Week in Westminster

It’s sad that Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) is what gets the media coverage – and yes it’s great political theatre, a modern-day gladiatorial contest. Parliament is at its best in the less exciting debates on legislation or as last Thursday when voting rights for prisoners was debated.

The Government are in a real dilemma on this one. The previous Labour administration had done their best to avoid making a decision I’m sure the present Government will try and keep it running for as long as they can.

The European Court of Human Rights was born after the Second World War in the wake of the horrors of that conflict but when that generation of political titans such Churchill and Attlee signed the Convention I’m sure they could never imagine that it would evolve and deliver the sort of judgements we are now seeing.

Human Rights should be something precious and if we lived under some tyrannical regime we would be looking for the protection the Convention offers. But we now deride its rulings. As I said in the debate talk in the pubs and clubs, highways and byways is that we link human rights with ‘health and safety’ as something that is damaging and constraining our way of life. Yes it’s true that the Health & Safety zealots have taken things too far but that shouldn’t be confused with such things as the right to a free trial and that torture should be outlawed.

To my way of thinking there is a contract between the State and its citizens that exchanges rights for responsibilities and the right to vote goes with obligations to society as a whole.

Governments almost always come to power on a tide of goodwill. This one was no exception but each time they make a decision that clearly flies in the face of those they represent they lengthen the distance between the elected and the electorate and start shuffling along the road that leads, eventually to defeat. That is the last things this country needs; it needs a period of firm and stable government.

The vote of itself changes nothing but it is a clear message to Government as to the feelings in Parliament which on this issue clearly reflected public opinion.

The Localism Bill is going through Parliament; generally speaking it’s good news. We’ve grown far too centralised over recent years – Whitehall knows best, or so Whitehall thinks. The reality is that locally accountable representatives should be making far more decisions and the Bill does devolve down much more authority than has existed in recent years.

That doesn’t mean that it’s perfect. One of its clauses allows social landlords such as Havelok or Shoreline to limit the length of its new tenancies to two years. I emphasise it is new tenancies and this doesn’t affect existing tenants, but I think it’s too short. I’ve met with a number of organisations who are lobbying to extend this and on Tuesday I put the case to ministers in the hope that they may consider extending the period.

I suspect they will stick to their guns and I acknowledge there are arguments in favour of creating a more flexible market and free up more properties to meet the demand which far exceeds supply, but I can’t go along with it.

Along with the other Yorkshire and Humberside Conservative members I met with the Home Secretary last Wednesday to talk through a host of issues. There was much talk of neighbourhood policing and the importance of PCSOs. We were assured that the Nei gbourhood Policing Fund was guaranteed for the coming two years and that the Government was pressing ahead with the introduction of elected police and crime commissioners who will be directly elected and give all electors some choice about police priorities and budgets. A welcome change.

This year’s budget was set by the Police Authority – one of the most anonymous organisations imaginable.

We can now look forward to electing our first Police Commissioner in 2012 and given the understandable concerns about crime and policing I urge everyone to take the opportunity of taking part.