Tom Richmond: Questionable conduct as Cameron sidelines Parliament

At this point I should make it clear that I’m referring to the outspoken Bradford West MP’s anger at the postponement of Prime Minister’s Questions for Margaret Thatcher’s funeral rather than his contemptible lack of respect for the former premier, whose passing has proved as divisive as so many of her policies.

Even though Galloway’s attendance record at Westminster for votes and debates is perfunctory, he is right when he says that David Cameron is marginalising PMQs.

The last time that Cameron answered questions from Labour leader Ed Miliband – and backbenchers – was on March 20 in a tetchy 30-minute session that preceded George Osborne’s Budget.

Yet, because MPs conveniently adjourned for their Easter recess the following Tuesday, there was no opportunity for Cameron to be questioned about the Budget, the coalition’s approach to tax policy or the practical ramifications of its controversial welfare reforms that are rightly intended to make work pay.

However, because the Government and Speaker John Bercow did not 
have the foresight to rearrange 
PMQs to another slot once the clash 
with the Thatcher funeral became apparent, MPs will not get the chance to question Cameron until next Wednesday – five weeks after their last opportunity to do so. Yes, Parliament did return to pay fulsome tribute to Baroness Thatcher, but this is not the point. One of the virtues of Britain’s democracy is the ability of MPs to question the Prime Minister once a week on any matter.

They were occasions on which the then Mrs Thatcher excelled. When she attended the Commons every Tuesday and Thursday afternoon for 15-minute inquisitions she would invariably be armed with statistics about every constituency – ammunition to silence her Labour opponents on issues pertaining to unemployment and job creation.

However, PMQs lost its stature when Tony Blair decided, without consultation, to cancel these twice-weekly sessions in 1997 in favour of one 30-minute session. He has since admitted that he found Parliament an inconvenience, but I’m beginning to wonder whether Cameron thinks the Commons is an irrelevance because of his complacency when he does grace the Despatch Box with his presence.

His prolonged absence is also an insult to the family of Lance Corporal Jamie Webb who died on March 26 – the 441st British soldier to be killed in Afghanistan. They’re still waiting for a Parliamentary tribute to their son.

Like Baroness Thatcher, who excelled because Labour could not offer a credible alternative, Cameron should have nothing to fear from an Opposition that lacks economic credibility under the aforementioned Miliband and Ed Balls.

If he has the courage of his convictions – and faith in the merit of his wider economic strategy in these austere times – he should have nothing to fear from his illustrious predecessor’s legacy.

Yet, by sidelining Parliament, Cameron is helping to strengthen the case for a more meaningful reform of Prime Minister’s Questions so that MPs can quiz the country’s leader at length over a range of subjects – some that are pre-agreed and others which reflect the day’s news agenda.

The irony is that George Galloway may struggle to work with others to make his case on this issue for the simple reason that his needless outspokenness on so many others diminishes the legitimacy of his argument on those rare occasions when he actually does have a valid point.

I’M afraid Health Minister Anna 
Soubry commands precious little confidence given her response to a challenge from Barnsley MP Dan Jarvis over new laws to standardise cigarette packaging after it emerged that more than 1,100 youngsters aged 14 or 
under are regular smokers in his constituency alone.

“I find it most bizarre,” she said, “that the advice I am given by my officials – and I absolutely accept their advice – is that, as the hon. gentleman will understand, because of judicial reviews of consultations, I am not allowed to have an opinion, so I do not give any opinion, notwithstanding the fact that many people would say that he advances a number of important arguments.”

You would never have heard such indecisive gobbledegook from Margaret Thatcher. Let me pose the question to Soubry in a slightly different way: does she want to discourage under-age smoking or not? A simple yes or no answer will suffice from a Minister who gave a bizarre interview yesterday in which she said that she “didn’t know” when minimum alcohol pricing laws would be introduced – even though this is part of her remit.

IT’S not just politicians who have become diminished figures since Margaret Thatcher’s downfall in 1990. The same is true of Westminster broadcasters.

Reruns of past interviews between Baroness Thatcher and inquisitors of the calibre of Sir David Frost and Sir Robin Day validate this argument.

As such, I agree with Sir Jimmy Young, who enjoyed many exchanges with the former PM on Radio 2. He says “the difference between me and the rottweilers is that I served up my questions in a polite voice” and “a return to politeness on radio and television would be no bad thing”.

ONE-TIME Bradford Council leader Eric Pickles, the Local Governemnt Secretary, says he will unveil new plans after Tory backbenchers criticised his proposal to enable home extensions to be built without planning permission.

His assurance did not assuage Buckinghamshire MP Cheryl Gillan, who said: “I am afraid that we will not believe what he says at that Dispatch Box until we see the proposals in black and white.”

This is significant. Gillan sat 
alongside Pickles in the Cabinet until she lost her job as Welsh Secretary in the last reshuffle. Is this revenge – or a complete lack of confidence in her former colleague?

[email protected]