Wow! What a week in politics!

Written by David Heath MP and published in Western Gazette on Fri 20th Jun 2008

Visiting America on holiday a couple of years ago I came across an official looking plaque on the wall of a building. "On this spot in 1877," it proclaimed in solid brass, "nothing happened". I later found that they were selling the plaques in a nearby novelty store. Many weeks in politics are pretty much like that. Nothing of any consequence happens, and we just go through the motions, literally in the case of parliamentary debate. Then, every now and again, you have a week where everything seems to happen. Last week was one of those.

Most of us were geared to a major debate on the Counter-terrorism Bill. There were a few preliminary skirmishes on the Tuesday when we discussed government plans for non-jury inquests using special coroners picked by ministers. I'm confident that won't get through the Lords in its present state, so I wasn't concerned about losing the vote, albeit narrowly.

Then on Wednesday we moved to the proposals to extend the time a person can be held without charge from the present twenty eight days to forty two days. I have previously set out why I think this proposal is so damaging, so I won't cover the ground again. I had the opportunity to speak in the debate, however briefly, so I hope I got over the reasons I thought the suggestion unjustified, unfair, unworkable, and profoundly unhelpful to the fight against terrorism, let alone being an affront to British legal and constitutional tradition. I accept the fact that there are those who take a contrary view and support the government's contention, even though I think there is little or no evidence to back it up.

But what upset me deeply was the result of what was always going to be a very close vote. The government won by nine votes. And nine Democratic Unionist MPs mysteriously chose that evening to reverse their previous position, on ninety days, and vote with the government. We are asked to believe that this damascene conversion had nothing to do with the fevered discussions they were having right up to the last moment on funding for projects in Northern Ireland, and that the idea that their constituencies would benefit by over twenty million pounds of additional expenditure each was far from the mark. I can only say that it saddens me if a government that can't win a vote on the arguments buys its way out of trouble.

I thought the drama of the vote and the aftermath were past news, when a new thunderbolt struck. David Davis, the Conservative Shadow Home Secretary, appeared on television to announce that he would be standing down as an MP and fighting a by-election on the single issue of civil liberties. Opinions among his colleagues are varied, to say the least,with some Tory MPs declaring that his sanity is now in question, and the party hierarchy clearly in a state of some disgruntlement with his decision. Having worked closely with David on many of these issues over recent years, however, I know that he is entirely sincere in his concern about the steady erosion of liberties. He is certainly no Liberal, as he would be the first to protest, but he does share the Liberal Democrat views on such things, and I respect him for it. I suspect his resignation may seem quixotic to some, and if there is no opponent from the Labour Party the campaign in Haltemprice and Howden may seem irrelevant. But highlighting issues that are important but which many people do not understand is far from irrelevant, and I salute him for it.

In the third bombshell of an already crowded week came the result of the referendum in Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty, and a comfortable majority against. Of course I have some strong feelings on this subject, having resigned my own shadow cabinet place in my party because I felt it important to have a referendum in the United Kingdom on the matter, and what's more felt I had promised that to my constituents. Ireland may only be a small nation in the European Union (and incidentally one which has benefited disproportionately from its membership) but that does not mean its view, democratically expressed, should be ignored. Put in simple terms, the EU cannot now proceed with the treaty provisions, and if it does so it will be displaying breathtaking disregard both for its own rules and for democratic principle. I hope it will do nothing of the sort.

Lastly, as a sort of post-script, some may remember that I took up the fight some weeks ago on behalf of local bee-keepers and their concerns over the health of the bee population in this country. I have since, with others, been trying to secure a short debate on the subject, and on Tuesday this week we got it. Several colleagues, me included, expressed their concerns about the decline in the number of bees, the vulnerability to new disease, and the potential economic effects. I suppose we were successful, up to a point. The British Bee-Keepers Association estimate a need for eight million pounds investment in research over five years. The Minister has responded with an additional contribution from the Department of ninety thousand pounds. The estimated cost to the economy if the British bee population is destroyed is upward of two million pounds. As they say, do the maths.