Who says if we go to war

Graham Allen
12 March 2011

Graham Allen MP, Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has just written the following, after the Committee hearings that Stuart Weir reported on for OurKingdom yesterday.
It’s been many years since I began campaigning for the House of Commons to have a say on whether we went to war or not, so I was delighted that the Cabinet Secretary in a so far unreported statement  told the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee this week that he would examine the words needed to put the right of Parliament to be involved in the war-making process into the Cabinet Manual.
Even on the Iraq war, the votes that took place were not mandatory but came about only after pressure on the Government. Had such a right existed at the time of the build up to the Iraq war  in addition to the two largest rebellions within a governing party in British political history, it is possible the Parliamentary outcome could have been different. I have never held that Parliament should be consulted before going to war but that it should have the right  to be able to ratify or endorse the decision.
I kept this issue on the agenda every day for five years by submitting a resolution daily to the Table Office in Parliament. Of course the Cabinet Manual is not a Written Constitution but it is currently the closest we have and writing this right out will make it more certain and defensible than it’s vague status as an 'emerging convention'. I’m delighted that progress is at last being made so that, in future, decisions on going to war will always be legitimate and carry the support of the nation and not be seen as being purely at the whim and gift of the Prime Minister. If parliamentary accountability means anything it must apply to that most solemn of decisions; going to war.

Stop the secrecy: Publish the NHS COVID data deals

To: Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

We’re calling on you to immediately release details of the secret NHS data deals struck with private companies, to deliver the NHS COVID-19 datastore.

We, the public, deserve to know exactly how our personal information has been traded in this ‘unprecedented’ deal with US tech giants like Google, and firms linked to Donald Trump (Palantir) and Vote Leave (Faculty AI).

The COVID-19 datastore will hold private, personal information about every single one of us who relies on the NHS. We don’t want our personal data falling into the wrong hands.

And we don’t want private companies – many with poor reputations for protecting privacy – using it for their own commercial purposes, or to undermine the NHS.

The datastore could be an important tool in tackling the pandemic. But for it to be a success, the public has to be able to trust it.

Today, we urgently call on you to publish all the data-sharing agreements, data-impact assessments, and details of how the private companies stand to profit from their involvement.

The NHS is a precious public institution. Any involvement from private companies should be open to public scrutiny and debate. We need more transparency during this pandemic – not less.

By adding my name to this campaign, I authorise openDemocracy and Foxglove to keep me updated about their important work.

Who is bankrolling Britain's democracy? Which groups shape the stories we see in the press; which voices are silenced, and why? Sign up here to find out.


We encourage anyone to comment, please consult the oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.
Audio available Bookmark Check Language Close Comments Download Facebook Link Email Newsletter Newsletter Play Print Share Twitter Youtube Search Instagram WhatsApp yourData