I have had a large correspondence from elderly people who have been horrified by suggestions in the media that one of the ways in which a lifting of the lockdown for most us might be facilitated, would be by continuing to confine the over-seventies.
I expected protests, and they have arrived. It is unsurprising given that my parliamentary seat has one of the more elderly populations compared with other constituencies.
My correspondents protest that they are fit and well, and indeed many of them fitter than their younger neighbours. They are outraged that the lockdown could be lifted for the rest of us but not them.

I believe they are they are quite right. Aside from being male, and the vulnerability arising from other underlying conditions (co-morbidities as the clinicians describe them), the principal risk-factor in making one susceptible to a particularly dangerous dose of Covid19, is being overweight.
The key measurement is ‘body mass index’ (Bmi) which is calculated -in ‘English money’ – by dividing your weight  in pounds by your height in inches squared, multiplied by 703 (If that is a bit of a challenge and you’ve forgotten how to use a slide-rule, or not seen your log tables since school, then there are any number of calculators and charts available with a quick internet search).
If the result to the calculation  is 24 or under, then you aren’t overweight.

So, were we to say that anyone with a Bmi over 24 were to continue in lockdown after the rest of us have been released, I imagine that there would an absolute furore.  Just think how humiliating and intrusive any kind of enforcement would be: If a copper suspected you of being too fat to be out and about, would he be expected to stop you and demand that you step onto his scales, then stand still as he gets out his measuring tape?

The very idea is absurd, utterly disproportionate, and Bmi -as the designated criterion- quite arbitrary.
It is, nevertheless, no less arbitrary than a given age as the chosen criterion, be it seventy or any other. Equally, the enforcement of an age threshold would be no less intrusive: people looking too old would be stopped and asked to provide proof that they were younger. The prospect is just horrid.

I hope that, by very briefly touching on how we might differentiate between  at-risk groups -for their own protection of course, when emerging from lock-down, I have also drawn attention to the enormous power that we have already placed in the hands of the state to control every aspect of life.
Media reports suggest that the public are untroubled, that my concerns are not widely shared, indeed, that a majority have a preference for stricter conditions and harsher enforcement.
Certainly, there has been no lack of zeal with which they have sought to report to me breaches of the rules by their neighbours, and I find that deeply worrying.

PPE

When I was being trained for nuclear, biological and chemical warfare, we called it IPE (individual protection equipment) but, for the avoidance of confusion I’ll use the new name, PPE.
A most important principle taught us at Sandhurst, was that -having given the order to suit-up, the commander should be looking for every opportunity to order its removal: prolonged use of PPE degrades your mental and physical capabilities, it reduces the ability to communicate and is psychologically disorienting.
That principle seemed to have been lost somewhere when I returned to regimental training: I recall spending the best part of a week fully suited-up in Kielder Forest, it was pure misery (though it did afford protection from midges). I remember following the soldier in front of me in the blackest of nights for miles, only to discover that he was actually a smudge on my lens, and that I was completely alone.
The only time I expected to use the kit and the drills for real, in Iraq in 2003, I ended up not using them at all.

The NHS is getting through 60 million visors per week. I did suggest to Matt Hancock at the start of the Covid19 outbreak that, given there is no immediate danger of a chemical/nuclear/biological attack, he should commandeer all the military S10 respirators and allocate them to NHS staff. These do not need replacement, all you have to do is change the cannister (if I recall the drill correctly, you change it: when damaged, if immersed in water, when ordered to do so, or after 40 hours of continual use – but 20 in a forced-air environment. Amazing how it all sticks in the memory).
Anyway, Hancock turned down my suggestion. I concede that the appearance of the S10 respirator might well ‘spook’ the patients. So, congratulations to Southampton University and Hospital for designing and manufacturing a much more user-friendly PPE respirator from scratch to full production and use, in a matter of days.

I get quite a few emails  from the ’outraged’ of the New Forest, who from their armchairs tell me how they would have so much better managed the distribution of PPE.
In a matter of days the NHS has had to move from supplying PPE to just 233 hospital trusts, to the current 58,000 separate healthcare settings.
the term ‘PPE’ covers a large number of different items, several with quite different supply chains. And all this at a time of unprecedented international demand.
Mercifully we have military assistance. The Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Nick Carter commented this week that ‘this is the greatest logistic challenge’ in his forty-year military career (armchair generals: take note).

A big thank you to those local firms that have turned to manufacturing PPE, supplying it at cost, and even free of charge to the NHS.

Elsewhere there have been complaints that manufacturers have failed to elicit responses from their offers and consequently their output is being exported.
We are actively engaging with over 1000 UK companies, but there has to be due diligence that products meet exacting standards. Spain is an object lesson: where PPE was acquired but turned out to be defective, leading to the quarantining of health workers who used it. There are already plenty of scams operating.

There are complaints that we failed to participate in EU procurement initiatives early on, but those initiatives have, thus far, failed to deliver a single item to any of their participants.

And into this fog-of-war a teacher emails me to demand to be issued with PPE to protect himself from the possibility of being infected by pupils. Well, what about some for the pupils to protect themselves from him?
If this goes any further we’ll all end up wearing space suits

The College of Policing has published guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) as to what constitutes a reasonable excuse for leaving your home and it can be found at the Police College Website.
It is certainly much closer to the regulations themselves which I published in this column previously and can still be found at my own blog The Regulations

Of course, ultimately, only a court will determine what really is a reasonable interpretation of the regulations -should anyone wish to challenge an on-the-spot fine levied against them.
Nevertheless, the interpretation in this new CPS guidance is welcome. It clarifies that you can drive a somewhere to take exercise (the exercise should take longer than the drive) and it puts paid to that nonsense with park benches being cordoned-off to prevent walkers sitting down.

Constituents complain to me about any number of the aspects of the regulations.
Why are potentially solitary pastimes like angling and golf prohibited?
Why, if supermarkets can function with proper social distancing, cannot garden centres also open on the same basis?
So, the questions go on.
I can’t answer them because, astonishingly, these regulations which confine us to our homes were never approved, scrutinised and debated in Parliament.
The Government made the regulations under existing powers, not requiring parliamentary approval, empowered by the  Public Health (Control of Disease) Act, passed -appropriately enough in view of George Orwell’s classic title, in 1984.

I hope that, as Parliament resumes this week, we will be able to seek opportunities to debate and question the regulations along with a stack of other issues, including the plan for lifting them, But I can’t be certain.

I’ve been a whip both in opposition and in government. Indeed, I have been the Government Pairing Whip, whose responsibility is to get government supporting MPs to Westminster and, as far as possible, to keep them there in order to secure Government legislation in the division lobbies.
I am surprised therefore, to now be in receipt of a communication from my own whip telling me to stay at home and that instead we will have a virtual Parliament online.
Hold on, before we can have a virtual Parliament we first have to debate the details and decide proceed with it, which means that -if it is to be done democratically- MPs must be physically there to do it.
There are any number of issues quite unresolved.

‘Parliament’ derives from the French ‘Parler’: To speak. It is all about debate and conversation both inside and outside the chamber of the House of Commons. In the chamber a minister might triumph or equally ‘lose the House’ in the unique chemistry of that place.
It is outside the Chamber however, that the real challenges to ministers and their policies are hatched. It is in the tea room, smoking room, and in committee corridors that rebellions are hatched, and spines are stiffened amongst like-minded colleagues against the blandishments and threats of the whips.
Will this real practice of democracy thrive with MPs hundreds of miles apart and in proceedings confined to their Zoom ‘thumbnail’ in a grid on a computer screen, muted until their given allocation.

I fear that a virtual Parliament, might turn out to be virtually no Parliament at all

When you really, really need a telephone number that you can’t find, you can ring a directory enquiry service, but beware: they charge. I always remember the 118 service because of the adverts involving that rather bizarre pair of sporty twins with identical fake moustaches.

It would never have occurred to me to call up the BBC to get somebody’s telephone number. The main headline news on Friday on the BBC was that somebody had done exactly that.
We were told that the unnamed head of an NHS Trust had called the BBC to get the telephone number of Burberry, the clothing manufacturer, so that he could see if he could get hold of some PPE aprons for which his NHS trust was in desperate need.

On this-morning’s News broadcast the BBC admitted that the caller had not been the NHS official that the BBC claimed he was at all.
The original item was the lead news item, but to-day’s admission was way down in the pecking order -funny that

And the correction has not extended to all the other news sources and websites that picked up the original story

The Moral:
Never trust anyone asking for a phone number

A number of constituents have complained to me that an additional budget of £10,000 has been made available to MPs to assist them in working from home. As I’ve said in this column several times before, when MPs determined these things themselves they  were rather more sensitive to political realities -having to look our constituents in the eye. Now however, we have no role in these decisions whatsoever.

A Google search will reveal that I significantly underspent the budget available to me, and I can assure constituents I will not be using any of the additional £10,000.

I was speechless when Churches closed their doors, then incredulous to discover that clergy were forbidden to enter them even for private prayer. Now a new horror has arisen. At first I thought it might be fake news, but it was printed in The Times.
Apparently, the Bishop of Chelmsford, soon to be promoted Archbishop of York, has banned chaplains from ministering to patients at their bedsides.
As I remarked in this column last week, during the interdict that the Pope imposed on England in 1208, priests were at least allowed to hear the confessions of the dying, but not now apparently.
Given the valiant ministry of the Saints and the Church throughout plague and warfare, even stretching back to the Gospel accounts of Our Lord’s ministry to lepers, we have now come to a pretty poor state of affairs.

It’s enough to turn one Presbyterian

As the death toll from Corvid19 mounts with relentless news bulletins to match, for an instant -and it was only an instant, I thought I might have preferred things as they were last year with Laura  Kuenssberg ever on the airwaves describing the latest twists in the BREXIT saga.
Then just on cue, an email campaign started up demanding that, because of the coronavirus pandemic, our departure from the BREXIT transition period on 31 Dec this year should be delayed. Gadzooks emails with BREXIT and Corvid19 rolled into one!

The email addresses from which these demands emanate seem somewhat familiar: I suspect they are the same addresses from which earlier demands were made that BREXIT be abandoned altogether.

We will have to see how things pan-out, but my prejudice is not to abandon the December deadline. The Government has already demonstrated its ability to negotiate successfully with the EU in short order.

Furthermore, were we to extend the transition we would face steep increases in financial contributions as we entered the new 7 year budgeting period.
Rather more worrying, given the state of the Eurozone, is the possibility of being roped into bailouts and ballooning liabilities of the European Investment Bank.
EU law might well constrain policy options as we seek to boost economic a recovery from the pandemic. 

As an afterthought, one correspondent added that Coronavirus protective equipment should not be subject to VAT. Of course, we can’t change EU VAT rules until the transition period ends.

Far from prolonging our departure from the transition period, we should seek to accelerate it.

This Coming Easter will be the first in which the God-Fearing in England will be unable to make their Easter Communion since the disastrous reign of King John.
John was infamous for his military failures, arbitrary taxation, losing the Kingdom’s treasury in the Wash, being forced by the Barons to sign Magna Carta; and, of course, mixing it with The Sheriff of Nottingham against Robin Hood.

He also fell out with Pope Innocent III over the appointment of Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, resulting in England being placed under an interdict from 1208 to 1213: The only church services permitted were baptisms, although the dying could have their confessions heard -but were not allowed funerals and burial in consecrated ground. Conversely, in our own ‘interdict’ services of baptism are not permitted but funerals are.Let’s hope that ours lasts one hell of a lot shorter than King John’s.Of course, even for some of the faithful, churchgoing is partly habit, but break the habit….

*

I’ve been conducting meetings online using something called ‘Zoom’. All the participants are presented on screen in thumbnail sized squares, when they have the floor however, their thumbnail balloons out to occupy most of the screen, but it doesn’t always work like that, sometimes at random a participant will fill the screen unawares.
Actually, I used to find telephone conferencing more productive – there are fewer distractions.
With a screen you can’t help wondering about the different backgrounds: have they arranged the books on the shelf behind them to impress?
Is their home always really that tidy?
Are they still really in their pyjamas?
Last week one participant had laid his IPAD flat on the table and was looming over it, whilst continuing with his breakfast cereal. In a random moment he filled the screen and we all saw a massive spoon coming straight towards us.

*

When were all clapping furiously for our NHS on Thursday at eight o’clock (and I hope you heard the din we were making in Burley) we were clapping for all healthcare professionals, and others.
But for years constituents have been writing to me demanding that any independent and commercial provision be excluded from any involvement in our National Health Service. I’ve never understood this attitude. Do they realise that the part of the NHS with which the majority of us are most familiar is almost exclusively provided by private contractors -and they are doing a magnificent job, just like the rest of the NHS.
The original plan for setting up the NHS was to nationalise the general practitioners and leave the hospitals in the hands of private and charitable undertakings. In the event however, they did it the other way around, with all the family doctors, not as employees of the NHS, but contracting their services to it. Most people have never noticed the distinction, and I’m certain that nobody was excluding them from their admiration when we were clapping.
I hope that the Horlicks over testing will be a corrective to those ideologues who want to exclude independent providers from the NHS. At The outset, the authorities decided to centralise all testing within the NHS where they would have exclusive control, notwithstanding the ability and  willingness of independent commercial laboratories and universities to assist.
The testing regime has not covered itself in Glory, and it’s time to let the independents contribute.

Further to what I said yesterday about the mindset of Messrs Hodges and Yeatman in Dad’s Army, I was delighted to hear Lord Sumption, the former Supreme Court Justice, give vent to some of my own misgivings on the World at One on BBC Radio 4 to-day.

The powers being exercised to confine us to our own homes do not proceed from the Coronavirus Act Passed by Parliament last week, rather they are regulations (not requiring parliamentary approval) made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984.

Constituents have been inundating me with enquiries asking for advice about what they can and cannot do. Normally, I respond to requests for advice by saying I’m not qualified to give it, and that I don’t have the professional indemnity insurance against the possibility of it turning out to have been bad advice.
I have however, in the last few days thrown that caution to the winds and given my advice on the basis of common sense.
In order to let people make decisions with confidence I reproduce part 6 of the regulations below – it’s the part on what constitutes a reasonable excuse for leaving your home (if you want the regulations in full, you can find them at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/contents/made)

Of the fulsome list of reasons set out, I see no restriction on driving a car to fulfil any one of them. Indeed, some of them clearly infer use of a car.
Neither do I see a restriction on the number of times one may leave home with reasonable excuse.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020
Restrictions on movement
6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—
(a)to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household (including any pets or animals in the household) or for vulnerable persons and supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household, or the household of a vulnerable person, or to obtain money, including from any business listed in Part 3 of Schedule 2;
(Schedule 2, PART 3
24. Food retailers, including food markets, supermarkets, convenience stores and corner shops.
25. Off licenses and licensed shops selling alcohol (including breweries).
26. Pharmacies (including non-dispensing pharmacies) and chemists.
27. Newsagents.
28. Homeware, building supplies and hardware stores.
29. Petrol stations.
30. Car repair and MOT services.
31. Bicycle shops.
32. Taxi or vehicle hire businesses.
33. Banks, building societies, credit unions, short term loan providers and cash points.
34. Post offices.
35. Funeral directors.
36. Laundrettes and dry cleaners.
37. Dental services, opticians, audiology services, chiropody, chiropractors, osteopaths and other medical or health services, including services relating to mental health.
38. Veterinary surgeons and pet shops.
39. Agricultural supplies shop.
40. Storage and distribution facilities, including delivery drop off or collection points, where the facilities are in the premises of a business included in this Part.
41. Car parks.
42. Public toilets.

(b)to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;
(c)to seek medical assistance, including to access any of the services referred to in paragraph 37 or 38 of Schedule 2 ; (37. Dental services, opticians, audiology services, chiropody, chiropractors, osteopaths and other medical or health services, including services relating to mental health. 38. Veterinary surgeons and pet shops. )

(d)to provide care or assistance, including relevant personal care within the meaning of paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006(1), to a vulnerable person, or to provide emergency assistance;
(e)to donate blood;
(f)to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;
(g)to attend a funeral of—
(i)a member of the person’s household,
(ii)a close family member, or
(iii)if no-one within sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) are attending, a friend;
(h)to fulfil a legal obligation, including attending court or satisfying bail conditions, or to participate in legal proceedings;
(i)to access critical public services, including—
(i)childcare or educational facilities (where these are still available to a child in relation to whom that person is the parent, or has parental responsibility for, or care of the child);
(ii)social services;
(iii)services provided by the Department of Work and Pensions;
(iv)services provided to victims (such as victims of crime);
(j)in relation to children who do not live in the same household as their parents, or one of their parents, to continue existing arrangements for access to, and contact between, parents and children, and for the purposes of this paragraph, “parent” includes a person who is not a parent of the child, but who has parental responsibility for, or who has care of, the child;
(k)in the case of a minister of religion or worship leader, to go to their place of worship;
(l)to move house where reasonably necessary;
(m)to avoid injury or illness or to escape a risk of harm.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the place where a person is living includes the premises where they live together with any garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises.
(4) Paragraph (1) does not apply to any person who is homeless.

SCHEDULE 2
Businesses subject to restrictions or closure
PART 1
1. Restaurants, including restaurants and dining rooms in hotels or members’ clubs.
2.—(1) Cafes, including workplace canteens (subject to sub-paragraph (2)), but not including—
(a)cafes or canteens at a hospital, care home or school;
(b)canteens at a prison or an establishment intended for use for naval, military or air force purposes or for the purposes of the Department of the Secretary of State responsible for defence;
(c)services providing food or drink to the homeless.
(2) Workplace canteens may remain open where there is no practical alternative for staff at that workplace to obtain food.
3. Bars, including bars in hotels or members’ clubs.
4. Public houses.

PART 2
5. Cinemas.
6. Theatres.
7. Nightclubs.
8. Bingo halls.
9. Concert halls.
10. Museums and galleries.
11. Casinos.
12. Betting shops.
13. Spas.
14. Nail, beauty, hair salons and barbers.
15. Massage parlours.
16. Tattoo and piercing parlours.
17. Skating rinks.
18. Indoor fitness studios, gyms, swimming pools, bowling alleys, amusement arcades or soft play areas or other indoor leisure centres or facilities.
19. Funfairs (whether outdoors or indoors).
20. Playgrounds, sports courts and outdoor gyms.
21. Outdoor markets (except for stalls selling food).
22. Car showrooms.
23. Auction Houses.

I find the powers that we have granted to the authorities in this emergency deeply distasteful.They are time limited, and necessary to slow the spread of disease, nevertheless they remain offensive to our sense of liberty. Whilst most of us will shrug and simply get along as best we can, I have a suspicion that some people are rather relishing it.
I am in receipt of emails from constituents keen to report that their neighbours have driven somewhere to walk, or to walk their dog, rather than confining themselves to their immediate vicinity. Others have complained to me that the supermarkets haven’t closed-off the aisles to non-essential goods, enabling customers to purchase not just food, but stationery, clothing… and even liquor.
Gadzooks! What sort of mind-set is that?
These correspondents remind me of Mr Hodges, the Air-Raid Warden in Dad’s Army, he had an important and responsible role and a measure of authority to go with it, but wasn’t he just so enjoying it.
Mr Yeatman, the Verger, was another like-minded soul, but with just a little less weight to throw around.

It is important to resist the totalitarian mindset, there is always the danger that it will become habit- forming. This is particularly the case nowadays when technology has given the sate such additional powers to scrutinise our every move. We must remember that the basis of our law has not changed: we are not confined to what is specifically permitted, as is the case in so many jurisdictions. On the contrary, we are permitted to do anything that is not, by law, forbidden.
For the present we are lawfully confined to our homes with the exception of four limited circumstances, but the authorities must not possess the powers to make such laws for any longer that is absolutely necessary.