Amess Still Needs the Buzz

This week David Amess MP (Southend West) put down no less than eight Parliamentary Questions about bees, beekeeping and the general health and well-being of the nation's bees. No, seriously, he did. I thought at first, Mr Amess was trying to smash all records for asking the most PQs but he has already asked over 4,000 since 1987 and I suspect he already is Parliament's no.1 questioner. One can only assume a worried constituent came recently to his Friday surgery with compelling evidence of impending honey shortages and the associated depletion of the Britain's treasured hives.

The poor Minister replying, Jonathan Shaw, Parly Under Sec at DEFRA, tried to maintain a serious front and poured forth about the Government' s comprehensive Bee Health Strategy and paid fitting tribute to the tireless efforts of the Bee Inspectorate from the National Bee Unit. (This sounds just like the start of a Monty Python sketch, doesn't it? It is not very hard to picture Graham Chapman in the office of the National Bee Unit, wearing a huge bee costume, getting jolly batey about pollen. And still smoking a pipe.)

Mr Shaw referred constantly to the guiding legislation, which we all know is the Bees Act 1980. It turns out the relevant provisions include some pretty protectionist measures taken in the early days of Queen Bee herself, Margaret Thatcher. At the time, there were, presumably, plenty of Conservative backbenchers calling for an altogether more free-market solution to the bee conundrum - 'deregulate the keepers, privatise the hives' the call.

More reassuring for law and order hardliners, the Bees Act does provide (I'm not joking) the police with sweeping powers of entry to any abode or vehicle which may contain even a single outlawed foreign bee. You may ask how the ordinary copper would be able to recognise the alien bee - one assumes every police force in those days had its own Insect Squad.

It is somewhat worrying, the Bees Act itself was passed almost immediately after the release of several killer bee films most notably 'The Swarm'. Michael Caine as the rogue-doesn't-play-by-the-rules entomologist perfectly captured the tension between man and bee when he said, "We've been fighting a losing battle against the insects for fifteen years, but I never thought I'd see the final face-off in my lifetime. And I never dreamed that it would turn out to be the bees - they've always been our friends!"

Odds On for Ratification

The spread-betting magnate Stuart Wheeler (pictured) has just lost his case in the High Court which aimed to compel the Government to hold to its manifesto commitment and have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. The EU (Amendment) Act got Royal Assent on 19 June but has the case held up its commencement until now. There is also the small matter of the Irish voting pretty solidly (53.4% to 46.6%) against the Treaty. In theory the 'Dublin says no' vote should mean the Treaty has been holed below the water line. However the Government remain pretty tight-lipped not wanting to be the first country to admit the 'bleeding obvious' that the rest of the EU will gang up on the Taiseoch, Brian Cowen and mak them vote again until they get it right. Our local MP Bernard Jenkin (North Essex) made this exact same point after Foreign Sec's statement last week. None of this sits terribly well with Yurp lecturing Zimbabwe, China and Burma about our superior democratic principles.

In any case people prefer to vote no on these matters. Even Euro stalwarts Holland and France gave the last Treaty the finger. The electorate will find any tangential issue as an excuse, apparently in Ireland up to 10% of the 'no vote' were motivated by scare stories of Brussels forcing a change of law to allow abortions. Utter twaddle of course. A referendum in UK would be bring out every headbanger sceptic in some vast unholy alliance of loons and conspiracy theorists. Nevertheless the back rooming dealing by the euro leaders seemingly overriding the will of the people simply re-enforces the view it is a self-serving organisation for the political elite.

The Art of Resigning

Our local man, Bob Spink (Castlepoint) resigned from the Conservative Party during the Budget but still only made only a ripple of news. He elected to join UKIP but what else could he do? Resign his seat as well? David Davis (above) has made the curious and almost unprecedented decision to resign his seat in response to the opposition's defeat over 42 day's detention. He wants to stimulate a national debate about authoritarianism over libertarianism. Or so he says. The resignation speech was delivered outside Westminster's St. Stephen's entrance as Mr Speaker had ruled (perversely) it would 'revisit controversial issues' - so what if it did?

The speech included a long litany of Labour Government's "relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms (sic)". It read like a fairly convincing string of rationalisations, cleverly obscuring the underlying motivation. One suspects the spark was Davis's stated commitment to repeal the 42-day detention legislation. It would appear Cameron, as ever, was not willing to be explicit about his Party's future legislative programme. Davis, frustrated by his impotence, took the only action he was able by petulantly resigning his seat. It's like the child at teatime who in a fit of temper declares he is not going to eat his tea. In other words Davis is the only likely loser in this. The early predictions were for him to win very easily or even have a walkover. History suggests he will lose, the public in Humberside may like his 'no nonsense-speak-as-I-find' approach but the electorate don't like voting unless there's a good reason. At present only Kelvin 'Page 3' MacKenzie is considering running but any high profile Independent could slay Davis.

Caravans for All

Pat and Stan Cable from Eye in Norfolk won nearly £4M on the lottery the other day. Like many lottery winning couples in their latter years they don't see the money changing their life routine much. They will remain in their two-bedroom council flat - they only have plans to go on holiday and buy a caravan. They readily admit they will struggle to spend the £10,000 a month interest their fortune will earn them, let alone the lump sum.

Most of us have had a go on the lottery although few remark on the extra-ordinary system of prize-winning. If you pick four out of six numbers correctly you may win up to £100, pick five and it may be as much as £2,000. But six can win you several million. Then watch as feckless relatives and shameless con-men move in for the kill.

It must be about time for a restructuring of these 'Premiership' style payouts. If the object was to spread a bit of joy and good fortune then the system of prizes would have a lot more equanimity about it. For the £4m won by the possibly-soon-to-be-unhappy Cables could mean 200 couples getting a payout of £20,000. That would be enough to pay off a bit of debt, treat the close family, buy that caravan and still have plenty left over for a fortnight in the sun. The Irish lottery is run on these lines and everyone knows someone who has won a few quid. At present the British lottery is closer to a Dickensian structure of misery for all and millions for a handful of people. The additional perversity is that most of the winners haven't the first idea how to spend the money.

Catholic Tastes

I have to confess to be being a bit disappointed the weekend's Royal wedding attracted only a modicum of controversy. First, the bride herself. She is not blue-blood; has the temerity to work for a living and worst of all has a new-age name of Autumn (Kelly). Secondly, the 'heppy' couple had flogged the rights to the pictures to Hello! magazine for half a million quid. And thirdly Princess Beatrice's choice of hat (left) was the sort of fashion disaster only batty old Great Aunt Margaret used to perpetrate. At least the headgear distracted us loyal royal watchers from Beartrice's increasingly 'Osmond Family' looks.
But there was barely a mention of Autumn's (for it is she) decision to renounce her Catholicism to preserve Peter Philips 11th-in-line-to-the-throneness. For all the Windsor's overbearing arrogance this, almost medieval, discrimination is not strictly their fault.
The majority of England's anti-Catholic legislation was brought in personally by Elizabeth I - but much was repealed in the 19th Century. Yet the prejudicial Act of Settlement 1701 remains firmly on the statute book, ensuring no-one may remain in the Royal family if they wish to lower themselves by marrying a Catholic. It would look utterly shameful if there were similar bigoted legislation against Jews or Moslems. But despite this constitutional overhaul being overdue for about 300 years the Government fails to act. The argument put by successive Governments is it would require equivalent legislation across the Commonwealth. The same answers are given when the issue of male succession is raised. However the Declaration of Commonwealth Principles 1971 stresses the "liberty of the individual and equal rights for all." Putting it on the 'too difficult' pile just doesn't wash.
The new Constitutional Reform Bill announced by Gordy last week contains a few sensible measures to clarify the political roles of the Attorney General and Lord Chancellor. But it does not seek to pontificate on this point. Any Members of Parliament could lay an amendment to this Bill to seek to finally overturn this historical embarrassment. It just so happens my MP, John Gummer is a member of the Catholic church. I feel some lobbying coming on - will keep you posted.

Laing Time Coming

This is the face of Eleanor Laing, Shadow Justice Minister. You are totally forgiven for not recognising her. I have been monitoring contributions by the region's MPs since the turn of the year and this appears to be Ms Laing's first contribution to Parliament in that time. As a shadow Minister her absence from debates seems inexplicable but when you read her interjections to last week's debate on fixed-term Parliaments you may begin to understand why.

The Private Member's Bill presented by David Howarth (Cambridge) seeks to set Parliamentary terms to four years. On the face of it seems eminently sensible proposal which no sitting Government would consider implementing. So much for another PMB. The main case for the proposal would be to put an end to the long and tedious speculation about calling elections. The arbitrary nature of prorogation also fuels the suspicion amongst the general public that all MPs are devious and self-serving when most are not.

As the genial Mr Howarth put it, all countries do it differently put none look as capricious as us. Replying for the Conservatives, Eleanor Laing took the 'ad hominen' line that Mr Howarth's true motive for presenting the Bill was simply to offer protection to Gordon Brown. As Howarth is a front-bencher for the Lib-Dems that assertion looks a bit off the mark. Howarth had made it clear the Bill, if enacted could only subsequently be amended by a further Act. She thought she had spotted a fatal flaw. "In effect," shrieked La Laing,"he is arguing that the Prime Minister of the day could throw out the provisions of this Bill and have a general election whenever he or she wanted within the four or five-year period." Almost with embarrassment, Howarth had to point out that any such Bill was not the gift of any PM, would need cross-party support and agreement from the House of Lords. Most of the time we call this Parliamentary Democracy.

She would have been advised to stop digging but no, on she went. She referred to the one month delay to the 2001 General Election because of the foot and mouth outbreak. And said she was glad of it because she was at the time in the latter stages of pregnancy. If anything, her point strengthened the case for pre-ordained election dates. She continued on the theme assuring the house breezily that her "son is of course the most wonderful person in the world" and then remembering where she was, said "I appreciate that point is out of order and nothing to do with the Bill." It may be a while before Ellie speaks on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition again, certainly if the Tory whips have anything to say about it.

The Stamp of Authority

The fallout from the local elections continues. Labour members who are willing to put their heads up still cannot agree on which policy the Governmnent has got most wrong. People are mostly complaining about tax and which sounds to many MPs as the abolition of the 10p rate. It was certainly a shot-in-the-foot decision affecting about 5m people but only marginally in terms of actual quids in pockets. What people really mean is where the cost of living has gone sky high such as petrol, gas and electricity where (short of a windfall tax on the companies) Government can do very little.

But one area where the Ministers certainly have their fingers on the levers of power are the Post Offices. Charles Clarke (Norwich South) was crystal clear on the impact the intention to shut 3,500 P.Os had on local voting intentions. On 6 May, Tony Wright (Gt.Yarmouth) secured an adjournment debate on the Government consultation process aka closure programme. The Minister responding, the lesser known Pat McFadden from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), set out many of the reasons for the network's lack of competiveness. They were predominantly because the post offices are no longer providing many services they used to. Mr McFadden failed to mention the decisions to take away products like car tax were Government ones. It's a bit like the chairman of a football club citing the reason for relegation being down to selling all their best players. To which the fans would reply "Yeah it's you who bloody sold 'em."

The atmosphere in most post offices is something like the 1970s which underlines the chronic lack of investment so no wonder they can't compete. Another threat hangs over about a further 3,000 post offices if they lose the contract for Card Account which millions use to cash their pensions, benefits etc. If it happens it will mean the network will effectively have been halved since 1997. The result would be an immense amount of self-congratulation amongst the free-market zealots in the Department but would leave many thousands of people without an essential community service. If Ministers think that is the right balance for the needs of the electorate then they deserve to lose power.