Sir Desmond Swayne TD

Sir Desmond Swayne TD

Twitter

Trophy Hunting email campaign

By

Unfortunately, the Early Day Motion that you mentioned has now lapsed as it was tabled in a previous Parliamentary session and is no longer available for signature.

The Government is committed to doing all it can to support wildlife and the environment, both in the UK and internationally, and the Queen’s Speech reaffirmed that Ministers will be delivering on the manifesto commitment to ban the import of hunting trophies from endangered species.

The consultation on controls on the import and export of hunting trophies, which closed in February 2020, provided an opportunity for respondents to offer views on which species they considered needed further restrictions. The COVID-19 pandemic delayed the publication of the Government response to this consultation and accompanying call for evidence. However, Ministers are continuing to work on this important area and will publish a response as soon as they are able to do so. The approach on hunting trophies will be comprehensive, robust and effective and will deliver the change promised to help protect thousands of species worldwide.  

In the 25 Year Environment Plan, the UK Government committed to providing international leadership in protecting and improving international biodiversity and undertaking international action to protect endangered species. This international leadership is underpinned by a strong commitment to ensuring that the UK’s domestic policy does not threaten the conservation of species abroad. While some conservationists believe trophy hunting can be an effective conservation tool, it is also important to acknowledge concerns around the practice of trophy hunting. I welcome that the Government has proposed a new Animals Abroad Bill to tackle animal cruelty and include bans on the trade in hunting trophies. The Government will be formally introducing legislation to protect animals abroad as soon as parliamentary time allows. 

DS.

Illegal Schools email campaign

By

The Department for Education is taking firm action to deal with unregistered schools to ensure that settings are closed or shut down completely where necessary. Ofsted has a dedicated unregistered schools team that investigates and inspects suspected illegal schools. An inspector issues a warning notice at the end of an inspection if she or he believes the setting is operating illegally as a school. Between 1 January 2016 and 31 March 2021, 494 inspections of suspected illegal schools took place, of this 166 warning notices were issued and 91 settings were closed completely. 

The Department has made it clear that it is important that children and young people are on a school roll, or alternatively being electively home educated because they can be exposed to certain risks if they are not being educated in either of those settings. As such, the Department is looking at whether Ofsted needs additional powers when looking into potential illegal settings. 

I can assure you that the Department is committed to ensuring that all children receive an excellent education, in a safe and risk free environment.

Ministry of Fear

By

I recall some common sense from the Government’s Chief scientific officer, who said earlier this year that “we have to learn to live with Covid”. Well, whatever happened to that? 

The Government continues to be in thrall to scientific modellers with doomsday predictions.The value of the output from any model -however robust its design- depends upon the assumptions that are fed into it. Some of the terrifying numbers from the modelling that we have seen in the last few days are the result of assumptions that take no account of the data that is coming out of South Africa -that the new variant, despite being more infectious, appears to be milder and consequent hospitalisations fewer and shorter. Many of the alarming numbers aren’t even the output of models at all, they are mere extrapolations: assuming that what has happened, will go on happening at the same rate, irrespective of experience that things rarely do so.

As I said in the Commons at the beginning of last week, this is all part of a ‘Ministry of Fear’ designed to ensure our compliance with instructions that compromise fundamental liberties, and indeed, condition us to demand even greater restraints on that liberty, so overawed are we by the present danger.Part of this work of terrorising the population is undertaken with enthusiasm by the broadcast media, a job made so much easier by the twenty four hour news cycle which enables us to constantly receive the same bad news throughout the day from the moment that we wake up in the morning, hearing on the radio that we’d die horribly drowning in our own phlegm, repeated until the moment we go to bed.What is astounding is that, as each new prediction is trotted out, no account is taken of the previous record of the source. Let’s take, for example, one of the media’s favourite modellers, Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London.In 2001, Professor Ferguson predicted 150,000 human deaths from foot-and-mouth; but under 200 died. In 2002, he predicted up to 50,000 deaths from BSE; in the end, 177 died. In 2005, he said that 150 million people could be killed by bird flu; 282 died. In 2009, a Government estimate based on his advice said that a “reasonable worst-case scenario” for swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths; in the end, 457 people died. He predicted 85,000 Covid deaths in Sweden consequent on their policy of avoiding lockdown; in fact, 6,000 Swedes have died. In July this year he predicted that 100,000 daily cases was almost inevitable following our release from restrictions. It just didn’t happen.Yet the broadcasters will quote the latest models as if they were the Gospel truth.My prejudice is that the latest scare won’t be anything like as bad forecast. We look to ministers to resist the measures being urged upon them which will damage society and the economy, but then, on the basis of past performance that expectation looks pretty shaky too. 

Kept Animal Bill email campaign

By

The UK has a long history of leading the way on animal welfare. The Government is committed to improving our world-leading standards through a series of ambitious reforms, as outlined in the Action Plan for Animal Welfare. In addition, the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill will bring in some of the world’s strongest protections for pets, livestock and kept wild animals. 

Primates are highly intelligent animals with complex needs that require specialist care. Through the Bill, the Government will deliver on the manifesto commitment to introduce a ban on keeping them as pets, ensuring that all primates being kept privately in England are kept at zoo-level standards and that ownership of primates at levels below these standards is phased out.

I also understand that live animals can endure excessively long journeys during export, causing distress and injury. EU rules prevented any changes to these journeys, but the UK Government is now able to pursue plans to ban the export of live animals for slaughter and fattening. This Bill will ensure that the UK is the first European country to end this practice.

The Bill will tackle the unethical trade of puppy smuggling by reducing the number of pets, including dogs, cats and ferrets, that can travel under pet travel rules. The Bill will also provide powers for the Government to bring in further restrictions on the movement of pets on welfare grounds, and allow for enforcement measures to support these restrictions. Further restrictions could include an increase in the minimum age of imported puppies, as well as the prohibition of the import of pregnant dogs and dogs with mutilations such as cropped ears and tails.

DS.

Mental Health Research Funding email campaign

By

Through the National Institute for Health Research, the Government funds a range of research in mental health to inform national mental health policy. In 2020, £93.4 million was spent on mental health research, an increase from the previous year, and the Government is committed to having mental health research as a priority area. Examples of research include a study jointly led with Kings College London and eating disorder charity Beat aiming to better understand what may lead to an eating disorder, and six studies into the impact of COVID-19 on mental health. The Government’s commitments to health-related research and development (R&D) in the 2021 Spending Review, include the largest ever cash uplift for health R&D. Funding will increase by £605 million, meaning the overall investment will rise to £2 billion by 2024/25. 

As part of the five-year funding offer agreed in 2019, mental health services will receive a budget growth of £2.3 billion. This will enable further service expansion and faster access to community and crisis mental health services for adults and particularly children and young people. I also welcome the Government’s commitment of around £2 billion to address waiting times for mental health services, which will give more people the mental health support they need.

DS.

Channel 4 Privatisation email campaign

By

Channel 4 has been hugely successful over the years in delivering the aims set out at its creation in 1982, including supporting the independent production sector in the UK, delivering diverse and risk-taking content, and contributing to the wider public goals of public service broadcasting. However, since 1982, the TV landscape has changed beyond recognition.

Channel 4 is entirely commercially funded, but it has been publicly owned since it began broadcasting. The main reason it was set up as a publicly owned, commercially run station was to provide greater choice. Today though, audiences can now watch what they want, whenever they want, how they want, across a range of internet-enabled personal devices. The independent production sector has also grown enormously so that it now supplies content to a wide range of broadcasters and streaming services.

That is why I believe it is crucial that a future ownership model (whereby Channel 4 keeps its public service remit) is considered to ensure more content, more jobs, and a more sustainable future for the broadcaster. To achieve this, it will require access to capital, and a strengthened ability to invest in its services, which is not available under public ownership.

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has recently held a public consultation on the future ownership of Channel 4 as part of the Government’s review of public service broadcasting. The consultation considered both the ownership and remit of Channel 4, ensuring its future success and sustainability. I understand that the Department is currently analysing the feedback it has received and will respond in due course. For further information on the consultation, please search: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-a-change-of-ownership-of-channel-4-television-corporation

The review will come ahead of the broadcasting white paper, due to be published in due course. The white paper will consider the future of the country’s broadcasting landscape with the aim of making sure it serves listeners and viewers on all platforms and across the entire UK.

DS.

Parties, Regulations…and small mercies

By

Any number of constituents have demanded my opinion on Downing Street parties. Well, as I wasn’t there, it seems reasonable to await the findings of the Cabinet Secretary, rather than rely on the assumptions of screaming headlines.  Where many of my correspondents are plain wrong however, is the conclusion they have jumped to in taking the view that the PM couldn’t not have known that a party was taking place in his house: Number 10 Downing Street isn’t a house, it is just a front door which gives access to a large suite of open plan offices and meeting rooms on three floors stretching all the way to the Cabinet Office and largely populated by career civil servants. The PM’s flat is in the rafters above Number 11 Downing Street. Having been in the flat a number of times under a former regime, I can attest that, once inside, it is perfectly possible not to have any idea of what is happening behind the front door of Number 10.

Given that everything in Government leaks, I am very suspicious that it has taken a year for the story to surface, but I’ll wait on the outcome of the investigation.

 

Having asked the Secretary of State on Monday 6th December how many positive cases with the new variant were actually ill – to which the answer appeared to be ‘none’ – I was devastated by the absurd decision to implement ‘plan B’ only three days later. Of course, some patients with the new variant will end up in hospital. I will be disappointed, but I hope that the numbers are limited. I almost get the impression however, that some crazed control freaks will welcome hospitalisations as the opportunity to impose an even more restrictive measures on our lives.

 

Notwithstanding my opposition to the restrictions that have been imposed upon us, there are two bright spots. First, the requirement to isolate after contact with the new variant which was announced on Monday, has already been revoked  and replaced only by the need to take tests. So, at least we are spared another ‘pingdemic’.

Second, constituents have complained about the absurdity of requiring them to work from home, yet allowing social gatherings and parties to proceed unhindered. My response: Don’t complain about small mercies and don’t look a gift horse in the mouth! However absurd, enjoy the opportunities that we still have: Give the hospitality industry a boost – go out, eat out, there is plenty of capacity given the cancellations that have already started to happen.

 

Medical Cannabis email campaign

By

Both I and my Parliamentary colleagues are aware of cases where cannabis-based medicine is successfully treating constituents with very specific conditions and in very exceptional circumstances. I understand that, particularly for parents whose children are suffering or in pain, there is continued frustration that it is not easily accessible.  Although the scheduling of cannabis-based products changed in 2018, this has not translated into significant clinical use.  

Each case is judged individually, and the decision should remain solely with the clinician. However, many doctors remain cautious in prescribing these treatments, and guidelines published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence demonstrate a need for more evidence to justify routine prescribing of unlicensed cannabis-based products. With that in mind, it is encouraging to hear of 13 ongoing trials in the UK, and six other trials already completed. Additionally, two new clinical trials into treating refractory epilepsy are being developed by the National Institute for Health Research and NHS England. I look forward to the results of these trials in due course.   

The number of patients with NHS prescriptions for medicinal cannabis products is low. Often families have sought private treatment, which is clearly a serious financial burden. While the Government cannot stipulate what companies charge for the products, and these companies may face export or import fees for controlled drugs, I am aware of Ministers’ work within these constraints to reduce costs. Many believe medical cannabis, where clinically appropriate, is critical for patients and families in need, and I am assured that the Government is considering every possibility to ensure greater access. 

Of course, there is a substantial body of scientific and medical evidence to show that cannabis itself, can harm mental and physical health and damage communities.

DS.

Freedom of Speech

By

Constituents often write to me to complain that our fundamental liberty of freedom of speech no longer endures. I don’t believe this perception is down to the statutory provisions that we have made in recent years to protect minorities. In fact these do no more in principle than the ancient common law prohibition against occasioning a breach of the peace: incitement has always been unlawful.
Rather, I put it down largely to the caustic nature of contemporary public discourse. Such is the fury with which unfashionable opinions are greeted, that those that hold them are terrified to express them. We appear to have lost the ability to disagree just because we believe that our opponents are wrong, now we need to denounce them as wicked as well.
Over the last couple of years a large number of academics, clinicians, and civil servants have contacted me to draw attention to concerns that they have about public policy within their areas of expertise. They have included professors and senior people at the very top of their professions. What has been remarkable is the extent to which they wish to remain anonymous. They believe that there is something serious that needs to be out in the public debate, but they are not willing to put their heads above the parapet and say it themselves. They fear the hostile reaction from their own colleagues and fellow professionals. They believe that they have lost their voice, but as a parliamentarian, I still have a voice, so they put their trust in me to give voice to their concerns.

Well, the fundamental guarantee that I do have an unrestrained voice is set out in the one written part of our largely unwritten constitution: The Bill of Rights 1689. 

“that freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached in any court or place out of Parliament”
So, my privilege is that I cannot be taken to task for anything that I say in Parliament, this the fundamental guarantee of the rights of a free parliament…until now at any rate.

A new edition of the code of conduct for MPs has been published for consultation. It recommends that the scope of the Commissioner for Standards be extended to what takes place in the Commons, its division lobbies and in its parliamentary committees.  This will give a policing function over elected members to an official in a clear breach of the guarantee set down in the Bill of Rights.
This is compounded by the addition of a new principle of ‘respect’  to be added to the standards, which will require MPs to “demonstrate anti-discriminatory behaviours“ through the promotion of “inclusion and diversity” amongst others.
It may sound anodyne enough but it was differing interpretations of inclusion and diversity that has just driven a professor from her job at Sussex University. I have no doubt that this would have a further chilling effect on free speech, and it is a fundamental attack on democratic choice.

Access to the Countryside email campaign

By

Let me start by assuring you that I am enthusiastic about promoting recreation in the countryside and I understand the benefits outdoor activities can produce both physically and mentally. Our countryside is of great importance and it cannot be understated just how much the scenery means to people. 

Ministers are continuing to support and enhance access to the countryside. This includes completing the England Coast Path, supporting the network of National Trails, ensuring that rights of way are recorded and protected, as well as developing ways to support access through financial provisions in the Agriculture Act for environmental land management. The new schemes will make a significant contribution to the goals of the 25 Year Environment Plan, including beauty, heritage and engagement with the environment. I believe that public access is a key way for people to engage with the environment and so supporting greater access is an important aspect of achieving this goal.

Further, ministers are looking at ways in which the UK’s new agri-environment schemes could fund the creation of new paths, such as footpaths and bridleways, providing greater and safe access for cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians. I know that they are working in close collaboration with interested parties to explore the best ways of making further enhancements to our wonderful access network.

Finally, ministers have now published the England Trees Action Plan, which sets the UK on the path to at least 12 per cent woodland cover by the middle of the century. Over £500 million of the £640 million Nature for Climate Fund is dedicated to trees and ministers aim to treble woodland creation rates and plant 30,000 hectares of trees per year by the end of this Parliament.

DS.