Parliament

This PMQs will be remembered for the Cameron Balls spat. As Cameron was answering a question from a Labour MP, he snapped at Balls who was heckling him, shouting ‘you don’t know the answer, you’re not properly briefed, why don’t you just say you’ll write to her’. A visibly irritated Cameron shot back, ‘I wish the shadow Chancellor would shut up and listen for once’. At this the Labour benches erupted, their aim at PMQs is always to get Cameron to lose his temper and they had succeeded. Cameron then produced a brilliant comeback, saying that Balls was ‘the most annoying person in British politics’ and ‘I suspect that the leader of the opposition will come to agree with me.

If you want to get an MP going, just ask them what they think of IPSA — the new expenses watchdog. The body is hated: when Cameron joked at PMQs this week that it should be relocated to Croydon there was laughter across the House. IPSA is regarded as rude and inefficient. When Tory MPs were in a particularly grumpy mood before Christmas, David Cameron went to the ’22 and promised that IPSA would either have to mend its ways or be mended. Today’s revisions to the rules by IPSA (£) will go some way to addressing the concerns of MPs. The old rules only allowed children to be treated as dependants until the age of 5. Now, they can be treated as such until 18.

The House of Commons has just voted by 557 to 13 to support Britain’s participation in the enforcement of UN Security Council Resolution 1973. This came at the end of six and a half hours of respectful debate rounded off by a speech from the Foreign Secretary that reminded us why he was for so long regarded as the best parliamentary performer on either side of the House. Hague offered an assurance that if the mission changes, the government will return to the House. This was widely understood to mean that no ground troops would be committed without the support of the House. He also confirmed that the costs of the operation would be met from the reserve. Having watched much of the debate, I would say that the mood of the House was not quite as the vote suggests.

PoliticsHome reports that the government is to ask the ECHR to reconsider its verdict in the prisoner voting rights case. The website says: ‘In a response to a parliamentary question from Labour MP Gordon Marsden, Cabinet Office Under-Secretary Mark Harper said: "We believe that the court should look again at the principles in "Hirst" which outlaws a blanket ban on prisoners voting, particularly given the recent debate in the House of Commons."’ This is unsurprising. Last month, the government asked its lawyers to advise on the ramifications of noncompliance. The lawyers were unequivocal: the repercussions of such defiance was diplomatically impossible and extremely expensive.

Enough is enough. The British Bill of Rights is set to return: a consequence of the government’s running battle with parliament over the European Convention on Human Rights. Recent days have been filled with clues and suggestions of imminent reform: Dominic Grieve, a former advocate of the ECHR, went so far as to assert that Britain may leave the convention. Cameron let slip the news that a Bill Of Rights commission is to be convened at PMQs; at the time he was answering a question about the Supreme Court’s controversial sex offenders’ register decision. There are no details as to what the commission will consider, but Theresa May aired the guiding philosophy during her statement on the sex offenders’ register.