Despite being a partisan right-wing politician, I have been fortunate in being able to maintain friendships with opponents across the political divide, including Marxists and Scottish Nationalists, Liberal Democrats and Remainers. To be fair, a couple of my oldest Remainer friends won’t any longer speak to me -holding me personally responsible for our leaving the EU, an honour I certainly can’t claim – but they are rare and the choice is theirs, not mine.
 I’m confident that political ideology has never been much of a barrier when it comes to convivial personal relationships.
I am therefore, all the more bemused by the way that the PM’s coterie of former advisers- despite sharing exactly the same ideological outlook and policy goals, have fallen out with one another so spectacularly to the extent that they clearly now hate each other’s guts.

As to the substance of some of the fallout from this, I can’t get excited about it. I am neither surprised nor alarmed that Sir James Dyson texted the PM, and that the PM sought to accommodate his reasonable requests in what was clearly the national interest.
Obviously I do not have one iota of the influence that the PM wields, yet friends, acquaintances and people of whom I have never previously heard, who have got hold of my mobile number or my email address, lobby me to wield what little influence I do have in their own particular interest.
The key point is that, in responding, I act in the interest of all my constituents when deciding how to accommodate them.  I consider the process is proper so long as I do not become prisoner to any particular lobby: The measure of what is appropriate, must be what is in the national interest.

As the furore about leaks escalates, I recall David Cameron (whose parliamentary private secretary I was for 7 years) expressing his frustration at yet another leak of sensitive inter-departmental correspondence -properly handled through civil servants- expressing his frustration and asking “why can’t ministers just talk to one another?”
Certainly, that was the way that I always operated. I recall a difficult meeting in a foreign capital where my ministerial counterpart was refusing to co-operate with a UK policy objective because another UK department of state was making difficulties over a quite unrelated issue. I couldn’t understand the fussy objections of my civil servants when, after the meeting, I got back into our car and simply phoned the responsible minister back in London to get it sorted out.

Now as a back-bencher and having acquired so many mobile phone numbers  during my time at number 10 and as a minister, when a constituent raises a time-sensitive issue with me, if I consider it important enough I will, of course, properly send correspondence to a minister’s private office, but I’ll also text or phone that minister to lobby them, or I’ll even bend their ear at breakfast in the Commons Tea Room.

This is the stuff of ordinary life. I believe in business they now call it ‘networking’.

As the photos of the various former aids, now at war, stare out at me from the Sunday papers, am I alone in thinking that they would do better dress properly and have a shave?

I last wrote about Covid Passports in this column on 2/12/20 when ministers were denying that there was any such plan.

It seems that proof of vaccination or negative tested status will become an inevitable requirement for international travel, but the project to develop a smartphone app is driven by the desire to have a convenient way of limiting access to large gatherings, hospitality, and even retail in the domestic economy.
Where will that end?
Will it include church services?
What about the school carol concert?

Representatives of sports and events have signalled their support with the caveat that it must not be discriminatory.
It will be discriminatory!
Of course, it will: Its sole purpose is to discriminate between those who are vaccinated and those who are not; and to exclude the unvaccinated unless they can provide evidence of a recent test, or be tested there and then: neither of which will be convenient nor trivial undertakings. 

Some constituents have written to me to say that this is acceptable, after all, everyone will have been offered a free jab, so if they choose not to take it, that is their look-out.
My response is that this is a matter that affects us all: do we really want to live in a checkpoint society where we a challenged to show our vaccinated status and to carry with us what will rather quickly become a kind of identity card?
Are we content to impose costly administrative overheads on so many venues and enterprises to check their customers?
To what extent can vaccination described as voluntary if the unvaccinated are excluded from much of civil society?

The take-up of smallpox vaccination proceeded effectively until it became compulsory in the 1850s when it collapsed disastrously and did not begin to recover until that requirement was abolished. Compulsion or coercion plays into the fears of those people and communities that are suspicious of the state and its motives. 

Nevertheless, apparently a Covid passport scheme is working without controversy in Israel.
There is a key difference between them and us however, for reasons of national security Israeli’s are used to carrying ID and having it checked regularly. That is not our tradition.
In any event, I understand that there isn’t much checking going on because the take-up of the vaccine is proceeding so satisfactorily that there really isn’t a need for checks. -everyone’s having it. 

Perhaps, that is our government’s real motive: a ruse to persuade the reluctant and to achieve almost universal take-up with the mere threat of huge inconvenience otherwise. If successful, this strategy would avoid actually having to implement the scheme, the threat having done the trick.

Or perhaps, over the last year, ministers have acquired such a taste for control over every aspect of our lives and are reluctant to release their grip, perhaps they really do want a check-point society.
We’ll soon see which it is. 

As a Christian since childhood, I thought that I’d read pretty well all of the published works of C.S. Lewis, starting with the Narnia series and moving on to his treatises on theological questions as I grew up, but here is something I had missed.
Since the beginning of our response to the pandemic I have been struggling to find the right words to address the distinction between pure tyranny and ‘benevolent’ dictatorship that constrains our liberty for our own good. I asked myself what dictatorship, however ghastly, didn’t present its actions for the greater of good for its subjects?
Well, here is a quotation that a  constituent has sent to me from  God in the Dock:” Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology), A work by lewis that I had nor read.
Make of I what you will:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under
robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber
baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be
satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us
without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier
to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable
insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we
may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not
yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed
with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

As I say to so many of my correspondents., you may disagree with me profoundly but, at least, you have no doubt where I stand.

I know it’s a cliché,  but I really do recall my housemaster telling me -before administering ‘six of the best’ – that it was going to hurt him more than it would hurt me (of course, it may be just false memory syndrome) and although I’ve subsequently found myself recalling his advice with increasing respect and fondness, I’m quite sure that he was wrong about that particular incident.
Over time, how I’ll feel about the PM’s constraints on our liberty…it’s too soon to tell, but for the present I will continue to resist vociferously

When I saw the film footage of the outrage at Christ The King Church in Balham on Good Friday when two police officers made their way into the Sanctuary and told the priest and his congregation that their worship was unlawful and that they must go home or face a fine of £200 each, I thought I was going to have an apoplectic fit.
Was it a wind-up?
Perhaps an April fool’s prank, surely?
Could this really have happened in the UK?
I tried some mindfulness breathing techniques (yes, I did the course a couple of years ago) but to no avail.
I tried Ruby Wax’s remedy of clapping your hands so hard that the stinging sensation brings you back to the present. Alas, that didn’t work either.
I could feel my temperature rising as the Incredible Hulk within roused himself: “Don’t make me angry; you really won’t like it when I’m angry”
Nothing else for it, despite it still technically being Lent, I reached for the brandy.

I voted against these regulations, but I took the trouble to read them first, and I am confident that the police exceeded their powers.
Acts of public worship in church are specifically permitted. There is no limit set upon the numbers attending, clearly that will depend on the size and layout of the church. The regulations place the duty of conducting a risk assessment upon the church authorities, not upon the police.
Police say members of the congregation were unmasked, the church authorities say that they were properly wearing face coverings.
The police say that they weren’t sufficiently physically distanced from one another, the church authorities say that, on the contrary, they were.
For God’s sake this was a sober and indeed very sombre church service, not some illegal rave!

I disapproved of the regulations, that’s why I voted against them, but we live in a democracy and I was on the losing side, so we have to live by them.
Nevertheless, throughout the last year I’ve seen repeated instances of the regulations being confused with mere government guidance. That guidance is not the law and must not be enforced as such.  Whether the confusion of the two is through ignorance or is deliberate policy, is difficult to tell. In any event, I have seen law abiding citizens being ordered to leave public places quite improperly. I’ve seen officers telling citizens that they were only entitled to go out for exercise once, for an hour each day -which is completely untrue: The regulations place no limit on the duration or the frequency of exercise.  The officer was seeking to enforce government guidance not the law.
Government guidance is no more than the opinion of ministers, if the police are charged with enforcing it, then we have abandoned the Rule of Law and become no more than a police state.

My anger was not so much aroused by the enormity of two rogue police officers interfering with a church service on a most Holy occasion, as with our nation collectively: we have accepted this situation with such little protest, or even interest.
Benjamin Franklin said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” 

Hansard 25 March 3.04pm Column 1134

Sir Desmond Swayne

(New Forest West) (Con)

 

The habit of inhumane policy soon trickles down to the servants of the state. This morning, a constituent of mine experiencing a miscarriage was denied the company of her husband in hospital. I have sent the details to the Secretary of State.

 

Tyranny is a habit, and the motions on the Order Paper this evening show that we have not quite kicked it. The powers that touched our personal choices and came at such a huge cost remain. We were told that they were there purely temporarily to deal with the emergency. Well, by any measure the emergency is over and the hugely successful vaccination campaign is the guarantee against its return. Yet on the Order Paper tonight the Government seek to retain those powers to control aspects of our lives, together with the punishment regime for those who disobey.

 

Now, those of us who can spot the trajectory will have seen yesterday that, after months of denial, people will now indeed have to provide their vaccination bona fides when they go to the pub. Those who are teetotal and imagine that they might be spared such intrusion and inconvenience can dream on: this will undoubtedly be extended to restaurants, theatres, sporting venues, and so proceed to total social control. Did it ever occur to Ministers that they might actually incentivise vaccination—carrot, not stick? Undoubtedly it did not, because they cannot kick the habit. They are wedded to the stick.

 

Let there be no wringing of hands by Members of Parliament who vote for oppressive legislation and then wail with indignation when the police actually enforce it. When families are fined thousands of pounds for staying-over together at Easter, we will know that it was because this House willed it so. Those those hon. Members, wishing for these measures to pass tonight should reflect clearly on exactly what it is they wish for.

 

I am aware of how fortunate I am to live in the New Forest and so close to the beaches. This has been especially the case over the last year of intermittent lockdown. Some of my correspondents complain to me as if visitors to the Forest are some sort of intrusion into ‘our Forest’, but I can’t blame anyone for wanting to get out of an inner-city or suburban sprawl and spend some time in this magical place – so long as they treat it with the proper care that it deserves and don’t spoil it for everyone else.

 Last summer I had quite a correspondence from constituents who felt that the Forest was being overwhelmed by the number of day trips, litter, BBQs, anti-social behaviour and wild camping as a nation that had been locked-down descended upon us. Whilst some of these problems were exacerbated by the fact that the main official  Forest campsites, run by Camping In The Forest, remained closed throughout the year -which will not be the case this year,  nevertheless given a  release from our current lockdown and great uncertainty about foreign travel, we must expect similar pressures this summer too.

A great deal was achieved jointly last year by a range of local organisations including the banning the sale of disposable BBQs by 50 local retailers and recruiting 400 voluntary New Forest Ambassadors.

I am delighted that Forestry England together with The National Park Authority, New Forest District Council and Go New Forest have come together, supported by The Verderers, Hampshire Fire & Rescue and Hampshire Constabulary, to pool their resources and to use the lessons learnt last year in order to produce a plan to protect our unique landscape and encourage greater respect for the area, and to manage the pressures that we will inevitably face this summer.

There will be increased high visibility patrolling by Forestry England Rangers including their voluntary rangers, and the National Park rangers too.
New Forest Ambassadors will assist with litter removal, report parking violations and promote the New Forest Code – which sets out what people need to do in order to take proper care of the Forest (which you can find it at www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/news/new-forest-code/ )

There will be a complete BBQ and fire ban in the New Forest Crown lands and signs will make this clear.

Often constituents express their frustration to me that they want to help protect the Forest but feel powerless to do so, beyond picking up litter -which many of us do whenever we can.
Well, consider this: how about becoming a New Forest Ambassador; find out more at www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/communities/get-involved/what-you-can-do-the-new-forest-ambassador-scheme/

Following the disgraceful scenes in in Clapham last Saturday and the concerns that I expressed in this column about the abrogation of our civil liberties, a large number of correspondents have asked me to vote against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to-night on the basis that its provisions will further constrain our ability to protest and demonstrate lawfully.

The Bill does indeed grant further powers and rather too much discretion to the Police.
Nevertheless, the Bill covers a great deal of ground, most of which I approve of -especially its provisions to toughen the sentences for violent and sexual offences.
I wouldn’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Even part three of the Bill, which deals with demonstrations, addresses concerns that I have had for a long time about the need to pre-empt demonstrations which intend to unlawfully disrupt the commercial and social lives of law-abiding citizens. I think particularly of those demonstrations that blocked-off access to airports, attacked enterprises, and brought London to a standstill, all of which place a massive burden on the police, denuding counties of their own policemen and their proper expectations of law enforcement and protection.

Nevertheless, I do agree with my correspondents that the Bill gives too much latitude to police forces and there is a need for the provisions to be much too tightly defined. It also gives the Government the ability to change the balance subsequently through regulations.
I’ve learnt the lesson of the danger that arises from regulatory powers in the last year as the most intimate aspects of lives – whom we may meet, where we may meet them, even what we must wear on our faces- have been ordered by regulations under the Public Health Act 1984.  So I am loathe to grant sensitive regulatory powers in this Bill.
None of this however, is sufficient in my opinion to vote against the Bill in principle at Second Reading.

The proper way to proceed is to address these important issues by forceful argument and amending the Bill during its progress in the legislative standing committee and at its  report stage.

First let me say that Hampshire Constabulary have been exemplary, and a lesson to other forces in the sense of proportion and patience that it has shown.

Policing in the pandemic was never going to be easy. Frankly, some of the regulations are unenforceable, and others require enormous sensitivity. Not all forces have covered themselves with glory. From the start of the first lockdown Derbyshire Police showed their crass stupidity by poisoning an azure lake, in order to deter visitors.
There have been plenty of other instances where officers have overstepped the mark, well beyond what is acceptable in a democratic society under the rule of law.

I have previously expressed my concern about the way in which government guidance  has been confused with regulation when police officers have issued instructions to citizens. Guidance is no more than the opinion of ministers and it is not enforceable. Only the law are police officers charged with enforcing. I make no bones about it: a ‘police state’ is where officers enforce the opinions of ministers, It is the very opposite of the rule of law.

I have been worried by the lack of media coverage afforded to the way that a number of protesters have been unnecessarily roughly treated on a number of occasions. Saturday’s policing of the vigil on Clapham Common however, has achieved the notoriety and opprobrium that it deserves. The scenes were quite shocking and the result of a woeful want of judgement by those in command.
The attempt to clear the vigil was made because some of the women were about to make speeches.
Good grief! Not that! Surely, it had to be prevented at all costs?

I have, since the very beginning of the first lockdown been staggered by the lack of protest at the abrogation of our civil liberties including right of assembly and freedom of expression. Perhaps the disgraceful scenes in Clapham will be the spark to ignite a rather more robust response in defence of our liberties.

We have a common law right to protest and in addition there are legislative provisions that enhance that right which the police are under a duty to facilitate.
It is far from clear as to the extent that the Health Protection Restrictions made last year using powers enabled by Public Health Act 1984, have lawfully removed our right to public protest.  It certainly hasn’t yet been tested in the courts. So, I do hope that crowd funding will prompt and enable those facing £10,000 fixed penalty notices to challenge them there.

There are even signs that politicians in our hitherto supine Parliament, are waking up to the monster that we have created.

As a believer in free markets and small government, I’m hardly comfortable with the fact that the administration which I support has delivered the highest proportion of our national income being taken in taxes than has been the case for many years.

My prejudice is that, on the whole, individuals make better decisions on what is best for themselves, their families and their communities than government can make on their behalf. Consequently, we should tax them less but expect them to do more for themselves, rather than do more for them and charge accordingly.

Nevertheless and notwithstanding my prejudice, I approved of last week’s tax-raising budget because my honest-finance gene is stronger than my ideological gene: You have to pay for what you’ve spent. Whilst I’d prefer not to have government spend so freely (particularly when much of it was to stop enterprises trading and pay employees to do nothing), it’s too late now -the £470 billion bill is coming in and has to be repaid.

There is, of course, a vital agenda to increase investment, productivity and enterprise so that greater tax revenue is generated by increased economic activity  and any chancellor of the Exchequer needs to be alive to the danger that his proposals to raise levels of taxation reduce the potential for revenue growth through economic growth. I think that Rishi Sunak was careful to avoid that danger last week in the way that he structured the tax increases for businesses and incentivised investment.

I have never however, shared the belief -that appears to be held by a number of my colleagues-  that deficits can be very largely financed by cutting taxes in the expectation that revenues will rise sufficiently consequent upon the change in economic behaviour prompted by the tax cuts.
The ‘Laffer Curve’ as it is known amongst economists, predicts that in certain limited circumstances cutting tax rates can lead directly to an increase in tax revenues. Equally, an increase in tax rates can reduce the tax revenue taken. A chancellor would be negligent not to look for these opportunities and dangers, but it is never a panacea for filling a large deficit. And if it clinches the argument (it should, given the prejudices of those of my colleagues who embrace it) Mrs Thatcher certainly never believed in it.

We’ve spent the money, and we have to pay-up.

The Government has been pulled in both directions. Not only has it been under pressure from me and many like-minded members of Parliament who doubt the wisdom of lockdown and want it lifted as soon as possible. On the other hand and largely outside Parliament there has been a growing lobby over the last months, who demand a continuation of restrictions until we can deliver a state characterised as ‘zero-covid’.
The best thing about the Governments ‘roadmap’ to ending the lockdown is that it settles this question. The Prime Minister could not have been more explicit in his statement to the House of Commons:
“There is therefore no credible route to a zero-covid Britain or indeed a zero-covid world, and we cannot persist indefinitely with restrictions that debilitate our economy, our physical and mental wellbeing, and the life chances of our children”
Hallelujah!. At least we’ve sent the zero-covid lobby packing. They’d have locked us down indefinitely.

Where I depart from the Government’s plan is that I believe it to be too cautious. There needs to be a much greater sense of urgency about the costs that lockdown is piling up, the damage it is doing to our health and to the futures of our children. We simply do not have time to be timid about this.

The Government has been overcautious. The modelling on which scientific advice has been based is itself too cautious. As with all modelling, its findings depend upon the assumptions that were fed into it in the first place. The calculations are based on a levels of vaccine efficacy and vaccine up-take that are significantly below the levels that we are currently actually experiencing.
This would not be too much of a problem were the plan genuinely not date driven, but data driven, as the Prime Minister claimed.
Despite this claim, the PM announced a series of ‘not before’ dates for each phase of lifting the lockdown. These dates are only flexible in that they will be delayed if the level of hospital admissions, daily infections, deaths and the impact of new variants decline less swiftly than anticipated.
The dates will not be advanced however, if the data on admissions, infections, deaths, and variants proves much better than was expected.  Given the pessimistic assumptions fed into the model, there really ought to be an swifter relaxation if things improve so much more quickly.

But let’s end on a positive note. From March 8^th political activity will resume with door to door leafleting and canvassing. O Joy!
Were there to be a trade-off however, I rather suspect that most people would have preferred the shops and pubs to have been opened instead.