Sir Desmond Swayne
MP for New Forest West · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Just how confident is the Minister that this was not a cyber-attack? How confident is he of the resilience of the system in the event of such an attack, and how confident is he in the willingness and ability of the Government to retaliate in the event of such an attack, as the best form of deterrence?”
“I join that long list of UK Ministers who have raised, at the very highest level in Israel, the most egregious practices in the west bank, designed specifically to prevent a two-state solution, only for Israeli policy to double down. Accordingly, I congratulate the Secretary of State.”
“I am delighted by the reprieve—the New Forest was to be split, and part of it swallowed by Southampton. Will the Secretary of State accept my representation that we want the integrity of the New Forest to remain, and the last thing we want is for it all to be swallowed by Southampton?”
“To address one of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, that takes account of the fact that there may be different levels of need in different areas.”
“Yes, essentially today we are putting these services on a statutory footing. Of course subsequent Governments can change statutes, but this Bill makes it an explicit decision of this House and Parliament, rather than a fiat by Government decision.”
“I will address exactly that point shortly. If a child is not developing properly and is not sleeping, feeding or communicating, parents need to know that they have somewhere to turn.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,773 lines we hold for Sir Desmond Swayne, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 36.
“It is a great privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), to whom the House owes an enormous debt for the amount of time, effort and initiative that they have put into raising the profile of this important issue. Ever since I have been in this House, I have experienced legislation after legislation and Government initiative after Government initiative to try to deal with the enormous implications of the problem we face as we spend an increasing amount of our lives in retirement. We cannot expect people to rely on the basic state pension. It was never designed to provide people with the level of comfort to which they had grown accustomed during their working lives.”
“How is remaining in a customs union consistent with the decision of the British people to be no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice?”
“6. What recent discussions the Church of England has had with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the persecution of Christians overseas.”
“What estimate has my right hon. Friend made of the willingness of International Development and Foreign Office Ministers to actually do something about the persecution of Christians and put it at the top of their priorities?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“The EU’s contingency arrangements are welcome, but what estimate has the Secretary of State made of the prospects for airports such as Bournemouth that want to increase their routes to Europe over the next year?”
“The difficulty is that we do not know the extent of the compromise because negotiations on the future agreement have yet to begin, and because we will have paid the money upfront and will be unable to walk away from these negotiations, so we will be in a weak position. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me about the level of compromise that is likely to be made?”
“Is it fair to continue to subsidise solar panels by charging higher prices to other customers who could not possibly afford that investment?”
“If I might offer an observation, Mr Speaker, on your response to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker).”
“I just wish to offer the opinion that, with respect to the answer that you gave to my hon. Friend, Mr Speaker, change is always for the worse.”
“The change required is one that will enable us to walk away from negotiations if the deal on offer proves unacceptable to us. As currently drafted, the agreement does not allow that possibility, does it?”
“The Home Secretary was previously cautious about increasing the number of patrols because perversely it might have led to an increase in the number of attempts. Why has he changed his mind?”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are about to debate a matter of huge constitutional significance. Hitherto, the sole criterion for voting in Committees of this House has been election. If this measure passes, we will change that to allow people who have not been elected to vote in Committees of this House. That would be a huge change, which we are about to rush through in 40 minutes, without proper scrutiny. The Government have already withdrawn one motion from today’s proceedings. Is there any way that, through your offices, you can ask the Government whether they would be prepared to withdraw this motion so that we can debate it fully and properly at an appropriate time?”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that if there is no order of the House that a debate must end at a particular time, and if Members are standing at the moment of interruption, then that debate should continue at another time, when time becomes available, and not be put to a vote when Members are still standing, waiting to speak in the debate.”
“It is verging on impertinence, Madam Deputy Speaker, but could you share with us the rationale for your decision, rather than allowing the debate to proceed, which it would otherwise have done had you not terminated it at the moment of interruption? We could then have explored all those constitutional issues that were raised ever so briefly during the short time that we had.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I declare an interest, as someone who has a bad habit of making utterances under my breath in this Chamber? My point of order to you, Sir, is, had you received different advice from the lipspeakers, giving incontrovertible evidence as to what the Leader of the Opposition had said, what would have been the result? I am deeply concerned about the fact that if Members are to be upbraided for what they might say under their breath, we are in the realms of thought crime, and this is the madness that is sweeping universities. What was said was not on the record.”
“Every time I am foolish enough to turn on the television, there are adverts from lawyers offering free advice on workplace injuries. Surely we cannot be in want of any more such advice.”
“Should the Prime Minister’s recent experiences at the EU Council not serve as a powerful corrective to any illusion that we could have remained a member of it?”
“To balance, in 2021 Hampshire will have cut a total of £560 million from its budget. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the difficulties faced by even the best-run councils?”
“I can introduce my hon. Friend to manufacturers who find it significantly easier to export to the rest of the world than to the EU. Is there a lesson in that?”
“After we get the vote and vote for the agreement, at what stage can we subsequently walk away from trade negotiations should the terms prove sufficiently unattractive?”
“Essential to any successful negotiator is the ability to walk away. The backstop takes that from us. How can the Prime Minister change that?”
“I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. Ever since the referendum, the narrative has been to find explanations for why the people voted as they did—any explanation other than the fact that they wanted to leave the European Union. Does he consider that the majority in favour of the amendment in the name of our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) shows that the game is up, and that there is now a majority in the House against leaving the European Union? The game for us must be to find some orderly way around that, irrespective of the majority who are now against us.”
“The backstop is in the agreement at the insistence of the EU, and it affords the EU a huge advantage and leverage when it comes to our determination never to be in it when we negotiate the future arrangements, does it not?”
“I attempted to restrict the scope of a question to the holy lands and was summoned to the Table Office to change the offending words. It is not persecution, but does my right hon. Friend resent that secular agenda as much as I do?”
“Welcome back, but—I have had some pretty miserable experiences on that train line, but they are as nothing compared with how ghastly it must be to be rail Minister. Does my hon. Friend think that that might have contributed to his predecessor’s resignation?”
“My right hon. Friend mentioned liberty. A disproportionate number of our veterans are actually in prison. The excellent “Phoenix” project run by Care after Combat reaches only one in 10 veteran prisoners. Will he look at the possibility of finding finance to extend that excellent programme?”
“Effective UN action is so often prevented by the deployment of a protected veto on behalf of one or other of the combatants. That will not happen in the case of Yemen, will it?”
“Victims are at their most infectious when they are dead. A key intervention in Sierra Leone was burial teams; are they being deployed in the Congo?”
“I am very glad that my right hon. Friend is back. Another thing to look into is the case of Emily Lydon, reported in The Sunday Times , because it is vital that the roll-out of universal credit is both measured and continually improved.”
“If the courts were to publish clear advice as to what access parents might reasonably expect, fewer of them would perhaps be tempted to litigate, would they not?”
“At St Andrews University, Scottish students go free, and as a consequence their numbers are capped at 20% of the university’s population. Cut tuition fees, and we cut opportunities for students. It is that simple, isn’t it?”
“It may have been intelligence-led when I was recently stopped and searched outside 1 Parliament Street, but I do not complain—I want to see more use of it made. But that does imply more police officers to do it, does it not?”
“Even before that great day, what reassurance can the Minister give to those of us who hold on to the quaint belief that Budgets should balance?”
“The Law Commission process grinds on, but what advice can be given in the meantime to constituents who present with the most outrageous charges?”
“On the horse riders, may I bring to my hon. Friend’s attention the B3058 as it travels through Bashley where I have witnessed the most shocking and thoughtless behaviour? The principal victims are horse riders, as they are throughout the New Forest often enough. Was not an opportunity missed in the revision of the Highway Code in not specifically dealing with the problems faced by riders and appropriate measures that motorists should take?”
“What has been the impact of the reduced rent to small clubs arising from revisions to the electronic communications code? That did not happen on the Secretary of State’s watch, and it was not intended, but it has been a disaster, has it not?”
“If somewhere in the deep state there was knowledge of a plan to kidnap Mr Khashoggi and he was not tipped off, we would be complicit. The Foreign Secretary would not comment, but can we have time to debate this?”
“Am I incorrect in my understanding that hospices adopting the full Agenda for Change will receive Government assistance? Perhaps the Minister will clarify that. The difficulty for hospices in adopting it is that they lose control of their salary budget. The difficulty is in getting that balance right, and I hope that the Government will be able to help.”
“May I therefore, through the offices of the hon. Lady, put in my bid to the Minister for just such a local agreement for Naomi House and the Oakhaven Hospice in Hampshire?”
“Is it possible for a hospice to employ some staff on those contracts and then achieve the benefit of doing so without handing over its entire employment budget and losing control over it?”
“A very significant number of automotive parts enter the UK and the European Union from third countries for just-in-time delivery. It seems to work, doesn’t it?”
“If anyone were to cut up rough at the borders, what is the significance of our being a signatory to the World Trade Organisation trade facilitation agreement?”
“What strikes me as perverse is that the original impetus for the initiative on which we are now legislating came from Labour Members. I remember Jack Straw waxing lyrical about the need to deliver what we are delivering now, and we are right to do so.”
“The original technical proposal and the facilitated customs agreement have both been rejected, so what can the Prime Minister conceive that might be brought forward to solve the Northern Ireland problem in the next two or even three years?”
“I have encountered instances of disgraceful behaviour, and perhaps our constituents could be forgiven for believing that we are constantly going at it with knives, but overwhelmingly hon. Members behave perfectly properly. As for being treated like demigods, all I can say is that that experience is not general. I ask the Leader of the House therefore to hold on to a sense of proportion as she deals with these problems.”
“Were it to become necessary to implement a backstop agreement, the subsequent ending of that arrangement must be a matter for the British Government, must it not?”
“Aside from cutting the emission of hot air in this Chamber, we can do a number of things individually. Will the Department be issuing advice to nudge us in the right direction?”