Flood of concern

Parliament ‘airbrushes’ vote

THE YORKSHIRE Post accepts for now – and in good faith – the explanation offered by the House of Commons after a tweet was mysteriously deleted about this week’s debate, and vote, on the Government’s response to the floods.

In fairness, an official Commons spokeswoman confirmed to this newspaper that they, and no one else, took the decision because they had concluded that the post breached its impartiality standards.

The tweet suggested that MPs had voted 327 to 228 in this Opposition day debate not to thank the emergency services for their response. It also rejected calls for an independent inquiry.

But they say this was misleading because a Government motion, tabled by Environment Secretary George Eustice, was ultimately accepted which did praise rescuers and note “that further investment in flood defence infrastructure will be necessary in the years ahead”.

Yes, Commons procedure can be impenetrable – and it could be argued that Labour’s motion was a cynical one – but the absence of a prompt clarification until this paper’s intervention risked eroding trust still further when Parliament should be an exemplar for transparency, honesty and integrity.

And for officials to have suggested to this newspaper that an update was unnecessary because MPs had moved on to other business was, in fact, disturbing on two counts – it suggested, inadvertently or otherwise, that they were content to ‘airbrush’ history and that the plight of flooding victims was not a priority.

At least they responded and saw sense – albeit 48 hours late.