The Cornerstone Group

Maybe I am late onto the story about the allegations around Caroline Spelman and her nanny in 1997, but I wonder if this is the story that actually reverses the current dynamic where a certain crop of journalists feel it to be their professional duty to throw stones at politicians over expenses, almost regardless of the gravity of the allegations?

Maybe I had more important things to do this weekend, but I have only just noticed this story filed by Michael Crick on Saturday, with 32 questions for Caroline Spelman about events in 1997 and 1998. Let’s just think for a moment about how long ago this was. Caroline Spelman was a new and I am supposing almost unknown MP. David Cameron wasn’t even a selected parliamentary candidate for Witney (Shaun Woodward was still in place), let alone an MP, let alone Party Leader. I was a Council candidate, canvassing around Fulham, including knocking on the door of the family of a 16-year old Siena Miller. This is all a very long time ago.

Crick’s piece is entitled “Questions Sir Michael Lyon might like to ask Caroline Spelman on Monday”. Sir Michael Lyon, I am supposing, and I would certainly hope, is too busy examining genuine scandals, like the one I referred to him 4 months ago now on Gordon Brown sub-letting his taxpayer-funded office to his local Labour Party, where he has yet to report. But I digress.

Does Crick really need to know answers to questions like:

“Was there a contract of employment for her childcare work, and what did this specify?”

“Has she ever worked as a secretary since then (1998)?”

“Has Caroline Spelman ever provided an employment reference for Tina Haynes, and did this highlight her secretarial work? Can we see a copy?”

“Was Tina Haynes paid very much the same amount for her childcare work after 1998 as she was paid from the Parliamentary Allowance for her secretarial work before 1998?”

“Given that Caroline Spelman’s youngest child was only two and half in May 1997, can Mrs Spelman confirm that all her three children were at school (or nursery or play-group) full time between 9am and 3pm, Monday to Friday, from May 1997 onwards?”

“Were Caroline Spelman’s arrangements with Tina Haynes ever brought to the attention of William Hague, the then Conservative leader?”

and on and on it goes.

Should the BBC license-payer fund these ludicrous inquries, so Michael Crick can satisfy himself and, more to the point, justify his absurd inquiry? Judging by the comments on Crick’s post, most BBC website readers agree.

For the record, in the highly unlikely event that I am Chairman of the Conservative Party in ten years time, I provide here a set of answers to questions that Michael Crick might ask me in 2018 about my expense claims in 2007:

1. I am unable to provide a precise breakdown of when I used the House of Commons toilet facilities and whether I was on Conservative Party or House of Commons business at the time, as you have requested, and, no, you definitely cannot see the paperwork.

2. I am unable to provide a time-sheet for nappy changes for my son, who was 6 months old in 2007.

3. I am unable to confirm the exact location of either my son or my daughter, who was two years old at the time, at all of the 9 am to 3pm times you specify, on the Mondays to Fridays you pinpoint. I confidently expect that both were in the presence of either me and/or my wife at all of these times, but if one of the kids did do a runner to the Salisbury Tavern around the corner, I am truly very sorry, and will refer myself to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner for an urgent investigation.

4. I have checked with all of my staff who were in employment with me at the time, and can confirm that none of them have since made the mistake of working for me again.

5. David Cameron was, however, fully aware of all of these arrangements at all times. I had a regular Wednesday morning slot at 11:30 just before PMQs, when David would break off from his preparation to hear the very latest news of the Hands domestic arrangements and throw relevant questions at me to check my expense claims were all above board, just in case a top-rated investigative journalist like Michael Crick happened to have nothing better to do on behalf of the BBC licence-payer ten years afterwards.

I have no idea whether Caroline Spelman intends to answer Crick’s 32 questions, but she might ask one question of him: “Why is one of the UK’s leading investigative journalists wasting his time on this rubbish?”

We had a good, if somewhat short, debate on abortion in the Commons last Tuesday, although as everyone knows by now, not one proposal for reducing the time-limit for abortion was successful.

As much in its Frankenstein-style proposals for fatherless children, animal-human hybrids and ‘saviour siblings’ as in its confirmation of a grim commitment to the status quo on abortion, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill is yet another affront by the Government to the Judaeo-Christian values of this nation.

It is also an affront to true human rights.

It may seem an obvious point, but if you’re killed before you’re born you are not really in a position to enjoy any rights at all.

Of course I did not expect to win the vote on my amendment to cut abortion to 12 weeks - the norm in two thirds of EU countries - but it was depressing to see the defeat last week even of a 22-week proposal.

Cornerstone colleague Nadine Dorries, who wanted 20 weeks, made a brave and moving speech describing her experience as a nurse of holding in her arms a little boy who had survived a botched abortion. This cut no ice on the Labour benches.

Never mind the fact that science has enabled us to see the child ‘walking in the womb’ at 12 weeks; never mind the obvious human shape of a foetus well before 20 weeks; never mind new evidence that the unborn child feels pain around that time, the slaughter of the innocent will continue at its current rate of nearly 600 a day.

I reflect on the irony that a Government which out of its concern for the alleged suffering of foxes permitted 700 hours of debate on that topic, allowed just three hours for MPs to talk about the fate of unborn children.

Below is a link to the Hansard of my and Nadine’s speeches.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080520/debtext/80520-0013.htm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080520/debtext/80520-0019.htm

I had little hope for a victory on my amendment banning animal-human hybrids - a provision of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill now making its way through Parliament. And of course it was crushed when it came to the vote. The Prime Minister had indicated his support for such research. Some celebrity scientists like Lord Winston are - if lukewarmly - behind it. And anyone who has loved ones suffering from a number of serious diseases might be forgiven for clutching at the hope that a cure may one day come from this avenue. I cannot blame them for hoping.

Yet there is a sad polarisation in the way this debate is sometimes presented, as if it is science versus religion. As I pointed out, the scientists are by no means unanimous.

The Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson had even told the Government that ‘there was no clear scientific argument as to why you would want to do it’ (albeit he was referring to true hybrids, not the cytoplasmic hybrids, or cybrids most sought by scientists).  And Professor Yamanaka, a leading scientist in this field, changed his mind about the ethics of embryonic research in favour of using adult stem cells. He, a scientist, changed his mind because of what he saw through his microscope. As he put it: ‘I suddenly realised there was such a small difference between it and my daughters.’

Like religion, science is concerned with the truth. Professor Yanamaka’s microscope showed him the truth about the humanity of the embryo. Unlike some scientists, he was humble enough to fully accept it.

Below is a link to the Hansard of my speech.

http://pubs1.tso.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080519/debtext/80519-0004.htm#08051912000001

“Antediluvian” That’s how John Bercow, the Conservative Member for Buckingham described members, (inc me) who wants to reform the abortion law. He also used words such as prejudiced.

Antediluvian isn’t a word you hear much on the housing estates across Britain, so I had to ask what it meant. Before a flood apparently.

So, I’m an antediluvian, as is David Cameron and the majority of the Conservative Party. Three quarters of all women across the UK, two thirds of doctors and leading Professors such as Stuart Campbell, John Wyatt, Sunny Anand and Dr Vincent Argent, consultant gynaecologist and former Medical Director of BPAS are all antediluvian.

This description also includes Parliaments across Europe, as most of the countries in the EU have a cut off date of twelve weeks.

France 12, Germany 12, Italy 12, Belgium 12, Bulgaria 12, Denmark 12, Czech Republic 12, Greece 12, Hungary 12, Luxembourg 12, the Netherlands 13, Poland 12, Slovakia 12 and Sweden, the most liberal, 18.

All faiths, including Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus and Christians are all antediluvian.

But of course, John Bercow must be right and I believe that maybe the three quarters of women across Britain are grateful to him for being there to point out the error of their judgment.

I have never written or spoken of the main reason why I want to reduce to 20 weeks, but I am now.

Women further on in pregnancy than 16 weeks used to be injected with a chemical, Prostoglandin. This used to induce spontaneous labour and the foetus would be delivered still born.

Unfortunately, in the later abortions at 21 weeks onwards, a baby sometimes struggled for life, an event I personally witnessed.

As neo-natal services improved, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) put out guidelines which state that from 19 weeks of pregnancy onwards the baby needs to be - and I can’t think of a gentler way of saying this - put to death in the womb before it is delivered, in case it lives. A procedure known as foeticide.

Late surgical abortions mean that a baby is dismembered in the womb, and removed limb by limb, head often last.

Professor Anand, incredibly well respected and acknowledged as the world’s leading expert in foetal pain, believes that a foetus feels pain as low as 18 weeks gestation. Before the dismembering takes place, the baby is injected with a lethal injection of Potassium into its heart, via the mother’s abdominal wall. I will leave it to you to imagine how much distress and pain this may cause the baby.

Even when I pressed Dr Vincent Argent, the consultant gynaecologist and a practicing abortionist who supports my amendment to explain in detail the procedure, he was uncomfortable and wouldn’t go into detail.

So, on the one hand the pro-abortionists argue that a baby can’t live below 22 weeks, and on the other they deploy ‘just in case’ techniques.

I suppose if wanting to come in line with other European countries and end such a barbaric and inhumane practice is antediluvian, I can only wonder what word applies to wanting to continue with such practices within the context of a civilised society.

We had a debate on blasphemy on Tuesday in the House of Commons in which I made two or three points.

When I said we should not criticise Islam, I did not mean, of course, that there should never be any critical statements about it - or, indeed, any other religion. All religions should be able to weather considered critical commentary. What I was driving at were the kind of scurrilous or abusive attacks on the things held sacred by any religion, such as the portrayal of Jesus as a sexual pervert in the infamous Jerry Springer opera.

The failed prosecution of the BBC for blasphemy over this by Christian Voice was referred to many times in a wide-ranging debate, to which several Cornerstone members contributed.

It is quite clear that my colleague Richard Bacon was right to see this latest move by the Government as yet another step in their secularisation agenda.

Below is the Hansard account of my interventions.

Debate on Government amendment to Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

Commons Hansard:

6 May 2008 : Column 638

Maria Eagle: These amendments abolish the common law criminal offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel. Following my announcement on Report on 9 January, and after a short period of consultation, the Government tabled these amendments at the Committee stage in the other place. These offences have now largely fallen into disuse and therefore run the risk of bringing the law into disrepute. The issue of what to do about them has been around for many years and has attracted considerable debate. As long ago as 1985, the Law Commission recommended that they be abolished.

The Lords Select Committee Report on religious offences, published in 2003, devotes a whole chapter to the issue. As I said on Report, it is high time that Parliament reached a settled conclusion on the matter. Today gives us an opportunity to do so. The last prosecution under these laws was in 1977, in the case of Whitehouse v. Gay News Ltd, and there has been no public prosecution under them since the 1920s. There have therefore been no cases since the introduction of the Human Rights Act in 1998. Given that these laws protect only the tenets of the Christian Churches, they would appear to be plainly discriminatory. I do not believe that abolishing the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel is anything to do with political correctness.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): If this law is not being used, one might wonder whether it is doing any harm. One might make the point that its abolition could appear to be an erosion of the position of the established Church. There is a mismatch: people indulge

Column 639
in self-censorship of any criticism of the Mohammedan religion-rightly, because we should not criticise it-but they feel free to pour abuse and vitriol on, and make comedies about, Christianity. Getting rid of the blasphemy law sends a message that that is okay, but it is insulting to many Christians.

Maria Eagle: I do not believe that to be the case, and I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s analysis.

In its report on this Bill in January, the Joint Committee on Human Rights said:

“the continued existence of the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel can no longer be justified, and we are confident that this would also, in today’s conditions, be the view of the English courts under the Human Rights Act and the Strasbourg Court under the ECHR”.

The High Court’s decision on 5 December last year that the Theatres Act 1968 and the Broadcasting Act 1990 prevent the prosecution of a theatre, the BBC or another broadcaster for blasphemous libel would appear to have given further weight to the notion that the offences are, to all intents and purposes, moribund. That was the result of a case brought by the organisation Christian Voice in response to the broadcast of the play “Jerry Springer: The Opera”…

Column 646

David Howarth: As a Liberal, it seems to me to be objectionable, as well as sad, that people should look to the state for their sense of identity. They should not look to the Government or the law for their own sense of worth. They should look to themselves, their families and their other social relations. It is a deeply sinister idea that the state should help to create people’s identity. I realise that the Government frequently get close to that view in their debates about Britishness. That is a dangerous route to go down.

Mr. Leigh: So the hon. Gentleman believes that the state has no right to impose Acts of Parliament dealing with matters such as incitement to religious or racial hatred. He seems to be suggesting an ultra-Liberal point of view that the state has no role in that respect. Is that right?

David Howarth: Not at all. The state’s role is to prevent harm, but it must do so in a way that does not show favouritism to particular religious views….

Column 649

Mr. Leigh: In response to what the Minister said earlier, if Bagehot were here, he would argue that we should not keep something just because it is entirely rational. There is something symbolic about the law in question. It is to do with our culture and tradition, so it has value in that sense …

Column 653

Mr. Leigh: Is it not somewhat bizarre that pretty much everyone who has spoken in defence of the Church of England so far has been a Catholic? [Interruption.] Apart from one practising Jew.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Non-practising.

Mr. Leigh: Does not that say something about the competence of the established Church? …

Column 665

Mr. Bacon: The Minister said that the law would be used only in the most compelling circumstances, but did “Jerry Springer: The Opera” represent the most compelling circumstances? I have lost count of the number of times that I have sat in Committee and heard Ministers say that they will have a piece of legislation “just in case”.

Mr. Leigh: Ministers use that argument many times. There are tens of thousands of lines of legislation and laws that are never used, so why have the Government focused, laser-like, on this particular law?

Mr. Bacon: They have done so because it is part of their secularisation agenda.

The press conference yesterday almost became a fiasco.

To be perfectly honest, I hadn’t really expected anyone to turn up. So when I walked into a room full of cameras and journalists, it was a bit of a shock to say the least.

I arrived in the room just as a jobs-worth security guard from the Himmler school of charm and diplomacy, called the Palace of Westminster police to escort the cameramen off the estate.

It took a call to the deputy Sergeant at Arms to discover that we could audio record only. And the use of that would be what? In case I forgot what I said?

It appears the House of Commons’ authorities had decided that my press conference was OK for radio. But not TV.

Just who are these faceless people who occupy hundreds, nay thousands of offices in this Palace, which belongs to the people, and the representatives of the people?

Who are these nameless bureaucrats who tell  an elected MP sent to Parliament by the people, that I can’t film in a room which broadcasts committee meetings every day to the nation, from five permanent suspended cameras?

Who are these people sat in plush offices centred around the chamber whilst MPs walk miles to and fro each day, and camp out in corridors and the library; and by what right do they tell me that an event planned to launch a major campaign, aimed at amending legislation, cannot continue?

Someone who has a democratic right, a far greater right than any jobs-worth officious rude security guard, to be here.

Who has the right to run this place? Is it the people or the bureaucrats?

As it was we de-camped onto College Green.

Within seconds another security guard arrived. He asked me did I have a permit?

I said yes. I lied, we began.

Perhaps someone would now like to report me to the standards committee?

I am  going to hunt down one of the legal constitutional  brains over here.  I have rights and I am going to find out what they are and, make sure every other MP knows what they are too.

There should be a balance between the executive and the administration, however it appears to me that balance needs to be redressed.

As it was, despite the attempts by the House of Commons’ politeriat to thwart the day, it was a beautiful sunny day and worked out really well.

We had interlopers, the MP who is the Labour version of Evan Harris - Chris McCafferty - sent her husband and researcher along.

They were very welcome!

Click here to watch the Press Conference

Hansard: 28 April: Column 11: Questions to the Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Bob Ainsworth)

“Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): There is no prouder body of men and women than the British Army. What is it supposed to do for their morale when they read the unfair and uncomplimentary remarks about allowing the Americans to do our dirty work for us in the recent operation in Basra in Iraq? Would it not be better for their morale either to let them get stuck in or to get them out of that country, rather than chain them up in the airport against all the traditions of the fighting British Army?

Mr. Ainsworth: From the discussions I have had with our armed forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan, broadly speaking they ignore what they read in the media and they know what the facts are. The fact with regard to Basra is that our forces are involved in a very similar way to the American forces. The American forces came down to Basra with the additional Iraqi forces. Our own forces are in Basra assisting the Iraqi 14th Division, which they helped to give the capability that it is now showing in its success in Basra town. Although we should not overstate our own role, the Iraqis would not be capable of doing what they are now doing in Basra if it had not, in part, been for the contribution that the British forces have made and continue to make. We should not run them down just because the press do.”

As usual with this Government, the minister’s answer sidesteps my point. Of course our soldiers have helped train and support the Iraqi army, and have done the excellent job we would expect of them. But to claim that we are involved ‘in a very similar way’ to the Americans does not stand up. For several months our troops have been semi-prisoners in the fortified airport while the Shiite militias make mayhem on the streets. And I rather take exception to the minister’s implication that I was running our forces down. In fact I was standing up for them. It may be they ignore what they read in the press when it is often so depressing, but it could not do them any harm to have more encouraging headlines. But the press are not in the habit of ‘running them down’; they are simply reporting the effects of our Government’s defence policy.