It is difficult following the hourly changes of mood, changes of mind and final decisions from outside the Commons, when it is having one of its active and important couple of days.

          Thursday was a good day for our democracy. We were discussing something of major importance. We, the UK Parliament could make the decision without having to genuflect to EU law. The government rightly understood it had to win the consent of the House before it could embark on any  course of action toward Syria. MPs were well aware of the sceptical mood in the country towards another Middle Eastern military commitment.

          The context is the disagreement between Mr Hague and many Conservative  MPs prior to the recess over arming the rebels in Syria. We urged the government in private and public not to do this. 81 of us wrote to the Prime Minister before the recess saying Parliament should be recalled if the government wished to change its policy on Syria and arm the rebels or intervene in the conflict.  

         When the recall came it was clear there had been a major rethink by the government. They were prepared to say they now agreed with us in many respects. They ruled out arming the rebels. They even ruled out seeking to intervene in the conflict in any way to change the balance of forces. They said now their sole wish was to retaliate on behalf of the world community against the use of chemical weapons. We welcomed the change of approach on the policies of not arming the rebels and not seeking to change the balance of forces on the ground.

             The Conservative party did not have time for the normal consultations and exchanges over the new policy of retaliation. By the time most MPs arrived back at Westminster the government looked confident it could secure support for a limited military intervention because the PM had briefed the Leader of the Opposition and he seemed to support the initiative. He had been briefed that it would be a  legal and proportionate response. With Labour support the Conservative and Lib Dem leaderships did not need to worry too much about their backbenchers. Clearly legal advice had been taken, which had indicated other types of military intervention posed legal difficulties.

           Late on Wednesday afternoon, just before Thursday’s debate, Labour announced they could not after all support the government. The idea of tabling a motion which gave the government full power to undertake military intervention was no longer possible, as there were too many potential  rebels to leave any chance of success. The government set about the task of drafting a motion which could win back Labour, and at the same time might be more palatable to maybe 100 Conservative backbenchers and 20 Lib Dems who were not happy with the idea of using force.

          The government hit on the idea that the crucial vote to authorise force would be delayed until next week, after the UN  Inspectors had reported. That reduced the numbers of rebels considerably for the first vote, but did not satisfy Mr Miliband. As Thursday wore on more and more Conservative MPs declared privately to Ministers and whips or in public and in the Commons chamber that they could not  vote for any motion next week  to authorise force. By mid evening  it was clear the case for using force had been lost by a large margin. The more the government worked at persuading colleagues to support them, the more MPs declared they were against the use of force.  The final vote on the government’s bland motion looked decisive from outside, but in practice the policy many of us disliked had died hours before as the numbers of MPs against force built up rapidly. We already knew before 10 o clock there would be no further motion to authorise force.

                Some MPs and commentators still think Ministers can take the country to war without the support of Parliament. It is true that some past wars have taken place without a Commons vote. There was no Commons vote because the Commons was united in favour. Whilst technically Ministers can sign Treaties and issue orders to our armed forces, in practice they can only do so when they know they have the confidence and the majority of the Commons behind them. On Thursday Parliament reminded any future government that in these weighty matters Ministers can only proceed when MPs let them.

          If a government  wishes to take the country to war, it needs more consent than for a civil policy, not less, given the sacrifices required of many from such a decision.  If the Opposition is not in agreement the government can still do it, but it needs to have the full support of its own side and to understand the risks that it could split the country over such a crucial matter. It is best only to do it when all main parties are united, to give the best possible chance of success. Officers can then command  their troops safe in the knowledge that whoever they voted for probably agreed with their action and purpose. If A war begins with a major row at home it does give the military personnel a great send off.

 

         The assertion of Parliamentary authority has rewritten UK foreign policy towards Syria and the wider Middle East. It provides a welcome opportunity to question whether we need a more general review and change.   Over the next few days I will look at the options and problems.  My general view is that we should have a more muscular and independent policy within the EU, and be more discerning about which UN and US led ventures we join. We should put UK national interests and the interests of our related territories and countries and the Commonwealth in more central positions.

         Let us begin with our relationship with the USA. Some are complaining that Parliament’s opposition to military intervention in Syria means the UK is no longer an important world power, sitting at the top table with the USA. They assert we will no longer be  party to the best  secrets of the world’s policeman. The advocates of the “special relationship” with the USA are worrying that the relationship has been badly damaged, as the UK has “to sit out” the Syrian action.

           Much of this is based on a UK misconception. The special relationship was not very special when we needed it most. The USA did not join the war in 1939 and gave us precious little help during the darkest days of the early war. The USA stopped the pursuit of our policy towards Egypt and the Suez Canal in 1956. The USA was far from helpful as we set about the task of recapturing the Falklands Islands. Successive Presidents have often wanted to  pushed the UK more into the EU than is good for us or than we desire.  In return we did not commit forces to the USA’s ill judged Viet Nam war. Thanks mainly to the EU we do not have a free trade agreement with the USA.

          The truth is whatever the aims and views of successive Presidents and Prime Minsters, there will always be very strong links across the Atlantic. The shared language and literature, the large mutual investments in each other’s industry and commerce, the bonds of kinship provide a stable base for other networks. When a President and PM like each other and have a similar political outlook, there can be very close working across the Atlantic on policy and government matters. There will always be many Americans who see the UK as the cradle and partial architect of their democracy, just as many of us will continue to admire greatly the work and words  of the Founding fathers, the achievements of a great society in the pursuit of liberty and happiness.

         The UK needs to understand that there will be times when we disagree or are not useful to the USA. We have to accept that France, for example, may wish to be close to the US over Syrian intervention when we do not. We should not be frightened of telling the USA that we do not agree or wish to sit out a particular intervention or policy, just as they do if we have a need or an idea they do not like. We should press on with a free trade agreement with the USA and explain to the USA why the UK does intend to have a new and looser relationship with the rest of the EU. We are not in the EU to be the voice that tries to moderate EU policies in the US interest.

          To some of us Mr Obama has been a disappointment. He promised to close Guantanamo, but has not done so. He promised to trust diplomacy more and war less in the Middle East, but ended up increasing the military commitment to Afghanistan.  We need to be thinking of who might take over from him, and have our new foreign policy ready to woo and wow them. It has to be a policy more suited to our needs, and less desperate about preserving the outward show of a “special relationship”.

Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): We make no more important decision in this House than to give permission to our armed forces to unleash some of their formidable arsenal. We should only do so if we feel there is democratic consent for the aim and the purpose of the conflict, and we should do so only if it is legal so to do. In my adult lifetime in politics I think that we, as a country, have intervened too often. We have too often asked our armed forces to do things that armed forces alone cannot do. I am not against all intervention. Of course, when we had to liberate Kuwait or the Falkland Islands, they were noble aims. Our armed forces performed with great skill and bravery, and the British public were behind them. We must be very careful, however, not to inject them into a civil war where we do not know the languages, where we have uncertain sympathy for the cultures and the conflicting groups involved, and where the answer in the end has to be a political process in the country itself and not external force.

I therefore welcome strongly the three things the Government have set out. I welcome this debate and the fact that we will do things democratically. It is our job to speak for our constituents and, if there is to be military activity, to ensure that the British public will it—they certainly do not at the moment. I welcome very much the Government’s statement that we will not arm the rebels. That is huge progress and I support that fully.

Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend agree that what we would like to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister when he sums up later is a clear statement that the Government believe that in all future cases military action—immediate external assault—will not be entered into unless this House has given its say-so first?

Mr Redwood: Of course I agree with that. Any sensible Government would do that, because what Government can commit our armed forces without the implicit or actual support of the House of Commons? That can be tested at any time, so no Government would be so foolish as to try and proceed without it.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con): Will my right hon. Friend just go a bit further and agree that anybody going through the Government Lobby tonight is not giving their approval for direct military intervention on behalf of the UK, and that the Deputy Prime Minister should make that very, very clear in his summing up tonight? There will be another vote.

Mr Redwood: I leave the Deputy Prime Minister to speak for himself and the Government.

The third thing I welcome is that the Government are not trying to influence the conflict. That is an important new development, although I am not sure how it marries with possible military intervention. If military intervention is planned, I presume that it will be against Assad and his forces and that, of course, would have some impact on the conflict. That impact might be in the direction that the Government and others wish to go, but they need to accept that there is a possible contradiction or ambiguity between their wish not to have an impact on the balance of forces in Syria and their wish to intervene over the issue of chemical weapons.

Everyone in the House shares the Government’s horror at the use of chemical weapons and the brutality shown, perhaps by the regime. It is quite possible that the regime used them. I agree with right hon. and hon. Members from both sides who have pointed out that there have also been atrocities and horrors enough without chemical weapons—those should also shock our consciences and worry our emotions, and they do.

Given the understandable wish to respond to the use of horror weapons, we need to ask whether the Government could undertake, or assist others to undertake, a military intervention that would fulfil the purpose. That should be the only question. Of course I understand that the Government cannot come to the House and debate a series of targets with us in advance—that would be folly. However, I hope that the House can help steer Ministers to ask the right questions of their advisers about whether there is any type of military intervention that could make the position better rather than worse.

The military experts to whom I have talked say that the last thing we want to do is shower down bombs or cruise missiles on stocks of chemical weapons; that would degrade them, but could let them out as well. It would be a dreadful tragedy if, in an attempt to stop, by destruction, the use of chemical weapons, we infected people in the surrounding areas. That does not sound like a good idea. Bombing the factories might have a similar consequence, although perhaps the risk would not be as great as bombing the stocks of chemical weapons.

Is the idea to bomb the soldiers and their commanders who might use the weapons? That could be a way. However, we would have to ask the Government how many soldiers and officers we would need to kill to guarantee more or less that Assad would not use the weapons again. I fear that the answer might be very many, given that we are dealing with someone as mad and bad as Assad. Would we want to go that far? Are we sure that it would work?

Is the idea to bomb a load of buildings, preferably when people were not in them, so that we destroyed the command headquarters or military installations? That would be possible; western forces have done such things in other situations, normally as preparation for invasion. Again, however, how many would we need to bomb to make sure that Assad never used chemical weapons again?

I hope that the Government will think very carefully about the issues. If they wish to persuade the British people, who are mightily sceptical about our ability to find the right military response to stop Assad and his horrors, they need to come up with some answers privately and find the language to explain to Members, and the public we represent, why they have every confidence that we can achieve the noble aim of stopping Assad from using chemical weapons.

I wish the Government well. If they really can come up with a way of stopping Assad murdering his own people, nobody will be happier than me. Everyone in the House would be extremely happy. But the Government have to understand the scepticism of the British people. Assad is mad and bad and it will not be easy to stop him. I fear that we will not be able to do it in a half-hearted manner with a few cruise missiles in the hope that he will not retaliate.

 

             Yesterday Conservative MPs queued up in Parliament to question or oppose the Coalition government’s strategy towards Syria. The day ended with the good  news that the government accepts the will of Parliament and the view of the British people, that we should not intervene militarily in the conflict.

             It all began with the Conservative MPs who opposed the idea of arming the rebels. We said that Parliament had to be convened and consulted before any change of policy towards Syria when it was suggested the government might start to arm the rebels once the summer recess started. The government announced yesterday that it now agrees we should not  arm the rebels and should not seek to intervene in the Syrian civil war, save for the question of how to respond to the use of chemical weapons. It ended when Mr Miliband  made clear that Labour would vote against early military action even on the chemical weapons matter.

             Once Labour’s support for action was removed when Mr Miliband changed his mind, the government drafted a motion which made it clear a further vote would be needed before any UK military involvement could be undertaken. As the debate and soundings continued yesterday, it became obvious that an attempt next week to push for such a vote after the UN Inspectors have reported was likely to lead to a substantial defeat. As it turned out the government did not even have a majority for its general motion condemning the use of chemical weapons, proposing further diplomatic efforts at the UN  and leaving open other options.

             I will post my speech in the Commons later today.

 

            I am glad the Prime Minister listened to Parliament when we said we wanted a debate and vote before any change of policy towards Syria. As I expected he has kept his promise.

             It is now Parliament’s task to rise to the occasion.  Parliament needs to bring its experience and knowledge to bear on the difficult moral, political and military issues before us.

              It seems the debate and the possible change of policy has emerged from the President’s difficulty  over his red lines statement. Mr Obama promised or threatened action if Assad started to use chemical weapons against his people. Earlier uses of chemical weapons were ignored. The latest, owing to its scale and media prominence, has become the possible cause of a  missile attack on Syria. The President’s threat did not work, so now he has to decide what to do about it. Is there any reason to suppose a limited missile strike will mend the ways of the Syrian government?

               The debate is framed in narrow terms by the western governments. In their terms we still need to satisfy ourselves that this latest chemical weapon atrocity occurred at the hands of the regime and not someone else. We need to satisfy ourselves that it would be legal under international law to unleash conventional weapons in retaliation for chemical weapon use. We need to ensure that if our cruise missiles are used against the stocks of chemical weapons or the production facilities that the Assad regime has, their deployment will not trigger the release of large quantities of dangerous chemicals. We need to ask how much damage has to be done to the Assad regime to ensure he does not use chemical weapons again. We also would be wise to ask if all this can be done without harming Syrians who are not part of the regime and its military capabilities. We need to think about the reasons for Chinese and Russian opposition to any such action, and to consider what they might do if the west ignores their advice not to intervene.

            I think we should also ask wider questions. I find the continued use of bombs and shells from military planes, tanks and artillery pieces against a civilian population and urban settlements shocking and morally repugnant,  as I find the use of chemical weapons morally repugnant. Can we really say it is just the use of chemical weapons that needs special responses?  Why do we ignore the one, and  act against the other?  Will our intervention make some difference to the longevity of the Syrian regime or  can we agree with the government briefing that the intention is not to affect the balance between the Syrian government and the rebels?  Why is regime change ruled out as an aim, when western governments have such a poor view of the Syrian regime? Why has  the UK government changed its mind from its previous suggestions that arming the rebels was necessary to speed the end of the regime?  

             Many of us are appalled by the violence and chaos in Syria. We would dearly love to see peace restored. We do not see an easy way for the west to bring this about. We do see how partial military interventions might make things worse. In the end these civil wars have to be resolved by the participants agreeeing to sort out their differences by negotiation rather than by fighting.

 

 

           Martin Luther King’s great speech 50 years ago still reverberates across the decades. It is good that the nasty aparteid in South Africa and the unpleasant racial divide in the USA has now gone. The world is a better place for their passing.

          All of us in politics need a dream to keep us going. My dream is that one day we will live again in a self governing democracy here in the UK. I look forward to the day when UK electors can influence a UK government, free from overriding EU laws that we disagree with.

          I was brought up in a free country. One Parliament could not bind its successors. People could demand new laws and changes of government, and get them through the ballot box. It is still the best system.  6 European Treaties later, much of our independence and liberty has been replaced by EU controls, and rules we cannot ourselves change or amend in the light of experience.

 

I am Wokingham’s chief lobbyist. One of an MP’s main roles is to lobby government on behalf of their constituents. MPs lobby for  changes and improvements in laws, public spending and administration, in the name of their constituents generally. They lobby for individual constituents, usually in private, when they need help to sort out their tax or benefit disputes with the government, or need better treatment  or redress from various public services.

A new Bill to regulate lobbyists is therefore  of special interest to MPs. There are already clear rules and conventions about how and when an MP or anyone else can lobby, and  when it is wrong to do so. An MP, for example, should not lobby on behalf of a private interest he or she has. A business can set out its case for a change to the law, or a charity can make its case for more public spending in its chosen area, but they must not seek to buy access to Ministers or splash cash in any way which looks like or is  a bribe.

The combination of Parliamentary convention, tighter modern Election law on donations to parties and individual MPs, the need for MPs to place every financial interest on a public register and the confrontational style of politics designed to tease out malpractice by the other side constitutes the current framework for controlling or regulating lobbying and access. The government now wishes to amend this framework with additional legislation.

As an MP I encourage my constituents to lobby me directly. There is no need to pay a penny for access to an MP. Every constituent has a right of free access by email, letter or in person, when they have a legitimate grievance or concern. Similarly,  access to Ministers is free access. Ministers will meet groups or even individuals with important things  to say about the conduct of government or future improvements, without a paid for lobbyist being  involved.

Lobbying firms may well have an important role to play. They are not buying people access to Parliament. They can be useful in helping a person or company marshall its case, understand the policy context, explain how decisions are made and laws enacted to busy people who may not have made a study of it themselves. Good lobbyists want you to comply with the law on influencing government, not break it, just as good accountants and lawyers offer specialist advice to individuals which keeps them compliant. Good lobbyists know the topic, tell you what ay or may not be achievable, and help the individual or company explain its issue to government.

As with all walks of life, there will be on occasions bad lobbyists who break existing conventions and laws, and who doubtless will break any new law as well if they think they can get away with it to advantage. Democratic politics cannot survive without lots of good and well informed lobbying. Another way of describing that is “democratic debate”.

 

 

 

I do not like coalitions. I campaigned for a Conservative majority government in 2010, and will do so again in 2015.  I have heard most of Mr Cameron’s speeches to Conservative MPs. I can assure you he always tells us his aim is a majority government next time. He does not prepare us for the idea that we might need another coalition. Recent rumours in the papers have probably been mischief put around by others when there is not so much going on.

One of the reasons I do not like coalitions is the electorate do not get what the different parties have promised in the election. The Coalition Agreement, and the subsequent brokered compromises issue by issue, determine policy. It may be quite unlike what either party to the Coalition wants or said they would deliver if granted a majority. Coalitions put politicians more in the driving seat, decisive elections put electors more in the driving seat. They also undermine public confidence in political parties, who have to reverse some of the things they promised.

An even bigger reason why I do not like coalitions is the EU. No UK government can now govern the UK as it wishes. So many things are now determined by EU legislation, regulation and controls. The other two main parties in the Commons are federalist parties. It is extremely difficult to reach a sensible agreement with parties that do not want the UK government to be in charge, and meekly accept whatever line comes from Brussels on so many topics.

A main part of the Conservative Manifesto for 2015 will be the promise of a renegotiation of our relationship with the EU followed by a referendum. All the time the other parties refuse to countenance a major change to our relationship and refuse to vote for a referendum, they are saying they could not and should not enter a coalition with the Conservatives. Conservatives cannot compromise on the EU issue. All the speculation about a further Conservative/Lib Dem coalition looks unrealistic given the big divisions between the two parties over the EU.

 

 

           Those who think the UK arming the rebels is a good idea need to persuade a reluctant country. It seems the government is no longer testing out  this idea so strongly.  Those who think missile attacks on Assad’s government are a good approach  need to explain how they could do this without causing more deaths of civilians, bystanders, human shields and others that the west should not wish to harm.

        Before Parliament broke up many Conservative MPs made clear in the Chamber and by signing a letter that no such actions should be taken before a proper Parliamentary debate and vote on the subject. The government agreed to this. That remains the view of many Conservative MPs. We do not like the brutal events in Syria any more than the government. We do need persuading that there is any military intervention which the UK could make which would make it better. The first instruction should be to do no harm, in a situation fraught with danger and with all too many armed groups in conflict.

 

          I do not like Stamp Duty. Houses are dear enough, without imposing an extra tax on people trying to buy a home.

          I am also a realist. This Coalition government, and any likely successor, will need revenue from taxing property transactions. They are not about to abolish the tax and give up the money. We need to find a fairer way of charging the tax, and set rates which are more affordable so there can be more transactions. That way homes can be cheaper, and the taxman can still raise substantial sums of  money in a more buoyant economy.

        One of the worst features of the current Stamp Duty is the cliff edge approach to the rising tax rates. Buy a home for £125,000 and you pay no tax. But a home for £125,001 and you pay £1250 of tax.

        The increases in tax at threshold points become very high as the price of the property rises. Pay £1 over £250,000 and your Stamp Duty bill shoots up from £2,500 to £7,500, a 200% increase, or an extra £5,000 on your purchase.  Pay £1 over £500,000 and your Stamp Duty bill surges from £15,000 to £20,000, another £5,000 increase, though a smaller percentage.

        Pay £1 over £1million and your Stamp Duty bill is a hefty £10,000 more, rising from £40,000 to £50,000. That’s £50,000 tax to buy a one bed flat in central London, for example.  Be in the fortunate enough position to be able to buy a 2  or 3 bed flat in the best parts of London and you would have to pay £100,000 of Stamp Duty at £2m. Pay £1 more and the tax bill climbs to a giddy £140,000, a £40,000 increase.   Just the increase in the Stamp duty is considerably higher than average annual earnings.

        The £1250 tax rise at £125,000 and the  £5,000 tax rise at £250,000 are  particularly onerous on many people trying to buy a family  home in many parts of the country. It can be the last straw, that stops people buying the home they need and want.

         The cliff edge thresholds of course distort the market. Homes for sale cluster just below the threshold points. There are large tracts of pricing territory but sparsely populated with homes for sale. £250,000-£260,000, £500,000 to £525,000, £1m to £1.1 million are not popular. The tax intervention creates a lumpy and jumpy market, where there are gaps in price availability, with vendors either holding down the price or leapfrogging it upwards, clear of the danger zone.

          So my main recommendation for reform would be to make the Stamp Duty levy progressive like Income Tax. A home priced at £300,000 should pay no Stamp duty  on the first £125,000, 1% on the next £125,000, and 3% on the last £50,000 of the price. Total Stamp Duty under this system would be £2,750 on a £300,000 house, instead of £9,000 today.

       This would make homes more affordable. Could there be a loss in revenue?  There may not be. Transactions would increase. The loss of revenue at the top end, where much of the duty is raised, would be very slight. The London market with its £10m plus transactions at the top end would still see such buyers paying  nearly £700000 as today on a £10m purchase. The higher the price, the lower the loss of revenue as a proportion of the tax  from the system I have described.

       Given the political dislike of rich people and high property prices in modern UK, the government could introduce a hybrid system, where anything over £2m still had to pay 7% on the lot.