More on Assisted Death

I’ve written about assisted dying in this column on several occasions over the years:

Esther Rantzen (desmondswaynemp.com)

Assisting Suicide (desmondswaynemp.com)

MAID (desmondswaynemp.com)

Assisted Dying -Again (desmondswaynemp.com)

Bob Marris MP’s Assisted Dying Bill (desmondswaynemp.com)

I’ve also debated the subject in Parliament, in our great universities, and with constituents. I revisit it again for two reasons. First, the Commons Health select Committee, after a thorough inquiry has produced a thoughtful and  very balanced report on the question which can be found at

Assisted Dying/Assisted Suicide (parliament.uk)

Second, because the Leader of the Opposition, Sir Keir Starmer, has announced that he will let Parliament vote on the matter.
But Parliament does not need his consent or permission; Both Houses have mechanisms to secure a vote, when they want it.
In the Commons we last voted on it in September 2015, then we rejected the proposal to legalise it by 330 votes to 118.
That opportunity arose on a private member’s bill. Had there been sufficient appetite for a re-match, another private member’s bill could have been presented; Or, alternatively, an amendment could have been tabled to a suitable Government bill. Another option would have been a division under the ‘ten-minute rule’ procedure -often a very useful test of the opinion within the House. Indeed, there is nothing to stop Sir Kier giving one of his Opposition days over to a motion on the subject. Or the back- bench Business Committee could schedule a  motion for decision.
The point is that Parliament does not have to wait on the Government in order to debate and vote on questions that it considers important.
Of course, were a vote supporting a change in the law to be successful, then Government time and co-operation would be required, in spades, in order to get the detailed legislation through. I’m certain that there is no Government enthusiasm for to giving up such time and effort to this complex problem, at an inevitable  cost to its other legislative priorities.
Equally, notwithstanding the apparent public support for changing the law, I suspect that most parliamentary colleagues, recognising the difficulties that such an enormous change would represent, and seeing the experience of those jurisdictions that have embraced it, themselves shrink from it.

Budgets, or as they are increasingly designated in Newspeak. ‘fiscal events’ need to be judged in their historical context. They are, after all, designed to have a lasting effect on our prosperity in the long term. This isn’t always the case, as we discovered with Kwasi Kwarteng’s autumn statement, all which was largely reversed within weeks.

Yesterday’s budget needs to be judged in the context of events dating back to 2010 when the Coalition Government inherited the most disastrous state of the public finances in peacetime, and a recession worse than any since the 1930ies. Incoming Treasury ministers were left a leaving note by their predecessors announcing that ‘there is no money left’.
Of absolute necessity, there followed the most significant cuts in public expenditure in order to ‘fix the roof’ as the  Chancellor, George Osborne put it, and which he accused Gordon Brown of not doing during the much more advantageous economic circumstances that he had inherited in 1997 – when “the sun was shining”.
The Coalition’s financial policy was dubbed ‘Austerity’ by the opposition and it was predicted that it would lead to mass unemployment. On the contrary, as Jeremy Hunt boasted yesterday, it generated 800 new jobs per day, for every day that Conservatives have been in government since 2010.
And It put UK economic growth ahead of the other G7 wealthy economies.

Without the successful delivery of that financial policy, Britain would never have been able to access the billions that were needed to keep employment and the economy stable during the pandemic and to weather the economic impact on energy prices delivered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Without the ‘headroom’ created by the Coalition’s policy we would have faced the most disastrous of outcomes from either of those shocks to the economy.

That we were able to deal with them by hosing them with money, now provides the immediate context for this present budget. The phenomenal costs of business support and furlough, together with the eye-watering bill for subsidising energy bills are the explanation for the level of taxation being at a peacetime record: Record sums spent to get the economy through a pandemic and Russia’s war required record taxation.
The task of the Chancellor yesterday was to use what little room to manoeuvre that he had, to plot a path to lower taxes and reduced debt without spooking the markets.
In my estimate, he made a reasonable fist of it with a second recent reduction in direct taxation.

No doubt, my critics will complain that I have omitted two important factors from the context in which this budget fits: Brexit, and the short-lived Truss premiership.
I addressed the economic outcome of Brexit previously in this column Brexit Freedom Day (desmondswaynemp.com) . In a nutshell, our relatively good performance in growth, inflation and interest rates compared to the EU suggests that Brexit is not part of the problem.

I remember well, that was on a train to Oxford to defend the Government’s record at the University debating Union when I heard the news that Kwasi had been dismissed and that the measures that he had set out were to abandoned. Clearly it was a poor wicket on which to go out to bat.
The spike in interest rates, most unwelcome to those of us with mortgages, were on the way up in any case, and their trajectory has been similar to those experienced internationally.
As I said here at the time Two fingers to Socialist Dogma and Envy (desmondswaynemp.com)
I approved of all the measures individually and I want to see them all implemented as soon as possible. Kwasi’s mistake was to spook the markets by attempting them all at once, and at the same time as announcing the most generous energy subsidy entertained by any jurisdiction.

The modest measures set out yesterday are designed to get us to the same desirable high growth  
destination to which Kwasi aspired, but -this time- by a secure route.

I was an early fan of the straight-talking Lee Anderson. On the 3^rd of February last year I badgered the Prime Minister to make him Chairman of the Conservative Party. In the event he made him Deputy Chairman. I was disappointed when he had to resign in order to vote for an amendment to the Rwanda Bill, I voted for that amendment too.
I regret his suspension for his tirade against the London Mayor Sadiq Khan, but his refusal to apologise left the PM with no alternative. There were plenty of perfectly proper things that Anderson could have taken khan to task over. He has been a dreadful mayor, squandering the legacy left by his predecessor Boris. His record on Housing, transport, police, and almost everything else has been lamentable.
To accuse him of being controlled by Islamists however, is absurd. I know Khan, he is a former parliamentary colleague, he is about as secular a politician as one can get.

Nevertheless, many constituents have registered with me their disgust at Anderson’s treatment.
They believe that he has so often articulated their own thoughts and they are concerned about the way that freedom of expression is being diminished. I understand those concerns, but politicians do need to be cautious about the language that they use. Imagine if a politician had criticised a high-profile holder of public office as being controlled by Zionists, the furore would have been deafening.

Muslims must not be stereotyped. It is quite wrong to conflate ‘Muslims’ with Islamist extremists. We do well to remember current contribution of Muslims to our society as well as their historic contribution to the Empire and, in particular the imperial forces of the Crown.
But there are aspects of Islam which it is perfectly proper to subject to public scrutiny, such as the role of women, attitudes to homosexuality, Sharia councils, and teachings on apostacy.  Just as there has been no shyness in subjecting Christianity to that same scrutiny ever since the Enlightenment.
In a liberal society an important aspect of public life, like Islam, must accommodate itself to the discomforts of public scrutiny and free discussion. Notions of blasphemy are an affront to liberal democracy.

After a long consultation and subsequent deliberation, the Parliamentary Group on British Muslims defines ‘Islamophobia’ as “rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
Whist I can understand what they are getting at, I think this is too broad a definition and has a chilling effect on criticism of aspects of Islam, or indeed of Islam itself. It is far too widely drawn.  We must be very careful  to ensure that criticism and freedom of expression in public discourse is not constrained by inappropriate accusations of ‘hate speech’. The reality is that Islam, like Christianity,  is a religion adhered to by people of all races, and not itself a race.

As a Christian I am used to the criticism of my religion, both fair and unfair, and I’ve been critical of it myself too.
Islam must be subject to the same rigour, and Muslims free to be equally critical of it.

Politicians, however, should endeavour to be accurate and justify their assertions with facts.

I’ve had a few letters from constituents, genuinely solicitous for my own political survival, suggesting that I switch allegiance to the Reform Party -for such is their own preference.
I am not tempted. Though, some of Reform’s programme certainly appeals:: smaller Government, lower taxes, control of immigration, much greater exploitation of our Brexit freedoms:; A programme that definitely chimes with the section of the political spectrum that I occupy.
Nevertheless, political parties in the UK, unlike parties in so much of continental Europe, have to be much more than a manifesto of measures that appeal to a particular segment of the electorate.

Most European jurisdictions use electoral systems that are largely designed to ensure that the outcome of an election delivers representation proportional to the votes cast for each party.
This guarantee of representation enables political parties to be much more ‘picky’ about the narrowness of their ideological purity and agenda.
The constitutional principle in the UK however, is that the candidate with the most votes wins, irrespective of the proportion of the vote achieved. We vote for candidates in whose judgement we place our trust for the duration of a parliamentary term. That is why we do not hold a by-election if an MP switches party: votes were for a named candidate, whose political party allegiance is only secondary. After all, it’s only in my lifetime that we have allowed the names of political parties to be included on the ballot paper at all.

Consequences follow from these different voting systems. Proportional electoral systems deliver a modest measure of success to a relatively large selection of political parties, each having put their manifesto to the vote, but rarely do any of whom command a majority. Coalitions are formed after the election through ‘horse trading’ between the parties to cobble together a numerical majority delivering a programme put together and agreed by the parties after the election, but which was never put to the voters at the election.
To have electoral success in the UK system however, requires much broader support to secure any representation at all. Consequently, UK political parties are ‘broad churches’. We make our coalitions before elections: each of our parties is a coalition that agrees on a set of values and principles but will encompass members with a spectrum of views on different issues.

Unlike the European proportional systems, ours makes it very difficult for a new and ideological party to break through and win any constituency seats at all, even if they secure a proportion of the votes that gets into double figures. Unsurprisingly, part of the Reform offer is to change our system to the continental model.
Whilst, all voting systems have differing advantages and disadvantages, we voted to keep our existing voting system in a referendum in 2011 by a margin of 70% to 30%. I’m satisfied with that decision.

No, I’m not remotely tempted.

last week, in this column, I was somewhat sceptical about imminence of a war with Russia.
Nevertheless, it is a growing danger that we cannot ignore, together with the increasing threats to our vital national interests, including freedom of navigation in the Arabian Gulf and the South China Sea.

But defence is expensive: despite the 6^th highest defence budget in the World we have seen very significant reductions in our armed forces.

The Defence Settlement announced by the Prime Minister during his tenure as Chancellor in 2020 provided an additional £24.1 billion in cash terms over four years, exceeding UK’s NATO pledge and represented the biggest increase to UK defence spending since the Cold War.
More recently, the Chancellor announced in last Spring’s Budget that the Government will invest an extra £5 billion in defence and national security over the next two years, and will be spending another £3 billion across the defence nuclear enterprise, allowing us to improve our nuclear skills programme and support the delivery of our AUKUS partnership for the Indo-Pacific region together with Australia USA.
Defence spending is set to consume 2.25% of GDP by 2025, exceeding the NATO target of 2%.

Most recently the PM has expressed his ambition to reach 2.5%
But is it enough?
During the Cold War, and the ‘temperature’ is no warmer now, we were spending 4% of GDP.
If we take the current threat level seriously, should we be doubling our defence budget?

 

The war in Ukraine has changed everything. Once again, size really matters: Both Russia and Ukraine are struggling to recruit sufficient forces.
Whilst, Ukraine has mobilized in a war of national survival in which reserve units -like the Azov at Mariupol, have played a critical role, we by contrast, have optimised our forces for expeditionary operations much further afield beyond the NATO area, fighting ‘wars of choice’ against adversaries over which we have significantly greater capabilities.
We now need to prepare for war in Europe against a ‘peer adversary’. With that in mind, what can we learn from Ukraine’s experience against that very peer adversary?

I suggest the lessons are:
-The importance of number of manoeuvre formations that can be put into battle
-The quantity of infantry, thickened by anti-armour and anti-air capability, to protect long lines of communication
-Engineers to keep those lines open
-The manpower challenges of protecting civilian populations and infrastructure
-The even greater manpower requirements of urban warfare and the need to rotate exhausted troops.
When we were last able to deliver these sorts of capabilities we relied on Territorials to swiftly reinforce the British Army of The Rhine. The Territorial Army, with an establishment of 86,000 in formed units, providing potent blocking formations equipped with artillery, anti-tank missiles and mortars.

We make much less use of reserve forces that our the USA, Australia and Canada. Whilst our regular forces are among the best in the world, they are increasingly difficult to recruit and expensive to retain. If we are to pose a risk, sufficient to deter any aggressor, without impoverishing the taxpayer, then it has to be by recovering the ‘citizen’s army’ of reservists.

 

(Matthew 24:6-7) “ you will hear of wars and rumours of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.”

We’ve certainly been hearing those rumours in recent weeks. The Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Admiral Rob Bauer, appears to be one of ‘doves’ when he told us last month that Western armies and political leaders must anticipate conflict with Russia in the next 20 years. Other analysts and commentators have put the prospect of total war very much closer.
General Sir Patrick Sanders, Chief of the General Staff, has said that our forces would not be large enough to defend the country if there was a war, and it and that it is essential that we lay the foundations now for “national mobilisation”. Others have explicitly called for the return of conscription.

I accept entirely, notwithstanding that we already have the 4^th largest defence budget in the world, we do need to beef-up our defences in the face of Russia’s expansion of defence expenditure to a third of their entire national budget. We are one of the few NATO members to reach the current defence expenditure target of a mere 2% of national income. So, we have a lot of ground to catch-up.

The purpose of the increased the defence capability that we now need to acquire, is not so that we are able to fight the next war, but so that we can avoid having to do so.
 As the Roman said ‘Si vis pacem, para bellum’, which loosely translates as ‘if you wish for peace, then prepare for war’.  Only our readiness will deter the enemy from the risks of making war upon us. It is the possibility of defeating us that will tempt the enemy to try: Deterrence is cornerstone of our defence policy.

Do we have time?
 I certainly don’t accept the hyperbole that the threat is imminent. Russia’s military performance against Ukraine does not indicate that they will be capable of successfully taking on NATO in the short term. Furthermore, NATO retains very impressive capabilities, far in excess of what Russia has encountered in Ukraine, which should make Putin think twice.
As we were surprised by Ukraine’s ability to resist, similarly in the nineteen-eighties we believed that the Soviet capability was so great, that our only chance of holding their advance was to resort to first use of battlefield nuclear weapons. Very swiftly, at the end of that decade, the myth of Soviet superiority was exposed by its complete collapse.
That Russia has had to empty its prisons to field troops in Ukraine, may indicate that we may, as in the eighties, be overestimating their capability.

I shall return in this column, to the question of how we might improve our defence without breaking the bank, and certainly not by resorting to conscription.

In the meantime, whilst we do live in very dangerous times… “but the end is not yet”

Today is the fourth anniversary of the UK leaving the EU: Brexit freedom day.

Nevertheless, it is the nature of email, by which most of my correspondence is received, that it is a medium chiefly of complaint, and rarely of celebration.
Doom merchants continue to talk-down our country.
Yet, the other leading complaint they send to me is to deride our monumental struggle to reduce immigration, both legal and illegal. It should have occurred to these doomsters that it is precisely because Britain is so much better than anywhere else, that migrants are making such herculean efforts to get here.

The truth is that the vote to leave the EU was a massive vote of confidence in this country, and that confidence has been justified:
Whilst I accept that the EU has placed all sorts of bureaucratic costs in the way of our exporters, nevertheless, despite all the dire warnings, trade with   EU is up almost 40%.
And, free of the EU tariff regime, our trade with the rest of the world is up almost 60%.
No longer are we surrendering 75% of our customs revenue to the EU, Nor are we having to pay an annual membership net contribution of £13 billion, with the addition of all sorts of extra burdens like a contribution of 600 million euros to the EU Covid Recovery Fund.

We have become the world’s eighth largest manufacturer. Out technology sector is now three times the size of France’s and twice that of Germany’s. ‘Project fear’ warned that if we left the EU we faced economic oblivion, but, on the contrary, since the referendum in 2016, the UK economy has grown faster than Germany, Italy, and Japan. We have the third fastest growth in the G7 group of leading economies. We are more innovative than both our European neighbours France & Germany and our Asian allies Japan & South Korea.
London has regained its pre-eminence as the global financial centre.

The UK now has more trade agreements than any other independent country on the planet. We have negotiated free trade agreements with 73 countries, from Mexico to Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand. We’re the first European nation to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership with the Indo-Pacific’s most dynamic economies, which will make up nearly a quarter of global GDP by 2050. 

We are masters in our own house once again. We are now able to ban the cruel export of livestock for slaughter. We are have scrapped the dead hand of the Common Agricultural Policy, and instead incentivise biodiversity and stewardship.
We are able (if only we’d show more energy to get on with the job) to cut red tape and set the economy free.
Far from losing our influence, as we were warned, we have taken a lead in the world with our response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and to the situation in the Middle East.

I make no pretence that there isn’t a heap of intractable problems that we need to fix, but just consider the public disquiet and political angst in Germany, or the blockade of Paris by French Farmers.
Looking back isn’t the answer to any of our problems, neither is Labour’s ‘closer alignment with the EU’ -whatever sinister meaning that phrase may have.

On Monday the Commons debated the second reading of the Offshore Petroleum Licencing bill which is opposed by all the opposition parties, with the exception of Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party.
The Bill enables the licensing of new North Sea oil fields on an annual basis going forward.
 It is opposed because it is perceived to sacrifice UK’s World leadership role in the movement to reduce carbon emissions in the battle against climate change.
I think this fear is quite misplaced. Our leadership is established by the fact that despite generating only about 1% of the world’s carbon emissions, notwithstanding being the 6^th largest world economy. we have cut those emissions by more than any other developed economy – they are down by a whopping 30% from the level they were at in 1990.
This achievement has been partly secured by cutting out coal for power generation and increasing
reliance on wind and solar for electricity. In 2010 these two forms of power generation accounted for only 7% of our electricity, now they are producing 40% of it.
UK led has the world to give legislative imperative to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

The important thing to remember about this net-zero target however, is that it is ‘net’.
We will continue to generate emissions after 2050 because we will need many more years to replace our need for hydrocarbons in any number of uses from powering vehicles, heating our homes, manufacturing products, and generating electricity until we are able to replace gas-fired power stations, increasing nuclear, and until we have improved our capability to store power generated earlier through better battery technology.
Despite this time lag, we will reach a position of net zero by removing more carbon from the atmosphere through carbon capture and storage, so that overall we will balance continued emissions with the amount that we are removing.
This will be no mean endeavour: it will require new technology; transforming agriculture, and changes to the way we do things.
Nevertheless, it is much more manageable than the hair-shirt mentality that wishes to hobble our economy and prosperity by prematurely closing down one of our greatest assets: oil and gas in the North Sea.

We still need it; and we will still need it for decades after we achieve net-zero in 2050. So, if we do not get it by issuing new licences for North Sea exploration and extraction, then we are going to have to import it from overseas at much greater cost to ourselves and we will forgo what has been a lucrative source of tax revenue to fund public services, currently to the tune of £16 Billion annually.

The Opposition state however, that far from needing the oil and gas ourselves, we are exporting it.
First, they are largely wrong: virtually all the gas goes into our own UK distribution network.
But a significant amount of the crude oil does indeed go to Europe to be refined. This generates export earnings and tax revenues. It also obviates the need of those European refineries to get their crude oil from Russia and the Middle East, removing a source of profound  insecurity in our energy mix.

The reality is that the opponents of new licences for the north sea are not against oil extraction in principle, or the 200,000 well paid skilled jobs that enable it, they are just opposed to them being British jobs in British waters. They know we will simply have to get the oil and gas from other countries at higher cost.

The trump card however, and which renders the opponents case to the realm of ‘bonkers’, is that the carbon emissions created by extraction from our North Sea are vey much lower than the emissions generated by having to import it.
Mercifully, sanity prevailed and the Bill was carried by 293 votes to 211

With the Post Office Horizon scandal fresh in our minds, the Commons debated the Loan Charge yesterday.
Horizon and the Post Office rumbled on for years with debates and inquiries but did not explode into public consciousness until the recent ITV Drama.
The Loan Charge is in that rumbling along stage, having had a limited inquiry and a few debates but, notwithstanding thousands affected and ten suicides, it has yet to make an impression on the public and so, demand political action.

It is in all our interests that HM Revenue & Customs pursue ‘disguised remuneration’ schemes which disguise income in order to evade tax.
Many contractors however, faced with the complications of a particular tax regulation called IR35, were persuaded by employment agencies, employers  and accountants to accept payment in the form of a loan. They were assured that this was proper and above board, typically they paid fees of 18% to the provider. They declared the arrangements in their tax returns, unchallenged by HMRC.
Then years after the event, for tax years now closed, they started to receive huge tax bills, with eye watering additions for interest stretching back over the years.
Typically, these are people of modest means including many nurses, computer programmers, some were even contractors working at HMRC.

Much of the debate last Thursday was taken up with the detail of HMRC’s shocking treatment of its victims and the terrifying experience it can generate.
The worst of it however, is that unlike the Horizon scandal, where the Post office and Fujitsu can be blamed, the powers that HMRC are now using were specifically granted for that purpose by the House of Commons itself in the Finance (Number 2) Act 2017. (Exclusive blame lies with the Commons because Finance bills don’t go to the House of Lords for scrutiny).
A key question that we touched on was, how was it that, when we approved the measure, we didn’t realise the full implications and consequences of what we were about to inflict?
The 2017 Loan Charge measure defies the principles of good legislation because, first, it is retrospective in its effect, and second, it denies anyone affected the right to have their case resolved by a tribunal or court: It makes HMRC their sole judge, jury and executioner.

I have constituents who came to me for help, insisting that they declared all their affairs properly at the time and believed they had paid the tax that was due. HMRC didn’t challenge them or raise any question about what they had clearly set out in their tax returns. Then, using the power to re-open closed tax years retrospectively, HMRC has presented them with demands that they just cannot comprehend, against which they have no right of appeal.
Their lives are in turmoil, and they stand to lose everything

I wonder if it will take a TV drama to resolve

Hansard (parliamentary official report) 11 Jan:

“Sir Desmond Swayne 
What support the Church is providing to the Anglican Hospital in Gaza. 

The Second Church Estates Commissioner 
(Andrew Selous)
The House may not be aware that the Anglican Church is one of the largest providers of healthcare and education globally. The al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza is an example of this. Before Christmas, the hospital was severely damaged again and a tank demolished its front wall. Most of the hospital staff were taken away by the Israeli Defence Force and the Church of England has asked the Government here to inquire about their wellbeing and whereabouts and to request that they be released.

Sir Desmond Swayne 
Intimidation by hard-line settlers has prompted the Patriarch to say that clergy are fighting for their lives, and that the Armenian quarter faces a ‘violent demise’.
Is a Christian presence in Jerusalem still viable?

Andrew Selous 
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for bringing this issue before the House. He is right: a century ago, a quarter of Jerusalem was Christian; now, just 1% of the population is, and in the Armenian quarter of the old city, the Christian presence has come under intensified threat from intimidation and aggressive property acquisition by settlers. The Church of England is very concerned that the rule of law should prevail in Israel and the status quo be maintained. It is unconscionable that Christians should be driven from the holy land.”

I quote this exchange that took place in the Commons last Thursday to draw attention to two important issues. First, with respect to Gaza, whilst I support Israel’s right to go to war against Hamas (which was the subject of my last contribution in this column A special place in Hell (desmondswaynemp.com) ). I don’t believe that I have a single constituent who isn’t horrified by the consequent destruction and suffering of Palestinians in Gaza.

Second, the long-standing concerns I have had about Israel’s stewardship of the West Bank. On Wednesday I heard a dreadful report  (as yet, uncorroborated) of a visit by Israeli defence Force to a charity in Jenin which runs a home for disabled children, I’m told that they ‘trashed’ the place and took away all the Children’s winter clothes. I hope it isn’t true – and one has to be cautious about any partisan reports (as the BBC has learnt -or failed to learn- to its own cost).
What I will say however, as a former minister responsible for our assistance to Palestinians in the occupied West Bank of the Jordan River, I reached the conclusion that the Government of Israel had abandoned any prospect of a two-state solution and that this was made evident by support for the building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank that would make any future Palestinian state geographically and economically unviable.
Whenever, I’ve badgered  current ministers about this, they always respond by saying that we constantly raise this issues with Israel. Well, I did that too. At least I did so sufficiently robustly that the Deputy Prime-Minister stormed out of the room. There must come a time however, when constantly raising matters to little effect, demands a different response.