Category: Blog

Conservatives like George Young and Frank Field as leading candidates. It is likely Michael Lord, a deputy Speaker, may run. Sir Alan Haslehurst, also a Deputy Speaker, is another possibility. These too could attract some Conservative support.

What matters more is how Labour MPs will vote, given the much larger number of Labour MPs. There does not yet seem to be a Labour establishment candidate. Labour MPs do not necessarily warm to Frank Field, given the independent and critical role he has performed in recent years. A couple I spoke too favour John Bercow.

Alan Beith has also said he would like to stand. I have not yet come across any of his supporters.

Well done to Douglas Carswell and to the Labour MPs who supported his motion. It was part of the process to change Speakers.

I hope readers can now see the wisdom of the judgement made by David Cameron and the front bench. If the Speaker was to go it was important he was not brought down by the official opposition party. He was brought down by a growing feeling throughout the House that he had to go. If he had not resigned today, more of us would have signed the Carswell motion, making sure the new names were balanced between parties. Every day that went by with the motion not for debate it would have weakened the Speaker further.

It was never possible to change the Speaker on Conservative votes. Labour had to see the case for change. Reluctanctly some of them did.

It is too early to say who will emerge. Frank Field and George Young are the current favourites, but there are several others who fancy the job.

Enough has been said in the press this morning about the Speaker’s performance yesterday. As feared he sought to tackle the issue of expenses, but could only say he would now discuss it with the there party leaders. He failed to tell us anything about his own position.

His Statement revealed yet another inadequacy in Parliament. Of course when the Speaker pronounces on a matter of interpetation of the rules of the House, or on a disciplinary matter affecting a Member, there must be no challenge to his authority, no questions to him to undermine the judgement. He is like an umpire or referee.

When he wishes to tell us his views on reform or improvement to the House, he is more like a Minister reporting on a department. In that role he should give a statement, then take questions in the usual way. He is not infallible on those matters, must gauge the mood of the House and be answerable to it. Yesterday he allowed a number of Points of Order. When one of these which strayed from Points of Order too far he declined to deal with it.

Douglas Carswell has now succeeded in collecting some Labour signatures for his motion of No Confidence. That is what is needed. As we were reminded yesterday, the Motion will only be debated if the government puts it on the Order paper. The government needs to see it is not just Opposition MPs who want that to happen. It should recognise that most Opposition MPs do want that to take place, and take place soon.

The Speaker’s Statement failed to reassure an unhappy House.

He did say he is calling in the party Leaders to try to reach an agreement on a new system for expenses. That is too little too late.

He did not say what his personal plans are. He was subject to a barrage of hostile Points of Order.

It appeared from the exchanges that the Motion of No Confidence has to be tabled by the government. All the forces of opposition in the House should make clear they want the government to do so.

If the government has any wisdom it will do so for tomorrow. If Labour wishes to retain this Speaker, they can then vote for him and he will have a renewed mandate of sorts. If enough of them now wish to change Speakers, he will go.

We then have an election for a new Speaker, under the new procedures of secret ballot.
If Labour use their votes wisely we will have a Speaker who can begin to lead us out of this mire. If they help the House chose badly, a new Parliament can always challenge the newish Speaker on its first day.

Sir,

Your story concerning my expense claims is wrong. I did not move the designation of my main home to sell a property in London.

In 2004-5 I was living in London in a house, paying a mortgage. I spent more time there. I rightly claimed on the constituency home as the second home, and the taxpayer’s interest was served by doing so as it was cheaper.

When I sold the London property I paid capital gains tax on it to protect the taxpayers interest.

Since 2005 I have lived mainly in the constituency, and have made that my main home. I have extended and improved that property at my own expense. I have claimed first for a rented flat, and more recently for a bedsit which I purchased in Pimlico. I purchased as this will prove cheaper.

When surrendering the flat I received a repayment of the deposit minus the last rent and services payment which I returned to the Fees office. I explained to them what I was doing. I cannot see what the issue is here.

Yours faithfully
John Redwood

We read this morning that the Speaker will today make a statement about MPs expenses. He should also make a statement about his own position.

Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems have called on him to go. Some senior Labour figures have expressed unease. The Conservative leadership have made clear that any motion of No Confidence is a free vote issue for Conservative MPs, and many are likely to vote against the Speaker. This is an unprecedented position for a Speaker to be in.

Along with most Opposition MPs I did not vote for Michael Martin to become Speaker. Many like me accepted the will of the Labour majority as our democratic duty. Instead of winning us over to his tenure he has lost support by the way he conducts the business of the House. Today he needs to tell us what is going to change, and what his own personal plans are. It cannot go on as it has been.

Had I been a Lloyds shareholder I would have voted against the merger with HBOS. At the time I called on the Competition authorities to block the merger, and advised shareholders to vote against it. We have now seen the huge losses of HBOS, and are beginning to see the damage it has done to Lloyds.

Sir Victor’s decision to step down in due course is a good one. UKFI, the holder of the taxpayers’ shares, now does not have to decide whether to support him. Lloyds/HBOS needs leadership that can root out bad business, cut costs, and stabilise the loan books. It needs to sell assets, raise some more cash, and concentrate on deposit taking and lending on a prudent basis. The architect of the last mega merger of the old era is not the right man to carry out that crucial work. Taxpayers need the reassurance that the bank is now going to be run on a more restrained basis.

Sir Victor was encouraged to do what he did by the government. I do not expect to see a Treasury Minister also announce their departure, or any apologies from them over their misguided agreement to this deal.

There is continuing worry about the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, and rightly so.

Doubtless the EU will want to rush the ratification through in Ireland as soon as possible. They have sought to impose a November 2009 deadline for another vote and given various “assurances”. They must be well aware that David Cameron is serious about holding a referendum here if the Treaty has not been ratified and brought into effect by all EU members before the time of the next UK General Election. They must also be aware that there is likely to be a large majority against accepting the Treaty.

The EU realises that it is not going to be easy getting the Treaty agreed by the Irish people in time. There also remains the question of the attitude of the Czech President. The UK Conservative pledge to have a referendum if the Treaty is not ratified is an important one. Some of us have been desperate to have a referendum on any aspect of the EU over the last decade, as we have opposed the large transfers of powers in Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon and wish to let the people have a say. We have been powerless at Westminster to stop the federalist rush, given the large federalist majority from the combined forces of Labour and the Lib Dems.

The Conservative leadership does not wish to spell out what it would do in the event of full ratification everywhere else. There is a good reason for this. You do not normally in politics set out your position on the assumption that you lose the next war. The Leadership would not wish in any way to undermine the opposition to the Treaty elsewhere in the EU by implying it is bound to be ratified in every other country.

We are left with the phrase, the Conservative leadership “will do whatever it takes” to deal with the problem. That must mean a renegotiation. There is not just Lisbon which Conservative MPs (with perhaps 5 exceptions) oppose strongly, but also Nice and Amsterdam which we voted against. Some of us still have disagreements with parts of Rome and other Treaties as well.

The big issue will be how many powers does the UK want back? How many opt outs and different arrangements do we need to add to the important opt out from the Euro which we already enjoy? Can we get control of our borders back? Can we restore our authority over employment and social legislation? These were areas which previous Conservative governments carefully protected and which Labour has given away.

As far as I am concerned, what will be needed if it comes to this is the promise of a referendum on any deal that the Conservatives do negotiate in Brussels to restore powers. That has two great advantages. It means the rest of the EU will understand if they do not give the UK enough self government back, the public are likely to veto the deal, increasing the chances of a better settlement. It also means the UK public will at last get their chance to express an opinion on the whole project.

For all who love the idea of Parliamentary democracy, this has been the worst week of our lives.

Over the last decade it has been bad enough to see too many powers given away to Brussels in three major Treaties we did not want.

It has been compounded by giving away too many powers and duties to unelected quangos and external bodies.

It has been made worse by the rigorous timetabling of business, preventing Parliament from having its proper say on important issues, and taking away the time weapon from Opposition.

Now the last vestiges of dignity have been stripped away by an expenses system that was too generous and by the way some MPs have used it.

Where does it go from here?

The need for urgent reform has become clear to the Leaders of the three main parties. The Prime Minister, who should have the votes to drive through reform, has tried and failed to initiate urgent reform that will work. The Leader of the Opposition has come up with a reform plan. He is now imposing those parts of it which he can introduce unilaterally on his own party in the hope that other parties will do something similar.

The Cameron plan has several aspects. They are all designed to cut the costs of MPs, and to bring their claims more into line with public expectations.

In future no Conservative MP will be able to claim the big range of items to furnish and maintain a second home which have been common and legal but not wise under the old scheme. If an MP wants and can afford a swimming pool, sauna or massage chair they should pay for it out of their taxed income.

All claims made by Conservatives will be published on line as they make them, allowing press and public to see what is being claimed.

The Conservatives will abolish the £10,000 a year communications allowance introduced by the present government, saving more than 5% of total expenses.

The Conservatives will reduce the number of MPs by 10%.

These measures would produce a substantial saving for taxpayers and would remove the most unacceptable features of the current regime. Overall they should cut costs by around a fifth.

The problem is how we can do enough as a whole House of Commons. Presumably the governemnt still wants to hear from Chris Kelly, commissioned to review the whole system and come up with proposals. That will mean delay until near the year end. I guess the Labour party will come to the view that the range of items that can be claimed under the second homes scheme has to be cut. Meanwhile the public is far ahead, with many wanting the public provision of accommodation for MPs to replace the pay it and charge it system that currently operates.

This Parliament is drifting dangerously, and looks incapable of making the important decisons that need to be made. A General Election would be good, but is very unlikely. A new Speaker is urgently sought by many, but that too looks unlikely unless enough Labour MPs decide they need to do that.

This week-end the Prime Minister, as the Leader of the large majority party, needs to think again and consult widely. We need Labour votes for reform. If he does not agree with the Cameron plan, he needs to offer us one which we and most of his MPs agree with or can recognise as an improvement.

Many of you think I amk feeble in not leading the calls for the resignation of the Speaker. Some of you think I am afraid he will not call me if I do.

Let me make it clear. He frequently does not call me anyway. I am not one to be silenced by such considerations.

I did not vote for him. I would like better leadership of the Commons.

It is my judgement that if I tried to lead moves to challenge him it would not help resolve the current mess. Labour put him in, and Labour have the power either to keep him or displace him. We need to see how Labour attitudes to him change over the days ahead. His decision to argue with MPs who are critical of the current mess clearly lost him some Labour support. Time will tell how much Labour support he still enjoys. You all need to remember just how outnumbered the Conservative party is in this Parliament. If you want to remove a Speaker it is numbers that count. All the time he commands a majority we have to behave appropriately.