Every Parliamentary day begins with prayers, and in particular the following prayer

“Lord, the God of righteousness and truth, grant to our Queen and her government, to Members of Parliament and all in positions of responsibility, the guidance of your Spirit. May they never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals but laying aside all private interests and prejudices keep in mind their responsibility to seek to improve the condition of all mankind; so may your kingdom come and your name be hallowed.”

These sentiments seem to me entirely proper given that the most common complaint levelled against MPs is that they are self-interested, or put party before country. Reciting these words in the presence of the Almighty should ensure that they at least start each parliamentary sitting in the right frame of mind.

Prayers are not compulsory, members are quite entitled to wait and come into the chamber after prayers are over. 
For some, the voluntary nature of praying is not sufficient: the National Secular Society now demands that formal parliamentary prayers be abandoned altogether.

Just a few years ago a parish councillor took his council to court to stop them praying before meetings –unbelievable, the lengths some people will go to!
Anyway, the courts decided that he was right and that formal prayers could not be part of the agenda. Fortuitously however, within 48 hours the Secretary of State used his own statutory powers to grant councils the authority to pray at meetings, which the courts said that they hadn’t until then had.

I pray that the attempts to ban parliamentary prayers will prove as unsuccessful as was the battle to stop councils praying. We are a Christian nation with an established Church with the Queen at its head at the heart of our constitution.

Given the strife over BREXIT I cannot imagine a less propitious time to abandon prayers. In fact several constituents have written to me to reassure me that they are praying for MPs, and in particular for wisdom at this time. My response to them: Please Keep Praying!

Set out below is the speech I made in the Commons on Monday Night during the EU Debate. Given how critical I have hitherto been of the Withdrawal Agreement, it surprised colleagues and commentators,. My criticism has not abated, but my estimate of the alternatives courses has.

Two events in the Commons last week confirm my belief that we are in a REMAIN dominated Parliament.
First, initiative was seized from the Government when -defying all precedent- an un-amendable motion was amended. I believe that changes to our procedures of this sort will now be driven forward granting the Commons legislative initiative -formerly exclusively in the hands of the Government- and that this is a clear danger to the Withdrawal Act which guarantees our departure from the EU on 30th March.
Second, the Government was soundly defeated in an amendment to the Finance Bill, which demonstrated that there is a clear and determined majority that will actively prevent a No-Deal exit from the EU.

It is clear therefore, that in the current Parliament a ‘No-Deal’ BREXIT as an alternative to the PM’s deal is no longer an option. The looming possibility of no BREXIT at all, has changed the facts on the ground. If the facts change, then I change. I have no doubt that the PM’s Withdrawal agreement, for all its faults, is preferable to NO BREXIT and to-night I voted accordingly.

Hansard Volume 652
Column 902
European Union (Withdrawal) Act
14 January 2019  
9.00 PM
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The hundreds of constituents who have written to me demanding that I vote down this deal divide into two kinds: those who urge me to reject it so that we can leave the European Union without a deal—their preferred option—and those who urge me to reject it so that we can stay in the EU. They both cannot be right. There will have to be some management of expectations.

I have made my own dislike of this deal plain, and it is based largely on the fact that we do not know what we will be getting. The political declaration might deliver anything from Canada-minus to Chequers-plus, and where in that spectrum we might land depends upon the negotiations that will follow. There will be no end to the uncertainty for some time.

We have delivered ourselves into the weakest possible position during those negotiations, first by making the financial settlement up front, and secondly by abandoning one of the most important principles to any negotiating position—the ability to walk away—because we have agreed that we will agree and that we will stay in a state of limbo until that agreement is reached. Such is the toxic nature of that limbo that I fear we would probably agree to anything in order to avoid getting there in the first place.

I disagree passionately with my correspondents who say that this deal is worse than staying in the European Union. I have campaigned to leave since the referendum of 1975, and I am not prepared to see that opportunity lost. This deal is better than staying in the European Union. We will be out of the common fisheries policy, out of the common agricultural policy and out of the relentless momentum for political integration. I am very much aware that the events and votes of last week pose a present danger to Brexit, and I will have to consider carefully over the next 24 hours whether I want to share a Division Lobby with those who are there because their strategy is to prevent Brexit.

The Crown in Parliament is sovereign because consent is secured through the election of representatives of the people. The sole qualification for participating in the proceedings of the House of Commons being election by the voters.
Parliament has been careless with that sovereignty in the past by passing power to others so that we increasingly came to be governed by people that we do not elect and whom we cannot remove, and we gave that sovereignty away without ever seeking the explicit consent of voters, indeed the political class denied that it was happening and sought to conceal it from them.

The referendum result of June 2016 can be seen as a revolt by the electorate in protest at that process and a demand that their sovereignty be re-possessed.
It is still unclear this week as to how, or indeed whether, Parliament is going to carry out that instruction.

Old habits die hard however, and in a little noticed 35 minute debate on Monday night –with no dissenting voice being heard – The Commons was at it again: We passed what I consider to be an enormous constitutional innovation; hitherto the sole qualification for participating in the proceedings of the House of Commons has been through election, but on Monday we gave that right to 7 members of the public who will not be elected by anyone, but who will have the right to vote in the proceedings of a parliamentary committee, and that their votes will carry equal weight with the 7 MPs on that committee of the House of Commons.

I think that this is the thin end of an enormous wedge. It sets a most unwelcome precedent.
If you don’t like the way your MP votes in Parliament, you can use your own vote at the next election to have him or her replaced: Your MP is accountable to you at the ballot box.
In what way will the 7 members of the public be accountable?

It matters not that the committee in question is the Standards & Privileges Committee which examines the conduct of fellow MPs. The argument is that MPs should not be able to ‘mark their own homework’, well of course they shouldn’t, but then they don’t -and they can’t. It is for that very reason that the committee exists.
Anyway I’ve heard that specious argument before. It was used when MPs used to vote on the terms of their own remuneration, counterintuitively the pay and remuneration was much lower then.
When we handed that responsibility away to an independent and unaccountable body, that body imposed a 10% increase at a time when anyone else was lucky to get 1% and we had the ridiculous situation with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Lib Dem leader all begging the independent body to change its mind –which, of course, it didn’t.
I would have wagered that MPs, who have to look their constituents in the eye, would have been rather more sensitive about awarding themselves a pay increase in those circumstances.

When the people traffickers opened the route to into southern Europe from Libya and the grizzly count of those drowned in the attempted crossing began to rise, the response of European powers was to support a rescue mission with their own naval vessels and those chartered by charities and others.
Perversely, the consequence was more drownings rather than fewer: the increased chance of rescue, led to an exponential rise in the demand to make the crossing, and a corresponding response from the traffickers by providing even more unseaworthy craft and with insufficient fuel, in the expectation of rescue just beyond Libyan territorial waters.
Of course, there were many more rescues, but many more drownings too, such was the increased traffic.

I see no reason to believe that experience in the English Channel will be any different from the Mediterranean. Indeed the Home Secretary initially urged caution in the face of demands for more patrol vessels, because they would be likely to encourage many more attempted crossings. It is not clear to me why he appears to have changed his mind and redeployed the available patrol vessels so that they too can now patrol the channel.

I do not underestimate the enormity of the expense and the hardship that refugees endure in making their journeys to Europe and then across it, nor should we underestimate the misery and poverty from which they initially fled.
When I was the minister responsible for our humanitarian response it was clear to me that we could afford to feed, accommodate and educate ten refugees in their own region for the cost of assisting just one back in Britain. Furthermore, the ones that made it to Britain were not the most vulnerable, but the most resourceful.

Everyone has a right to flee to safety in the face of violence and persecution. The moment you travel beyond the first place of safety in pursuit of a more attractive destination however, you have become, not so much a refugee, as an economic migrant.
Now, nobody should be condemned for being an economic migrant: which one of us, in similar circumstances, would not see it as our duty to seek better prospects for our families by struggling to get to Britain? 
Equally, it is clear that there is a limit to what Britain can accommodate.

In economics there is a concept of ‘equilibrium’ which , I believe, is applicable: migrants will continue to be drawn to Europe until an equilibrium is established where life is no better here than it is in the places from which they were coming.
Our proper response to the refugee crisis, therefore, is our massive investment in international development assistance to provide order, economic opportunity, education and healthcare in the places from which people are seeking to escape.

To those constituents who demand cuts in this assistance so that we can spend it on ourselves instead, the answer is simple: expect many, many, many more channel crossings until an equilibrium is established.

Resolution

Constituents often complain to me about “in–fighting”, “childish bickering” and “self-interest” of which they perceive our politics is largely composed.
Inevitably there is some of that, but much less than has historically been the case. Overwhelmingly however, political differences arise from principled and practical differences between politicians, who –whilst they may share the same objective, namely our national welfare, nevertheless disagree profoundly about how it is to be achieved.

Constituents demand that ‘heads be banged together’ so that parties work cooperatively in the national interest, but this is virtually impossible when there is little common ground about what course constitutes the national interest. It is of little use demanding unity among politicians when their disunity is mirrored among the voters that elected them.

That demand however, does at least acknowledge that there could be a sensible way forward with a positive outcome.   Which is at odds with the short dark days in which we traditionally wallow in gloom and doom. We reinforce this attitude by agreeing with one another about just  how dreadful things are.
Only the other day, whilst discussing a controversial planning application, a constituent assured me that there would be no need for the proposed houses as he was confident that our population is soon to be decimated by a pandemic!
This reminded me of my favourite book (to which I have previously drawn attention in this column) The Coffee Table Book of Doom.  Here is a flavour from the advertising blurb:
“…with the apocalypse at hand, don’t fret about dying uninformed. The Coffee Table Book of Doom is a “… superbly illustrated and erudite compendium of all the 27 doom-laden horsemen we need to worry about – personal doom, gender erosion, asteroid impact, pandemics, super storms, sexual ruin – and much more besides.”

There is, of course, still plenty to worry about, and no shortage on commentators to remind us.
Nevertheless, I believe there is an attitude problem at the centre of our public life which makes us particularly prone to fear and self-doubt.  One example will suffice: Accepting that the people had made their decision in the 2016 referendum, if our political leaders had seized on it as an opportunity to be grasped, rather than a problem to be managed, we might make a better fist of it by now.
Positive thinking can’t wish problems and difficulties away, but it certainly helps when confronting them.

-Not a bad thing to remember as a new year resolution.

The problem with holding a ‘surgery’ to which constituents can come and share their opinions and problems, is that the very word implies skills and knowledge that I do not possess.

Last week, a Lady came and told me that she couldn’t sleep at night.

I told her she had come to the wrong surgery.

She then elaborated by saying that her sleeplessness was because of worry about BREXIT.
I told her I still couldn’t provide a cure, but that I can’t sleep either, so at least we were able to commiserate with one another

Well, we could try counting elephants, because there is one thing that Parliament has got right this month:  Passing the Ivory Bill.

The decline in the elephant population, fuelled by poaching for ivory, shames our generation. The need for radical, robust action to protect one of the world’s most iconic and treasured species is beyond dispute. Ivory should no longer be a commodity for financial gain or a status symbol.

The legislation we have passed implements a ban on ivory sales which builds on work at home and overseas to tackle poaching and the illegal ivory trade. Our soldiers are training African park rangers in proven poacher interception techniques in key African countries, and our Border Force officers share their expertise in identifying smuggled ivory with counterparts worldwide to stop wildlife trafficking.

What we have been doing goes much further than the EU, which is a shame, because they have a president called ‘Tusk’ !

The great row about what the Leader of the Opposition did -or did not- whisper under his breath at Prime Minister’s Questions was unedifying, but also left me quite nervous.

I do not want to get into the politically correct territory of whether women are as capable of being as stupid as men. That argument can run and run.

What unnerved me was the enthusiasm with which colleagues preyed-in-aid the skills of lip-readers to work out exactly what he said.

I sometimes whisper things under my breath: They are my private thoughts, perhaps to be shared with a close neighbour only, that’s why I whisper them rather than stating them out loud for the record.

The notion that we should be watched by lip-readers to see what we are whispering, so that we can be hauled before the authorities (in this case Mr Speaker), is deeply worrying.

This is dangerous territory: we are on a slippery slope to the ‘thought crime’ of which George Orwell so eloquently warned in his novel 1984. We should make it compulsory New Year reading for all MPs

 

 

 

Rt Hon Sir Desmond Swayne TD MP

Read my blog at www.desmondswaynemp.com/blogs/

Follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/desmondswayne

Visit my page at https://www.facebook.com/Desmond.Swayne

 

 

 

 

I thought it best to ‘come clean’ and reveal how I had voted in the motion of confidence in the Prime Minister, rather than to hide behind the secrecy of the ballot.
I knew it would not be a popular decision, and I did not find it easy. Indeed, I wrestled with it all day and delayed voting until five minutes before the ballot closed at eight o’clock.
I voted against.

Like so many of my constituents, I have the greatest admiration for the Prime Minister’s dogged determination, stamina, and sheer ‘guts’. No one can fault her in the effort and perseverance she has put into BREXIT. My heart was definitely for the PM.

My problem is that I do not trust her judgement.
I have already set out in this column my reservations about the Withdrawal Agreement that she has negotiated. Before we even begin to negotiate the main effort, our trade deal, it agrees to the financial settlement, and also agrees that we cannot walk away from the negotiation no matter how unsatisfactory is the deal on offer.
It is, in my estimate, a potential disaster, even before we consider the arrangements which treat Northern Ireland separately, and have which have so angered the Democratic Unionists.
I am confident that many of those who -spurred on by the Daily Mail- wrote to me demanding that I vote for the agreement, have not themselves studied it.

Whilst I was among the 117 who voted against the Prime Minister, I was not one of the 48 who sought the ballot in the first place, by writing to Sir Graham Brady as Chairman of the 1922 Committee. On the contrary, I urged colleagues not to write.
The ballot having been triggered however, I felt that it was better to go with my head rather that my heart.

In the end it came down to this: I believe that we are close to an election because the PM has no majority in Parliament, and can no longer rely on the Democratic Unionists to provide her with one (because they perceive that they have been treated in bad faith).
After my experience of the 2017 election campaign I just do not have the confidence to go into another one under the same leadership.
The PM did try and address this issue during the day on which the ballot was held, by announcing that she would not lead her party into the next election. This was persuasive, and I wavered. It became clear however, that she spoke specifically of the election scheduled for 2022. Whereas my fear is for an election that may happen in the next few weeks.

In spite of my doubts, and my vote, the Prime Minister won, and -as I said to critics who were unimpressed by the margin of her victory- she won by a more decisive margin than the LEAVE campaign in the referendum and whose victory we are making such an effort to implement.

She won, and we must make the best of it.

 

 

The surprising size of Dominic Grieve’s majority last night on his amendment to the programme motion on the handling of the ‘meaningful vote’ debate means that we are, in effect, in a ‘REMAIN’ Parliament.
In which case, there is a good chance that Hilary Benn’s amendment on Tuesday may be carried. This would mean that we would never actually reach a vote on the Government’s deal, it follows that those Tories planning to rebel and vote down the deal, will not get the opportunity to do so.

I have said in this column before that the basic problem is that the country voted for BREXIT but then elected a parliament without a majority to deliver it.

What would happen next?

Again, I’ve said in this column, that whatever the Commons then votes for is just an expression of opinion that does not bind the Government. The Withdrawal Act ensures that we leave on 29^th March and only ministers can bring forward legislation to alter that.

So, will the BREXIT Government hold its nerve against the demands of the REMAIN Parliament?
It’s just too soon to tell.

(Perhaps Parliament might be prorogued…but then we really would be in Charles II territory)