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 28 of 36.
“I hope that those critics will look at these proposals with an open mind and wonder whether they might just be looking a gift horse in the mouth. There might be an opportunity to rebalance the interests of the forests that have been so shoddily disrupted by the creation of a national park. Within the Crown lands of the New Forest, there are already many private lands and private commons. Indeed, the National Trust itself owns two of the real gems: Hale Purlieu and the Bramshaw Commons. The land is not all owned and managed by the Forestry Commission. I pay tribute to the fine public servants among the staff of the Forestry Commission who have been responsible for the stewardship of the New Forest, but we cannot hide from the fact that there have been enormous problems.”
“I am an enthusiast of the Government’s policy, but given the brevity of the debate, I shall restrict my remarks entirely to the opportunities for the New Forest that I see in the proposals. I have received a large number of communications, many of them very thoughtful, raising perfectly legitimate and proper concerns. I hope that the consultation will address many of them. What has surprised me is that the people who are the most vociferous in their opposition to the proposals are the very same people who stood shoulder to shoulder with me and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) as we campaigned against the New Forest being shoe-horned into a highly inappropriate structure in the national park.”
“I was there, and I recall campaigning for a no vote and voting accordingly in the referendum. Although the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) is quite right that the then Labour Government offered us a referendum, they then campaigned against. No Bill is perfect, but the reality is this: whichever treaties we may have signed up to, each and every one would have been caught by the provisions of this Bill, thereby generating a referendum. That is a powerful procedure to put in place for the future.”
“I certainly understand the thrust of the argument. Is it not the case that any future treaty revision will be constrained by the understanding that there would be a referendum in the United Kingdom that it would be impossible to win? Would not that, in itself, exert a powerful discipline on the development of the European Union, in that it would need to either curtail its ambition or, more importantly, make an accommodation with the British people and the British Government that was more in line with what we thought we had joined in 1975?”
“My hon. Friend will recall that we did not get a referendum on the Lisbon treaty because the House decided that we would not have one. I am entirely with him, and I much prefer in principle for decisions to be made by the House of Commons rather than the courts, but frankly, in that previous case, I have no doubt that the courts would have granted us a referendum when the House denied us one.”
“This House voted not to have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. If those of us who argued with the Minister, who continued to insist that it was merely an administrative tidying up, had only had the ability to go to judicial review, as this Bill allows, we would have been much better for it.”
“I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s honourable record on this matter, but will he acknowledge that the description that he just gave admirably suits the Quisling-in-chief now occupying the position of Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, who always urged the previous Labour Government on from the Back Benches?”
“T9. I declare an interest as a serving Territorial Army officer. In considering the defence review, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the important role of reservists in recent military conflict, and the potentially more important role that they might play in future conflicts?”
“May I urge the Deputy Leader of the House to award the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) the debate that she sought? We would be able to examine in detail how the cost of the most recent Cabinet meeting in Bradford was one tenth of what was spent by the previous Labour Government on their away days.”
“In its stakeholder response to the study carried out by Natural England, Wightlink says: “The revised impact requiring mitigation is quantified by Natural England as increasing from 1.05 to 1.55 ha per decade (for explanation see Appendix 5). This predicted impact is still very small year on year (0.16 ha) only building to a more substantial impact and risk of adverse effect over several years.” When people put things in newspeak, it is an attempt to confuse the general reader. I did not come across “ha”—whatever “ha” is—in my O-level maths, so one feels intimidated and does not ask the question but simply accepts the conclusion that it is very small. I suspect it is a hectare.”
“It did not fool the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust. In a classic piece of English understatement, in its letter to me it says: “We remain to be convinced that on a practical level the proposals have been sufficiently well considered and will deliver the habitat benefits that would be required to provide assurance that the introduction of the new ferries will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site. We also continue to seek clarification as to whether the scheme is in fact compensation rather than mitigation.” So we have this issue of compensation and mitigation. Natural England has already accepted a measure of damage and adverse effect on the sites. It tends to rather understate it.”
“Wightlink goes on, in a most extraordinary piece worthy of Alice in Wonderland, to say: “The effect of the mitigation works is therefore to prevent an adverse effect on the European Sites by reference to their conservation objectives. Consequently, adverse effects on the integrity of the European Sites are avoided and the tests and approach under article 6(4) (and regulation 62 of the Habitat Regulations 2010) are not engaged. The mitigation works will prevent the harm occurring and consequently the works are appropriately considered mitigation and not compensation.” In plain English, that gobbledegook means, “Notwithstanding the damage we are doing to the Natura site, because we are compensating by dumping some mud somewhere else, no damage has occurred.” This is a most ridiculous interpretation.”
“It states: “Natural England have advised on a rate of erosion of the existing habitat areas in the European Sites that can, in their view, be attributed to the operation of the ‘W’ class ferries. The mitigation works will prevent loss of an equivalent or greater area of habitat (than the loss attributable to the ferries) elsewhere in the European Sites.” There it is: it has already concluded that the mitigation works it is to undertake will compensate for any erosion. Before the assessments are undertaken to establish the rate of erosion and other facts, we have the conclusion that the mitigation works will take care of it. The conclusion has been announced before the studies have even begun.”
“It must consider the whole environment, including the increase in heavy goods vehicles traffic through the Forest to take advantage of the greater capacity of the ferries, especially as the bridge restrictions at the mouth of Lymington at the Ampress site mean that those lorries have to travel through the sensitive parts of the national park. All those issues give rise to great local concern about the impartiality of Wightlink, because it already has form on this matter. Why should we trust it now, given that the court could not trust it earlier? When Wightlink announced that it would do an environmental impact assessment, it set out the details of how it was to be achieved, including the setting up of Wightlink CA, in a letter from its solicitors. The letter concludes by saying what the outcome would be before the assessments have begun.”
“Wightlink has said it will rerun the appropriate assessment and, in addition, do a full environmental impact assessment. The difficulty is that Wightlink remains its own competent authority. Wightlink will still be judge and jury in its own court. Wightlink has said, “No, no. We’re going to form a new company—Wightlink CA, or Wightlink competent authority—to judge the appropriate assessment.” Key questions arise. How will the commercial interests of Wightlink CA be different from the commercial interests of Wightlink itself? Will it have a different board of directors? There is a clear need in these assessments for an independent referee. Wightlink has said it will carry out a full environmental impact assessment. That is a huge undertaking, involving public consultation.”
“A principal reason for the court’s determining that the new ferries had been unlawfully introduced on to the Lymington river was that Wightlink was its own competent authority for the determination of that appropriate assessment. Notwithstanding reams of assurances, in correspondence from Ministers and in parliamentary answers to my questions, that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency was the appropriate authority, when it came to the crunch it turned out that because the Government had been so cack-handed in implementing the habitats directive, Wightlink was its own competent authority. The judge said it had shown a complete disregard for its public responsibilities, separating them from its own commercial interests, and that as a consequence it was absolutely invalid. The question is what to do next.”
“I understand, however, that the findings of the Southampton university team who carried out one of those studies suggest that the salt marshes, if left to nature alone, would actually be accreting—growing and extending—and that it is only the introduction of the particular form of propulsion used by the Lymington ferry from the 1960s onwards that has led to the swift erosion of the salt marshes. That erosion has been even swifter since the introduction of the new “W”-class ferries, a development that has sparked the recent controversy. These are issues well beyond my competence, as I said, but they are precisely those that must be clearly understood and examined in that appropriate assessment.”
“Of course, those salt marshes are vital to Lymington, and the Lymington harbour commissioners have come up with a plan worthy of our Victorian forebears in its engineering prowess. They are going to build a sea wall—a monument to King Canute—to hold back the waves and save at least some of the salt marsh. I am not qualified to say whether that plan will survive current economic realities or whether it will actually work. However, as a consequence of this controversy, a number of studies have been carried out of bathymetric data—a subject on which I am uniquely unqualified to pontificate.”
“The fact that we are now having a third Adjournment debate on this issue and that we have had two spats in court, both of which the Government lost, is down to the failure to implement the law properly. The Government gave all sorts of commitments in signing up to the relevant European directives, but then failed properly to transpose those directives into English law. I do not want to repeat the entire history of this subject; those who are interested in it can read the Official Report of the two previous Adjournment debates. However, I shall give a potted history now. We have always been led to believe the received wisdom that the erosion of the Lymington salt marshes was an inevitable consequence of nature—“It’s the weather and there’s nothing we can do about it”.”
“My starting point is that there is a critical need in both the Lymington and Yarmouth economies for the ferry service and I want to see that ferry service preserved. However, there are other interests that have to be balanced against those of the ferry service, not least the protection of the European Natura 2000 sites, the importance to the local economy of the yachting interest in Lymington, and indeed the long-term survival of Lymington as a harbour, which is protected by the local mud flats. The diminution of those mud flats poses a long-term threat to the future of Lymington. So, all those interests have to be balanced. It is the law that provides protection and balance.”
“I feel almost like a country parson reading the banns of marriage—“this being for the third time of asking”—given that this is the third time I have dragged a Minister to Westminster Hall to answer for the actions of the Government on the protection of the Lymington river. Furthermore, as with the controversial actions of country parsons in respect of changing hymns and modern unpopular liturgies, I find that my own actions in my assiduous dedication to this task have proved equally unpopular. While I was going about my duties in Lymington on Friday, a charming but forceful lady took me aside and demanded to know why I was so “anti-ferry”. Actually, I am not “anti-ferry” at all.”
“In reality, this is a highly profitable route. It has one of the highest charges per passenger mile of any ferry in the world, a monopoly inherited from British Railways. The company ought to be able to make a go of it. There should be no question of any threat to the viability of the continued service. I close by asking the Minister to reflect on this. Notwithstanding the failure of Government and the regulators to spot this on the horizon and deal with it effectively, and leaving aside the Adjournment debates that I held in order to raise the issue with Ministers, it has been a small number of local yachtsmen who have had to take the initiative and raise the huge sums of money to take the matter to court. I hope that they are not going to have to do so again.”
“I hope that we end up with a viable ferry service between Lymington and Yarmouth, and that we can come to an accommodation on the basis of preserving the Natura sites and the yachting that is vital to Lymington’s economy. I fear that we will be presented with a fait accompli: regulators were asleep on the watch. Whatever the reason, we now have expensive ferries, built in Bulgaria, operating on the Lymington river and doing damage. How do we get round that? I hope that with some means of determining the compensation and the way forward, we can reach an agreement that Wightlink will go to some lengths to ensure that those ferries are, in a reasonable period, sold on for use elsewhere, or used on another of its routes, while an appropriate ferry for the conditions of the Lymington river is introduced as a replacement.”
“It is at that point, if the Minister decides there is an overwhelming public interest in the project proceeding, that he considers compensation and doing something else to build up the salt marshes elsewhere. The process that has been undertaken in Lymington has put these elements in completely the wrong order. We are already talking about compensation, although an attempt is being made to say that it is actually mitigation: “Don’t mention the word ‘compensation’—it’s really mitigation—because of the implications that arise from that definition.” Clearly, however, that is the process that ought to be followed and I fear that if it is not, we will end up with another expensive spat in court. Let me briefly describe to the Minister my desired end state.”
“Is there an alternative—a question that has been completely avoided by the current process? There are all sorts of other alternatives, including a smaller ferry with a different means of propulsion that is not so damaging to the river. Nevertheless, is there an alternative? If yes, take the alternative. If no, that is when it lands on the Minister’s desk. If the answer is no then the Minister has to decide whether there is overwhelming public interest in the project proceeding, notwithstanding the damage it will do to the sites. That is where, if I were the Minister, I would probably take a step back and say, “Well actually, when it comes down to it, we do need the ferry.” But we have not been through that assessment yet; we have not reached that point.”
“The Minister nods, so it is a hectare. So 0.16 of a hectare is 1,600 square metres, and that is the impact each year. I do not consider that to be very small at all. Let me outline for the Minister what I think the law states should happen. For the purposes of the habitats directive one has a plan or a project. That was one of the first battles in court. Yes, it is a plan or a project. Will it have an adverse effect? In order to determine that, one needs an assessment. Whether one needs an appropriate assessment or a full environmental impact assessment in addition is a question of law, but one needs the assessments to answer the first question. If the assessments suggest there is no adverse impact, one can go ahead with the project; if yes, stop. Then, ask the next question.”
“T4. I understand that, notwithstanding the announcement that the Standards Board will be abolished, the big cheeses of that organisation have written to chief executives of local authorities asking them to supply more business in the form of complaints against accountable and elected representatives. Has the Treasury Bench considered making an example of this quango for its impertinence?”
“I am clearly at one with my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby in my recollections of “Life on Mars”—I remember doing my public exams in the dark. The Minister has expressed confidence in his models, but will he at least recognise that those on the Treasury Bench are almost alone in believing in those models and that there will be sufficient capacity?”
“T7. Germany has gas storage capacity equivalent to a quarter of its annual average consumption. By comparison, ours is tiny. Why does the Treasury Bench think that we have enough?”
“The population of Helmand is overwhelmingly—indeed, almost exclusively—Pashtun, but the Afghan army, with which we want ultimately to replace British forces, is overwhelmingly made up of the Tajik minority. Is that a problem?”
“I am indebted to your appetite, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State has already lost twice in the High Court to the Lymington river association. Can we avoid another expensive spat? Will the Minister show Natural England the rough end of a pineapple to encourage it to take seriously the evidence that the association is giving it?”
“The Prime Minister’s main effort in the substantial preparation that he put in for his evidence to the Chilcot inquiry was to maintain that defence expenditure had increased every year, notwithstanding the evidence that had already been given to that committee. We now know that defence expenditure was cut when the nation was fighting two wars. Does the Leader of the House really not think that to be worth more than just a mention at Prime Minister’s questions or in the Budget debate? Does she really think that we should not have a statement from the Prime Minister on this very important matter?”
“During the passage of the Welfare Reform Act 2009, we were assured by the Government that council tax benefit was to be renamed. What has happened to that assurance?”
“10. How much on average was paid by a business in non-domestic rates in (a) 1997-98 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available.”
“I thank the Minister for that well researched reply. Fully a third of businesses that are eligible for small business rate relief are not claiming it, according to the Government’s own figures. What will she do either to simplify the system or to make it automatic?”
“T3. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to address the question put to him earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman); namely, where will the funding come from in the current financial year to provide for the Government’s proposals on social care?”
“As a governor of a primary school—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] As a former governor, I should say, of a primary school— [ Interruption ] — and, indeed, a former pupil, I quite understand the urge of Ministers to interfere from the centre, given the lunacy of what has sometimes passed for education in primary schools. However, does the Minister understand that the sheer volume of initiatives and prescriptions is becoming part of the problem, and that is certainly what the profession is complaining about?”
“The statements from the Dispatch Box are quite at variance with the experience of small businesses on the ground. Is it not clear that the second banking bail-out failed in its attempt to extend bank lending to business?”
“18. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the operation of tier 4 of the points-based immigration system; and if he will make a statement.”
“Dos the Minister agree that points acquired for a course offer or a bank statement are no substitute for the judgment of an experienced immigration officer who has satisfied himself that an applicant is coming to the country only to study, will leave after completing his studies, and is not coming here to work?”
“I thank the Secretary of State for his fitting tribute to David Taylor. Countless generations of schoolboys and girls will know about the erosion of the cliffs at Barton-on-Sea from their O-level and GCSE geography lessons, but is the Secretary of State aware of the anxiety and alarm that the current consultation on managing the erosion is causing, and will he favour me with a meeting, including also his colleague the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), to discuss what is achievable and affordable with the stakeholders?”
“6. If he will bring forward proposals to restrict the circumstances under which schools may apply for an exemption from the requirement to hold a regular act of worship of a broadly Christian character; and if he will make a statement.”
“T8. Dr. Elliott, the founder of Kidscape, has asked of the Edlington case:“How could you have a report on something as critical as this without naming”the professionals at fault “individually? By failing to release the… full report, it feels like an institutional cover-up”.Why is the Secretary of State a party to that institutional cover-up?”
“The New Forest constituencies will be doing the right thing, but I hope that the only present occupant of the Treasury Bench, the duty Whip, will have noted the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone). We all appear to be in agreement that either we are going to do something about this or we are not, and we are just going to hope. Perhaps someone on the Treasury Bench could give some instruction as to the meaning of the law: what does “as soon as is practicable” actually mean?”
“T4. On 3 January the Prime Minister announced with great fanfare the conference on Yemen, and this afternoon the Minister of State has given its importance further billing. However, we discovered in a written answer yesterday that the conference is likely to last two hours. Has the announcement been over-sexed just a little bit?”
“T5. There is a widespread and growing perception that community punishments are a soft touch, which is reinforced by the number of miscreants who simply absent themselves, apparently with impunity. What are Ministers going to do to ensure that community “punishments” are exactly that?”
“What will be the impact on food production of the decision to discontinue weed cutting in the lower Avon valley? Is the Secretary of State prepared to meet a delegation of farmers to review the matter?”
“During this fast of Advent, it behoves us all to show some humility. Were the Transport Select Committee not right when they said in 2008 that the Government do not have “adequate and appropriate expertise to handle such vital strategic decisions in-house, and to do so efficiently”? Go on—they were right, were they not?”
“The hon. Gentleman has rightly set out the necessary conditions, but not sufficiently. There is also the condition that the address be voted by the House.”
“Is it not clear that there can be no real change while Mugabe remains? Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is absolute nonsense to speak of readmission to the Commonwealth while the current situation persists?”