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 33 of 36.
“Yet only one GP practice south of the A337 is still taking on new patients. That outgrew its existing premises some time ago and is short of space, whatever measure one chooses to use, and sometimes the cramped conditions in the waiting room are unacceptable. A few years ago the practice secured the primary care trust's permission in principle to expand its premises, but before it could do so, a directive from the Department of Health instructed that that was not to happen because the funds were to be allocated not to the primary care trust but to Hampshire as a whole. Hampshire's priorities are different; they apparently lie in Portsmouth. There is now not the remotest chance of that practice, or any practice in my constituency, being able to expand its premises.”
“Even in those years, despite the myths that may be spun, the NHS was improving. Nevertheless, it did not work, because it did not match up to the ordinary people's perceptions based on their experiences. That is the problem that my constituents are having at the moment. Their perceptions of what is happening in the NHS are informed by the difficulty, or otherwise, that they face in seeing their doctor or dentist. I should like to give hon. Members an impression of what it is like in my part of the world. We have a vastly expanding population. As the Deputy Prime Minister's rules, particularly on density, begin to bite in urban centres such as New Milton, and townscapes are changed for ever as family houses are pulled down and replaced with blocks of flats, the population is expanding fast.”
“I remain absolutely convinced that my constituents are fortunate indeed to live where they do and to be served by the national health service, and I make no apology for that. Labour Members who have implied that there is no common ground between us and that some of us are not committed to the NHS do themselves, and us, no justice whatsoever. I caution Labour Members who have quoted reams of statistics at us with the intention of giving the impression that things are much better than they appear. I recall listening to "Yesterday in Parliament" during the late 1970s and mid-1980s, when Mrs. Thatcher was challenged week after week on the state of the NHS. She always answered robustly from the Dispatch Box with reams of statistics saying how many more operations had been carried out and so on.”
“The Secretary of State referred to the television footage, but notwithstanding the dreadful events and shocking scenes that we witnessed, does he not agree that the television camera is of necessity a distorting lens, and that for the most part, the huge majority of the people of Basra had an ordinary day?”
“A constituent was referred by his general practitioner to an audiologist on 16 January. On 16 March, he received confirmation of an appointment for August 2007. Given the age profile in my constituency, there is a significant danger that constituents will have an appointment with an undertaker before they get an appointment with an audiologist. Will audiology be included in the 18-week target?”
“I wish to present three petitions on behalf of the Milford on Sea War Memorial hospital, the Fordingbridge hospital and the Lymington hospital. Earlier this year, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) and I presented to New Forest primary care trust a petition on behalf of all our hospitals signed by some 45,000 residents. To lie upon the Table.”
“The Leader of the House expressed incredulity that Opposition Members keep raising, week after week, the Post Office card account? Can he not just take us at our word? We want a debate. There are 9,000 account holders in the New Forest. They are anxious and angry about the proposals to abolish their accounts. They expect both my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and me to raise that issue, ask Ministers questions and demand to scrutinise the Government's proposals.”
“When I was mobilised to serve in Iraq, which was not a voluntary process, I was required to produce a passport in order to travel— [Interruption.] It was scrutinised at Brize Norton. That again was not a voluntary process. Other officers and soldiers had to acquire a passport in order to comply. I suppose, ultimately, the decision to join the armed forces was voluntary. Was that what the Government meant?”
“How widespread is the problem of intimidation of prison officers and their families by drugs gangs to secure a supply of drugs on the inside?”
“How is that ambition affected by the reality that the 4.5 million users of the Post Office card account are going to lose that service in 2010 when funding is withdrawn?”
“The Minister said that he was keen to look again at the geography of the area cost adjustment. Well, will he look at mine—because he also said that he wanted greater reliance on and greater scope for resource equalisation, which means that my constituents, for whom, in effect, no account is taken of the higher costs associated with Hampshire, are expected to pay for services not in the New Forest but, increasingly, in places such as Durham? That is behind their increasing unwillingness to pay up.”
“Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is this matter not eloquent testimony to the fact that this legislature must take back control of its agenda from the Government?”
“With respect to my hon. Friend's fifth category—authorities in which there has been a great deal of demolition—it would not take very long to compile the list.”
“My fear is that whether the power is ordered by the local authority or the Secretary of State, it may inadvertently have the same effect. The Secretary of State could order it to cause a transfer of resources, but even if the local authority ordered it for some other purpose, it could have the same effect. Local authorities would not wish to use such a power lightly.”
“I am tempted to ask "Why?" The Secretary of State has told us that reform of the budget is predicated on reform of the common agricultural policy. What proposals for the reform of the CAP have the Government put on the table during their presidency? Has the Agriculture Council even met during the British presidency?”
“May we have a statement from a Health Minister on the spread of MRSA? On Monday, when we discussed part 2 of the Equality Bill on religious equality, Labour Members said that the "proper" withdrawal of Bibles from hospitals was nothing to do with political correctness but that they were agents of the spread of MRSA. I have a Reuters report, which states that Gideons International was so shocked by the implication that the Bibles might be harbouring disease that it commissioned a study by a micro-biologist and a surgeon who said that it was nonsense. The Government and Gideons International cannot both be right, so what is the answer?”
“Has the hon. Lady spotted the fact that religious equality takes up 36 clauses, whereas sexual equality has merely one? That is a shocking shortfall in a Bill about equality. Is she working on an amendment to put sexual equality on the same footing as religious equality?”
“My hon. Friend is right about the complexity and the need for greater reflection, but she will notice that in relation to part 3 the harassment provisions remain within the Bill, and it is within the Minister's power to make regulations. Surely that is not acceptable.”
“When we consider exceptions, what is important is scrutiny of the parliamentary process. However, one clause in part 3 effectively hands over the entire legislative process to a Minister, in the form of regulation-making powers, thus denying the House the opportunity properly to scrutinise a very sensitive and technical issue.”
“I entirely agree with the provision, as the hon. Lady has just enunciated it. What I do not understand is why it is included in the Bill in respect of religion, but is to be achieved by order-making power in respect of sexual orientation. I regard that as wholly unacceptable.”
“That does not lend itself to the general principle that is set out in clause 44. Clause 44(1) states: "A person ("A") discriminates against another ("B") for the purposes of this Part if on grounds of the religion or belief of B . . . A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat others". That is a wide and dangerous principle to apply to religion. Religions rub together pretty well in this country, but introducing such a wide-ranging principle is dangerous. The danger relates to the zealot or the mischief maker and the provision could cause more harm than good.”
“It differs from disability, race and sex because, by and large, in a free society, we still choose to adhere to a particular religion. Although some people might find it profoundly shocking, most adherents of a religion believe it to be true. By and large, they do not treat life as a supermarket where one can choose any number of breakfast cereals from the shelves and find that they amount to the same thing. Most—not all—adherents of a religion believe passionately that their religion is true and that, of necessity, casts an aspersion on other religions. Indeed, the first commandment is: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Our Lord said that he would be followed by false prophets and that we were not to treat them with respect or tolerance but to judge them.”
“It is always an enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman), who brings a particular expertise and a great deal of passion to the debate. I wish to confine myself in the main to part 2 of the Bill. The definition of religion in clause 43 states that "a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion, and . . . a reference to belief includes a reference to lack of belief." So all those who thought that they had no religion, or had explicitly decided to have no religion, are caught by the provisions of the Bill—they count as though they have a religion and will be treated as such. That might lend some scope to mischief-makers. Indeed, it might give some offence to those who take a position of believing in no God. Religion is different from the other strands in the Bill.”
“I am sure that it cannot be the case, but the provision appears to suggest that, if I, as the provider of gardening services, for example, were to mow the lawns of the church of my own denomination for free, I would also be required to provide the same service to the local mosque. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain whether that is the case.”
“discriminates against another . . . for the purposes of this Part if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice . . . which puts persons of B's religion or belief at a disadvantage compared to some or all others". Has the Minister taken any constitutional advice, given that clause 77 binds the Crown, on whether such a general principle is compatible with the coronation oath? What is the meaning of clause 45(5), which states: "For the purposes of subsection (1) it is immaterial whether or not a person charges for the provision of goods, facilities or services"?”
“I suggest that that would be done only to make mischief. Nevertheless, why is that proper exemption fatally weakened by clause 49(3)(a), which gives the Secretary of State the power to "amend or repeal" the provision? I do not believe that it is acceptable for a self-respecting legislature to give the Secretary of State the power to undermine a provision. That is nonsense and I hope that those who serve on the Committee will strike out the paragraph. Clause 63 is a Henry VIII clause that gives the Secretary of State the power to amend any exemption in part 2. Again, that is unacceptable given the sensitivity of the matter and the need for the exemptions. I have several questions that I hope will be tackled in the winding-up speech or at least in subsequent correspondence. Clause 44(3)(b) states: "A person . . .”
“The hon. Lady puts her finger exactly on the point. Religions are working together and rubbing along well without the Bill. Intruding with legislation provides scope for mischief and for zealots. The Bill's principle is so broad that the remaining clauses of part 2 properly take every aspect of what one would normally understand to be religious practice and experience out of the measure's scope. So despite its size, clause 44 applies only to a narrow provision of goods and services. That is proper, but I am worried about the structure of the Bill because so many of the exemptions are potentially only temporary. For example, clause 49 properly removes educational establishments from the scope of the Bill. Otherwise, it would be permissible for an evangelical Christian to demand access to a madrassa.”
“For my own part, I should have thought that taking an adherent of another religion into one's house would present an opportunity for evangelisation. That would now be entirely appropriate given that the Minister has said that the provisions on harassment are not to be reintroduced in the Bill, which is most welcome. Clause 59 deals with religious charities. Will the Minister tell me the significance of 18 May 2005?”
“I shall have to disappoint my hon. Friend; I shall not be following him down that route. As in so many other areas of public policy, I disagree with him profoundly on that issue. Clauses 46 and 47 deal with premises, and I would like the Minister to explain the difference in principle between taking a lodger and running a bed and breakfast. My reading of the provisions and the exemptions is that those who take in lodgers would be exempt from the provisions of the Bill—that is, they could discriminate on the ground of religion—while those who run bed-and-breakfast establishments would not be exempt. That might not be the case; these provisions are certainly ambiguous. Religious organisations have made representations to me on that basis, however, complaining that they would not want Satanists in their bed-and-breakfast establishments.”
“The perfectly proper concern of those of us who are worried about such developments is that part 2 of the Bill, in designating such organisations as public bodies, will provide an increasingly whip hand to the zealots who wish to see these developments march forward, or indeed just to the timid in local authorities who want to avoid litigation of any kind. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) was right when he said earlier in our proceedings that there is a very great danger that we will become free from religion rather than free to practise religion.”
“We see examples of Christmas lights having to be called "celebrity lights", of councils wanting to refer to Christmas as "the workers' winter festival", and of libraries refusing to advertise the local nativity play. The most worrying example relates to social partnerships. We hear of religious organisations that undertake a social function and are paid accordingly to provide services such as a hostel or a soup run, being bullied with regard to the religious aspects of their organisations. We have the absurdity of an organisation providing a hostel being told that if it continues to say grace before meals, its public funding will be withdrawn.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend; he is looking very well on it. Why is it that, prior to that date, membership of a religious charity can be confined lawfully on the basis of adherence to a particular religion, whereas that is not the case thereafter? What is the Minister saying about religious charities? Why should no such charities be able to discriminate in respect of their membership on the ground of religion in the future, if they were able to do so in the past? We are already aware of the politically correct march towards an increasingly barmy Britain. Every day we see in the papers examples of organisations refusing to use the term "BC", or "before Christ", and substituting "BP", meaning "before the present".”
“My hon. Friend is quite right. One of the advantages of Pepper v. Hart is that the Minister will be able to reassure the Committee on any number of such issues, and I hope that she will take the opportunity to do so. I notice that the Government sought to amend the harassment provisions that were originally in the Bill and achieved an amendment that prevented religious symbols from being taken out of hospitals and other such institutions. That was a positive development, albeit that it was obviated by the removal of the entire clause.”
“Yet, owing to a single phrase in clause 80—with all its implications for sexual orientation—the issue will be dealt with entirely by the Secretary of State, without the benefit of parliamentary scrutiny. That is unacceptable in any institution that continues to call itself a Parliament.”
“This will be a controversial issue, not least because, for so many religions, sexual orientation itself provides some difficulty. It is therefore nonsense simply to hand over the power to the Minister to make the law, without parliamentary scrutiny, the importance of which we have seen in regard to religious matters. It is also nonsense because the Minister quite rightly came to the Dispatch Box and explained why she would not seek to return the Bill to the status quo ante in respect of religious harassment. She properly set out the reasons for which it was judged to be too sensitive to proceed, explaining that more consultation was required. All those arguments apply to harassment and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.”
“The examples that I have given are eloquent testimony to what I mean and what is commonly understood by political correctness. Part 3 of the Bill is completely unacceptable, although I accept entirely the thrust of its intention. I do not believe that people should be discriminated against at all in the provision of goods and services in respect of their sexual orientation. But to achieve that by an order-making power is quite unacceptable. There are some 36 clauses dealing with and constraining that power with respect to religious discrimination. To provide one clause and say that the Minister shall have power by regulation to make all those measures available on the basis of sexual orientation is for us, as a self-respecting legislature, simply to abandon our proper responsibility for the legislative process.”
“The answer to my hon. Friend's question is that the Bill does nothing in that respect but gives the Minister the power to make regulations, which we would be denied the opportunity of discussing in a debate such as this. The Bill attempts to deal with one difficulty by properly drawing a distinction in respect of a lodger—someone living in your own house, sleeping in your own bed between your sheets—but does not make the same distinction in respect of bed and breakfasts.”
“The Leader of the House congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on his trawl. I assure him that no such trawl is necessary. He need only look at the Equality Bill that he announced for debate on Monday, because part 2 deals with religion and provides a field day for every mischief maker and pettifogging politically correct individual to interfere in what should be the most private and intimate aspects of our lives. I hope that he will join us for the debate on Monday.”
“On 10 November, at column 35, the Secretary of State spelled out in answer to me the high stakes in Iraq. He used terms that were very similar to the language of a speech by Senator John McCain on that very day. Senator McCain's conclusion was that we may have to ramp up our troops in Iraq. I am worried about the mood music and all the talk of withdrawal and troops coming home next year, when in fact the requirement may be the opposite.”
“I share the Secretary of State's objectives entirely. I agree that there now has to be a meeting engagement with the terrorists, and that we have to lick them here. However, I am concerned about the way in which the Secretary of State dismissed the intervention of the right hon. Member for Beith—the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Is the Secretary of State not alarmed at the very high number of people being detained for acts that contravene the anti-terrorism provisions which, on closer examination, are quite properly judged to be common law offences? He will have my support in the Lobby tonight, but this matter requires much greater examination. [Interruption.] I am sorry, I meant to say”
“Is my hon. Friend as alarmed as I am that no study has been made to assess the impact on the New Forest of any of the options? Does he agree that infrastructure requirements include day-to-day needs for recreation because, frankly, the New Forest cannot accommodate that?”
“10. What progress has been made to ensure that insulin pump therapy is available to diabetics in accordance with National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance No. 57. [20915]”
“Only some of the 2 million diabetics in this country have access to this treatment, while many do not. Does that not illustrate the postcode lottery that persists in our NHS? What recourse does an individual patient have if there is clear evidence that their PCT is not implementing the NICE guidance?”
“The Minister may be aware that several of us have had considerable correspondence from constituents, prompted by Compassion in World Farming, about the failure to observe a proper inspection regime at some of the Channel ports. What can be said to reassure them?”
“The Leader of the House will be aware that any question of restoring allowances at Westminster is a matter for the House. Equally, however, the restoration of allowances in Northern Ireland is a matter of ministerial judgment, and it is perfectly appropriate that we should probe that ministerial judgment in a debate, especially as no Assembly is sitting in Northern Ireland. May we have that debate?”
“That poses the question of what would have been a bad policy development, if that was a good one. Surely the answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) is that it provides no comfort whatever to someone who has been shifted up a couple of bands to know that a band D property in England would have been even more expensive. That is the point—they have been ripped off big time.”
“Is the Lord Chancellor suitably chastened by the annual report in which he is criticised for intervening inappropriately to secure the selection of a candidate whom the panel deemed insufficiently qualified, and what is he going to do about it?”
“It is my privilege to present the petition of Mr. Johnson, my constituent from Barton-on-sea, consisting of 210 signatures, on behalf of the Isitfair council tax campaign. The residents of Barton-on-sea are understandably incensed at the exponential increase in council tax over recent years that has taken no cognisance of their ability to pay. The petition states: The Petitioners request that this Honourable House do vote to replace the council tax with a fair and equitable tax that, without recourse to any supplementary benefit, takes into account ability to pay from disposable income. Such tax to be based on a system that is free from any geographically or politically motivated discrimination, and that clearly identifies the fiscal and managerial responsibilities of all involved parties. And the Petitioners remain, etc.”
“Does the Secretary of State share the analysis that it was precisely because of the success of last January's elections that the insurgents decided to make Iraq the meeting engagement of our war against terrorism? If he does share that assessment, does he agree that we have to lick them there?”
“Given the debate that will take place in the Lords this afternoon and the contribution that the former Chiefs may make, will the Leader of the House arrange for one of the Law Officers to make a statement to clarify the legislation on the International Criminal Court? It would be improper if soldiers were denied the proper protection of the courts-martial system—being judged as professionals by professionals. It would be outrageous indeed if, figuratively, officers were to wake up and find themselves in the cell next to Milosevic.”