Half a century ago I had to summon up courage to reach up to the top shelf for a copy of Health & Efficiency, then endure the disapproving glare of the newsagent as he placed it into a brown paper bag. Now -apparently- porn can just pop up on your mobile phone spontaneously.
How excruciatingly dreadful it must have been to be Neil Parish at the centre of the media frenzy, with even colleagues demanding instant execution. Imagine the humiliation and embarrassment of attempting to explain it to your wife, or your mother.
There are people, including children, who are addicted to online pornography. I recall an excellent and hilarious play about the condition, but it is no joke. My former colleague Claire Perry campaigned tirelessly against it and I remember being summoned to a meeting at Poulner Baptist Church to be cross-examined about what we were going to do about it. Not much yet, is the answer to that one, although we expect the Online Harms Bill to be in the Queens Speech on 10th May (though there are many legitimate reservations about the bill).
We can sometimes be understanding of addictive behaviour such as gambling or alcoholism.
Watching Porn in the Commons reveals a lamentable want of judgement. Perhaps some of the coverage has revealed a want of charity too.
It’s Time to give Rwanda our best shot
This year, with estimates ranging from 60,000 to 80,000 for the number of people who will arrive on our shores in small boats, it is clear that we need policies that both reduce incentives and act as a deterrents.
First, incentives – why do so many people fleeing the war zones and economic basket cases travel all the way across continents to get to Britain?
From some constituents I still hear the prejudiced nonsense that they come to take advantage of easy access to our state benefits system. Actually, the benefits available in some other European jurisdictions that they pass through are significantly more generous. On the contrary, they choose to come to Britain because it is here that it is so much easier to find work.
Notwithstanding record numbers of vacancies, we forbid asylum applicants from working. Instead, we pay them modest allowances insisting that they remain idle. Many of my parliamentary colleagues believe that this is absurd and that we should allow them to work in all those enterprises keen to employ them.
In my estimate this would be a mistake: it would increase the very incentive to travel all the way to Britain eschewing the opportunities to settle elsewhere along the route.
What we need to address is the ease with which illegal work can be had here.
Second, deterrence: If you make it to Britain, even if your application for asylum is rejected, there is little prospect of you being deported, So, If we are to reduce the numbers arriving across the Channel we need the deterrent effect of that danger and expense ending up with the probability of deportation elsewhere. Some of the measures in the Borders Bill currently going through Parliament (if we can get them through the House of Lords) will address aspects of this by doing away with endless appeals and other abuses.
The plan to deliver arrivals to Rwanda however, has the potential to completely undermine the people-smuggler’s market: why risk thousands of pounds only to end up in Rwanda?
I do not underestimate the difficulties of implementing this plan. I drew attention to those problems in this column on 19th November 2021 Channel Crossings 2 (desmondswaynemp.com)
It will be expensive, controversial and beset with snags that we will need to overcome (and I drew attention to one of them in the Commons this week), but it might just work, as it has done for Australia.
Those who describe it as scandalous and contrary to God’s law need to come up with an alternative to the current scandal of the squalid camps around Calais, vulnerable people being fleeced by gangsters, and the dangers of the Channel. So far, all they have offered us is the hope of better co-operation with the French authorities – ignoring the fact we’ve already been paying them handsomely. And ‘opening up more safe routes to UK’. The naivete of this suggestion is breath-taking: those that fail to secure an official safe route, will carry on anyway with the traffickers.
I know Rwanda very well. It’s time to give it our best shot.
Fixed Penalty Notices
When I voted to make Boris leader of my party it was to win an election and ‘get Brexit done’; in that respect he has delivered. When I made my decision to support him I did so in the full knowledge that he came with a cupboard full of skeletons. Life and politics are about choices and priorities.
When ‘partygate’ first broke, I responded to emails by observing that those who ‘have broken the law deserve to face the full force of the law’. Well, if the full force of the law is £100 fine, then so be it.
It is true that we require MPs to quit when guilty of serious crimes for which imprisonment is the penalty, but not for a fixed penalty notice. In the end, it comes down to how seriously you consider the PM’s breach to be.
I am not persuaded that my expectations should be altered by the fact that the rules that the PM breached, were his very own rules. Though, more fool him for having made them.
I opposed those rules. I thought the Government had no place to make them. By the month, as more evidence emerges of the damage that those ruled have done, I am reassured that my stance was the right one.
I spent the first few weeks of lockdown explaining the distinction between guidance and regulation to constituents in order to reassure them that they were entitled to do things that they often thought they were forbidden to do. This was particularly the case for many sole traders who feared that they were no longer entitled to carry on their businesses. There was a clear distinction between a dwelling and a workplace.
In this column on 12th February Another party…and a riot ? (desmondswaynemp.com) I acknowledged that when the PM told the Commons rules were not broken and that there were no parties at number 10, a shudder went down my spine. As I said then, not because I didn’t believe him to be telling the truth, I did believe him and still do, but because I had no doubt that his honest belief of what amounted to a ‘work event’ would be considered to be a party by a great many people. Now the Police have reached that judgement too.
I wasn’t there. I haven’t seen the evidence, but I have my doubts.
(What was clearly a party, and a disgraceful and egregious breach if the accounts are true, was the gathering on the eve of Prince Phillip’s funeral, but on that occasion the PM was in Buckinghamshire.)
The deaths of so many people from Covid-19 were made so much worse by the inhumanity of regulations that prevented friends and relatives comforting the dying and comforting one another at funerals and wakes. My heart goes out to those who have written to me to express their anguish and anger about the way their loved ones died. That anger is justified by the want of judgement at No.10. I accept that, as has the Prime Minister.
My focus remains the much greater folly of what I still consider the disproportionate regulations themselves. I am entitled to blame the PM for them, but I must acknowledge that his Government’s efforts first to relax and then to revoke the regulations, were opposed by the opposition parties now demanding the PM’s head, but they wanted even stricter and prolonged restrictions.
Can a Woman have a Penis?
A Constituent emailed me to ask if I believed that a woman could have a penis.
Clearly, she wasn’t contacting me for an insight into my biological understanding and expertise. Rather, she was seeking to identify where I stood on the question of ‘trans rights’ which has produced so much confusion and obfuscation from front-line politicians when that question has been put to them recently.
I am relieved that the Prime Minister has now brought some robust common sense to the matter.
There is nothing new about transgender issues. It is as old as human experience. As for it becoming a matter of public discussion and interest, I remember reading Jan Morris’s book Conundrum about her own experience, when it was first published way back in 1974.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with people, who are uncomfortable with their biological sex, identifying as the opposite gender. It does me no harm to me and it isn’t my business to enquire after the personal choices of others: live and let live.
There is a proper distinction to be drawn however, when it comes to a man who identifies a woman, yet retains his male genitals, being admitted to exclusive female facilities such as changing rooms, toilets, hospital wards, and even prisons. I find it difficult to comprehend that some people even question this, let alone mercilessly persecute female academics and authors who have sought to protect these exclusive biologically female spaces.
Now let’s come to the question of ‘conversion therapies’: There is little disagreement that the more cruel and brutal parts of conversion therapy should be banned, indeed current legislation already outlaws the more egregious aspects. There are important interventions however, that need to be thoroughly explored and which must not be caught by the ‘chilling effect’ of ill-defined and poorly thought through legislation. It is crucial that teenagers with gender dysphoria receive support from medical and psychological professionals before they take irrevocable decisions about a transition, which they might later regret. This is not attempted conversion, but merely investigating the causes of gender dysphoria, which can be numerous and complex.
There are particular concerns about the exposure of children to radically progressive ideas concerning sex and gender. We must avoid heading down a road where a generation of young people are taught to think that it is normal to transition to a different gender before becoming an adult.
Finally, Women have been fighting for decades for their sport to achieve the same status and prize money as men, yet we now find ourselves in a situation where biological males can announce themselves to be female and proceed to blow their biologically female opponents out of the water. This is ridiculous. Biological men should compete with biological men and biological women with biological women. A compromise might be to create transgender events where those who have transitioned are able to compete against each other on a level playing field, rather than denying those who have been training for an event their whole lives a fair shot at glory.
Energy Bills
I have received a large number of emails about the rise in energy bills.
Some have asked for a windfall tax on the oil companies to generate revenue that can then be used to reduce consumer bills. I addressed what I consider to be the folly of a windfall tax in this column last week.
The Chancellor announced a £9 billion package in February to provide some relief through council tax rebates and a scheme for spreading costs over the next two years. This will help but it represents only a fraction of the increased bills that we all face.
Energy prices are determined by supply and demand in international markets and are beyond the control of any government. Growth in international demand relative to the supplies available was already driving prices up as economies recovered from the Covid pandemic. The impact of war in Ukraine and the sanctions that we imposed on Russia sent the prices of oil and gas through the roof. As I said in the Commons, when we impose sanctions on Russia, we are also imposing them on ourselves. The only consolation is the privations that we will endure are as nothing, compared to the suffering of the people of Ukraine.There are a number of sources of assistance for people worried about their energy bills or falling into debt. Smart Energy GB has worked with the fuel poverty charity National Energy Action to provide simple and helpful advice which can be found on their websites. Many other organisations also provide advice and support, such as Age UK and the British Gas Energy Trust.
People who prepay for their energy might benefit from upgrading to a smart prepayment meter which provide new ways to top up online, over the phone, by text, or by smart phone apps. The accurate and near real-time data allows energy suppliers support prepay customers more easily, by offering tailored support assistance as emergency payment applied directly to the meter, or advice on managing energy costs.
In the end there is no way of getting over the fact that we have to pay for the energy that we use to heat our homes, and we need to reconcile ourselves to using less of it.When I was a child we didn’t have central heating and we’d often be fascinated on a cold morning by the frosty patterns on the inside of the window panes. My grandparents didn’t have a fridge because they didn’t need one, there was a room that was easily kept cold enough. We all wore warmer clothes.
These days may come again
Flexible working email campaign
Legally, at present, all employees with 26 weeks’ continuous service with their employer have the right to request flexible working.
The Government is working to strengthen day one employment rights and increase the productivity of businesses. Under plans to modernise the way we work, employees will have the right to request flexible working from day one. Delivering on a commitment set out in the Government’s 2019 manifesto, around 2.2 million more people will be given the right to request flexible working.
The proposals, which were open to consultation up to December 2021, considered whether the current limit of one flexible working application per year continues to represent the best balance between individual and business needs. The consultation also looked at cutting the current three-month period an employer has to consider any request.
If an employer cannot accommodate a request, as may be the case, they would need to think about what alternatives they could offer. For example, if they couldn’t change their employee’s hours on all working days, they could consider making the change for certain days instead.
Research has shown companies that embrace flexible working can attract more talent, improve staff motivation and reduce staff turnover. In addition, flexible working can boost a business’ productivity and competitiveness.
However, there are some circumstances where businesses will not be able to offer flexible working and therefore there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. An employer should still be able to reject a request if they have sound business reasons. Therefore, is important that government does not prescribe specific arrangements in legislation. Instead, the new plans would provide a strengthened legislative framework that seeks to encourage conversations around flexible working to be more two-sided, balancing the needs of employee and employer. It also shifts the focus to what may be possible, rather than what is not.
DS
Free NHS staff parking email campaign
The Government provided funding for free parking in hospital car parks for NHS staff during the pandemic. This temporary measure gave much needed assistance during such a difficult time, but in light of the wider changes to the Government’s Covid-19 response, this has come to an end. However, over 94 per cent of NHS Trusts that charge for car parking have implemented free parking for those in greatest need, including NHS staff working overnight.
DS
Lack of online gambling regulation email campaign
Gambling is for many people an enjoyable pastime, but equally for some it can become a serious problem. While we all want a healthy gambling industry that makes an important contribution to the economy, we must also do everything we can to protect those that use it from harm.
Operators providing gambling facilities to customers in Great Britain must be licensed by the Gambling Commission and comply with the conditions of their operating licences. In recent years, the Gambling Commission has also introduced a number of licence conditions specifically in relation to online gambling to ensure the protection of children and vulnerable people. In 2019, the Gambling Commission introduced new age and identity verification rules to ensure operators verify customers’ age and identity details quickly and robustly. Furthermore, in 2020, the Government and Commission strengthened these protections further, including a ban on credit card gambling, making participation in the self-exclusion scheme GAMSTOP mandatory for online operators, as well as issuing new guidance for operators to address the potential for some customers to be at heightened risk during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Gambling Commission is looking at the role technology and data can play in preventing harm from arising and it will soon publish its enhanced requirements for customer interaction, thereby making sure gambling operators are doing proper checks, and the Government is looking at this in their review too.
DS.
Water fluoridisation postcard campaign
The following is from a speech I made in the House of Commons in 1999 on the topic of water fluoridisation:
The existing state of the law governing the addition of fluoride to the water supply is most unsatisfactory. The water industry resents the discretion—and, therefore, the responsibility—that is placed upon it. Those who oppose the addition of fluoride to water resent very much the power and influence that is placed in the hands of health authorities and water companies. For my part, I share the natural suspicion of any free man with respect to the presumption of health professionals to decide what is good for me and whether or not I should consume it. Are we horses to be led to water and forced to drink?
I am happy to take advice, from any informed source, about what may be good for me with respect to medicine or diet, but I reject utterly the notion that the decision about whether to consume should rest in any other mind than my own. However, it is not that philosophical question upon which I wish to dwell this evening.
My initiation of the debate results from the persistent lobbying of my constituent, Dr. Anthony Dunstan Fox, who practises in Barton-on-Sea. He has drawn my attention to the fact that fluoride compounds are a poison, so much so that I am persuaded that we should be taking considerable steps to remove fluoride compounds from our environment, not providing yet another source of them.
The state of the debate in this country is rather quaint. The Government pride themselves on their modernisations, so it is odd that we still appear to be addressing in this debate the preoccupations, fads and fashions of the 1960s and the 1970s. In the United States, for example, localities and cities are discontinuing their former policy of adding fluoride to the water. In Europe, that trend is equally apparent. Indeed, Germany—which is so much the model for the Government’s modernisations—has abandoned the policy of adding fluoride to the water.
That trend is a consequence of a growing consensus—a growing body of evidence—that fluoride compounds are a poison. In the United States, the Food and Drugs Administration has required since June 1997 the makers of any toothpaste product containing fluoride compounds to publish a health warning on the packaging. Consumers who ingest the product are advised to seek the advice of a poison control centre. The National Treasury Employees Union, which represents the Government’s most prominent scientists, toxicologists and lawyers, has voted unanimously to oppose any fluoridation of the water.
There is a growing volume of evidence of the poisonous consequences of fluoride compounds. In this brief debate, I cannot possibly do any justice to that evidence, nor am I qualified to do so, but I draw the attention of the House to the work of Dr. Phyllis Mollenix, the toxicologist at the Boston children’s hospital in Massachusetts. Her work attempts to define a causal relationship between the presence of fluoride products and changes in brain activity that may give rise to hyperactivity and learning difficulties. Hon. Members may be aware of the work of Professor Shusheela, who has tried to find a causal relationship between the presence of fluoride compounds in very small quantities and irritable bowel syndrome, anaemia, bone weaknesses, dental and skeletal fluorosis, genetic damage, still-birth and miscarriage.
However, the medical establishment in this country is still wedded to the notion that fluoride compounds are good for us and should be put into the water supply. It is either unwilling or incapable of addressing the growing volume of evidence. That may be due to intellectual laziness, but if it is, it is strange that it is wedded to a campaigning zeal. Its unwillingness to consider the evidence goes back a long way. As far back as 1970, the British Dental Journal contained an article which stated:
“Perhaps the greatest deterrent to meaningful political engagement of dentists in the promotion of water fluoridation is the mistaken but widespread assumption that to do so they must have full and complete knowledge of the detailed and voluminous scientific literature on the relationship of water fluoridation to dental and general health. They do not … as soon as dentists recognise their responsibility in the politics of fluoridation, their performance will be outstanding…the emphasis is on propagandising rather than education.”
I doubt that any of the Government’s spin doctors could have put the point better. Indeed, it is an opinion of which Dr. Goebbels would have been proud.
All I can say about my party’s position on fluoridation is that it was inherited from the previous Administration. My party believes that there are benefits from fluoridation—a view I regard as curious—but the decision to add fluoride compounds to the water should be taken locally. I believe that it should be taken at a very local level—by the consumer. Whether any meaningful locality could be defined for the purposes of a water supply is problematical.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) for opening up the debate on this subject. He has asked the medical establishment—the British Medical Association in particular—to produce new evidence to prove that fluoride compounds are good for our dental and general health, and that they are not bad for us. I welcome his initiative but, when surfing the internet, I noted that the website of the pro-fluoridation lobby names him as one of its supporters. As I understand it, that is not his position, and I urge him to correct that.
The medical establishment clings to the tenuous belief that fluoride compounds are good for our dental and general health, despite the fact that the evidence is pretty thin. If fluoride compounds attack the bacteria that would otherwise decay our teeth, it is probably because they attack all living organisms, including us. I cannot imagine why any mammal would ingest fluoride compounds. They are pollutants and are increasingly evident in our environment largely as a result of industrial and agro-chemical processes, such as fertilisers. We should make strenuous efforts to remove those compounds from our environment rather than add another source. If we add fluoride to our water, it will be in our milk; it will be in our cereals; it will be in our vegetables; it will be in our soup; it will be in our tea; it will be in our beer.
It would be legitimate for the advocates of fluoride compounds to ask, “Where are the casualties? Where are the sick children, and the sick elderly people, who must be consequences of the fact that fluoride compounds are added to 10 per cent. of our water supply?” I would answer that question with another question: “What resources has the Minister’s Department—have we—put into identifying the victims? What new studies have we initiated to update ourselves about evidence of the damage that is being done by fluoride compounds?”
In that context, let me draw attention to the findings of Dr. Schatz. Dr. Schatz is no ordinary physician: he discovered streptomycin. In 1993, Dr. Schatz said that artificial fluoridation
“may well dwarf the thalidomide tragedy, which was dramatic because it produced crippled children who are living testimonials to what that drug has done. Many victims of artificial fluoridation, on the other hand, die quietly during the first year of their lives, or at a later age under conditions where their deaths are attributed to some other cause.”
I urge any water authority and any water company seeking to acquiesce to a health authority’s suggestion that fluoride should be added to water to bear those words in mind. I urge the Minister to consider them before introducing any measure that would ensure that my constituents and their children had to drink water to which fluoride compounds had been added.
DS.
Social Care Cap email campaign
Thanks. The Government’s plan for adult social care will protect individuals and families from unpredictable and potentially catastrophic care costs.
From October 2023, no eligible person starting adult social care will have to pay more than £86,000 for personal care over their lifetime. The reformed means test, which is the best way to help make care affordable, will increase the threshold above which people must meet the full cost of their care to £100,000. This is more than four times the current limit of £23,250, and the number of people receiving state support in the social care system will increase from around half to two thirds.
In designing these reforms, the priority has been the creating a more generous means-testing system, which benefits those with low to moderate wealth. The new social care reforms are clear, fair and reduce complexity. Only the amount that an individual contributes towards their personal care will count towards the cap, and a much more generous means test will better support those with lower levels of assets. Fewer people will be unable to pay for social care without selling their home under the reforms to the social care charging system compared to the existing system. These reforms will complement the existing system which ensures that nobody will have to sell their home to pay for their care in their lifetime. People are able to take out a Deferred Payment Agreement so that payments can be deducted from their estate after they die. And if someone or their spouse lives in their home, they will not be forced to sell it to pay for care.
DS.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- …
- 48
- Next Page »