by Paul Scully | Mar 13, 2016 | News, News |
I have had a number of people contact me, primarily over social media, about the Welfare Reform Bill which I supported and indeed served on the Bill Committee as it was going through the legislative process. The bill proposed a number of changes but the area that has been raised by most people is the changes to the Employment Support Allowance (ESA) for people within the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG). In the Summer Budget 2015, the Chancellor announced that from April 2017, new ESA claimants who are placed in the WRAG will receive the same rate of benefit as those claiming Jobseekers Allowance (JSA). The changes only affect new claims after that date and there will be no cash losers among those who are already in receipt of ESA.
The UK has created more jobs than the rest of Europe combined in recent years but that benefit has yet to reach those on ESA. While 1 in 5 JSA claimants move off benefits every month, this is true of just 1 in 100 of ESA WRAG claimants. They deserve better than this. As well as providing financial security for individuals, there are many reasons why for those who are able to, work is the most effective way to improve the well-being of individuals and their families. Those in the WRAG currently receive additional cash payments but little employment support. Fixing on welfare treats the symptoms but not the causes of poverty and thus all too often can trap people into dependency. The additional cash payment in some cases can act as a disincentive to move into employment. Therefore some of the money currently spent on cash payments will be redirected into practical support that will make a genuine difference to people’s life chances.
This new funding will be worth £60m in 2017/18 rising to £100m in 2020/21. It will support those with limited capacity for work to take steps to move closer to the labour market and then when they are able, back to work. How the money will be spent is going to be influenced by a taskforce of representatives from disability charities, organisations, employers, think tanks, providers and local authorities. Most people with disabilities and health conditions want to get back to work. There is a large body of evidence that work is generally good for physical and mental wellbeing. A White Paper will shortly be published which will set out the reforms to improve the system of support. In addition to this, Universal Credit is already helping by introducing earlier support and putting claimants in the best position to move into and stay in work. They can work with their dedicated Work Coach alongside health professionals to receive personalised integrated support. The new Work and Health Unit has at least £115m of funding to pilot new ways to join up across the health and employment systems. £43m is being invested over the next three years to trial ways to provide specialist support for people with mental health conditions. The government’s Disability Confident campaign seeks to challenge the attitudes of employers towards recruiting and retaining disabled people.
The government is spending £ 50bn each year on benefits to support people with disabilities or health conditions. This is over 6% of all government spending. The budget for Disability support has been higher in every year since 2010 than that of the last Labour government. I believe that it is important that it gets to those who need support most and is spent on securing a long term benefit to those who need such support. Some of the media coverage on this issue has been emotive, relying on the thought that it is simply best to write off the possibility of 99 out of 100 people with a disability or a health condition. I made my decision to support the government in order to tackle the long term underlying issues which can help those individuals get into and stay in work.
by Paul Scully | Feb 24, 2016 | EU Referendum, National Campaigns, News, News |
The starting gun has been fired on a long campaign to determine the future of the UK in the world. There will be a lot of facts, figures, statistics, predictions and assumptions bandied about in the media and within campaign material from both sides. But it is essential to engage with this, as the once in a generation decision that we face on June 23rd will shape our country for decades to come.
For many years, I have been of the view that the UK can do better by ourselves than through continued membership of the European Union. Many people will share my concern about the lack of transparency and accountability of the EU. The fact that the accounts have not been given a clean bill of health by auditors for an incredible 21 years in a row demonstrates that there is no realistic way of following the money and scrutinising how our contributions are spent. Some people say that we contribute £23m per day to the EU, others say £55m. The overall cost or benefit of membership varies hugely depending on the source. Frankly, the fact that there is even a debate where the figures are so far apart suggests that we don’t even know what we are a member of. How can we help to reform an institution that no-one actually understands. Few people actually seemed to have realised that there was no exit mechanism from the EU until the Lisbon Treaty in 2010.
I support breaking down trade barriers which the single market aims to do. However I am concerned in equal measure by the walls that are built around the EU trading bloc instead, placing tariffs on goods coming in from many of our old trading partners outside the EU. The world has moved on since the Common Market came into being. Easier travel and the rise of the Internet has changed the face of world trade, bringing a global market to even many small companies in the developing world. The likes of Google, Starbucks and Amazon show how corporations are far more nimble than the unwieldy directives brought in through 27 member states. The disparate economies of the EU make collective decision-making incredibly difficult. The divide within the Eurozone with ailing economies like Greece and Spain in the south and the sizeable, mature economies in the north such as Germany and France, is extremely wide and means that a unifying economic policy will always create losers. This is why it was so important for the UK that we did not join the Euro. In the main part, our freedom to make our own fiscal and economic policy helped us weather the recession well and come out the other side with the fastest growing economy in the developed world, creating more new jobs than the rest of the EU put together.
The Eurozone countries will need to move at an increased pace towards a single European state. It is only by coming closer in this way that they will be able to meet the challenges that they face in keeping the Euro as a credible cohesive currency. If that is what those countries need to do, then that is fine. The UK should not be pushed into joining them. One of David Cameron’s negotiated positions was to stop us from such a move through a red card system. I want to go further, not just drawing a line in the sand, but returning powers to the UK. It isn’t that long ago when the public were up in arms about the Lisbon Treaty getting railroaded through the ratification process by Gordon Brown. That treaty brought in a permanent EU President and the equivalent of an EU Foreign Secretary. It reduced the majority requirements in the Council of Ministers and brought in greater centralisation.
I am really optimistic that as an independent nation, we can thrive in a global 21st century economy. Yes, there will be challenges. A vote to leave will start both the 2-year process to leave and a series of talks around the world to investigate bilateral trade agreements, especially with countries that are likely to dominate the coming decades, such as India. Remaining within the EU is arguably a bigger risk than leaving. The Eurozone countries will move closer together pushing the UK further to the periphery of what is already a trading bloc that is shrinking in terms of global market share. The EU’s share of global GDP has shrunk by one-fifth in the last twenty years and will continue in that direction. The UK is the world’s fifth largest economy, predicted to be behind only China, USA and India by 2030. We are the sixth largest manufacturer in the world, despite the nay-sayers who forget our much-valued precision engineering exports. We need to look further afield with our head held high.
The minor changes to entitlement to in-work benefits will not be enough to bring immigration under control. A four-year ban on claiming benefits has been watered down to a four year wait to claim full benefits, with a sliding scale in between. Similarly the ridiculous situation of UK taxpayers paying for child benefit to be sent to foreign national children abroad, instead of being abolished, has been restricted to an amount equivalent to the local living costs of that child, leading to the complication of a civil servant having to calculate and update 27 separate payment systems for child benefit. The biggest pull factor for migration remains our burgeoning economy, with our successful job creation. Therefore the UK will still remain an attractive option for people, especially if living in the Southern and Eastern European countries where the unemployment percentage is in many cases in double figures. The emergency brake that has been agreed is simply a short term measure which will fail to tackle a long term problem. The brake is also pulled by the EU, not the UK. Imagine having to ask your passenger to pull on the handbrake in an emergency and you will start to see the downside to this.
The only way to stem immigration is to control our own borders. This is not without complication. Our border with France is as a result of a bilateral agreement and so it shouldn’t automatically follow that France would end the pre clearance agreement if we were to leave the EU. Similar arrangements are in place in other parts of the world, such as the US/Canada border, which do not require any relationship beyond the agreement itself. Government policy is rightly to bring net migration down to the tens of thousands rather than the hundreds of thousands. The problem in trying to deliver this is that we have one hand tied behind our back, unable to do much about immigration from within the EU. This leads us to bear down incredibly heavily on immigration from outside the EU. Whereas this may be desirable to many, we simply don’t have any flexibility or choice which leads to a number of unintended consequences and inequitable situations. Curry restaurants are struggling to attract skilled chefs, whereas an unskilled European can come to the UK without question and more importantly, without prospect of a job.
I have heard the case put that our security would be at threat if we voted to leave the European Union. I see this as part of ‘project fear’ which seems to be coming from many in the ‘remain’ camp. NATO has done more to keep us secure than the EU. There are plenty of things that we will still need to co-operate on if we were to return to being an independent nation. Pollution, security, immigration do not stop at the Channel. We can still share intelligence and work on better agreements for extradition and policing. We need to ensure that we agree and share environmental initiatives. None of this joint working requires membership of the unaccountable, bureaucratic, outdated and inward-looking EU. Our response to the closure of steel plants in the UK was hampered by EU State Aid rules. We cannot even stop charging VAT on tampons without seeking the agreement of all 27 member states, leaving women to pay extra for them as ‘luxury items’, the so-called ‘tampon tax’, as a result of cumbersome EU tax rules.
Some people cite the ability to move around Europe not having to change money whilst on holiday and that the EU has reduced roaming charges whilst they are away. We are not and have never been in the Schengen Agreement which allows for open borders but we can still get around freely once we’ve crossed onto the European mainland. That needn’t change with a sensible agreement. We can celebrate the EU for centralising phone charges or go out and get a contract on the Three network where they’ve scrapped roaming charges entirely – testament to the free market and open competition.
There are many models that we can look at when considering how to thrive outside the EU. Norway and Switzerland do pretty well for themselves. Remainers are concerned that those countries are restricted by regulations without power to change. I would contend that our power to change is minimal and that EU regulations restrict us for all our business including trade simply within the UK, unlike those countries. 28.4% of our GDP is from exports, of which 44.6% went to EU countries. That leaves 87.2% of UK sales undertaken here in the UK between British companies and customers or with countries outside the EU. Despite only 13% of our sales being with the EU, regulations are applied to everything. That is not the same as Norway and Switzerland, who happen to be the first and second most prosperous countries in the world. I guess it’s working for them. The deal negotiated by our PM is a useful safety net should we vote to stay in the EU. However it is not finalised. The President of the EU Parliament is on record as saying that it is not legally binding and may not be ratified by the Brussels Parliament, so pro-EU voters will be going in to vote on trust that politicians that they have never heard of and led by a man who sees Britain as a pain to be dealt with, will accept our terms. A vote to remain will mean business as usual for the EU bureaucrats.
This is a complicated issue. There is a risk in leaving. I believe there is a greater risk in staying. The PM’s negotiated settlement is as good as it will get. If we vote to stay, other EU leaders know what they need to offer to keep countries subdued and content with the status quo. Leaving is not about isolating ourselves from the rest of the world. Instead it is grabbing the opportunity to look further afield, to new opportunities with partners that are racing ahead of the old world. I hope that people will take the time to read up on the options but I also hope that they’ll agree with me that with life outside the EU, as a country in control of its own destination, we can look forward to an exciting, prosperous new chapter in our great nation’s future.
by Paul Scully | Dec 1, 2015 | News, News |
Committing our Armed Forces to conflict is one of the hardest decisions that Members of Parliament have to make. I don’t think anyone approves such a move lightly. Civilian lives and those of our servicemen and women have to be at the forefront of our thoughts along with our security here in the UK. I am of the opinion that we have to take the fight to ISIS/Daesh. Therefore I will be supporting a vote for air strikes in Syria but it is only right that I explain my reasons. This is a complex issue to which a short paragraph or sound-bite would do no justice. I have already had a number of points raised by constituents and so I have tried below to group my comments FAQ-style under headings of the most common questions:
Exactly what will I be voting on?
The wording of the motion which will be the subject of a 10.5 hour debate followed by a vote at about 10pm tomorrow evening has just been released and is as follows:
“That this House notes that ISIL poses a direct threat to the United Kingdom; welcomes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2249 which determines that ISIL constitutes an ‘unprecedented threat to international peace and security’ and calls on states to take ‘all necessary measures’ to prevent terrorist acts by ISIL and to ‘eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria’; further notes the clear legal basis to defend the UK and our allies in accordance with the UN Charter; notes that military action against ISIL is only one component of a broader strategy to bring peace and stability to Syria; welcomes the renewed impetus behind the Vienna talks on a ceasefire and political settlement; welcomes the Government’s continuing commitment to providing humanitarian support to Syrian refugees; underlines the importance of planning for post-conflict stabilisation and reconstruction in Syria; welcomes the Government’s continued determination to cut ISIL’s sources of finance, fighters and weapons; notes the requests from France, the US and regional allies for UK military assistance; acknowledges the importance of seeking to avoid civilian casualties, using the UK’s particular capabilities; notes the Government will not deploy UK troops in ground combat operations; welcomes the Government’s commitment to provide quarterly progress reports to the House; and accordingly supports Her Majesty’s Government in taking military action, specifically airstrikes, exclusively against ISIL in Syria; and offers its wholehearted support to Her Majesty’s Armed Forces .”
As can be seen, it acknowledges the fact that airstrikes alone will not succeed and the importance of avoiding civilian casualties, rules out UK troops being used on the ground and sets out the need to continue humanitarian support, to cut Daesh’s money and weapons and the importance of post-conflict stabilisation.
What does this have to do with security in the UK?
Daesh are a threat to our national security, and after the attacks in Paris, their abilities to cause untold terror in the western world has become evident. The deaths of Mohamed Emwazi, Ruhul Amin and Reyaad Khan in Syria, who were plotting attacks on UK soil show the threat we face lies there. Eliminating the territorial claims of Daesh will protect the thousands of Muslims in Syria that are being killed and displaced, cut off the funding of Daesh through oil sales and fatally undermine the credibility of the so-called Caliphate which relies on territory for that claim, enabling them to draw in yet more extremists. Some people ask if action will make a terrorist attack in the UK more likely. We know that Daesh already want to attack us. They wanted to attack us along with Belgium and Paris, only managing to commit an atrocity in the latter. The UK is already in the top tier of countries on Daesh’s target list so I believe that the only way to deal with that reality is to address the threat we face. We should not outsource our own security to other countries.
Is this a problem for Syrians to sort out themselves?
Last week’s unanimous UN Security Council resolution calling on countries to use all necessary measures against Daesh, shows the deep and broad international support for taking on these barbaric terrorists. UN Security Council resolution 2249 states that ISIL “constitutes a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security” and calls for member states to take “all necessary measures” to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by Daesh and crucially, it says that we should “eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria”. 62 countries are already involved in the coalition seeking to defeat this dangerous group who are claiming governance of territory similar in size to the UK. Daesh have no regard for human life. The beheadings, crucifixions and throwing people from roofs show that their ultimate aim is destructive. We have nothing to work with diplomatically.
Assad’s use of chemical weapons and barrel bombs against his own people show that he has no place in the future of Syria. It is vital that airstrikes are not about regime change, even if the future governance of Syria is a major calculation in post-conflict planning. We have an immediate threat to both UK security and the people of Syria in the form of Daesh and we must remain focused on this.
Will British involvement make a difference?
I do not believe that UK involvement will increase the likelihood of civil casualties. This is not a scenario where we are starting a conflict afresh: airstrikes are already taking place in Syria. However, I understand people’s concerns about how effective the strikes will be, and what the outcome will be. Our Brimstone precision missile system enables us to strike accurately with minimal collateral damage – something that even the Americans do not have. They have the accuracy to be able to hit an armoured vehicle travelling at 70mph. The RAF have conducted many missions in Iraq against Daesh without a single recorded civilian casualty. Only one-third of missions involve weapons being deployed as commanders need to be sure of their target and weigh the risk before giving the final order to strike. Of course that record can change at any moment but it is indicative of the caution taken before engaging. Since August last year, Daesh has lost about one-quarter of the territory that it held in Iraq. We can make a difference. Following the stepping up of airstrikes in Raqqa, Daesh leaders are reported to be leaving their HQ to travel to Mosul in Iraq, where we already have the ability to strike.
Will airstrikes make the situation worse?
I believe that inaction is the course that will definitely make the situation worse in Syria/Iraq. We are already involved in the situation on one side of the border. Daesh pay no attention to the Iraqi/Syrian border and therefore if we are to succeed, neither should we. There is a view that Daesh may turn their attention to the UK as a result but we are already in their scope for terrorist acts. We rely on our security services to foil plots before they succeed but the only long-term way to remove these threats are at source – in Iraq and Syria. We have a comprehensive counter-extremism strategy which details our plan to prevent and foil plots at home and to address the poisonous extremist ideology that is the root cause of the threat that we face.
Are we failing to learn the history of our involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya?
The particular lesson that we need to learn in my opinion, is to make sure that we have a comprehensive strategy, not only to defeat Daesh, but to protect the innocent and rebuild a stable Syria once Daesh have been defeated. I do not support UK ground forces in Syria which would be counter-productive. Airstrikes will not succeed on their own, but as one part of our approach. Yes, we need to cut off access to finance and weaponry. Daesh are already sitting on estimated reserves of £1 trillion. We need to intercept smugglers, seal borders, and enforce sanctions to stop people trading with ISIL. Ultimately, ISIL is able to generate income through its control of territory, so although we are working with international partners to squeeze the finances wherever we can, it is the rolling back of ISIL’s territory that will ultimately cut off its finances.
We need to build a coalition of local ground forces. There has been some question about the 70,000 moderate opposition fighters that the Joint Intelligence Committee estimates may be able to be brought together. An interesting article by Charles Lister, who has spent the last two years engaging face to face with Syrian Opposition groups, breaks down this figure and demonstrates how this ground force may look. Questions about the numbers of opposition fighters are perfectly valid but should not stop us being able to start to degrade Daesh in Syria now through the extension of our current action. There has already been an example of opposition fighters being killed after a RAF pilot had to call in an American to defend them after fighting crossed the border from Iraq to Syria. The RAF pilot was minutes away, the American an hour’s flight.
Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya differed from this conflict in a number of ways. This is an ongoing conflict which we are being asked to join, not a new venture which will come as a shock to those on the ground. It is focused on defeating a terrorist group, not regime change. This does throw up a difficult mix, with Russia supporting Assad, Turkey supporting those battling Kurd separatists and the UK holding the long-standing belief that Assad should not be part of Syria’s future. We need a diplomatic path running in parallel with our military intervention. This has started with Iran and Saudi Arabia sitting around the same table as America, Russia, France, Turkey and the UK, all of whom are working towards the transition to a new government in Syria. They have different starting positions but that is what diplomacy is, building coalitions and agreed positions which we can develop lasting solutions. The Prime Minister has pledged at least £1billion for post-conflict reconstruction. He said to the House last week: “All these elements – counter terrorism, political and diplomatic, military and humanitarian – need to happen together to achieve a long-term solution in Syria. We know that Peace is a process, not an event. I am clear that it cannot be achieved through a military assault on ISIL alone.”
The main difference between Libya and Syria is that we have firm international commitment from all the backers of a future Syrian government around the table at the Vienna talks, whereas the state of Libya had been hollowed out after 40 years of dictatorship. Institutions collapsed quickly as a result, after Gadaffi was deposed. The military, security and diplomatic advice all say that the risk of inaction is greater than action.
What has changed to make immediate action necessary?
We have a UN Security council resolution that was agreed unanimously. The Vienna talks offer a credible and legitimate peace process for Syria and of course Paris has happened. This attack did not just feel different from the many that have happened in the last year, there were significant tangible differences. This was both planned in Syria but also people were sent from Syria to help carry out the attack. We need to be good allies. Our nearest neighbour has been attacked and we should be there for them as we would hope they would be for us had it happened in London. But most of all we should cut the head of the Daesh snake to avoid this happening again. Daesh in Syria are a direct threat to the security of the UK. We need to act now.
by Paul Scully | Nov 2, 2015 | News, News |
Recently I went on a fact-finding trip to Israel. We were told that we arrived with questions and that we would return with more informed questions. That was certainly true. There are no easy answers to the Israel/Palestine situation but we need to keep trying to find a solution – to my mind this has to be a two-state solution, with Israel and Palestine acknowledging the legitimacy of each others’ claim to land in the region. The recent stabbings in Jerusalem is a salutary reminder of how quickly tension can give way to violence and how far we are from coming to a solution.
Day 1 – Tel Aviv – Jaffa
The view of Tel Aviv from my hotel room, including mosque.
We travelled to our base in Tel Aviv. I wasn’t sure what to expect, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t what I found. Tel Aviv is an incredibly cosmopolitan, achingly-trendy city based around the beach. Arabs represent about 20% of the Israeli population, so I should not have been too surprised to have walked past a number of mosques on our way to Jaffa, the old part of the city to the south of Tel Aviv. Listening to the call to prayer from one mosque, I wouldn’t have known that I was wandering around one of the most hotly disputed areas in the world. Tel Aviv is home to a number of technology start-ups with a young population. There was a palpable buzz around the place and a lot of building and regeneration work. I’d be keen to return to look around some more.
Day 2 – Erez Crossing, Gaza
Examples of rocket shelters
We travelled south to Netiv HaAsara, a small settlement on the border with Gaza. We heard from two young girls that live their lives in fear of rocket attacks. When the alarm sounds, residents have just 15 seconds to get into one of the many shelters dotted around the moshav (village). The kindergarten was totally reinforced to take pressure of the children there. However we heard how one elderly couple had to sleep in a shelter after the husband had a heart attack and would not be able to protect himself in time. We saw the opening of a tunnel that had been discovered last year. There are two types of tunnel, smaller ones to get men in and out quickly and ones big enough to drive a truck through in order to smuggle goods. From this vantage point we could see a Hamas training camp on the outskirts of Gaza City. Later on in the week we heard how bullets from the training camp had hit one of the closest homes to the wall, with Israel retaliating by bombing that same training camp.
The next stop was to Zikim, a nearby kibbutz on the coast which was the location of a Hamas terrorist raid last year. We saw one of the small boats that police the controversial blockade which aims to stop the import of weapons and materials that may be used for tunnelling. The kibbutz is one of the few remaining that work on socialist lines. Our host who arrived in Israel from San Francisco in 1971 explained how residents all got paid the same wage regardless of what work they did. Everything is pooled and they all eat together.
Then to Erez Crossing, the single crossing point between Israel and Gaza. We saw an expensive, underused crossing designed for 45,000 people crossing each day which has just a few hundred coming to Israel from Gaza on a daily basis. There are limited reasons that are accepted by the Israeli authorities before a pass is issued. However a number of lorries carrying freight do pass through with supplies. We saw a video of a woman who had been isolated before she revealed her bomb belt which was then detonated safely. Israel left Gaza ten years ago. Some Palestinians in Gaza destroyed much of the old Israeli infrastructure rather than use it themselves. At the Kibbutz we had seen aerial photography showing the marks of former buildings on the Gaza side of the barrier.
Empty rocket casings, some up to 5ft long
Our final visit of the day was to Sderot, the closest city to the crossing. This is where many of the rockets were targeted. We heard from Kobi Haroush who is in charge of security. Kobi showed us the carcasses of rockets that had rained down on the city, up to five foot long, many of which were stuffed with nails to cause extensive injuries. Regular alarms, explosions and the fear of following the 13 fatalities and dozens of injured has led to post-traumatic stress including miscarriages and 18 year-olds wetting their beds whilst on national service. The city lives in fear and a whole generation is being scarred.
Day 3 – West Bank, Palestinian Territories
This family from Ethiopia were one of many supported by Save A Heart
On our way to the West Bank we stopped off at the Save a Child’s Heart charity. Cardiologists in Tel Aviv perform major heart surgery on children from Gaza, Kenya, Ethiopia and elsewhere on a pro bono basis. The charity has recently opened a residential home for the children attending the hospital where they will often stay with their mothers for several months at a time. The surgeons train African doctors as well which builds capacity in their home countries. We met many of the children who were incredibly grateful for the help and support that they were getting from this inspirational charity.
Bashar-Al-Masri showing us the construction of Rawabi
We drove across the barrier to Rawabi, the first Palestinian-planned city in the West Bank. The project is designed to house 40,000 Palestinians in a well-designed series of building set on a steep hill. It has been funded by Bashar Masri, a successful Palestinian business man and Qatar. Residents had just started moving in as we visited. Some Palestinians are not happy as Israeli materials are being used, some Israeli settlers remain convinced that this was Israeli territory and so should not be built on for Palestinians. Both are wrong and I was pleased that the Israeli government did not support the illegal settlers in their controversial view. The rooftops of an Israeli settlement could be seen from the main office at the top of the hill, even though the view was partially obscured by a series of strategically placed Palestinian flags. Two issues have slowed progress. Protracted negotiations about water supply, left the city uninhabitable as there was no water. The small single access road is not enough to cope with traffic that will arise when the city is fully occupied. The Israeli government can help themselves by being proactive in helping with the road.
Our second stop in the West Bank was the Coca-Cola distribution centre in Ramallah. Zahi Khouri, the Palestinian CEO did not take the diplomatic approach of Bashar Masri when we spoke. Instead, he dismissed the rockets landing in Sderot as mere “fireworks” and complained about water-rationing despite having three water springs on site. There is no doubt that with there being two valid sides of this complex argument that there are plenty of examples of hardship and tragedy faced by Palestinians. However Mr Khouri’s partisanship whilst enjoying the benefits that having the exclusive franchise of one of the leading global brands, dented his credibility as a commentator on the ongoing conflict. Instead I was drawn to Bashar Masri’s positive approach, one that gives hope for his countrymen.
Day 4 – Jerusalem and the Knesset
Yoav Kisch, Likud Member of the Knesset
When we first flew over Israel, it suddenly hit me that I was looking down at the most hotly contested piece of land in the world. Visiting Jerusalem drove that point home.
We met three Israeli politicians from different parties. Tamar Zandberg from the Meretz Party squeaked into the Knesset at the last election as the fifth candidate on the list. It had looked as though Meretz would only get four seats and the party leader offered to sacrifice her own seat to allow rising star, Zandberg to take her place instead. As it happens after soldiers votes were taken into account which can often be counted late because of deployment, both were elected. Left-wing Meretz must really rate Zandberg as their future to make that sacrificial offer. We also met former El-Al pilot Yoav Kisch, another rising star, this time from the ruling Likud Party.
We were the first to meet Mark Regev after the news of his post to the UK as Ambassador
I chaired a meeting with Mark Regev. At that time he was a spokesman for Benjamin Netanyahu but had just been confirmed as the next Ambassador to the UK. He was an impressive individual; a doughty defender of Israel, with an unshakeable confidence in the Zionist cause but pragmatic as well. I am looking forward to seeing him in his new role and what he will bring to the UK in replacing Daniel Taub who has done much to help UK-Israeli relationships flourish.
The Church of the Holy Sepulchre with the Immovable Ladder just visible under the top right window
We were taken on a tour of the Old City. The King David Hotel overlooking the City, that was bombed by a militant Zionist organisation in 1946, reminded us of the beginning of the post WWII conflicts. In among the markets we came to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
Golgotha, the site of the crucifixion
Christians revere this as the site of Golgotha, where Jesus was crucified and his burial tomb close by. The keys to the church are entrusted to two Muslim families in order to ensure peaceful coexistence. To illustrate the difficulties of maintaining a church which everyone has a claim on, a small wooden ladder leaning up against a window above the facade, is a symbol which causes angst if ever moved. The ‘immovable ladder’ has remained in exactly the same place bar two occasions for two hundred years. The Greek Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic churches have been the prime movers in this somewhat absurd but incredibly tense conflict.
The Western Wall is the holiest site in Jerusalem. Donning a Kippah, we saw this impressive 62 foot high wall and had time to reflect on what has gone before us on this very site.
Reflecting on thousands of years of history looking across to the Temple Mount
Hundreds of small scrolls of paper were stuffed into the cracks in the wall. More than a million ‘kvitelach’, written prayers, are left each year. The wall was segregated with a women’s area on one side.
The Western Wall
A couple of us noted buildings offering food for the poor overlooking the wall. Competing signs including the names of the philanthropists, primarily American, suggested an ulterior motive for the worthy charitable work done there.
Day 5 – Yad Vashem and the Security Barrier
On the last full day, we travelled back to Jerusalem. We had been told that Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Museum in the city would be a heavy assault on our senses. Frankly, it was staggering. The architecture was such, that we were transported around a number of rooms, not knowing what was coming around the corner with the only natural light being as we ascended back to ground level at the end. This echoed the experience of Jews across Europe before, during and immediately after the Second World War. We learned about the slow lead-up to the mass deaths of the camps, the corralling of Jews into ghettoes, stripping them of possessions and dignity. We saw how structured the process was, taking different approaches to different cities across the continent and how horrifically industrialised the death camps became, killing 5,000 people each and every hour. I was born 23 years after the end of the war but remember clearly how raw it was for that generation of Brits who had faced the Nazis. How much more it must have been for those who were systematically targeted, not for battle, but for mass slaughter and extermination. Although I was expecting it, I was still shocked to the core by what I saw and heard.
Our guide was simply excellent. The headset system that we had meant that our group didn’t need to crowd around. She could talk in a hushed, respectful tone sharing her deep knowledge and impassioned interest in the personal stories. The last room in the main museum was the Hall of Names. Pictures of many of the dead circled above our heads and files containing short biographies of 2 million Jews killed in the Shoah struck everyone’s hearts, driving home the lasting impact that this horrendous period in history had on Jewish people. The enormity of the research that must have been undertaken to complete this project was incredible. Our visit to Yad Vashem towards the end of our trip, neatly encapsulated the reason for the rocky journey that Jews had been on in establishing and maintaining a Jewish homeland.
The panoramic view at Yad Vashem, hope after the harrowing experience of the story of the Shoah
On reaching the panoramic view on our return to ground level, we had two more rooms to visit. The Children’s Memorial is a hollowed-out cavern. The names of some of the estimated 1.5 million children murdered in the Holocaust were read out along with their age and country of birth whilst we walked through a dark room with candles being reflected around us creating the impression of millions of stars. We then led a short memorial service in which my colleagues laid a wreath and lit a flame to share our sympathies and our commitment to remember so that such a tragedy can never be repeated.
Our afternoon was spent with Colonel Dany Tirza who showed us the security barrier that he designed and built which divides Israel and the Palestinian Territories. 95% of the security barrier is fencing, rather than the more oppressive wall that is usually shown in the media. Fencing with cutting-edge pressure sensors surrounded by ashphalt to track anyone seeking to sneak over works in most areas where there is a significant gap between properties. The wall in Jerusalem was constructed where Palestinians and Israelis are separated by only a matter of centimetres.
Overlooking Bethlehem from a vantage point previously under sniper fire
We looked over to Bethlehem which had been the location of a lot of sniper fire. Dany explained how residents in the block of flats behind us had to live in the back of the property rather than the front, unable to open the fridge at night for fear of the light going on and attracting gunfire. Frankly I was amazed that anyone remained in the flats under those conditions. He explained how he and his staff had walked all 700km of the route of the barrier in order to see first hand the possible effects and had mitigated them as much as possible by building around buildings and controversial areas rather than resorting to demolition or cutting through such areas. This had been tricky for such sites as the tombs of Rachel and Lazarus. The former has its own guarded access route. Similarly the area around a university was so controversial, Dany received a call from former US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, lobbying for change. This part of the trip really highlighted the lasting divisions and the continuing mistrust between the Israelis and Palestinians. However, the seriousness of the situation was broken up by Dany’s love of telling elaborate stories, a talent shared by many Jews that we encountered in Israel.
We concluded the day by visiting the Founding Editor of the Times of Israel, David Horovitz. It was David who broke to us the news about the gunfire in Netiv HaAsara, the village we had visited on the first day. We asked about other local stories but it seemed clear that the Palestinian-Israeli tension in all of its facets was the single driver of the news across the country.
Over the week, we also met our new Ambassador to Israel, HE David Quarrey and Deputy National Security Advisor Eran Lerman. They added further context to our visit, giving us a much more rounded view of the situation. Our opening advice was 100% correct. I have not come back with any easy answers, but many, hopefully more informed, questions. There are two sides to any conflict. Illegal settlements in the West Bank serve only to exacerbate the situation. But the terror faced in places like Sderot is real. Israelis should be able to live without fear of the 15 second warning, barely enough time to read this paragraph. Benjamin Netanyahu made an offer on his visit to London that he would return to the negotiating table without pre-conditions. He was clear about the first thing that he would be looking for – Palestinian acceptance of Israel’s valid claim to territory in the region, the right to exist. But that would come at an early stage in talks, not in advance. One thing is clear, talks are the only prospect of a two-state solution. Both sides need to recognise each other’s claims. A demilitarised Palestinian won’t be enough. That simply reinforces Israel’s role of custodian in an area that we should be able to recognise in time as an independent Palestinian state. Indiscriminate rocket fire, terror tunnels across the border with Gaza and the recent stabbings will only serve to harden opinion and make a solution even further away. Israel is a democracy that has every right to exist and flourish without fear from those dedicated to ‘push it into the sea’ supported by some of the most tyrannical states in the world. Some hard-liners may be satisfied with continuing conflict. The UK needs to play its part as a critical friend of both Israel and Palestine and help bring the two together. We need to remain optimistic, even when things look difficult. The alternative does not bear thinking about.
by Paul Scully | Sep 15, 2015 | News, News, Uncategorized |
Last week was the first week back in Parliament after the summer recess. Whilst the time away was not all rest and recuperation -the majority was spent getting up to date with casework and constituency matters – I was able to get my head cleared after a long 2.5 year campaign and a couple of months living in the organised chaos of the whirlwind that followed the election. My first week back was about as varied as it comes:-
Monday: I heard from the Prime Minister about the UK response to the Syrian refugee crisis and the news that the UK had launched a missile strike on a known terrorist; helped deal with the remaining stages of the EU Referendum Bill including the controversial Purdah period (what the government can and can’t do in the weeks leading up to the referendum which may sway the result); joined London Conservative MPs to speak to Boris’ housing adviser and sat with a whip and a DWP minister to learn about the procedures of the Welfare Reform Bill Committee to which I had been appointed. The last vote came at about 12.30am.
Tuesday: Another long day well past midnight where I voted on the detail of the Finance Bill and sat in my first Petitions Committee. This weekly committee meeting decides on what happens to the e-petitions on the government website that have received popular support. My Tuesday afternoon was spent deciding on whether to have a vote of no confidence in David Cameron, Iain Duncan Smith and Jeremy Hunt; arrest Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel; legalise cannabis and ban fracking among other petitions. We did none of this things but have scheduled debates on consultant contracts, which was the substantive concern of the Jeremy Hunt petition and legislation around cannabis.
Wednesday: hearing about progress on investigation into war crimes during the civil war in Sri Lanka, the last Prime Minister’s Questions with Harriet Harman, being briefed about a forthcoming trip to Bangladesh, joining London MPs at an all party parliamentary group for London to discuss housing in the capital with a panel of experts and listening to the Conservative Party Chairman outlining progress on the Party organisational review that is underway.
Thursday: starting the first session of the Welfare Reform Bill Committee, voting for a couple of procedural motions before running off to a hotel in Piccadilly to hear Benjamin Netanyahu (I refrained from satisfying Tuesday’s petitioners by performing a citizen’s arrest) tell a room of politicians and members of London’s Jewish community that he was prepared to re-enter talks with President Abbas without any preconditions before dashing back to the Bill Committee where we heard evidence from a number of charity leaders and welfare experts. In the evening I spoke at the Sutton Housing Society AGM, updating residents on local issues.
Friday: Unusally for a Friday, the House of Commons chamber was packed to debate the Assisted Dying Bill which I have covered in a separate post.
I’ve not been in Parliament long enough to know if this is a typical week. The time spent before recess was spent getting to know people and procedures. Now it’s about learning how to do justice to such a range of important subjects in such a short space of time. Life in Parliament can be quite exhilarating but I never forget that I’m here to do an important job, representing residents of Sutton, Cheam and Worcester Park to the best of my ability, repaying the trust put in me
by Paul Scully | Sep 13, 2015 | News, News |
Friday’s debate on the Assisted Dying Bill was thoughtful, emotional and demonstrated Parliament at its best. The quality of speeches on both sides of the arguments was extremely good. I have had a lot of correspondence on the matter from those in favour and those against with powerful, often personal cases cited to support their views. I have always sympathised with the need to change the law but recognise that safeguards need to be tight and comprehensive. Cases like Tony Nicklinson who suffered from ‘locked-in’ syndrome informed my approach to this subject in general terms, although this Bill would not have covered his situation as it only related to terminally-ill patients.
As I listened to the debate, my leaning towards support grew firmer and I voted for the Bill, though I ended up on the losing side as the Bill was rejected by 300 votes to 118. In order to inform those who wrote to me as to why I voted the way I did, I thought it would be appropriate to detail my thoughts on a number of points raised in the debate:
Self-determination: This is my prime point of reference. If I was suffering at the end of my life, I would hate to think that the State would get involved to a point probably beyond any other time in my life, keeping me alive against my will. Twenty-six years ago, I saw my father die over a year from mesothelioma, contracted from asbestos inhaled whilst an apprentice on the docks in Rangoon and Glasgow. Towards the end he was doped up on morphine which he fought against at every stage because he hated to lose control of his senses. He fought for every breath, literally. He wanted to live, wanted to recover and go back to work. He would not have used the powers in this Bill had they been available to him at the time but it is clear from other examples including the moving stories from a constituent of Paul Flynn and Madeleine Moon, that others would. I believe that they should be able to do so. As Jim Fitzpatrick, a former fireman, said: “I do not know how many people here have seen the terminal stages of asbestosis or mesothelioma. Not only is it not pretty, but it is damned ugly, and if that is what lies in store for me, I want to control my own exit.”
Safeguards: The Bill covers only a narrow area. It only covers those suffering with a terminal illness, defined as an “inevitably progressive condition which cannot be reversed by treatment as a consequence of that terminal illness, is reasonably expected to die within six months.” Two doctors need to sign off the request and a High Court judge must be satisfied that the applicant has a “voluntary, clear, settled and informed wish to end his or her own life” and “the capacity to make the decision to end his or her own life.” This was seen as inadequate by those arguing against the Bill. They seem appropriate to me. The detail of this could have been argued at the subsequent Committee Stage when further safety checks could have been considered. Some MPs considered the six months to be impossible to determine with any accuracy. It’s true that doctors cannot be sure to the nth degree as to when someone will die. People may recover to live a much longer life. It is also true to say that they may go downhill and die much sooner. We can only work with the best information available to us and it should be up to us as to whether we accept that advice. Some were concerned about the ability of two doctors to make an informed view overall. To my mind, the two doctor rule reflected the requirement in the Abortion Act, another ethical medical change first considered via a Private Members’ Bill and controversial at that time.
Sir Keir Starmer made an important contribution to the debate as the former Director of Public Prosecutions who drew up the guidelines currently used when considering the prosecution of such cases. He detailed his considerations and some of the cases that informed him in how to ensure that those guidelines struck a sensible balance in a lengthy but factual speech. He made a key point towards the end of his speech saying: “My experience is that there are two inherent limitations in the guidelines that I issued. For the reasons I have explained, my understanding of the constitutional role of the DPP was that doctors and medical practitioners are more likely to be prosecuted. The first limitation is that, as a result, those who have reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to end their lives can now be confident of the compassionate assistance of loved ones without exposing them to the law, but they cannot have the assistance of professionals. They can have amateur assistance from nearest and dearest, but they cannot have professional help in fulfilling their desire unless they have the means and the physical ability to get to Dignitas. One of the points that Debbie Purdy made to the judicial committee was that she wanted to live her life for as long as possible, although she wanted to end it at her own choosing, and that if she was forced to go to Dignitas she would have to end her life earlier because she would lose the physical means of getting there.”
The primary purpose of those speaking against the Bill was to preserve life. However at the moment, there are no checks in order to do so, just retrospective guidelines after death, which still involve the deathbed as a crime scene and the nearest and dearest treated as a suspect. A number of MPs raised the matter of ‘double effect’, namely medication that will alleviate suffering, though with the additional effect of shortening their life. There are no external checks at the time of treatment, just a review after death which will not have any effect on the person who has died. Opponents of the Bill were concerned that 14 days was not sufficient for a High Court judge to consider if the patient was being coerced. I would argue that the DPP would have even more difficulties in ascertaining this after the event.
Sanctity of life: Many of the representations that I received from constituents opposing the Bill were initiated by faith-based campaign groups. I respect the view of the many MPs and constituents who argued from a position of deep faith about the sanctity of life. However I agree with Crispin Blunt that I would not want the Church determining my death. Assisted Dying would not have become compulsory under this Bill and it would not have been for everyone. I would have liked the freedom to choose whereas others would be driven by their faith to pass at a time of God’s choosing.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, in outlining his reasons for supporting Assisted Dying asks what does it mean to be alive? He tells a story about the issues of keeping Nelson Mandela alive. “What was done to Madiba (Nelson Mandela) was disgraceful. There was that occasion when Madiba was televised with political leaders, President Jacob Zuma and Cyril Ramaphosa. You could see Madiba was not fully there. He did not speak. He was not connecting. My friend was no longer himself. It was an affront to Madiba’s dignity.”
The view of Healthcare professionals: To my mind, the strongest argument against the Bill were put forward by three medical doctors, Dr Liam Fox, Dr Sarah Wollaston and Dr Philippa Whitford who brought their professional experience to bear suggesting the fact that this proposed change fundamentally changed the role of the doctor from someone who would do no harm, opening a Pandora’s Box, as Liam Fox described it. The discredited Liverpool Care Pathway has already shown how healthcare professionals have been able to hasten people’s death albeit through denying food and water, leaving dehydrated patients to suck water from sponges, rather than through a controlled, swift process as afforded by this Bill.
Many argued that rather than considering assisted dying we should be improving palliative care. I don’t see the two as mutually exclusive. As stated, the procedures included in this Bill would have only been used by a few people. Palliative care has been improving significantly since my father died in 1989 and long may that continue. I look forward to those arguing for better palliative care in this debate bringing those points forward in wider health debates. I was struck by the contribution of Sarah Champion in support of the Bill who had run a hospice before being elected to the House. It was suggested that assisted dying would reduce the incentive to find treatments for illnesses. I could not see how this would be the case.
Slippery slope: Several disability charities ran campaigns against the Bill in the belief that it would work against those with a disability. Others described the Bill as crossing the Rubicon. Any further changes to the qualification to who could end their life would have had to come back to the House for further debate. That would include cases of locked-in syndrome as I mentioned at the beginning. I didn’t see that as reason enough to kick this proposed change into the long grass against the popular wishes of the public. Disabled people would not be able to take their life unless they were terminally ill, where they would be treated as any able-bodied person would.
The largest poll, conducted by Dignity in Dying had support at 80% for the Bill. The last independent poll had support at 70%, still pretty sizeable. The debate was wide-ranging, extremely informative but I believe the conclusion reached by the House was the wrong one. Further stages of consideration of the Bill would have teased out some of the finer points of argument and concerns and there would have been chance to reject the Bill further down the line if required. I am aware that in voting for the Bill, I would have voted in a way that is totally anathema to many constituents. Others, possibly the majority, will welcome my approach. Ultimately I am content that I considered the arguments and details of the debate and voted with my conscience. Both sides of the argument wanted a vote to test the view of politicians. They have it; a resounding support of the status quo, a finely balance guideline-based approach to the end of life choices for terminally ill patients with little certainty at an incredibly difficult time for those left behind.
