Of Speakers and sprouts.

Written by David Heath MP and published in Western Gazette on Fri 26th Jun 2009

So, the House of Commons has a new Speaker, John Bercow, chosen for the first time by secret ballot and in a reasonably short time frame, at least compared with the exhaustive and exhausting series of votes last time. There will be a plethora of articles dissecting the personality and qualities of the new Speaker in the press in the next week or so, and many have already decided to find him wanting. I will make up my mind after I've seen him in the job for a while. He wasn't my first choice, I admit, but he must have the chance to show that he is equal to the almost herculean task that faces any new Speaker at the moment.

I received quite a few very kind letters and messages from constituents asking me if I would consider standing myself, and indeed I was asked by quite a few of my colleagues, from all parties, if I would put myself forward. It was very flattering, but in the end I decided not to, not because I wouldn't have relished the challenge, but because it was made abundantly clear to me by some on the Labour benches that they would never support someone who they blamed for hastening the departure from the chair of Michael Martin. It's a charge to which I'm afraid I have to plead guilty, and if that was an obstacle to Labour support, then it was better that I didn't stand, because I feel very strongly that a Speaker has to enjoy support from both sides of the House if he or she is to do the job properly.

And that is, frankly, the problem which faces John Bercow. He has very little support indeed from Conservative members, who consider that he deserted the right wing some years ago and has been on a pilgrimage towards New Labour ever since. Because of that they don't trust him, and it's imperative that he works hard on building bridges to his erstwhile colleagues. Some are suggesting that he will be opposed if Labour do not have a majority following the next general election. I would simply urge caution. If he is not doing the job, then so be it, but any Speaker is entitled to the support of the House unless he forfeits it, and there is something profoundly unconstitutional about rejecting a democratic decision of Parliament without good reason.

One of the first issues, of course, for the new Speaker is trying to facilitate the sort of urgent and fundamental reform of the House of Commons which is clearly needed, not least as a result of the expenses debacle. Just when I thought the House authorities couldn't possibly make things worse, they published all our expenses with acres of black space where the details of many of the claims should be; a real redaction to the absurd! When I look at what they did to my own receipts, I see that they even blacked out the address of the Western Gazette on a receipt for an advert, presumably because it would be a dangerous release of information if any of my constituents found out where the newspaper offices are in Yeovil! I perfectly well understand the need under data protection law to not release details like bank account numbers or personal information about staff, but this is ridiculous, and just confirms still further the impression that many have information they want to hide.

Having said that, I think we are making progress. I gave evidence to Sir Christopher Kelly's Committee on Standards in Public Life last week where I reiterated again my view that accommodation expenses for instance, should be for basic costs only; no furniture, no services, no flipping of second home designations. I got the impression the committee very clearly understand the level of public disquiet, and are determined to find solutions. They can't do so quickly enough, in my view.

The other debate in which I have been very much engaged this week is on the proposed inquiry into the Iraq war. I have been arguing we need a proper inquiry both into the circumstances which led up to the war and the way it was conducted for many years now. The arguments have always been that we shouldn't do so while troops are still in Iraq, but that defence has now evaporated, and the Prime Minister has, reluctantly, agreed to the setting up of an inquiry. But it won't do the job needed if it's held behind closed doors, its remit is limited, and it can't compel witnesses to attend or require them to give evidence under oath.

The proposals as set out last week were hopelessly inadequate, and the argument that this was necessary to allow military commanders to give their evidence in an unconstrained manner was blown out of the water virtually the next day. In a phrase which I will remember for a long time, Air Marshal Sir John Walker, the former head of Defence Intelligence, said: "There is one reason that the inquiry is being heard in private and that is to protect past and present members of this Government. There are 179 reasons why the military want the truth to be out." Those 179 servicemen who lost their lives in Iraq deserve nothing less.

Finally, on a lighter note, I'd like to raise three cheers or more for Captain Wayne Keble, skipper of HMS Bulwark, who has banned brussel sprouts from his ship, calling them "the devil's vegetable". He hasn't justified his decision on health or safety grounds, or anything else. He just detests sprouts, and as he's Captain, he can ban them if he wants. I detest sprouts too. He's my new hero.