In the second election campaign of 1974, the Labour party’s manifesto offered the prospect of a referendum on our continued membership of the Common Market, which we had joined without a plebiscite and only on the strength of Parliament passing The European Communities Act 1972.
Enoch Powell, a former Conservative minister, urged Conservatives to vote Labour in that election in order to be able to take advantage of its referendum offer. I was very tempted by Powell’s advice. In the end however, I didn’t take it, but when Labour won, I was consoled by the prospect that we would -as a consequence, have a referendum.
When the referendum came in 1975 I  vigorously  supported the ‘No’ campaign. Alas, I was on the losing side, but that’s democracy.

For years previously the UK had been trying to join the Common Market in order to benefit from the free trade advantages that would accrue to the significant proportion of our trade with it’s members. Our government’s enthusiasm was based on economic gain, and our politicians persuaded themselves that the Treaty of Rome, to which we would have to accede, did not really mean what it said about evolving towards a political ‘ever closer union’.
Our earlier attempts to join were thwarted by General de Gaulle, who did not want the UK to enjoy the same competitive advantage in the Market as France. The Irony is that whilst de Gaulle was the brake on our joining, he was also the brake on the reality of ‘ever closer union’. The end of his presidential tern in 1969 opened the way to a successful prospect for serious negotiations on UK accession, but it also gave renewed impetus towards the creation of the European Union.
This trajectory was already obvious to those MPs who voted against the European Communities Act 1972 and rejected Prime Minister Edward Heath’s assertion that membership entailed “no essential loss of national sovereignty”.

The Common Market, then the EEC, then the EU evolved in exactly the way we had foreseen and warned in the 1975 referendum campaign. I joined the Campaign for an Independent Britain and I was never reconciled to our membership, notwithstanding its economic benefits. I was not however, an enthusiast for a second referendum, having been on the losing side in 1975 and I feared that the experience would be repeated. Nevertheless, when the second referendum came in 2016, I campaigned even more vigorously than in 1975, addressing 15 public meeting across the South East of England. I was surprised and delighted by the result, even though it ended my ministerial career.

 So, how will I vote on our newly negotiated trade deal with the EU?
 Well, before deciding I will want to have the chance to thoroughly digest it which, as I write, I have not yet had the opportunity to do, but here are the principles on which I will decide: First, I have to acknowledge the advantage for free trade arrangements with our closest and largest market, it was this that drew us into joining in the first place and reverting to tariffs and quotas will be significantly to our disadvantage.
Second, trading advantage however, must not be secured at the price of our sovereignty, we cannot allow ourselves any longer to be governed by people whom we did not elect and cannot remove.
Nevertheless, any trade deal comes at a price, there are trade-offs that have to be made and we have to make an assessment of the balance of advantage to be had.
If the price of this new trade deal is to be paid principally in fish, then that is a price I am, at least, certainly prepared to consider.

I was interviewed for a documentary about movements opposed to Coronavirus regulations and any kind of coercion in the vaccination programme, to  be broadcast in January.
I have voted against coronavirus regulations, and am opposed any suggestion of coercion in the vaccination programme, as will have been clear by my earlier contributions to this column.

The Programme’s producer showed me a video by an organisation which raised questions about vaccination which included extracts from a speech I made in the Commons. She asked me if I had previously known about the video or if my permission had been sought. Well, I didn’t know, but I couldn’t object: proceedings in parliament are everyone’s property. Overall, the video was, despite a rather sinister voice-over, not on the loopier end of the Anti-Vax spectrum.

Now, I don’t want to be offensive, but clearly, whilst most are sane enough, some of the anti-vax emails that I get are from constituents who are clearly deranged, some others are just a bit odd.
There is a spectrum: belief that the vaccination is an excuse to inject us with microchips to control our subsequent behaviour, is obviously at the nuttier end. Where expressions of concern about the speed at which vaccines have been tested and approved, come at the other end.
To be fair the ‘normal to nutty’ proportions do not differ significantly between anti-vax emailers and those who email me on any other subject, or indeed those who take the trouble to write to me.

I am not ‘anti-vax’. As a child, my father’s occupation took me to all sorts of remote places, as a soldier I served  where there were issues with biological weapons, as a minister I visited some of the world’s poorest and most conflicted places. Consequently, I have been vaccinated against almost every medical condition, perhaps with the exception of rigor mortis.
On the contrary, I see vaccination as the escape clause from our current enforced confinement with all its devastating economic consequences: The more people who are vaccinated the better, and the sooner the better.

The thrust of the interview however, was to explore whether anti-vax opinions, being injurious to our public health policy, ought to be censored on social media and any other platform.
I am deeply nervous about extent to which we allow the ‘tech giants’, or any other agency, to censor views of which they ( and we) disapprove.
I believe in freedom of expression, and that there is no right of ‘not to being offended’. Equally, we are under no obligation to respect opinions with which we disagree, we have every right to argue robustly against them.
And that is the proper course with the anti-vax movement: not to silence them, but to defeat them by exposing the falsehood of their claims.

Currently most of my emails are from people wanting to be vaccinated immediately, and who believe I can pull strings to get them to the front of the queue. Alas, I can’t, but I understand their enthusiasm.

last week, in this column, I explored a number of questions surrounding explicit and implicit coercive pressure to receive Covid-19 Vaccinations.
I can understand the enthusiasm from some industries to open up again -in particular hospitality (but by no means exclusively)  – so much so that they might advertise service provision exclusively  to vaccinated patrons.
It would make no scientific sense however: None of the vaccines that are available, or are about to become available have been tested with respect to their ability to reduce transmission. They have only been tested on their ability to reduce the severity of the recipient’s reaction to a dose of the virus. So, the rationale for having the vaccination is to protect yourself, we do not know if it will protect others from you.
Notwithstanding the irrationality of excluding non-vaccinated patrons from premises, does our respect for the property rights of proprietors nevertheless extend to allowing them to exercise their right to exclude any customers, however irrational: I don’t think so. As a society we have moved beyond  such an elevated view of the rights of property. For years now, equality legislation has constrained the rights of commercial undertaking from discriminating against categories of customers of whom they may disapprove. The unvaccinated should not be so excluded either. 

The vaccination process is going to be a long haul until a sufficient proportion of the population has been vaccinated to afford us ‘herd immunity’. I suspect it may well take until the summer or longer. So, I do nor depart from the position that I originally took, and still urge on the Government: Namely, that the virus is not particularly dangerous to anyone outside the groups with specific vulnerabilities, so it would have been much more proportionate to have designed measures to protect them, rather than to have imposed measures on everyone with truly devastating economic and other consequences.  

The statistical basis upon which the most damaging restrictions were made have always, in my opinion, been highly suspect. Now government itself has had to recognise that decisions were made on an insecure foundation. On 30 October the Office for National Statistics reported that infection had doubled between 2nd October, and 17 October -from 4.89 infected people per 10,000 to 9.52 infected people per 10,000. It was on this alarming basis that a second national lockdown was imposed upon us. Well, they have now revised that estimate of 17 Oct right back down, and that the rate never went above 6.62 people per 10,000 and that wasn’t until well into the lockdown on 12 November.

Last month it was reported that the Secretary of State for Health, whilst being interviewed, refused to rule out the possibility of compulsory vaccination for Coronavirus.  This week the newly appointed minister with special responsibility for the vaccine programme suggested instead, that having the vaccine would be a ‘passport’ to being able to do things that might otherwise be denied -such as visiting a pub, cinema, or using public transport.

For months worried constituents have been contacting me to voice their fears that vaccination would be compulsory. I have responded by saying that they should not worry because it is unthinkable.
Under existing law it would constitute an assault: So primary legislation in Parliament would be required to enable it, and that in my estimate a majority would not be found for such a radical departure. It would set a worrying precedent for other vaccines, medicines and medical procedures.

I expect however, that the concept of a vaccination certificate being used as a passport to freedoms and opportunities which would otherwise be denied, might be more palatable -superficially at least.
It might be done by statute setting out what may or may not be done without having had the vaccination. Or it might be left to the discretion of operators and proprietors whether to admit non-vaccinated patrons to their venues and services.

It raises an interesting philosophical question which is by no means new: Are our rights fundamental and absolute, or are they to be balanced by our responsibilities to society at large through some legislative process, democratic or otherwise?
If you take the latter view you might conclude that a citizen has a responsibility be vaccinated to protect the community as a whole, and if that responsibility is not accepted, then it would be reasonable to withhold rights and freedoms.
I have often had to produce my Yellow Fever vaccination certificate to enter those countries where it is a legal requirement.

There does seem to me however, to be something repugnant about being coerced into having a medical procedure, it would certainly be a departure from long established limits.
There is however, a practical solution without troubling the philosophers. The herd immunity that vaccination promotes can be achieved with vaccination rates that fall well short of everyone having had the jab. We should be able to make the vaccine effective whilst tolerating the non-cooperation of conscientious objectors.
Overwhelmingly, most of us will have the jab because we recognise that it is in our own self-interest, as well as the interests of everyone else.

As I said in the Commons, there are ways of promoting the vaccine without any need to coerce: line up the PM, ministers and all their loved ones to take it first, demonstrating the confidence of our rulers in its safety. Second, mount a public information campaign, fronted by our most popular celebrities and personalities.

The last thing you should contemplate is coercion of any kind. Nothing could be more calculated to play into the hands of the conspiracy theorists. It would end horribly with public disorder on a scale with which we have hitherto been relatively unfamiliar.

Happily, it appears that the minister who suggested vaccination as ‘passport’ appears to have been slapped down, but I’ll remain vigilant.

I was the Minister for International Development who shepherded the Act, which placed a statutory duty on government to pay 0.7% of GDP in Official Development Assistance, through all its Commons stages.
It is now to be replaced which is particularly worrying because, if the full payment is not made in any year, the Act only requires a statement from the Secretary of State in both Houses explaining why.
To amend or repeal the Act would appear to indicate a much longer-term intention to set aside the commitment.
I do not doubt that this measure is popular, I have had any number of complaints about overseas aid, even before we met the 0.7% commitment and protected it in statute.
Most people consider such aid to be charity and, accordingly, believe that it should ‘begin at home’ (thereby completely misinterpreting the meaning of the phrase, which was coined as a challenge to people who flaunted their philanthropy in public whilst treating their family and employees with meanness).
Charity is something you give away freely without any expectation of return.
International aid is not charity, rather it is an investment we make in the expectation that we may prosper and trade in a more stable and secure world, less prone to insecurity and waves of migration.
It is also a ‘soft power’ by which we project our influence abroad. In this respect it is much more versatile and deployable than our investment in our military capability to project power.
I do not doubt that our retention of a seat at the UN security council owes more nowadays to the fact that we are the  World’s second largest donor, rather than that we remain a nuclear power.

There are many things I would wish to see reformed about our aid effort. Jus for starters, it needs to be even more focussed on economic development and ability to trade: when I was the minister I would constantly remind people that ‘aid is all about jobs’.

But we are in queer street: the Chancellor has told us that our Economic crisis is only just beginning. We are at greater risk of further economic shocks because we are borrowing so much. George Osborne used to constantly remind us of the need to ‘fix the roof while the Sun is shining’, well now the roof’s been blown away.
So, protecting any item of public expenditure comes down to a question of priorities. I know most of my constituents will disagree, but I believe that as we re-establish ourselves as an independent power outside the EU and seek to increase our influence in the counsels of the World, then cutting our International Development Aid is a wrong priority.

 I’ve had a spurt of anti-Islamism vitriol by email demanding to know why the Government hasn’t been voluble in support of President Macron’s campaign to protect the French secular state from terrorism, and from the growth of an increasingly  separated Islamic culture and practice.
Frankly, the Government  has quite enough on its plate at present than to provide a running commentary on what is happening in France. I take the point however, and I share their President’s concerns. 

Typically, my correspondents go on to elaborate, claiming the expertise and knowledge to pronounce that Islam is, of necessity, an inherently violent creed. Here I think they are quite mistaken. Of course, its history is quite as violent as the history of any other religion, but overwhelmingly it has been characterised by contemplative sufism.
My correspondents quote blood-curdling passages claiming authentic interpretation from the Koran. Well, as a Bible-believing Christian I’m quite able to quote any number of much more blood-curdling passages from the Bible -so, straight off the top of my head, what about the savagery meted out to Achan (Joshua 7 & 8): Stoned to death with his whole clan, including women, children and livestock when it was discovered he had hidden some booty from the destruction of Jericho,  sufficiently annoying God so that he denied victory to the Israelites in their first attempt to capture the City of Ai. Having sorted Achan, the Israelites had a second shot at Ai, resulting in complete destruction -including every living thing within the city.
On the face of it we are supposed to approve of these actions, after all, surely Achan, his family, their animals, and subsequently the all inhabitants of Ai ‘had it coming’. I rather think however, that there is a subtly in the account, and ‘between the lines’ the narrator is asking us “…and do you really believe that this was the will of God?”.
I am not qualified to imagine what subtleties there may be in the Koran, I leave that to real Islamic scholars, rather than trust my correspondents. 

As to the violent history of Islam. I wonder if it measures up to the blood- lust of Christendom: Crusades, pogroms, our wars of religion including the Inquisition, the St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, the Defenestration of Prague, the burnings during the reign of Bloody Mary, and on and on.
Secular religions, Fascism and Communism, have taken an even greater toll. 

When my correspondents go on to claim that we are harbouring an alien and increasingly dangerous religious community in our midst I like to draw their attention to the contribution of Indian soldiers made to the defence of the Empire and to point to their WWI memorial in Barton on Sea in my constituency. Then, last week, I came across this magnificent passage whilst re-reading Churchill’s history of WWII 

“…the glorious heroism and martial qualities of the Indian troops who fought in the Middle East, who defended Egypt, who liberated Abyssinia, who played a grand part in Italy, and who, side by side  with their British Comrades, expelled the Japanese from Burma, stand forth in brilliant light.
The loyalty of the Indian Army to the King-Emperor, the proud fidelity to their treaties of the Indian Princes, the unsurpassed bravery of Indian Soldiers and officers, both Moslem and Hindu, shine forever in the annals of war.” 

That is something to be proud of, and to continue to build upon. The irony is that some are now denouncing Churchill as a racist.

The amendments by the House of Lords to the Government’s Markets Bill have sparked an email surge from both protagonists and antagonists.
The latter are outraged and demand the abolition of the Lords, but the former applaud the action by the Lords and demand that I vote against any attempt in the Commons to restore the deleted clauses.

The bill is designed to ensure that any good or service produced in one part of the UK enjoys ready access to any other part of the UK.
The controversial clauses involve a potential conflict with the Northern Ireland Protocol  in our Withdrawal Agreement from the EU.

The accusation is that the bill ‘breaks international law’.
The concept of international law is clearly misunderstood by my correspondents.
In the UK you may not ‘jump’ a red traffic light because there is a law against it. International law largely does not exist in that same sense. Instead it exists in treaties between consenting parties:
We won’t jump a red light only because we agreed that we wouldn’t.
Some of these agreements have grievance procedures written into them in order to arbitrate when there is a dispute between the parties about an action by one of them which allegedly breaks a provision of the treaty.
The European Court of Justice has before it a long list of cases still to be settled involving proceedings against EU members. Whilst you can make it sound awesome by saying that the member states in question are alleged to have ‘broken international law’. The reality is that its an arbitration between signatories to an agreement.
The World Trade Organisation maintains a similar arbitration process for trade disputes between its members. It also has a long list of alleged infractions to settle. Call it ‘breaking international law’ if it sounds more exciting.

The Markets bill does not break our Withdrawal Agreement with the EU or alter its terms in any way.
What it does is to empower the UK Government, after seeking further authority from Parliament, to alter the arrangements that we agreed in the treaty if we find we need to.
So, the Bill doesn’t breach the treaty arrangements of itself. Even if it becomes an act of Parliament it does not do so. The arrangements in the agreement will only be altered if the Government, having sought further authority from Parliament, were then to actually change the arrangements originally agreed.
Only then does the question arise: would we be breaking the terms of our agreement, or if you want to put it that way, would we be breaking international law?

The Government is taking these powers in response to a direct threat made by EU during the negotiations for a trade deal.
In order to persuade the UK to concede our interests they suggested that, if we did not do so and that the outcome was no deal, then they would use the Northern Ireland Protocol in the Withdrawal Agreement to exclude UK mainland produce from Northern Ireland Markets.

Clearly, no UK Government could tolerate such action and it is essential that we arm ourselves with powers which act as a deterrent to prevent it ever happening.
Suppose it did happen though and that we used the powers, would we have broken the agreement?
No, because by interpreting the treaty perversely and excluding UK goods from part of the UK – which was never the intent of the agreement, the EU would itself have broken the treaty, and our action would be self-defence.

The Lords, in seeking to remove our deterrent whilst we are still in the middle of negotiations, have shown their irresponsibility.
By equating the deterrent power with China’s treatment of Hong Kong and other enormities, they have shown that they have no sense of proportion either.
Should we abolish them?
Well, there is a frighteningly  long list of priorities on the ‘to do’ list…but one day

The choice presented to Parliament by the demands of the scientists for a lockdown (given the circumstances ‘demands’ seems a more appropriate term than ‘advice’) was between the lesser of two evils: the possibility of the NHS being temporarily overwhelmed; as against the certainty of ruined businesses, lost livelihoods, enormous borrowings to be repaid, and shorter lives resulting from the economic damage.
Given the debunking of the ‘project fear’ graphs produced by the chiefs last weekend, it seemed to me that the risk of the NHS being overwhelmed was overstated.
I do not underestimate the unpleasantness of the NHS being overwhelmed. We have seen that happen before from flu and Norovirus, with scenes of ambulances queuing at A&E and patients being treated on trollies. Clearly, measures need to be taken to avoid it. Not locking-down would have been a risk, in my judgement a risk worth taking given the huge damage that the lock-down will cause. Nevertheless, I was on the losing side when it came to the vote, and that’s democracy.

Modern liberal democracy however, has come to mean much more that rule by majority. It includes the rule of law, due process, fundamental liberties such as freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, freedom of worship.
It is with regard to these values that I find the response to Coronavirus so shocking and worrying. The British people appear to have quietly shrugged it off as these liberties have been swept aside. The state has taken all the coercive powers of the law to tell us where we may go, whom we may meet, what we must wear, and to outlaw protests.
On that last count, even more sinister, is the way that the organs of the totalitarian state reach out to go beyond even what has been proscribed: I have received representations from intensive care doctors who have been warned that their employment is in jeopardy because they have expressed doubts about the lock-down policy.
Instead of a rising chorus of protest against these enormities we are informed by pollsters, on the contrary, that the appetite of the people is for even more draconian measures. I am appalled.
Our liberties did not come cheaply, they were bought by the struggles of our forebears, many of whom died in the pursuit of freedom.

I am informed by my critics that I have failed to appreciate that the preservation of life itself is more important than liberty: ‘life at all costs’. I wonder to what extent such an overriding imperative is the product of the decline of religious belief.
Happily a large number of elderly and vulnerable people have written to me with a quite different perspective. They tell me that they would, given the choice, rather lead a full life and encounter the risk of catching the virus, than be protected at the cost of their liberty.
Of course, disproportionately they come from a generation that made many sacrifices to defend liberty.

On Tuesday 20^th October the following brief exchange took place in the Commons

Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the number of excess deaths above the long-term average in each of the last few weeks?

Secretary of State for Health & Social Care
We have, thankfully, seen that the number of excess deaths is around the level of the long-term average. I want to keep it that way and that is why we are taking the action that we are, so that this does not get out of hand like we saw in the first peak.

Now, I didn’t just ask the question at random. I had already looked at the statistics that are publicly available and which show that the number of daily deaths at 1600 or so daily, is normal -and has been at the normal expected level since June.
The Secretary of State’s reply reveals his good intention, to avoid calamity.
The action that he is taking however, brings on another set of calamities in terms of ruined businesses, unemployment, consequent mental health problems, and yes, even deaths. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: the proven result of lock-downs, is that they make poor people poorer.

My intention in asking that question was attempt to expose the fundamental contradiction between fact and what ministers, guided by the scientists who advise them, are telling us.
They claim that a deadly pandemic is stalking the land. Yet the fact is that the number of deaths is consistent with the long-term average. Both these statements cannot be true, they are mutually exclusive. If a deadly pandemic is in progress then the number of excess deaths above the long term average would bear witness to it. They don’t.

I conclude that the pandemic ended in the summer and that the increase in cases arises from the testing of healthy people on an industrial scale, using a methodology that throws-up false positives. I will not be persuaded that a deadly pandemic is again in progress until it reveals itself in excess deaths (and that those excess deaths genuinely arise from the virus and not from other untreated conditions).
A very small number of correspondents have written to me to say that I have no right to make such a judgement because I am not a doctor or a scientist.
On the contrary, a huge number of scientists and doctors have contacted me to say that they agree with me.
I am a rational person trying to reconcile what we are being told about the virus, as against the plain facts revealed in the statistics.
Accordingly, it is proper to demand an explanation as to why measures are being inflicted upon us which intrude into our personal liberty and are deeply damaging to us economically.

In the Commons I pointed out that it is precisely because the Government’s actions defy rational explanation, that constituents write to me with increasingly bizarre conspiracy theories of their own.
Here I draw a blank. However irrational their policy, I am at a loss to explain what motive ministers might have for pursuing it, other than that they genuinely believe it to be right.
Qui bono?
What other motive could they possibly have?

A number of constituents have written to ask me why I voted against extending free school meals over half-term.

First, no meals are being taken from those who had them: free school meals are as described; meals provided to children who qualify, whilst they are at school.
It has never been any government’s policy -irrespective of the political party in power- to take from parents the responsibility for feeding their children, and handing that responsibility instead, to the state.

Exceptionally, provision was maintained over the summer because schools had been closed, placing an additional burden on straightened parents that they would not normally have had to bear. In total, eligible families collectively received £380 million in meal vouchers while schools were partially closed, but I do not believe that this is an effective way of dealing with the problem.

The proper way to address poverty is not to provide  free lunches to poor children, but to empower their parents, by tackling their poverty at source, by increasing their income.
Accordingly, Universal Credit has, in response to Coronavirus, been increased by £1,040 this year.
In addition, between 2015-16 and 2019-20 1.7 people million were taken out of paying income tax altogether as a consequence of raising the personal tax-free allowance to £12,500 for all 32 million income tax payers.
Furthermore, the adult national minimum wage was raised to £8.72 per hour.
In total £53 billion has been spent on income protection schemes and £9.3 billion on additional welfare payments.

These are the proper ways to treat those on low incomes with dignity. It allows them to budget according to their family circumstance rather than being issued with vouchers for  lunches, almost as a badge of poverty, much in the way that claimants are demeaned in the USA by being issued with food stamps.
Poor people still have their dignity, and it should not be compromised.

Employment is by far the best route to escape poverty, which is why it is so important that we stop generating further unemployment through our response to Covid-19.
I do not belittle the suffering of families who have lost loved ones, nor the suffering of those who recover only to be blighted with a post-viral syndrome, but that suffering is no excuse for tipping our economy into recession.
The proven effect of lock-downs is that they make poor people poorer.