Why cancel PMQs (update)

Yesterday I blogged that:

"The death of a child is a tragedy for the family concerned but we are talking about the government of the country and holding the government to account. The Diana-effect has taken too much of a hold on the UK, In a time of economic crisis, you shouldn't stop the normal political affairs of the whole country because one involved individual has suffered a tragedy. What next, a national day of mourning when Jade Goody dies?"

Today I see that Matthew Parris agrees:

"I did not care for the House of Commons's impromptu memorial ceremony yesterday, which may now become a precedent for whenever a party leader suffers a close personal loss. The House is there to look outward to the nation as a whole, not inward. Parliament marks the deaths in action of British servicemen in Afghanistan with a simple one-line acknowledgement, and should do no more for sadnesses closer to home. I know many Members who have faced awful tragedies in their families and who have not asked (as I'm sure David Cameron did not ask) for this to be discussed in the Chamber. The case for full-blown statements from William Hague, the Prime Minister, Vince Cable and the Speaker was not evident to me; a single sentence from each would have been enough. And there was no case at all for suspending Prime Minister's Questions."