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.

Jeremy Corbyn believes he has been vindicated by the Government’s ability to respond to the corona virus emergency by spending eye-watering sums of money, which are comparable to the amounts that he was derided for proposing during the general election campaign.
The difference is this. Mr Corbyn was proposing to spend these sums, to build a socialist economy, when we were already at full employment; they would have resulted in crowding-out private productive investment, enormous inflationary pressures, and a ballooning trade deficit.
The Government’s response is at the other end of an economic cycle which has turned dramatically due to the virus: The purpose is to stave off a massive deflation and unemployment. This response is borne of necessity and the focus is on income replacement – what economists used to call the ‘automatic stabilisers’, to prevent the complete collapse of demand within the economy. It’s Pure Keynesian economics.
In one sense, I suppose, they are the same. All Government expenditure, however motivated, ends in the same way: The Government’s borrowing will have to be repaid; and we will all be repaying it in our taxes for a very long time.
John Maynard Keynes, when asked about the impact of his prescriptions in the long run, retorted that ‘in the long run we are all dead anyway’.
BUT the whole purpose of our policy is to survive, beat the virus, and live longer. As I said last week, it will certainly seem longer.

I’ve been receiving a great deal of unsolicited advice, both face to face and by email.
On exiting the Parliament I was accosted by a fellow wearing a sandwich- board who advised me to repent because resisting Covid19 was useless, it being God’s judgement upon us.
A few paces later, an elderly lady told me that closing down the economy to try and beat the pandemic was folly, on the grounds that it was a natural phenomenon designed to strengthen humanity by culling the weak and infirm!
They say that a crisis brings out the best in us -and clearly it does: just look at the number of people volunteering and checking-up on vulnerable neighbours. On the other hand those two cheery souls might find a more useful outlet for their energy. It also brings out behaviour of the worst sort as evidenced by the hoarders who have cleared supermarket shelves.

Much of the advice that constituents offer me, is given in the expectation that I will pass it on to ministers, and I have done so, but forgive me for choosing not always to do so. For example, I thought that rather too much information was offered by the fellow who emailed me instructions on how to get-by without loo paper, and I’ve kept that one to myself.

Quite a few have emailed me to say that the entire strategy is misguided: that only the elderly, weak and vulnerable should have been asked to isolate themselves, the rest of us should have carried on as normal and accepted a ‘tolerable’ death-rate in exactly the same way that we do with flu, which kills thousands every year. Instead, we have chosen to bring the economy to a full stop. These views are not a million miles from those that I expressed myself just a fortnight ago.

What changed perceptions so dramatically was the statistical analysis by Imperial College London of what is happening in Italy, where an advanced modern healthcare system has been completely overwhelmed. The study predicted that a laissez faire approach here,would result in half a million deaths and even with the imposition of much more stringent social controls, the NHS will still be overwhelmed with demands for intensive care and ventilation well beyond its capability.

That scenario begs the question of whether there ever really was a sustainable choice available that could have sought to place a higher priority on keeping the economy thriving, above minimising the impact of the virus. Frankly, as admissions spiralled, scenes of mayhem at hospitals were reported on TV (and they will be) and the death toll mounted, then people would have started to isolate themselves entirely voluntarily and the economy would have closed itself down anyway -but in a much more disorderly and damaging fashion.

*

The prospect of being cooped-up for an indeterminate period is not an inviting one. No doubt, we will all live longer as a consequence -it’ll certainly seem longer.
We all have our preferences. I have invested in a bottle of brandy rather than joining the crowds apparently determined hoard industrial quantities of loo paper

Was the budget really this week?

Usually the Sunday paters would be full of commentary unpacking it.
It has been crowded-out by Covid19, but when the pandemic is over, the budget’s implications may be profound.

Budget day is misery for the Opposition. I know- I spent 13 years of it. The Government has the initiative, all the popular announcements, and the ability to disguise any bad news.
Last week the Opposition’s misery was compounded by their belief that it was their own manifesto’s large expenditure proposals that the Chancellor was stealing.

To be fair, there was a little nervousness on the Government side as some of us felt that people had not necessarily voted Conservative in December in the expectation that the Tories would bring in a Labour budget.
In reality, the budget wasn’t quite like that. Whilst there was more money for the NHS, it was by no means John McDonnell’s drive for increased day to day expenditure across the board, paid for by taxing business and the better off.

The Budget’s emphasis -aside from vital help to deal with Covid19, was on investment to address Britain’s low productivity and to ‘level-up’ those areas that have been in long-term relative decline.

This incentive to borrow in order to invest is hard to resist: currently the Government can take a ten-year loan in the markets with a zero, and even negative rate of interest.
Nevertheless, I do have reservations.

I believe in a smaller state and lower taxes, and that in our mixed economy we need more of the private sector and less of the government sector in the mix. This budget took as a step in the other direction.
Large scale investments will be undertaken by the Government, in the past government investment performance has been patchy. I have never had confidence in government’s ability to ‘pick winners’.
The distinction between what is ‘investment’ -generating future returns, and what is day to day current expenditure has often been an elastic one. Fiscal rules are not immune to bending.
That is why it is always prudent to keep the total government borrowing requirement in check and to see that the stock of government debt is on a downward trend as a proportion of national income (it still is -just).

I recall a Conservative election poster in 2010 with the image of a new-born baby and the slogan ‘ she has her mother’s eyes, her father’s hair…and Gordon Brown’s debt’.
Tories must continue to  heed their own advice about borrowing: never  to borrow now in the expectation that future generations will repay.

Addendum
What a difference a couple of days make:
What I wrote on Sunday for this column was completely overtaken by events on Tuesday.
Having expressed some concern about an expansionary budget of £30 billion, how do I react to the announcement this week of a further £330 billion.
Counterintuitively, I approve wholeheartedly.
We are now in an economic existential crisis pf a greater order than 2008. We responded then with an even larger package to prevent the collapse of the financial sector. It was tough but it paid off.
It is essential that we respond to the new circumstance to prevent economic oblivion.

 

 

Advice should be taken from the Government website at the following link
https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/coronavirus-covid-19-uk-government-response

 

This Blog has clearly been overtaken by events and is retained for historical interest only

I have had the benefit many emails offering a great deal of advice on how to deal with the latest conovirus Covid19, in the expectation that I will pass it on to ministers. The one thing that government ministers are not short of at the moment, is advice. Indeed, they have access to the best medical and crisis management advice that can be had.

One email correspondent, responding to the false news -published in Times last week- that Parliament was to go into recess for 5 months, told me that he was glad that I was being sent home to my constituency to get ill along with everyone else.
I responded by pointing out that the danger from the covid19 is not so much to our health as to our wealth (as demonstrated by the collapse of Flybe and the consequences for Southampton Airport that will follow from it).

Some 17,000 of our fellow citizens die of flu in our country every year but we don’t hide ourselves indoors to try and avoid it. Covid19 is unlikely to kill many more than flu does and most sufferers will experience only mild symptoms, some won’t even realise that they’ve had it.
The difficulty is that Covid19 is much more ‘catching’ than flu, with the prospect that one in five of us may be off-work at when it peaks, and for those who do get severe reactions, hospitals will be overwhelmed.
It is for this reason that we need to delay the progress of the contagion, pushing its peak as far into the summer as we can. First, this will relieve the NHS of other winter pressures, including flu, so that it is better able to cope with the numbers that will have to be hospitalised. Second, there may be a seasonal decline with covid19, just as there is with flu.

The key issue is what to do to slow the progress without wrecking the economy. Clearly, we want to take measures that are effective in retarding the spread but don’t have a downside. That’s why washing your hands frequently is so helpful: it is very effective and has no economic downside whatsoever. Once you start banning large gatherings like sporting events, or even closing schools you will cause major economic dislocation for what might be only a marginal impact on the spread of the disease.

If you already have a damaged immune system or are weakened by other health or age-related conditions, I can understand the need to take precautions and to isolate yourself from the risk of exposure to Covid19 as far as you can. The rest of us however, should take advantage of the opportunities to be had, carry on going shopping, going out, and eating out. There are bargains now to be had from the holiday industry, I see no reason why they should be passed-up.

Don’t waste your money on expensive gels and masks when soap and water will do well enough.
And why people would imagine that they need to hoard loo paper -God only knows.

 

I recall that, when standards in education were falling so precipitously in the second half of the nineteen seventies, the Prime Minister-  Jim Callaghan- launched a ‘great national debate’ to try and get to the bottom of it.
Many blamed large class sizes, but rather perversely the statistics didn’t bear them out: with the results for children in larger classes tending to outperform the rest.
Clearly, politicians couldn’t just stand by as literacy and numeracy declined. Consequently, over the decades we imposed a national curriculum instructing teachers what and how to teach, when to teach it and, in order to ensure that they had done so, we imposed a testing regime and school league tables.
There is always the danger that the curriculum becomes a straight-jacket, and that schools ‘teach to the test’ to the detriment of a wider education. Nevertheless, results have improved very significantly. Indeed, primary schools have become one of the great success stories of recent years. This has resulted in pressure on a number of preparatory schools in the private sector which have experienced falling rolls because parents have discovered that a good education can be had at their local primary school -without parting with fees.

I have a particular concern about the other end of the age range at school and college: sixth form education; we fund post sixteen education significantly less generously per pupil, where arguably we should spend more.
When I was studying for my A levels, I had a full timetable -including classes on Saturday mornings. That was still the case when I taught A levels in the mid nineteen eighties. Currently however, we only fund post sixteen-year-olds to the tune with 15 hours per week of teacher contact time. With three, and sometimes four A levels, is that enough?
Of course, the pupils are required to spend time reading and working on assignments in addition, but I am not convinced that, without sufficient supervision, they are getting a fair deal.
I spoke to a head-teacher recently who was very concerned that so little time is available that teachers have to stick rigorously to the syllabus and exclude wider discussions.
Consider how demotivating it would be -for both the pupil and for the teacher- were the subject matter in class to spark your interest and prompt you to ask a question rather wide of the examined syllabus, only to be told “you don’t need to know about that”.
My recollection was that the best and most interesting lessons were when the teacher went off at a tangent and gave us an insight into a subject about which he or she was both knowledgeable and passionate.
I fear that the current generation are in danger of missing out.

For those of us who love to sit by a log fire in a pub or at home, the announcement of a ban on sales of ‘wet wood’ (moisture content higher than 20%) from February next year, appears to have been most unwelcome and I have been inundated with complaints from constituents denouncing this latest surrender to climate activism.
I think they are wrong on two counts.
First, anyone who has wasted their time trying to burn wet wood will know what a miserable source of heat that it is. Anyway, on my reading of the proposal, enjoyment of my the log fire will not diminish: Moderately sized deliveries of logs (not less than 2 cubic meters) for storage and seasoning at home before burning will be permitted, as will the sale of kiln-dried wood.
Second, the measure is not driven by climate change activism so much as clean air / health activism. The PM25 particles that are targeted by the ban are among the most damaging because they are the smallest and therefore, penetrate further into our lungs. The presence of these micro particles has been in very steep decline for 40 years but there has been a slight rise since 2017, perhaps reflecting the growing popularity of wood-burning stoves.

Having raised the issue of climate activism however, there are other privations which will no doubt be demanded of us.
There has been Citizen’s Assembly taking place over 4 weekends , where a random selection of our fellow citizens have been deliberating, with the help of ‘experts’ , to consider what changes in lifestyle we will be prepared to tolerate in order to reduce our carbon footprint.
My own view is that the only legitimate and accountable citizen’s assembly is Parliament.
The legitimacy of this climate assembly rests on the fact that it was commissioned by the select committees on The House of Commons -before the election.
Well, we will see what they come up with…but no Parliament can bind its successor.

As we scramble to cut our emissions by all sorts of sacrifices however, aren’t we missing something rather obvious?
Last week BP announced plans to eliminate its carbon footprint by 2050. Shell, which made a $15 billion profit last year, responded by saying that it will examine BP’s proposals to understand exactly how they are calculated and set up, but the chief executive added “once we understand them we’ll think about them but, at the moment, I don’t think we need to get into an arms race of CO2 targets”.
On the contrary, a CO2 reduction arms race is exactly what we need to get the oil companies into: they represent 10% of the world economy and their product is by far the greatest source of emissions worldwide. If we require them to become carbon neutral our problem will be largely solved.

I am delighted that Suella Braverman MP has been appointed Attorney-General. She is a first-class lawyer and a fierce opponent of judicial activism.

There used to be an understanding that our constitution had a lock that required 3 keys to be operated simultaneously: only when the Crown, the House of Peers and the Commons all agreed on a measure would it become law.
Over the last century or so the power of two of those keys has diminished dramatically: in effect the Crown has withdrawn entirely from decision-making in the legislative process and the Parliament acts of 1911 and 1949 have reduced the Peers to a revising chamber with limited delaying powers. The Commons is supreme.
Constitutional theorists fret about this largely unchecked concentration of legislative power in one body. It does have the virtue however, of being elected, so that it is periodically held to account by voters for its stewardship.

I have always been in receipt of letters demanding constitutional reform, to be fair it’s always been a minority taste amongst my correspondents, but it has been growing steadily albeit from a low base. Their principal demand is for the certainty of a written constitution.
This is the very opposite of what we currently enjoy, where there is no superior body of constitutional law that cannot be altered by statute (a new act of Parliament). Parliament can make new law and alter or repeal any previous laws unrestrained. Parliament is supreme and no court can strike out its statutes.
(Under the Human Rights Act 1998 a court can declare any Act of Parliament as being incompatible with the Human Rights Act, but that will be just a declaration: the offending Act remains in force; the court cannot strike it out. In any event, Parliament itself can repeal the Human Rights Act should it choose to.)

The reason we should shrink from a written constitution is that it would establish a superior body of law as supreme, and which Parliament could not alter, and by which it would have to abide.
The will of the people, expressed through their elected representatives would be constrained by this new body of law.

Now here’s the real rub: any decision with respect to whether a law infringed the constitution would be made by judges, who would indeed have gained the power to strike out laws democratically made by elected representatives.
We would have replaced the supremacy of an elected Parliament with the supremacy of unelected judges.

Given the rage with which so many constituents have written to me over the years to vent their frustration at judicial decisions that fly in the face of  common sense (most recently, for example, the decision to halt the deportation of a foreign rapist and a murderer), such a constitutional settlement would be very much for the worse.

(…but not all the judges are barking: Well done to Mr Justice Knowles for condemning the Orwellian actions by Humberside police who presumed to “check the thinking” of Harry Miller for expressing perfectly legitimate opinions about ‘transgender’ issues)