I voted against the regulations that deprived of us of so much of our liberty during the various iterations of lock-down over the last couple of years.
I also spent a significant amount of time explaining the regulations to constituents, advising them and answering their questions about what they were permitted to do. This was particularly the case for so many self-employed constituents who were unclear as to whether they could continue working. The principal difficulty was confusion between what was regulation and what was only guidance. This even confused police officers, with people being told to stop doing things which, in fact, they were entitled to do.
I rather think that Sue Gray’s inquiry into parties in Downing Street will focus on this distinction between regulation and guidance and, in particular, the fact that Number 10 is a place of work and not a dwelling, where the rules were quite different.
If this does indeed turn out to be the Monopoly “get out of jail free card”, I fear it just won’t wash because the distinction between regulation and guidance was never clear in the minds of the public in the first place.
As far as they are concerned it looks like one rule for us and another for everyone else.
A significant danger for the PM, were he to be exonerated by Sue Gray’s inquiry, is that some new allegation then hits the headlines.
I have received a huge correspondence on this whole business, representing a number of different points of view. I’ve said I will reflect on all that constituents have said to me -and I will.
Bonkers
On Wednesday last week Mr Speaker granted an urgent question to My Colleague Miriam Cates MP on the Government’s COVID vaccination strategy, which includes the policy of sacking -starting in April- any unvaccinated NHS and domiciliary care staff.
The question was timely because, as another colleague, Dr Andrew Murrison MP put it, “when the facts change, we are entitled to change our minds”. The reality is that when Parliament passed the regulations in December which enforce the policy of sacking unvaccinated NHS and care workers (although I voted against the provisions), we didn’t then know what we now know: Which is that risk the unvaccinated pose to patients declines after a very short period and that we have the alternative of regular lateral flow testing, which will tell, whether healthcare professionals pose a threat to their patients.
The vaccination doesn’t stop you catching COVID or passing it on, what it does is reduce your risk of serious illness. So, the rationale for forcing it on NHS and care staff has gone.
The Government’s own analysis is that that 73,000 NHS staff and 38,000 domiciliary care workers will leave as a consequence of the policy of enforced vaccination.
We have no plan for how to replace them and there is already a critical shortage of domiciliary care workers, so much so that beds are unnecessarily occupied in hospitals because care providers have insufficient staff to care for them if they were allowed to go home.
The Government should seek to persuade NHS and domiciliary care workers to be vaccinated, not threaten to sack them. The current course of action is just bonkers.
Alas, we made no progress in persuading ministers last week, there is still time, but it is fast running out
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill email campaign
The UK has consistently led the way on animal welfare. It was one of the key EU members that lobbied for the recognition of animal sentience in Article 13 of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 and, in addition, recognised in law that animals can feel pain and suffering through the Animal Welfare Act.
Now that the UK has left the EU, we have the opportunity to go further to promote animal welfare by making sure that all Government departments consider animal sentience in policy, covering all vertebrate animals from farm to forest. The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, which is making its way through Parliament, enshrines the recognition that animals are sentient in domestic law. It also creates a proportionate accountability mechanism to help reassure that central government policymaking takes this into account.
The Bill will create an Animal Sentience Committee with experts which will produce reports on how well policy decisions have paid all due regard to the welfare of animals. The relevant minister must then respond to reports via statements to Parliament. From now on, ministers will need to be ready to show that the needs of animals have been considered in relevant policy decisions.
These reforms will also underpin the Government’s Action Plan for Animal Welfare, which contains upwards of forty valuable reforms. The Government is committed to maintaining the very highest standards of animal welfare and this piece of legislation will contribute to that goal.
DS.
Elections Bill email campaign
The aim of the Elections Bill is to ensure that our electoral system remains secure, fair and transparent. In order to ensure that legitimate categories of third party that may emerge in the future are not unduly restricted in their ability to campaign, Clause 23 proposes that the Government be able to amend the list of legal entities eligible to register as campaigners under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Any such change would be subject to Parliament scrutiny in the usual way and there would be no unilateral change by the Government.
In any election, there needs to be spending limits on candidates, on political parties and on third-party campaigners to ensure a level playing field. That is why additional provisions will be introduced on campaign expenditure which would require third party campaigns to give notice to the Electoral Commission at a lower level of expenditure than is currently required. Such third-party spending limits prevent undue influence by American-style ‘Super-PAC’ pressure groups.
Third parties would also be required to have a legitimate UK interest to campaign in UK elections. Campaign spending, which is part of a joint plan between a registered party and a third party or parties, would be counted as part of the spending limits of all parties involved. I believe campaign expenditure and joint campaigning should be transparently and fairly regulated.
With regard to proposals concerning the Electoral Commission, I believe it is the role of the police and the prosecution services to determine whether there has been a breach of criminal law, and whether such a breach should be prosecuted in a court of law. The Bill intends to clarify this status quo. This is not about interfering with the investigative, operational or enforcement decisions of the Electoral Commission. A strategy and policy statement will be introduced that will set out guidance and principles which the Commission will have to have regard to in the discharge of its functions. It is common for the Government to set a policy framework which independent regulators work toward, and the policy statement will be ratified by Parliament. The reforms would not affect the ability of the Commission to undertake enforcement action but it would ensure greater accountability to Parliament.
DS.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and the right to protest email campaign
In this country, we have a long-standing tradition that people can gather together and demonstrate, and the right to protest peacefully is a fundamental part of our democracy which I fully support.
In recent years I have been concerned by the extensive disruption that some protests have caused. Certain protesters, who have glued themselves to buildings, blocked bridges and obstructed access to buildings such as the Palace of Westminster and newspaper printing works, have highlighted some gaps in current legislation, which has not been updated since 1986. Recent events have shown us that existing public order legislation is no longer fit for managing the types of protest we experience today.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will strengthen police powers in England and Wales to tackle non-violent protests that have a significant disruptive effect. These powers will allow the police to safely manage protests where they threaten public order and stop people from getting on with their daily lives. The Government is taking proportionate action to ensure a crucial balance is struck between the fundamental right to peaceful protest and the rights of people to get on with their daily lives unimpeded.
The measures in the PCSC Bill are not about stopping or clamping down on right to protest but ensuring the police can better manage highly disruptive protests and maintain the balance I have outlined.
It is the case that when using these powers, or existing public order powers, the police must act within the law. Importantly, the police must be able to demonstrate that their use of powers are necessary and proportionate. It is also clear that the police must act compatibly with human rights, in particular Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of association).
Much has been said regarding the proposed public nuisance offence. Clause 59 gives effect to recommendations made by the Law Commission in their July 2015 Report on ‘Simplification of the Criminal Law: Public Nuisance and Outraging Public Decency’. The report stated that the common law offence of public nuisance should be replaced by a statutory offence covering any conduct which endangers the life, health, property or comfort of a section of the public or obstructs them in the exercise of their rights.
Importantly, the new statutory offence of public nuisance will cover the same conduct as the existing common law offence of public nuisance.
DS.
Paint Recycling email campaign
The Resources and Waste Strategy sets out the aim of leaving our environment in a better state than we inherited it and I welcome the Royal Society of Chemistry’s work on the issue of waste paint.
The new Waste Prevention Programme proposes action by Government and industry across seven key sectors – construction; textiles; furniture; electrical and electronics products; road vehicles; packaging, plastics and single-use items; and food – to minimise waste and work towards a more resource efficient economy. This includes steps to design and manufacture products for optimum life and repair and reuse more items. The draft Programme includes a chapter on ensuring we have well-functioning local systems and services to facilitate reuse, repair and remanufacture – for example, via the operation of Household Waste Recycling Centres to enable reuse, or piloting circular economy hubs.
Further, the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990 places a duty on Waste Collection Authorities (WCAs) to provide places, usually Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRC), where residents in their area can deposit their household waste.
The Waste and Resources Action Programme’s guidance for HWRCs, published in November 2018, states that, in order to promote responsible behaviour by local residents, local authorities should not charge residents for depositing waste from small scale DIY activities.
Voluntary action is also being taken by industry, alongside community initiatives, to reduce waste paint. Community RePaint schemes collect and redistribute paint, preventing it from going to waste. You can find out more about donating paint to Community RePaint schemes here: https://communityrepaint.org.uk/
Radiotherapy email campaign
As has been the case throughout the pandemic, the NHS will continue to maintain services wherever possible, particularly for urgent and cancer care. Patients are encouraged to contact their GP with concerns about their health, particularly for suspected cancer symptoms.
The Government is absolutely committed to supporting the NHS recovery from Covid-19, which will help to reduce waiting times for cancer treatment and care.
The NHS Long Term Plan (LTP), published during 2019, outlined a number of new measures for catching cancer early and providing treatment, with the aim that from 2028, 55,000 more people each year will survive their cancer for at least five years after diagnosis. One of the measures outlined in the plan is safer and more precise treatment, including advanced radiotherapy techniques and immunotherapies to continue to support improvements in survival rates. This will be supported by a £130 million upgrade of radiotherapy machines across England, including £32 million to replace 17 Linear Accelerators aged over 10 years by the end of March 2022, as well as commissioning the NHS new state-of-the-art Proton Beam facilities in London and Manchester.
DS.
Storm in a…tweet
In response to the Government’s ‘Plan B’ guidance, that pupils should wear face coverings whilst seated in class, someone anonymously sent me a surgical mask on which they had inscribed “putting germ/ bacteria ridden cloths over kids’ faces for 8+ hours is ABUSIVE’.
I photographed it and broadcast it on twitter with the caption ‘whoever sent me this anonymously, I agree with you’
Later in the day a journalist asked me to respond to the storm of protest over the tweet which has ‘upset so many people’. Well, as I’ve conceded in this column previously, I use twitter infrequently to broadcast only: I do not read any of the responses to my tweets. First because I’m sure they would drive me insane and second, because there are only so many hours in a day (the tweet in question having attracted 4,343 replies). So, having not read any of them, I was unaware of the ‘twitter storm’ until the journalist tracked me down. Perhaps he’d taken the trouble to read the comments which I hadn’t. The only measure that I had was that some 47 thousand readers had flagged the tweet indicating that they liked it, which seem a pretty good score to me.
On Wednesday I raised the classroom face covering requirement in the Commons with The Secretary of state for Education. I was surprised and delighted that a number of other colleagues did so too (I had previously got the impression that I was a lone voice). I was even more delighted that the Secretary of State responded by acknowledging that the requirement was indeed a dreadful imposition and he wouldn’t let it last a day longer than he believed was absolutely necessary.
In support of the measure however, he referred to a study that purported to show a 0.6% lower Covid-related absentee rate in Schools that had required face coverings last November, than in schools that hadn’t.
Actually, having now read the study myself, all I can say is that it is so heavily caveated as to be pretty worthless. I then heard Karl Heneghan, Professor of Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University, deconstruct it in a radio interview in which he concluded that, in fact it, showed that the very opposite: that schools with face coverings fared worse!
The report itself acknowledges that it is not peer-reviewed and that ‘there is a level of statistical uncertainty about the result’.
There have been reports in the papers that in some schools whole classes have simply refused to comply. As I have pointed out to many of the parents who have written to me to complain about the requirement, it isn’t actually a requirement at all: It is merely guidance not regulation. Even that guidance acknowledges that face coverings should not be worn where clear sound or facial expressions to communicate are relied upon– as a former teacher, I’d say that in class, that’s ALL OF THE TIME!
Parents and pupils should know that they are not compulsory, but that you may end up having a row with your school.
And now I’m utterly vindicated: the former Children’s Laureate, Julia Donaldson – the author of the Children’s best-seller The Gruffalo has called the requirement ‘dystopian’ , the very word I used to describe face covering from the outset.
We really must stop making children do things just to make adults feel safer.
Next, Boris himself referred to ‘mumbo-jumbo’ -remember where you heard it first: I’m on a roll.
Worth Repeating
I’ve said this before, but the volume recent correspondence makes it worth repeating: Constituents who disagree with me often insist that, as their elected representative it is my duty to represent their views rather than my own.
Of course, it would be a foolish politician, reliant on the support of voters, who took no account of their opinions. Nevertheless, I am not the personal ambassador or advocate for any my constituents.
Though I typically receive 200 emails per day, they are overwhelmingly for the same correspondents.
My responsibility is to all my constituents, the vast majority of whom have never expressed any opinion to me at all, save through the ballot box. It would be entirely wrong were I to know-tow to the opinions of those. who shout loudest or longest.
The chief duty that I owe to my constituents is the exercise of my judgement in the debates and decisions in Parliament.
Of course, I am influenced by arguments and experience that constituents bring to my attention, but when I differ, they often complain that I ignored them. I didn’t: I just disagreed with them, which is a very different thing.
Tested to Destruction
Having tested our citizens for Covid more than the rest of Europe combined, the fact that we are now running out of testing capacity just about sums up our national hysteria about this virus. Apparently, some people are even hoarding test kits in the same way that they hoarded loo paper back in March 2020.
Given that the symptoms of Covid are common to any number of ailments: cough, sore throat, headache, fever; it seems quite reasonable to take a Covid test if you experience any of them just to ensure that you do not go about spreading it to those susceptible to a more serious bout of the illness. The reality is however, that the tests are overwhelmingly being taken by people who have no symptoms at all. Even worse, we are imposing a huge administrative burden on the education system by requiring the mass testing of asymptomatic children.
This vast enterprise is costing a fortune, were we all to follow the government advice of testing twice per week, In England there are 56.3 million of us, that’s 104 tests annually, 6 billion for all of us put together. The tests come in at £5 each, which amounts to £30 billion per year.
Is this a sensible way to spend such a vast sum of money, (instead we might increase England’s NHS budget by fully 40%)?
In the USA, where they tend to be very cautious in medical matters, people who have had Covid can return to ordinary life after 5 days if they no longer have symptoms – there is no requirement for further testing. That is an example we could usefully follow.
Learning to live with Covid, if it means anything at all, must surely include behaving normally if we feel perfectly well and not fearing a bogey man around every corner.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- …
- 63
- Next Page »