Voting in Parliament

League of villains extraordinaire

After many years of rampant extravaganza, our voracious politicians – once upon a time thought to be our betters –have, finally, been exposed.
Enthralled, day-by-day, we read of new revelations in the MPs’ expenses scandal and witness the unseemly squirming of those caught with their hands in the till.

The fact that many of our representatives possess a guilty conscience has created a bond of solidarity across the political divides - a unity against the voters …a league of villains extraordinaire.

In such circumstances, of course, one cannot demand justice, because justice pleases neither side.

Overly preoccupied with their personal welfare, our representatives have no time for the electorate, and, incapable of grasping what is true and just, they cannot deliberate and act in the best interests of the nation.

As in many other instances of recently uncovered transgressions, when taken to account, the culprits blame the system - a system which, in fact, they have themselves designed, but which has now, allegedly, acquired a will of its own and - just like HAL 9000, the supercomputer on board the spaceship Discovery – has taken control of Parliament.

Yet, just changing the system is not going to solve our problems. No system, however secure and cleverly conceived, can protect us from the greed of our politicians, unless we, as a society, vigorously demand that only those able to act decently out of conviction should be given the chance to represent us.

To tighten the system without improving the quality of our legislators would be to act like in those lunatic asylums of the past, where they used to tie up their patients without ever treating their illnesses.

Only a moral society is capable of opposing a crooked regime, and, if we are still a moral society, then we must demand some serious changes. Just making a noise, naming and shaming, is not going to be enough.

Враги трудящихся *

“All leaders of the Constitutional Democratic party, a party filled with enemies of the people, are hereby to be considered outlaws, and are to be arrested immediately and brought before the revolutionary court” [1]

That our government is ruling over this country by inalienable, divine right is no longer debatable. They have now assumed absolute power, and along with it the conviction that they always do what is ‘right’ and, therefore, must never be challenged.

Members of Parliament find it increasingly difficult to obtain straight answers to their questions and are no longer able to hold the government to account. Most of the time, the New Labour ministers manage to deflect attention away from any inconvenient topics, obfuscate unhindered and, on occasion, even get away with impudently insincere replies.

We ourselves know it only too well, since none of the MPs whom we have contacted in relation with the Gaul RFI miscarriage of justice was able to break the government’s silence and bring the matter to the fore.

And, as though things were not bad enough as they were, it now turns out that the government has decided that some of these inconvenient questions should not even arise.

As confirmation on this state of affairs, we learn that, a couple of days ago, a member of the shadow cabinet was arrested for the ‘crime’ of having embarrassed the government with the disclosure of some leaked information - data which, in the public interest, we should all have the right to see.

The British Police, in pure Cheka [2] fashion, seem to have started rounding up the Opposition politicians who are still able to confront the executive – a few sparse, dissenting voices, now treated as ‘enemies of the people’, who must be annihilated and made an example of.

(This, of course, is the same police force who, faking ignorance and confusion, sidestepped the allegations of fraud in the Gaul RFI in order to protect the Labour high ranks and the murky interests behind them.)

“Anyone who dares to spread the slightest rumour against the Soviet regime will be arrested immediately and sent to a concentration camp.” [3]

_________________________________________________

* Enemies of the labourers

[1] Grigory Zinoviev

[2] Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage (i.e. Soviet Police)

[3] Izvestiya, "Appeal to the Working Class", 1918

'Nothing to be done'

In December last year we were given an unexpected opportunity of which I must give you a description.

After a number of unanswered telephone calls and emails, we were invited for an appointment with our Romsey MP, Mrs Sandra Gidley. (Our post of 17 March 2007 indicates the stage at which we had left off with her.)

During our 15 min allocated slot, Mrs Gidley let us know that the Gaul saga was the most frustrating thing she had had to deal with, and that she didn’t know where to go with it anymore.
Moreover, the Romsey MP feared that this case was taking a lot of her time, which could otherwise be spent resolving things for her constituents – things that have a better chance of getting a resolution. The Gaul affair, in her opinion, was going round in circles, and had already exhausted her resourcefulness.
Basically, it was a case of ‘Nothing to be done’, as Estragon said while waiting for Godot.
As she could not see a way forward herself, she called for our suggestions, in view of one more attempt, the last one, from her.

Eager to avail ourselves of her last favour, we suggested that she could ask - the Home Secretary, this time - why the Fraud Squad have been dragging their feet for almost a year in following up our fraud complaint.
Mrs Gidley would not go for that though. Trying to impress on us the futility of our endeavours, and lightly amused with our ignorance of the sacred rites of contemporary parliamentary procedures and political confrontations, she informed us that there was always a battle with the Table Office about how and to whom Parliamentary Questions should be addressed – a battle which, in this case, it seems, was not worth fighting.
She was already anticipating that our question would not be passed to the Home Office, but to another department.
She could write a letter to the Home Secretary instead… at least initially… she suggested. Then, if all fails, she could, perhaps, address a Parliamentary Question. We’ll see…
(This implied dragging on matters further, at least until the end of March, as some would dearly hope.)

So, we pondered, Parliamentary Questions are no longer an effective tool for holding the government to account, and Parliament is no longer a deliberative assembly, but a fortified temple where politicians find shelter and escape the consequences of their actions.
We asked our MP how it felt sitting in the House of Commons in such company.
Unmoved, Mrs Gidley recommended that we should not believe what we read in the newspapers.
Ah, well, we thought, if only things were that rosy…
We reminded our MP that, in our view, a number of offences had been committed, and that we were able to substantiate our allegations beyond reasonable doubt. However, having learned from our past mistakes, and as Mrs Gidley was not employed by the Met, we did not wish to pass her all the details.

Finally, Mrs Gidley assured us that, unlike her, many MPs would have given up on this matter long before, right after the first set of parliamentary questions and the unsatisfactory answers received thereto.

[…] “Such is life,” Estragon would have added.

Perhaps Sandra Gidley is right. Challenging the ethical indifference of our current politicians may not be an easy job; it may be as maddening and exhaustive as waiting pointlessly for a Godot to come. Perhaps life under the New Labour regime has changed us all, making us more prone to defeatism and cynical practicality, and blunting our capacity for indignation – that healthy human reaction which, as a philosopher put it, once separated us emotionally from wickedness and injustice.

***

“Why are we here, that is the question? And we are blessed in this, that we happen to know the answer. Yes, in this immense confusion on thing is clear. We are waiting for Godot to come.” Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot

"It's increasingly difficult to get straight answers to straight questions" Sandra Gidley

On 11 February 2007, we asked our local MP (Mrs Sandra Gidley) to make two requests for information via the Parliamentary procedure.These requests were to enable us to obtain two documents, held by the government, which would have shed further light on the procedural aspects of the Gaul Formal Investigation.

In the next few days, we will also reveal what these interesting documents are about.

During our last meeting with our MP, on 10 March 2007, we learned, however, that these requests could not be addressed via the Parliament, but by means of a future letter from Mrs Gidley to the Department for Transport – a course of action, which, she believed, would be easier and more appropriate.

OK! Let’s hope that it works, though I have a feeling that it may not.

Rule 42*

There is that nagging question regarding the elusive evidence of a design defect on the Gaul, that does not go away.
The Secretary of State for Transport, Dr Stephen Ladyman, has twice been quizzed about this evidence through written Parliamentary Questions (PQ).
It was to no avail. The first time he managed to prevaricate and, the second time, he referred us to his previous answer.
We believe that, the second time round, he would have had a harder time fending off the issue, had not the question been changed in transit.

When asked why they had altered the query, the Parliamentary table office advised: “the question as drafted conveyed information tantamount to the advancing of argument”, that is: “it sought to convey information and make an argument” and, therefore, contravened the PQ rules. Besides, a question cannot be asked twice; we were explained, “even if introducing greater levels of detail”.

......................................................................................

* “Rule Forty-two […] that’s not a regular rule: you invented it just now” said Alice.
“It’s the oldest rule in the book,” said the King.
“Then it ought to be Number One,” said Alice.
(Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland)

The third round of Parliamentary Questions and Answers - part 2

‘Attention to detail’

The fourth parliamentary question that was addressed to the Secretary of State for Transport concerned the mode and date of implementation of the four safety recommendations arising from the F. V. Gaul Re-opened Formal Investigation.

The Minister’s latest response to this question was very eloquent and reassuring, but, alas, it was also factually incorrect and misleading. The four formal safety recommendations from the RFI have not as yet been implemented and, had it not been for this recent enquiry, it is unlikely that they would have ever been tackled.

One of the principle faults with the Minister’s response, however, is the fact that he seemed to have opened the RFI Report at the wrong page… (!!) that is, he has copied and responded to text from page 280 of the Report, which does not in fact contain the four formal safety recommendations - these are actually detailed on pages 286 and 287 of the formal document.

To assist matters we have reproduced the four safety recommendations together with our further comments on the Minister’s response at this LINK.

The third round of Parliamentary Questions and Answers - part 1

8 January 2007

“I’ve got my mind made up so don’t confuse me with the facts!”

In December last year the Lib Dem MP for Romsey, Sandra Gidley, tabled another set of questions to Parliament. These were meant to shed some light on the vexed issues of the Gaul, which, after previous parliamentary enquiries, still remained unclear.

Sandra Gidley’s requests for information, received by the tabling office on 19 December 2006, subsequently morphed into a slightly different set of questions and were answered by the minister for transport on the 8th of January. (The document published HERE shows both versions as well as the ministerial answers.)

If we compare the last question on the Gaul, submitted to the tabling office in December, with its published version [113499], we cannot help noticing that the formerly closed, narrowly drawn question, meant to elicit an unambiguous 'yes or no' reply, turned into an open-ended inquiry, which allowed the minister enough “wriggle room” to answer as he pleased and keep control of the flow of information. The change of wording from “whether any evidence of design inadequacies, in the construction and arrangements of the duff and offal chutes on the Gaul, relating to: a. The non-return flaps and their possibility of malfunction (i.e. to open under the action of the sea) b. The strength of the inner covers when subjected to direct sea loading, was made available to the Wreck Commissioner...” to “what evidence of design inadequacies in the construction and arrangements of the duff and offal chutes on the Gaul was made available to the wreck commissioner” enabled the minister to get easily off the hook.

The WHAT questions, as any sales professional will be able to confirm, notoriously invite digression.

We must, however, admit that, although open-ended, the question was a lot better than the answer we got. In his reply, Dr Stephen Ladyman kept to the official line and offered nothing extra to what he had stated before. (see the Parliamentary Questions and Answers of 25 October 2006 and 1 November 2006)

And the answer, my friend, is still blowin’ in the wind.

New Parliamentary Questions and Answers (part 2.)

1 Nov 2006

FV Gaul

Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will examine recent evidence and decide whether the formal investigation into the loss of the FV Gaul should be re-opened. [97993]

Dr. Ladyman: The Re-opened formal investigation into the loss of the FV Gaul was

conducted with unprecedented thoroughness. The evidence was scrutinised by leading experts in the fields of oceanography, naval architecture and engineering

There is no reason to doubt the outcome of the expert analysis that led to the RFI’s conclusions, and consequently there is no reason to reopen the investigation.

.......................................................................................................

Asked the same question by us, the DfT send us the following answer in their letter dated 7.11.06:

The investigation was conducted with unprecedented thoroughness on behalf of the FV Gaul’s crew, her master and mate, and the Department for Transport (DfT). The evidence – which included video footage of the wreck, as well as new model tests carried out at MARIN in the Netherlands – was scrutinised by leading experts in the fields of oceanography, naval architecture and engineering.

Whilst acknowledging the criticism that has been expressed towards the findings of the RFI, there is no reason to doubt the outcome of the thorough and expert analysis that led to the report’s conclusions and consequently there is no reason to reopen the investigation).

........................................................................................................

Gadfly: The Secretary of State for Transport was, in fact, asked whether or not he was going to examine the recent evidence, which pointed to a design defect in the construction and arrangement of the duff and offal chutes on the Gaul, and decide on the need therefore, of re-opening the formal investigation.
Dodging the actual question, the minister refers instead to the other, former, evidence, which was presented during the 2004 formal investigation, and which, he states, was scrutinised by leading experts*.

The minister knows very well that as long as there is no official appraisal of the evidence that we have provided, there is no need to reconsider the outcome of the Re-opened Formal Investigation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As a matter of interest, it should be explained that the evidence that was admitted during the 2004 formal investigation was collected and reviewed by the Treasury Solicitor (who acted under instructions from the Attorney General) prior to being brought to the attention of the retained experts.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

***

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.

''The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.

''The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master—that's all.'

New Parliamentary Questions and Answers (part 1.)

1 November 2006

Torremolinos Convention

Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ratify the International Marine Organisation’s Torremolinos Convention. [97992]

Dr. Ladyman: European Directive 97/70/EC implemented a harmonised safety regime based on the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol. The safety standards were subsequently enhanced by Directive 2002/35/EC. The Government consider these standards exceed the requirements of the Protocol and that its ratification is therefore no longer necessary.

Gadfly: It is suggested that there are three reasons why the UK should attach more importance to the 1977 Convention and 1993 Protocol:

1. Safety: There are about 24,000 fatalities in the world fishing industry annually. While the UK fishing fleet meets the safety provisions that are required by the Torremolinos Convention, failure to ratify this Convention at the International level contributes to the fact that sub-standard, foreign flagged vessels and fishermen will continue to be lost.

2. Economic: The UK‘s fishermen have to operate within a regime that is tightly regulated and this has a price. They also have to compete in a world market in which unregulated vessels, having lower overheads, are also able to land fish and this both reduces fish stocks and undermines market prices.

3. Environmental: It is important that fish stocks are regulated effectively and fairly. In this respect, illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing (IUU) continues to be a major problem and one that is contributing to the collapse of fish stocks both in the EU and globally. Ratification and implementation of the Torremolinos Convention is considered by both the IMO (International Maritime Organisation) and the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation) to be a key plank in the fight against IUU.

(http://www.imo.org/About/mainframe.asp?topic_id=106&doc_id=3351)

As the Minister advises, the UK has already implemented the EU safety regime, based on Torremolinos, which governs safety matters within the UK’s fishing fleet. Ratification of this Convention at the IMO is a necessary formality that will impose no additional costs on the UK Fishing Industry.

More Parliamentary Questions, Answers and Comments to come...

Questions on answers or How to communicate economically

Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the total cost of investigations and inquiries into the loss of the F. V. Gaul in 2006 prices. [96789]

Dr. Ladyman: The total cost to the Department of investigations and inquiries into the loss of the FV Gaul was £6.5 million.

No adjustment has been made for 2006 prices.

Gadfly: Perhaps Dr Ladyman should know that the Original Formal Investigation was concluded in 1974.

There appear to be some items missing from the above list. The total costs to the Department should also have included:

1. the costs of the stability and seakeeping investigations and model tests carried out for the Department by NMI and YARD between 1975 and 1978 estimated at £75,000 (in 1976 prices)

2. the costs of the two reports by Roger Clarke published in 2000. Stated to have cost the Department £50,000 at that time

3. additionally, the costs of 32 years of governmental time that has not been included in the above (political staff, technical, clerical and administrative staff, MOD, legal etc) - £1m at todays prices would not be an unreasonable evaluation!

If a simple compound interest calculation is carried out on the costs detailed above, using historical Bank Rate indices, then a figure of £10m at 2006 prices is obtained!

See also: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=371759&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=244

Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made towards the implementation of the formal safety recommendations arising from the F. V. Gaul Re-opened Formal Investigation. [96790]

Dr. Ladyman: It is considered that, as far as is reasonably practicable, the recommendations have been implemented.

Gadfly: The four formal safety recommendations have not been implemented.

Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether any evidence of a design fault in the construction and arrangement of the duff and offal chutes on the trawler F. V. Gaul was made available to the Wreck Commissioner during the 2004 investigation. [96794]

Dr. Ladyman: The Marine Accident Investigation Branch provided the inquiry with a copy of a full set of technical drawings for the vessel, a number of which detailed the design of these chutes. These drawings were reviewed by the technical experts and the expert representing the Department for Transport referred to these drawings in the production of the document “Notes on the duff and offal chutes”, submitted to the Re-opened Formal Investigation. These notes included comments on the design of the chutes and the potential design inadequacies.

Gadfly: First of all, the question that had been asked was not answered (i.e. was any evidence of a design fault made available to the Wreck Commissioner?). A yes or no answer would have sufficed.
Secondly, The Marine Accident Investigation Branch would provide, as they normally do and as the Treasury Solicitor recently confessed, “considerable assistance” to the Wreck Commissioner. They would therefore provide much more than a set of old drawings.
Thirdly, the “Notes on the duff and offal chutes”, only commented on a presumed design deficiency in relation to the difficulty of maintenance of the non-return flaps.So, in a couple of sentences, Dr Ladyman implies that either the MAIB performance was poor, or the MAIB witheld evidence, or the retained experts were unable to recognize an obvious design fault in the construction and arrangement of the duff and offal chutes.

***

“When you hear a denial of knowledge or responsibility, rate it carefully on the plausibility scale. The real culprit is usually at the top, as his nose will eventually demonstrate”. (Patrick Brown, 1999, Plausibility and Pinocchio)