 70 Tory MPs have taken the unusual step of signing an amendment to last week’s Queen’s Speech regretting the absence of an EU referendum Bill. Ministers have been told they can abstain in a vote on it due tomorrow, but backbenchers and ministerial aides will be allowed to support the amendment.
If the Bill starts its passage through Parliament, Mr Cameron hopes it will “shine a spotlight” on his referendum pledge and counter the recent surge by the UK Independence Party. He also hopes the Bill will put the Liberal Democrats and Labour on the spot by forcing them to decide quickly whether they support or oppose giving the public a say on Britain’s position in Europe.
That is all very well, but is this really a good use of Parliamentary time? After all isn't there a constitutional convention that says that a Parliament cannot bind its successors? If that is the case then the draft bill becomes no more than symbolic, a sure sign that party politics and internal dissent have finally trumped the national interest.
According to the Independent the draft Bill, which is to be unveiled by the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, will be seen as a way to strengthen Mr Cameron’s promise of a referendum if his party wins the 2015 general election. They continue:
It is unlikely to be introduced as a government measure because the Liberal Democrats oppose the idea. But it could make progress through Parliament as a backbench Bill. A Conservative source said on Monday night: “We will examine all the options to bring this Bill before Parliament, including a Private Member’s Bill, in keeping with what the Prime Minister has said.”
More than 70 Tory MPs have taken the unusual step of signing an amendment to last week’s Queen’s Speech regretting the absence of an EU referendum Bill. Ministers have been told they can abstain in a vote on it due tomorrow, but backbenchers and ministerial aides will be allowed to support the amendment.
If the Bill starts its passage through Parliament, Mr Cameron hopes it will “shine a spotlight” on his referendum pledge and counter the recent surge by the UK Independence Party. He also hopes the Bill will put the Liberal Democrats and Labour on the spot by forcing them to decide quickly whether they support or oppose giving the public a say on Britain’s position in Europe.
That is all very well, but is this really a good use of Parliamentary time? After all isn't there a constitutional convention that says that a Parliament cannot bind its successors? If that is the case then the draft bill becomes no more than symbolic, a sure sign that party politics and internal dissent have finally trumped the national interest.
