Sir Desmond Swayne TD

Sir Desmond Swayne TD

Twitter

Restoring Childhood

By

Below is a column I wrote for last week’s edition of the Forest Journal

I am thankful, that my childhood was ‘screen-free’ and ‘phone-free’ (though it was always worth trying every telephone box to press button B and see if tuppence was to be had).
Equally, I am thankful that my own children grew up before smartphones became available. Parents are now badgered by their children to get them one at an ever-younger ages. I understand that they are now by far the biggest strain of modern parenthood: trying to understand the technology, monitoring it, nagging, negotiating and fighting about it.
Of course they have their uses, not least the reassurance that you can maintain contact with your children and know where they are. Beyond that however, they open the door to far too many dangers.

The National Crime Agency has issued an unprecedented alert to schools, after cases of  “sextortion” increased eight-fold (this is blackmail where criminals, posing as teenagers, make contact with real children online).

Apart from enabling these approaches from sexual predators, smartphones expose children to inappropriate and extreme content: Seeing hardcore pornography, extreme violence, cyberbullying, self-harm and anorexia content are now all too commonplace occurrences for young people. 

Smartphones and the apps that they support are intentionally designed to be highly addictive. According to the regulator Ofcom  ‘many children are spending six and even eight hours a day on social media – sometimes even more’, instead of playing and interacting in the real world with friends. Little wonder then, that teachers say that children find it increasingly difficult to concentrate, that they are often anxious, and that so many are lacking in self-esteem.

Certainly, the Online safety Act is a good start with its very large fines for the media giants when they break the law.
Also, The Department for Education has published new guidance which backs head teachers in banning mobile phone use throughout the school day, including at break times, to tackle disruptive behaviour and online bullying.
The new guidance says that schools should prohibit the use of mobile phones, but they will have a free hand on how to do this. Schools will be supported to prohibit mobile phone use with examples of different approaches including banning phones from the school premises, handing in phones on arrival at school, and keeping phones securely locked away at school. 

Frankly, the smartphone has abolished normal childhood and polls say that 60% of parents want them banned for under-sixteens. The Government has now launched a consultation on this. I’m for going further and I would consider  banning access to social media until adulthood.

This isn’t cute, this is an animal welfare crisis Email Campaign

By

The UK has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world and it shares the highest ranking on the animal protection index and the highest in the G7. The Government takes the issue of low-welfare and illegal supply of animals very seriously. Significant steps have been taken to improve and update the laws in England to crack down on unscrupulous breeders who breed purely for financial greed at the expense of animal welfare.

Under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018, anyone in the business of breeding and selling dogs and/or who breeds three or more litters in a twelve-month period needs to have a valid licence from their local authority. Under these regulations, local authorities have powers to grant, refuse or revoke a licence. Licences must achieve and maintain statutory minimum animal welfare standards, linked to the welfare needs of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

Further, under these regulations, licensed breeders are prohibited from breeding dogs if it can be reasonably expected that on the basis of their genotype, phenotype or health, this would lead to welfare problems for the mother or the puppies. This applies in the case of brachycephalic breeds. Both licensed and unlicensed animal breeders are required under the Animal Welfare Act to protect the animals involved in breeding from harm and to provide for their welfare in line with good practice. A breach of these provisions may lead to imprisonment, a fine, or both.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has been reviewing the 2018 Regulations. Defra also meets regularly with numerous animal welfare organisations and is kept abreast of concerns relating to brachycephalic animals.

Finally, Defra’s campaign Petfished raises awareness of issues associated with low-welfare and illegal supply of pets. The campaign provides a list of red flags for buyers to look out for when searching for a pet online. More information can be found here: https://getyourpetsafely.campaign.gov.uk/

DS

Attainder – a solution to Horizon ?

By

On Monday we passed second reading of the Government’s Bill to quash all the convictions of the victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal.
The purists, especially among legal minds, ‘tut tut’ about the constitutional enormity of Parliament intruding into the proper business of the courts. They fancy that we, like the USA, have a ‘separation of powers’ between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. They are mistaken. Notwithstanding, the recent innovation of our pretended Supreme Court, the reality is that Parliament remains supreme as it always has.
We have no separation of powers: executive, judiciary, and legislators are all mixed up together in Parliament. The High Court of Parliament remains our real supreme court.

So, we are going to quash the convictions of the wronged sub-postmasters. Once we’ve compensated them, there will remain another important item of business: the prosecution of those who wilfully concealed the truth. This may present all sorts of difficulties and delays.
Here’s a thought. Given, that we’ve used Parliament to quash convictions, why don’t we use it to make some?
It wouldn’t be without precedent, indeed, in the sweep of parliamentary history we passed many such acts of attainder. There appear to be worthy candidates for this legislation, given the number of witnesses who have told the public inquiry that they have forgotten anything they ever knew about Horizon.

Well, I suspect that even the wronged postmasters would baulk at the prospect of politicians deciding who goes to jug. They’d be right: nobody would be safe.

Electing Party Leaders

By

Sir Graham Brady gave a candid talk at Durham University, which was swiftly leaked and filled several column inches in the Sunday papers. He expressed his view that he did not believe that wider party membership should have a role in the choice of party leader. As chairman of the Conservative 1922 Committee – the principal ‘man in a grey suit’ , his voice carries weight.
I agree with him. I was opposed to the reform  from the moment when William Hague introduced it.

Inevitably MPs will be familiar with the candidates in a way that ordinary party members cannot possibly match. MPs will have seen them perform and they will know their strengths and weaknesses.
A parliamentary ballot can be organised in hours, but involving the party membership adds weeks. Hustings and debates have to be organised in addition to the logistics of the postal ballot itself. This delay may paralyse effective government at a time when events demand swift and focussed leadership, which is exactly what happened in England in the Summer of 2022, and is now likely to follow in Scotland.

Political parties in Parliament need to have confidence in their leadership if they are to function effectively in either government or opposition. The final choice of leader by a wider party membership however, raises the possibility of a leadership choice that a parliamentary party decidedly didn’t want.
This is precisely what befell the Parliamentary Labour Party after Ed Miliband’s resignation in 2015.
Labour MPs voted very decisively against Jeremy Corbyn but their wider party membership chose him anyway, with all the unhappy consequences for them that followed.
 And for the Tories, Rishi led in every round of voting and ended with 137 votes in the fifth and final ballot, beating Liz Truss with 113 votes. The membership overturned that result, and the rest is history



Please Don’t Abolish FHL Allowances Email Campaign

By

Holiday lets contribute to the economy, create jobs, and support tourism.  The Government backs small businesses, including responsible short-term holiday letting, which brings significant investment to local communities. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge the impact that large numbers of holiday lets concentrated in an area can have on local communities.

The Government will abolish the Furnished Holiday Lettings tax regime. Importantly this will eliminate the tax advantage for landlords who let short-term furnished holiday properties over those who let residential properties to longer-term tenants. This does not stop people conducting short term lets, but rather ensures that the system is equal for those letting long term or short term. This will level the playing field between short-term and long-term lets and support people to live in their local area.

DS

 

MAiD (again)

By

On Monday, in response to a public petition, the Commons will debate ‘Assisted Dying’ once again.
We won’t vote on it -which will frustrate those who have written to me demanding a vote-, but we’ll talk about it. Hopefully, we’ll think carefully about it beforehand, during, and after the debate too.

By co-incidence, Dr Trudo Lemmens, Professor of Health Law and Policy at the University of Toronto, visited Westminster last week.  The Professor, who enthusiastically supported the introduction of MaiD (Medical Assistance in Dying)  in Canada, shared with MPs his concerns and misgivings about the way that the law quickly evolved, post implementation.

Canada’s 2021 MAiD law has a two-track system: Track One, for those approaching a reasonably foreseeable death, and Track Two for those who are not. Patients in group One require no waiting period and the procedure, once approved, will be carried out even if they subsequently lose mental capacity.  Those in the Track Two group however, require a 90-day assessment alongside an assessor with expertise in the applicant’s medical condition.  

Professor Lemmens told us that Canadian policy prioritises ‘access to death over protection against it’. It is now an obligation in Canada for clinicians to offer MAiD to all who qualify, including most disabled people who, by the very nature of their disability, qualify under Track Two.
(I had heard this previously from a Canadian practitioner who described how a disabled patient was told that the budget would not extend to adapting his dwelling to further accommodate the development of his disability, nevertheless, the Track Two process to medical assisted death was available instead!)
The Professor stated his concern that disabled persons and the elderly are often ignored, or are addressed by measures which will always be incomplete, more expensive, or easily de-prioritised in times of cost constraints.
 He told us that standards of medical care are no longer upheld so that death is prioritised over ensuring the ‘most basic professional standards of care’.
He said that many of those on Track Two engineer their health circumstances to move to Track One in order to bypass a waiting period and the thoroughly safeguarded assessment. And that this process is not solely driven by the MAiD applicants themselves, rather it is actively endorsed by the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers, who provide recommendations on how to transfer a patient eligible under Track two to Track One

He Concluded that death is now regarded as a legitimate therapy for suffering, regardless of other available therapy options or the actual source of the suffering. And that this has had effect of shifting MAiD from being a tool to avoid ‘suffering in death’, to now one of avoiding ‘suffering in life’.

I’m Glad we’ll only be debating on Monday and not voting. We need time to thoroughly think through the implications of what is being contemplated

 

See also:
Death in Oregon (desmondswaynemp.com)

 Esther Rantzen (desmondswaynemp.com)

Assisting Suicide (desmondswaynemp.com)

MAID (desmondswaynemp.com)

Assisted Dying -Again (desmondswaynemp.com)

Animal Testing and Bearskins Email Campaign

By

The UK’s rigorous regulatory system ensures that no animal testing or research takes place if a non-animal alternative exists that would achieve the scientific outcomes sought. The National Centre for the 3Rs (NC3Rs) is the UK’s leading scientific based organisation dedicated to replacing, refining, and reducing the use of animals in scientific research and testing. The NC3Rs supports the research community to use the latest science and technology to replace animal studies, providing new approaches for biomedical research, and avoiding the time and cost associated with animal models.

Without animal testing it is highly likely that a large number of potentially dangerous new medicines would be tested in healthy volunteers and patients in clinical trials. This would be completely unacceptable. That said, the Government’s commitment to the development of non-animal technologies is positive. Such technologies have the potential to reduce the reliance on the use of animals, improve the efficiency of drug research and development, and deliver safer, cheaper, and more effective medicines to patients. Ministers have also stressed that they continue to actively support and fund the development and dissemination of techniques that replace, reduce, and refine the use of animals in research.

With regard to your concerns about the wearing of bearskin caps Guardsmen take great pride in wearing the bearskin cap, which is an iconic image of Britain, and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) is very sparing in the acquisitions that it makes. Individual soldiers do not possess their own hats, rather they are cared for and shared within the Household Division and, despite their constant use, every effort is made to carefully prolong the longevity of each ceremonial cap. On account of this, they usually last for more than a decade, with some having been in use for as long as 60 years.

The MOD would like to find an alternative material to bearskin should one prove acceptable. This is a commitment the MOD takes very seriously. The MOD have not to date seen evidence that a suitable faux fur product exists to be considered as an alternative. Until that material is sourced and proven, the UK goes to great lengths to ensure that the pelts that make the King’s Guards caps are procured in the most responsible way possible.

Bears are never hunted to order for the MOD. Bear pelts used for the King’s Guards’ ceremonial caps are sourced exclusively from Canada precisely because it is a regulated market and a declared party to the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora.

DS

EU Youth Mobility Scheme Email Campaign

By

Young people in Britain already have opportunities to live, work and study abroad through existing Youth Mobility Schemes. Agreements are in place with 13 countries including Australia, Canada, Japan and South Korea, and new schemes with Andorra and Uruguay took effect in January 2024.

The Government remains open to negotiating new arrangements with other countries and territories, including EU Member States.

However, the Government has no plans to introduce an EU-wide youth mobility scheme. The British public voted to leave the EU in 2016. Free movement within the EU therefore ended and there are no plans to re-introduce it. It is right that the Government is open to agreeing schemes with individual EU countries, where it’s in the UK’s interest and supports the skills and opportunities of British young people.

DS

Fur Trade Email Campaign

By

The Government is committed to upholding our high standards in animal welfare. The Government’s Action Plan for Animal Welfare sets out Ministers’ vision to introduce a range of world-leading reforms to improve the welfare and conservation of animals at home and abroad.

The Government is aware that there is considerable support for banning all imports of fur products.  Fur farming has been banned in the UK for 20 years and legislation prohibits the keeping and breeding of animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur. There are also strict restrictions on some skin and fur products that may never be legally imported into the UK. Those include fur and fur products from cats and dogs, whose import, export and placing on the market is prohibited. 

While fur cannot be farmed in the UK, it is still possible to import and sell other types of fur from abroad. In 2021, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) published a call for evidence on the fur trade in Great Britain, which asked for views on animal welfare and on the social and economic impacts associated with the trade. Around 30,000 responses were received from businesses, representative bodies and individuals, demonstrating the strong public interest in this area.

Officials from Defra have been analysing the responses received and have also engaged directly with stakeholders. Defra continues to build its evidence base on the fur sector, which will be used to inform any future action on the fur trade.

Finally, the Animal Welfare Committee has been considering the issue of responsible sourcing in the fur industry, including the animal welfare standards and safeguards that apply to fur imported into this country. 

DS

Support a historic Global Plastics Treaty Email Campaign

By

The Resources and Waste Strategy for England sets out the Government’s plans to reduce, reuse, and recycle more plastic and Ministers have committed to work towards all plastic packaging on the market being recyclable or reusable by 2025.

Significant progress has already been made to address plastic pollution, including a ban on microbeads and restricting the supply of plastic straws, plastic drink stirrers, and plastic-stemmed cotton buds. The use of single-use carrier bags in supermarkets has reduced by over 98 per cent.

Further, restrictions on a range of single-use plastics, including plastic plates, trays, bowls, cutlery, balloon sticks and certain types of polystyrene cups and food containers have now come into force. England uses 2.7 billion items of single-use cutlery and over 700 million single-use plates per year, but only 10 per cent are recycled. This new ban is the next step in cracking down on harmful plastic waste.

Through the Environment Act 2021, the Government has set a target is to halve residual waste by 2042. This refers to waste that is sent to landfill, put through incineration, or used in energy recovery in the UK or overseas. This is an intentionally broad target, which will include the most environmentally harmful materials like plastics, rather than banning a single type of material and risk producers moving to a different, more harmful material. 

DS