Rumours scandals and plots swirl around Westminster like the November mist as I stroll over to St Margaret’s for the splendid Memorial Service to that great old Labour Campaigner, Tam Dalyell of the Binns. (He of the General Belgrano, West Lothian Question and aptly named autobiography ‘The Importance of being Awkward.’)

Sexual harassment and worse must not be allowed. People who are guilty of them must be named and shamed, and pay the political penalty of their indiscretions. Victims must not be dissuaded in any way from making their complaints known, they then being taken seriously and acted upon. But those very same victims have their real and tragic complaints diminished by appearing on a list alongside low-level skuttlebut and unfounded rumour. Rape, sexual harassment, the use of a position of power to demand sexual favours must not be allowed – in Parliament or elsewhere. But those serious offences should not be muddled with mild flirtation, or even a degree of tactile palliness.

None of this stuff helps the proper government of the country, nor our tense negotiations with the EU. Nor does the back-biting and plotting surrounding the re-shuffle. The World is a very dangerous place, our economy needs careful attention, as the small increase interest rates shows, and none of this stuff (important as some of it is) helps with all of that.

Tam Dalyell knew how to fight for the underdog, to campaign without fear or favour for the wide variety of causes he believed in, and his Memorial Service well reflected it. Never before have the organ voluntaries before the service included both the Eton Boating Song, the Regimental March of the Scots Greys and the Red Flag and Internationale! The hymns ranged from ‘He who would true Valiant be...” and “I vow to thee my country...” to “The Battle Hymn of the Republic ‘and the ‘Ode to Joy.’ (Tam was a passionate pro-European.)

During the great Scottish devolution debates in 1998 or so, I upbraided Tam over his ancestor, the great English General ‘Bloody Dalyell’, for capturing my ancestor, Hugh Parker at the Battle of Rullion Green in 1666 and then hang, drawing and quartering him for the crime of being a Protestant Covenanter. Dalyell shot back that his ancestor had made up for it by setting up Mrs Parker in a little tenant farm, and looking after her for the rest of her days, (which he later proved in some ancient tomes in the House of Commons Library.)

A truly great man, who knew his own mind, and campaigned passionately for a wide variety of great causes, caring little for who he upset in doing so. He was from the left of the Labour Party, and there is probably very little (aside from devolution) on which he and I would have agreed. But that does not prevent me being a huge admirer of this giant of politics.

It is people of that sort, of that calibre, of that passion, able to rise above the lowly gossip and plotting of Westminster who we need to see emerging if we are to find our way through current troubles. “Remember, Remember the 5th of November” which saw the 1605 Gunpowder Plot (partly being plotted in the Kings’ Head in Chippenham’s Market Place, I think). Plots never achieve anything. It’s time to get on with the proper government of the country.

It was on 31st October 1517- 500 years ago this week – that Martin Luther so memorably nailed his 95 theses against the sale of ‘indulgences’ on the door of All Saints Church in Wittemburg, declaring it is said “Here I stand. I can do none other….” The reality is that his theses were pretty academic stuff debating whether or not the church could sell ‘indulgences’ – pieces of paper which allegedly absolved you of your sins, sometimes even before you had committed them. It was a sort of religious ‘Get out of jail free card’. The rest of Luther’s career and writings of course led to the Reformation, to the split in the church, the collapse in the power of Rome; eventually England’s split from Rome, and a host of other unforeseen consequences. It led to wars, bloodshed, martyrs. Yet at the time it was of such overwhelming theological importance that even if Luther had known of them, he would no doubt have carried on with it anyhow.

Was it really only 50 years ago that his namesake Martin Luther King equally famously described “I have a dream…” which led of course, to the racial equality we hold so dear today. But his speech, and his violent death led to almost as much rioting, civil disobedience, international disturbances as had Martin Luther’s 95 theses. How glad we are, nonetheless that Martin Luther King did it.

There are great moments in history when true visionaries, nail their ideas to the metaphoric church door, tell the world of their ‘dreams’ no matter how remote or unlikely that dream may be. So having spoken up last week in favour of Nation states, and without deviating from that in any way, the memory of Luther does make one wonder whether the Catalonians, the Kurds and other visionaries around the world should at very least be deeply respected even if we may not agree with the conclusions they come to.

Martin Luther’s vision led to bloodshed and troubles, the final ripples of which we feel today, for example, in the Northern Irish troubles which are directly attributable to the Reformation. So how we wish that the Papacy in 1517, the American Government in the late ‘sixties, the Spanish and Iraqi Governments today, could realise the potential consequences of not listening to, not trying to accommodate, visionaries like the Presidents of Catalonia and Kurdistan.

We may disagree with them, we may seek a different end result to that which they are seeking. But the means by which we stop it may either help their cause or hinder it. The Spanish, and if they resort to violence the Baghdadis are risking being the immovable objects which meet the unstoppable forces of visionary independents. If it is not handled properly, the Reformation and the sectarian troubles which followed it for 500 years, and the race riots which followed Martin Luther King’s death may pale into insignificance by comparison.

The intransigence of the EU in our current Brexit negotiations are risking the very same thing – consequences of the process being greater than the actual matter in hand.

Patriotic Nationalism is a worthy and oft-quoted emotion, and justification for a variety of political actions, sometimes even violent ones.

There is, of course, a real attraction, in ‘freedom fighters’ independence movements’, ‘self-determination.’ A swirl of bagpipes, haggis and whisky drinking is – to some - more than enough to hide the catastrophe for Scotland were she to leave the UK (overturning the decision in 1603 when the Scots King took over England’s throne, and 1707, when the Scottish Parliament decided it was too small to survive on its own, and joined the English one.) There are some who argue for freedom for Kernow (Cornwall in case you are not quite up to speed with these things), Brittany, Wales. The Tamils fought a bitter war in an attempt to divide Sri Lanka, the IRA wanted to reunite Ireland. The Centenary of the Balfour Declaration whence came the State of Israel is welcomed by most, but not necessarily by some elements of the Palestinian and Arab factions. One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.

There is some similarity amongst the current troubles in Catalonia, the forthcoming independence referendum in Kurdish Iraq, and in the SNP muddle North of the Border. Each of them have got as far as believing themselves to be ‘different’ from the mainland, to rely on historical or cultural ties to argue the case for independence, rather than economic, or diplomatic or political ones. Of course we sympathise with those seeking cultural unity in their areas, and any sensible central government allows the level of devolution which should satisfy that cultural craving. But that devolution must not be allowed to trump hard-headed economic realism about the true wellbeing of all of the people.

The Brexit argument is wholly different. We are not saying that we are culturally or historically one. We are not - as the very name ‘United Kingdom’ makes plain. We are not seeking to break away from some nation to whom we subscribed many centuries ago, nor are we ignoring the hard political and economic realities. It is my longstanding view that 65 million people living on an island such as this makes a very logical unit of government, which a diversified population of 750 million spread over a Continent does not. We are a proud nation state, with a much loved and internationally recognised Head of State, and a long history of brave independence from our Continental near neighbours.

The people of Catalonia, and Iraqi Kurdistan – and even of Scotland - may have a nationalistic, cultural war-cry which stirs the blood of (at least some of) their peoples. But they must not allow sentiment to trump good government. Historic Nation States - like Spain, Iraq and The United Kingdom are the right units of government, and ones which people can truly love.

Patriotism means that we love our countries. Nationalism means that we dislike everyone else’s.

Once a week, the most important piece of paper to come across the MP’s desk is “The Whip.” It’s a detailed list of the forthcoming business in the House at least for a week ahead, sometimes two.



Deadline for tabling: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Church Commissioners & House of Commons Commission and Public Accounts Commission and Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission

The House meets at 2:30pm for Defence Questions

Second Reading of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (Whip in Charge: Andrew Stephenson)


Under each piece of business there appears either one line, occasionally two, and for important business three. Hence the “three-line whip.” It means that we have to be there, and to support the Government, no excuses accepted.

We got the oddest ever instruction from the Whips last week with regard to an (anyhow unenforceable) Labour motion calling for the universally-liked Universal Credits system nonetheless to be delayed in its implementation. The note from the Chief Whip read “Three-line Whip: Please abstain.” It’s the only time I have heard of a three-line whip to abstain.

Current Parliamentary arithmetic means that every vote is on a knife-edge. Had we voted on this Labour motion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been called back from Washington DC, the Prime Minister from Brussels, and doubtless other Ministers all over the place for the purely symbolic action of disagreeing with the Labour Party, and a handful of Tory rebels.

The bulk of the business of government is conducted in Whitehall rather than Westminster, and is subject to scrutiny by Parliament, but not to a vote. Separation of powers between Government and Parliament is a central principle of our constitution. So Parliamentary votes are often given a great deal too much importance. It is asking questions, and holding the Government to account in a variety of ways and means that really counts, rather than votes. The whipping system ensures that the Government secures whatever votes they want by virtue of their election to govern; opposition motions routinely are dismissed by the voting power of the governing party. Clever questions, pointed debates, crafty machinations in Commons and Lords truly give the Government a headache, which no three-line whip can alleviate.

 And that, after all, is exactly what Parliament is there to do – to scrutinise the government rather than necessarily support it.

A most moving SSAFA Service of Remembrance at Salisbury Cathedral last Friday reminded us of the 260,000 British soldiers killed at the Battle of Passchendaele, many of them from the Wiltshire Regiment and the Wiltshire Yeomanry exactly 100 years ago. (A similar number of Germans were also killed in the battle.) There was a curious poignancy about the lone piper playing the old Scottish lament, Flo’ers o’ the Forest (which laments the defeat of the Scots by the English at Flodden Field in 1513) as he disappeared down the central aisle. It reminded me that I was there when the coffin of the late Sir Edward Heath was borne up the same aisle with full military honours in 2005. (He took part in the Normandy landings, and thereafter commanded my own regiment, the Honourable Artillery Company.)

The results of Wiltshire Police's investigation into the ludicrous allegations against him were announced last week. 118 people responded to their disgraceful call for ‘victims’ at the gates of Sir Edward’s house. 111 of them have been dismissed out of hand. The seven remaining allegations which would have been sufficiently credible, apparently, to warrant Sir Edward’s questioning ‘under caution’ if he were still alive, are a pretty mixed lot. The most serious allegation - of a male rape in 1961 - was investigated by the Met Police 2 years ago and dismissed. How odd that Chief Constable Veale did not mention that. There is not a shred of evidence that Sir Edward was a paedophile, and I have written to the Prime Minister to ask her to initiate a judge-led inquiry into the remaining allegations. Genuine allegations of abuse must be treated very seriously and fully investigated. But they are diminished by bogus cases such as Ted Heath’s. Chief Constable Veale may have saved his skin for now over the £1.5 million, 20 officers’ investigation into Sir Edward. But there are a great many more questions to ask about his handling of Operation Conifer, most particularly about the way he seems to have allowed a presumption of guilt to hang over the head of this distinguished elder statesman. I thought that a presumption of innocence unless proved otherwise was one of the most basic of our rights? However, I do support him for now because of his office - he is after all the Chief Constable.

Equally, I have never been one of Theresa May’s cheerleaders. But I thought that she handled the catastrophic Conference speech with dignity and courage. What’s more, she is Prime Minister and deserves our support and respect just for that reason if none other. Our country is at a most difficult cross-roads in our history, and one thing we do not need is the chaos of a leadership battle. That could have grave consequences for the Brexit negotiations (which may well be what a few from the remain camp are in fact seeking. Who is Grant Shapps anyhow?)

Stable law-abiding society depends on such things as respect for our institutions – the Armed Forces, Government, Prime Minister; the rule of law and presumption of innocence. Of course there will be changes from time to time, but especially at times of national turbulence we need certainty and stability amongst those institutions.

I return to Parliament determined to support Theresa May, and to seek justice for the late Sir Edward Heath.