MPs’ round-up
I’d rather not back further restrictions In my last column, I attempted to give a very brief summary of the kaleidoscope of activities in Westminster over the previous month. I’m conscious that – now more than ever – a week is not only a long time but a small eternity in politics, but at the time of writing, there was only one decision monopolising the attention of every MP over the last fortnight – the vote to reintroduce national restrictions to contain the transmission rate of covid-19. That vote was one of the most consequential we have seen for decades, and I was conscious, in making my decision, of the enormous impact it would have on the economy, jobs in our area, mental health and the texture of our everyday lives. When faced with whether or not to grant the government the power to lock us down again, I sought to balance a passionatelyheld belief in individual freedom against the grave counsel offered by Public Health England, the Chief Medical Officer, the NHS and SAGE.
Somerton & Frome MP David Warburton It is the job of those bodies to advise the Prime Minister and Cabinet as to the level of transmission and the consequent risk to public health and the fabric of the NHS. They gave a direct recommendation – that the only way to arrest the spread of covid was through imposing a new set of national restrictions. This is something we all desperately wished to avoid. The three-tier system was, indeed, designed to mitigate against just this risk. But like Germany,
France, Belgium and other European countries, we have found ourselves in a position where this seemed imperative. I’m aware the statistical evidence for this fresh lockdown is contested. Like, I’m sure, all of you, I’ve been following the data extremely closely and know that the infection rate is, for the moment, now falling again. I know too the direst projections provided by the CMO don’t tally with the situation as we see it. But these truths do not confer the right for the government simply to ignore or reject the very clear scientific advice they’ve been given. I know that this fresh lockdown has already been met with widespread discontent. Over the course of the first lockdown, my constituency team and I faced an unprecedented amount of casework from those in real distress, grappling with the fact that their businesses, relationships and lives had been radically compromised. Before the vote on Wednesday, I spoke to ministers and Number 10 to make my concerns clear.
My support for this lockdown was predicated upon it being strictly time-limited and upon the need for a further parliamentary vote for any suggested extension. Unless we see a truly dramatic worsening of the situation, I would be extremely reluctant to support any extension of these new restrictions. I was, of course, delighted to see the Chancellor extend the furlough scheme and other measures of financial support through to March. But I’m keen to ensure this is not a tacit admission that further lockdowns are seen as inevitable or any way desirable. Thinking about power, the Roman poet Juvenal tried to square the political circle by asking: “Who will watch the watchers?” And over the next few week and months – as we wait for phial after phial of the new vaccine to drop off the production line – I’ll be seeking to do just that – to scrutinise, on your behalf, those in whose hands our safety and economy rest and ensure that both are protected.
I’ve been scrutinising National Trust’s version of history This week I led a debate in Westminster Hall on the future of the National Trust, in this its 125th anniversary. We all love the Trust but many of us worry about recent events. I live a mile from one of the National Trust’s big attractions, Stourhead, and BVM’s catchment has several trust properties. It is an important institution for us and the local economy. Readers may be aware of the furore surrounding some of the organisation’s recent actions and statements. Of particular concern are leaked plans to sack curators, close smaller houses and the report into slavery and colonialism. 62
MP for South West Wiltshire Dr Andrew Murrison The report is a badly contextualised gazetteer, conflating colonialism and slavery and painting a partial picture of people and properties covered –
including Churchill and his house, Chartwell. Publishing such a document gave the appearance that the trust was intentionally pushing an agenda, an impression supported by a series of leaked – but subsequently disowned – documents which point towards a re-purposing of the organisation contrary to its statutory functions. The Charity Commissioner too appears to have been sufficiently concerned to write to the trust for an explanation. Contrast to the English Heritage 2013 report ‘Slavery and the British Country House’, which does not imply that slavery and colonialism are the same evil and does not curl its upper
lip at figures like Churchill, who, let’s remember, led Europe against tyranny, racism, slavery and antiSemitism. The trust has almost 6m members, lots of money and receives a lot of public funding – albeit indirectly. For the same reason the state doesn’t promote an ‘official history’, the trust shouldn’t push its own worldview. The trust must return to its role as a mediating institution, a de-politicised space and a bastion of civil society. I am glad the minister shared some of my concerns and welcomed the scrutiny. We will be keeping a close eye on the trust moving forward.
