Whilst the Public Order Bill was going through the Commons Last October I received a large correspondence against its provisions from constituents who believed that it reduced the opportunities for lawful protest.
I do have reservations about the extent of discretion being given to senior police in some circumstances, but I believed that the right to protest was safe, that is until it was compromised by an amendment, which the Government opposed, but was carried.
 There is always a balance to be had between protest and the potential for disorder. What if the right of protestors to demonstrate prevents others from going about their lawful business?
We’ve all seen how groups like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil have made life a misery for people trying to get to work or preventing from dealing with important family commitments. Ordinary people have rights too.
 So, I thought it was right to give the Police sufficient new powers to prevent protests from wrecking things for everyone else.

The irony is that during the bill’s passage in the Commons, MPs who were among the most opposed to the balance that it sought to strike in restraining aspects protest, themselves inserted its most illiberal provision: excluding freedom of speech and any demonstration whatsoever within an exclusion zone;
New Clause 11 prevents anyone within 164 yards of an abortion clinic (or any adjoining highway, or area visible from such a highway) from protesting in any way at all, even just being there.
I accept that those seeking the services provided by the clinics have an absolute right to free and unmolested access but these provisions are extreme: you won’t even be allowed just to stand there silently.

Minister’s, who opposed the new clause, accepted that it contravenes our Human Rights laws and that something needed to be done to amend it in the Lords. Unfortunately, The Government has no majority in the Lords and we will just have to wait and see what they send back to the Commons in the next few days. Unamended, it will probably end up in another spat it the Strasbourg Court under the European Convention on Human Rights.

In the meantime, when the bill hasn’t even become law yet, we’ve already had the Police arrest someone for standing silently close to an abortion clinic, even though it was closed at the time so she wasn’t in anyone way.
When she was interrogated about what she was doing, she said that she was praying silently. They then demanded to know what she was praying about!
We really are now in the realms of Orwellian ‘thought Crime’.

Further to my article in this column last week, the Government has intervened to prevent the Scottish Parliament’s Gender Recognition Bill proceeding to receive royal assent.

The debate following the Government’s announcement was a very angry affair. First, because Scottish National Party MPs felt that the Parliament in Edinburg was being slighted by Whitehall. Second, because the debate about sex and gender has been particularly vicious from the outset. Individuals have been treated shamefully when they have expressed concern that the privacy, dignity and safety of women may be compromised when men present themselves as female and are given access to women-only facilities: The philosopher Professor Kathleen Stock was hounded out of the University of Sussex for saying so; The author J K Rowling has been denounced and ‘cancelled’ for agreeing with her; The Labour MP for Canterbury, Rosie Duffield, was heckled by her own side in the Commons last week when the supported the Government’s sensible course of action. These women have been brave. Many others have decided to keep their own counsel because of the vitriol poured out on the women who have broken cover.

I predict that the temperature will rise further because the Government has now committed to bring forward its own legislation to outlaw conversion therapy. This has long been planned but was originally designed to restrict the measure to therapies that purported to convert gay people into heterosexuals. These therapies have a long and bizarre history, from testicle transplants, to lobotomies, exorcisms and hypnosis. My concern about any new law is first, that most of these egregious practices are now unlawful anyway and would constitute an assault. Second, because of the difficulty of defining a new law so it does not constrain freedom of speech.

The intention is now include transgender conversion therapy within the proposed ban. This adds a level of complexity to an already highly emotionally charged debate. When Boris Johnson was Prime Minister, he made it clear that his proposal would exclude transgender conversion therapies – he was right to do so, I wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole- but the current administration has reversed that decision.
The problem remains essentially the same: how to define the law so that it does not prevent freedom of speech. The difficulty is greater however, because there is much less of a consensus.

Young people, including children at school, who are confused about their gender may find themselves considering treatments which will interfere with puberty and have consequences that they may later bitterly regret. It is essential that they think this through and are sure about what they are contemplating. The problem will be to define a law which does not constrain the ability of parents, teachers, clinicians, friends, and why not clergy too, to have serious conversations with children about their decisions.
Standing in the way of such discussions is deeply irresponsible.

I’m surprised to have had so many emails demanding that the UK Government desist from any inclination to deny Royal Assent to the new Scottish legislation on gender self-declaration.
I disagree.
What they do in Scotland is a matter for them, but we cannot allow them to make changes there that have such profound implications for the rest of the UK without our consent.
I’ve said in this column previously [ Can a Woman have a Penis? (desmondswaynemp.com) ] that I don’t care what people chose to describe themselves as, but physical attributes have consequences. It simply isn’t proper or safe for a bloke with a penis, even if he presents as a female, to have access to exclusively female facilities. And I don’t believe that there is a majority in favour of it in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Scottish legislation entitles beneficiaries to a new birth certificate with their gender of choice. This would be indistinguishable from any other birth certificate if presented in in other parts of the UK, lawfully entitling them to gender exclusive facilities.
I know that Keir Starmer has indicated that he would implement the same law in England, but he isn’t Prime Minister…yet. I believe that we should veto the New Scots law until we vote for a UK Government in favour of it. After all, we just might not.

Further to my last contribution to this column, when I commented on my colleague Andrew Bridgen’s speech in the commons about the safety of Covid vaccinations, I have, over the last few days, had a stream of outraged emails after the Government whip was withdrawn from him.
When I first heard the news I was about to explode with indignation too. Freedom, of speech  (however, one may disagree with what is actually said), is an essential element of our democracy. One of our most important parliamentary statutes, the Bill of Rights 1689, is explicit:
“freedom of debate and speech in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place other than in Parliament’
I quickly recovered from my apoplectic fit when I discovered what had actually happened. Mr Bridgen did not have the whip withdrawn for the questions he raised in Parliament, rather it was for what he said on Twitter. Frankly, it was grotesque: He quoted a clinician of his acquaintance comparing the Covid vaccine programme with the Holocaust. Whatever doubts one may have about the vaccine, to compare an heroic effort to combat disease -which liberated us from the misery of lock-downs, with a deliberate attempt to wipe out Jewish people, is beyond the pale.

Covid vaccination is voluntary. Patients can make up their own minds about their effectiveness and the risks of an adverse reaction -the statistic for which are available for anyone with an enquiring mind. (I took a very different view when there was the element of coercion involved, with the threat of dismissal for health professionals and ‘vaccine passports’ for the rest of us, but that has all gone).

I am not a clinician but my prejudice is that Covid is insufficiently dangerous to justify a vaccination programme beyond those particularly vulnerable to it. Because of my age I was glad to have mine, but I am sceptical about the benefits for younger people and especially children.
Many vaccinations run the risk of adverse reactions which can amount to an unpleasant few days, to permanent disablement and even death. For our collective benefit we seek to encourage vaccination. So, we really need to address the shortcomings of our vaccination damage compensation scheme: the evidential bar is set too high and the scale of compensation far too low, with the result that claimants face the delays, risks, and expense of having to go to court.

There will always be risks, and I have every sympathy with those who have had adverse reactions, but I remain of the view that the swift roll out of the covid vaccine was a triumph.

I have received a substantial email correspondence in support of a speech in Parliament by my colleague Andrew Bridgen MP, demanding that the Covid-19 vaccination program be discontinued on the ground that it presents a greater danger than the disease itself.

The emails expressed outrage that the Commons Chamber was virtually empty when Bridgen delivered his speech. As it happens, I was listening at the time he gave it, but the reason the that the Chamber was empty was because it was the end-of-day Adjournment debate:  There is a ballot for the half-hour slot at the end of each day’s parliamentary business. The successful applicant gets 15 minutes to speak on his chosen topic and the minister with responsibility has 15 in which to reply. Nobody else is expected to participate. As the debate falls at the very end of day’s whipped business, the Chamber empties and in is not uncommon for only the four MPs to be left: the member who secured the slot, the minister answering, the duty whip and Mr Speaker. No particular indifference or disrespect was being displayed on this occasion.

Mr Bridgen has since been suspended from the Commons and some of my correspondents have emailed to express outrage at this denial of freedom of speech. Their concern is entirely misplaced: Bridgen’s suspension was for a breach of the lobbying rules that has been going through the quasi-judicial processes for some time and has nothing to do with the recent speech on vaccines.
Nevertheless, the claims that Mr Bridgen made are very serious and demand answers. There has been plenty of coverage on social media, but the issue has been almost completely ignored by the press and broadcasters.
Bridgen gave detailed statistics and revealed the sources of his data. Given shocking conclusion that he drew, we deserve a detailed point- by-point rebuttal in defence of the current vaccination policy.
Both public and Parliament benefited from detailed independent expert questioning of the models and data presented by the advocates of lockdown. Equally, we would now benefit if the medical establishment were to answer Mr Bridgen and justify their policy scientifically.

At the hight of the ‘witch craze’ hysteria that accompanied the pandemic, I was denounced for being ‘anti-vax’ and Cabinet members demanded that I recant and apologise. Comment in one national newspaper -whilst not exactly saying that I was a child molester nevertheless suggested that I looked like one!
I was never ‘anti-vax’, I was just opposed to the policy of lockdown, the disastrous consequences of which are becoming ever more apparent. On the contrary, I welcomed the vaccine as a great scientific breakthrough and as the means of our escape from the dreadful lockdowns. (Though I believed that the vaccination effort should be confined to those who are particularly vulnerable to the disease, and I was never persuaded that it was wise to extend it to Children).

Serious questions have been raised about the wisdom of continuing with the current policy. They need to be addressed in detail, but they are simply being ignored.

I wouldn’t flatter myself with the thought that the Prime Minister read my column on illegal migration. Clearly, the very welcome measures that he announced in the House of Commons last week had been in the planning pipeline for some time.
In addition to the UK police presence that he has already established in France he announced
– a new joint operational command in the Channel, bringing together our military, Border Force, and National Crime Agency -with doubled funding and 700 more staff for the job.
-More staff too to free-up immigration officers for enforcement, including many more raids on illegal workplaces.
-An end to the scandal of £5.5 million per day spent on hotels, with the acquisition of alternative accommodation for 10,000 in surplus military sites and similar facilities.
-Doubling the number of asylum caseworkers and re-engineering the processes to triple productivity, so that claims can be processed in just days and weeks.
-Embedding UK Border Force in Albania. Issuing new guidance and staffing a new 400 strong specialist Albania unit, so that we reject almost 100% of Albanian asylum claims (and to legislate if this is challenged in the courts)
-Amending the Modern Slavery Act to significantly raise the evidence threshold for individuals to be considered a victim
-Restarting the Rwanda project which the courts have now said it is lawful
-Further law reform to prevent the courts being used to frustrate removals for months and 
to legislate to make it lawful to remove anyone here illegally.

Notwithstanding, these measures I did participate in a ‘demonstration’ last week: I voted for  a ‘ten minute rule motion’ that would have seen us withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights. It had no chance of success, but it was important for a substantial number of us to put down a marker.
The Convention was largely the UK’s own creation and was designed as a bulwark to prevent Europe slipping back into dictatorship after the Second World War. Nevertheless, as I have said in this column previously, it has long outlived its usefulness and extended it reach beyond what was ever intended.
Ministers are confident that they can achieve control of our borders without leaving the ECHR, but they were confident about that before. We need to keep withdrawal on the table. 

There is however, another side to this entire problem.
Scores of millions of people are displaced, they are fleeing conflict, poverty, climate and lack of economic opportunity.
Who can blame people born into these circumstances from wanting to seek a better life elsewhere.
If we are serious about reducing the temptations that draw them to our own shores, then we have to invest in economic opportunities in the places from which they are coming: In the end international development aid has to be all about creating jobs.
In the early nineteen-seventies the wealthy nations agreed to spend 0.7% of their annual income on development aid. Very few have ever delivered their pledge. We were the largest economy to do so, but only from 2011-2019. Had all the pledging nations lived up to their commitments that they made so long ago, perhaps the World would not be facing the huge numbers of refugees that are now overwhelming the international treaties and conventions that were originally put in place to deal with far fewer of them. 

The Prospect of Reform of the House of Lords has been raised once again as a ‘first-term’ objective for an incoming Labour Government.
I rather doubt it, any new government usually finds that it has much more pressing priorities for the legislative time available to it.

Nobody would have sat down and designed the House of Lords as it now is, but it works effectively as the revising chamber for legislation that the Commons simply hasn’t given enough time over to scrutinising thoroughly.

The first Lord’s reform of 1911, when they conceded power over finance and were restricted largely to delaying powers when in disagreement with the Commons, was designed to be temporary. The expectation was that an elected House would replace it within a decade or so. Of course, it never happened.
When, in 1998, the Blair Government culled the hereditary element, they allowed 100 hereditaries to remain temporarily -elected by the hereditary peers themselves. This arrangement was to only supposed to endure until a through reform would subsequently replace them with elected peers. They are still there, and every time one of them dies, a byelection is held amongst the hereditary peers to elect another to serve instead. The irony is that the remaining hereditaries are the only peers with any democratic legitimacy, because at least they were elected by someone.
In 2011 the Coalition Government, under pressure from the Liberal Democrats, invested precious parliamentary time in an attempt to legislate for elections to the House of Lords. It all came to nothing because the Commons could not agree on any particular scheme by which it would be achieved. My estimate is that exactly same outcome would be repeated were a government to attempt it again.

There are two fundamental reasons why the Commons will find reasons to prevent the Lords being elected. First, no MP wants a peer on their patch purporting to also represent their constituents too.
Second, we are savvy enough to realise that were the Lords to be elected and so legitimately claim to represent the people, they would no longer be content to be a mere revising chamber and without financial control: So, there would be enormous pressure on the Commons to share real political power.

There is reason why ordinary voters too should beware of democratic Lords reform: the huge bill that would come with it and which would be another claim on our taxes.
Were the Lords to become elected tribunes of the people, they would no longer be content with expenses and a per diem allowance, they’d want salaries and pensions just like MPs. They would demand staff too. They’d need offices to operate from and to accommodate their staff. This extension to the secure parliamentary estate would present a huge new capital cost, in addition to all the extra running costs.

And all for what?
To elect more politicians when we already have quite enough.

Petitions that gain over one hundred thousand signatures can secure a debate by parliamentarians in Westminster Hall. These clash with legislation being debated in the Commons Chamber, so it often isn’t possible to attend Westminster Hall, irrespective of the number of emails from constituents and lobbyists asking one to do so.

Last week however, I did manage it. The petition -prompted by the US Supreme Court’s reversal of Rowe versus Wade- demanded a human right to abortion services in the UK.
The petitioners and the MPs who supported them were quite misguided in their belief that legislating for such a right would have any effect whatsoever.
Unlike the USA, we do not have a written constitution that is subject to the interpretation of judges. In the UK there are different sources of law, but the supreme law is statutes enacted by Parliament. One such, is the Abortion Act 1967 which sets out the restricted terms on which an abortion can be lawfully had. The establishment of a new ‘human right to abortion’ would not alter the Abortion Act in any way and would not empower activist judges to set it aside: It would be pure gesture politics.
Only an amendment to the Abortion Act can change the terms on which abortion is made available.

What escapes the judgement of the promoters of a ‘human right to abortion’ is that there is more than one human life to be considered.

I return the subject I have often covered in this column: Channel crossings, about which I – quite understandably- continue to receive a lively correspondence.
 Whilst I share the anger and frustration of my correspondents, I do not agree with their analysis that there are simple solutions if only we had the will to implement them. On the contrary, the matter is as complicated as you can get, with international treaty obligations…and the rest.
The Government is wrestling with the complexities and is determined to get on top of them. The opposition parties however, believe that the solution is to make more ‘safe and legal’ routes available so that migrants are spared the danger and expense of paying gangsters to bring them by dingy.
 I think this is naivete of the first order: the ‘safe allocations’ would quickly be exhausted and everyone else would simply resort to dinghies once again.

At least a part of the problem is of our own making. We are a ‘soft touch’ and we allow ourselves to be taken for fools. For example, the Albanians -who make up about one third of this year’s arrivals in small boats, yet there is no war or oppression in Albania. Equally, if you claim, as an Albanian, that you have been trafficked as a modern slave, surely it is reasonable that, once having been rescued, you be returned to your home.
Given the choice, I’d rather live in the UK than Albania, but as a country that has an acute housing shortage and which saw net migration of half a million in the last year for which figures are available, we cannot be in the business of making such choices freely available.

So, how is it that we accept the claims of well over half of our Albanian asylum applicants?
Why does France accept only 2.3 % of their Albanian claims?
Why do Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and eleven other European countries not accept any of such Albanian claimants?
Clearly, there is something wrong with our law, our processes, or our judgement. Actually, it is probably all three.

Notwithstanding record low unemployment figures, the size of the workforce has shrunk: the number of people in employment is still lower than before the pandemic. Virtually every enterprise that I visit or speak to is under-recruited, they just can’t get the staff that they need.

So often in their response, like the Confederation of British Industry, they demand increased immigration to deliver the workers that they need.
As a small and crowded island that saw net migration rise to half a million in the year to June 2022, we cannot just go on importing the next generation of workers. An imported workforce comes with additional housing needs and demands on public services. We have to moderate our addiction to foreign workers, now even Labour says so.

There are now 630,000 more economically inactive adults of working age than before the pandemic. The Chancellor had the right priority when he announced last week that he is to fund the department of Work and Pensions to require hundreds of thousands more benefit claimants to meet a work coach to get the support they need to increase the hours that they work.

I am an elected member of the Commons Work & Pensions Select Committee and when I’ve asked witnesses about the cause of the reduced workforce, I’m told that long-term sickness has increased because of the inability of the NHS to deliver the necessary healthcare. I’m sceptical: in the past work-related sickness was overwhelmingly musculoskeletal, but now it is stress and anxiety related. These conditions, however debilitating, are quite treatable. After all, work is good for mental health and self-esteem.

Given that I represent a constituency with one of the highest age profiles I was particularly interested in data that Phoenix Insights, a longevity think tank has shared with me. Their polling casts doubt on the suggestion that poor healthcare is a cause of economic inactivity. Of the 50 to 64-year-olds who have left the workforce since the pandemic, only 16% gave long-term sickness or disability as their reason for doing so. The main reason they gave was that they didn’t want to work any longer. In fact, 70% of those who left work in their early fifties said that they did not want to go back to work.
Interestingly, we appear to have a more negative attitude to work that in the USA or Germany: 58% of workers in the UK liked their job, compared to 74% in the USA and 73% in Germany. 40% of workers in the UK said that the coronavirus pandemic made them rethink how they view working, compared to only 28% in the US and 30% in Germany

I have misgivings about increasing benefits when real wages are falling. Perhaps cost-of-living pressures may still exert pressure to return to work, but I think there is a message in these statistics for employers too: quality of life in the workplace is going to be a key element in recruitment