Can Simpol make international politics simple?

All PPC’s have been asked to sign the Simpol pledge in this election and I have done so as I believe that “Simpol is such a simple idea, yet I believe it could be incredibly powerful. Global problems require global solutions and this could well be the way to get to these solutions.” A copy of the pledge which contains more information about Simpol is included below.

As a candidate for the UK Parliament, I pledge my support for the Simultaneous Policy (Simpol) campaign. At this stage, my support for Simpol is given only in principle and signifies my support for Simpol as a process for bringing the governments of all or sufficient nations together around a common global framework for cooperation to address the major global problems we face. I will encourage my party and its members to join this global initiative.

The Simpol framework comprises the following features:

1. Global co-operation: Appropriate policies to solve global problems are to be implemented by nations simultaneously, only when all or sufficient governments have agreed to do so. Simultaneous implementation avoids any nation suffering a competitive disadvantage. If all nations move together, all nations and their peoples win;

2. Subsidiarity: Only those policies likely to result in a significant first-mover competitive disadvantage (i.e. those requiring a simultaneous approach) are included. Policies implementable unilaterally by nations remain excluded, so assuring appropriate subsidiarity and preserving national sovereignty;

3. Give and Take: International negotiations would combine multiple global issues together, such that nations that may lose on one issue can gain on another;

4. Equality: Democratic and non-democratic nations participate in the process on an equal basis (which is evident since the co-operation of all, or virtually all nations, is required);

5. Democracy: If there is sufficient worldwide support for the process in principle, citizens in democratic countries will be invited to participate, if they wish, in the formulation of any policies to be taken up by their government in negotiations, and their agreement to any policies that may be agreed in negotiations will be sought prior to their implementation.

6. Complementarity: The Simpol process does not conflict with established international treaties or with processes such as those pursued by the United Nations. Rather, it works in parallel, so offering an alternative route to co-operation should these processes fail.

Should the Simpol succeed in gathering sufficient in principle support from enough nations, I understand that any policies negotiated under this process will be subject to my further written agreement before I would be willing to vote in Parliament for their implementation.

I further understand that I may cancel my Pledge at any time in writing by notifying Simpol- UK and that Simpol-UK or the International Simultaneous Policy Organisation may make my Pledge – or any cancellation of it – known publicly and particularly to Simpol supporters in my country or region. I am making this Pledge in my own name (not in that of my party*).

Voting Cruelty Free?

The BUAV sent out an email asking for all PPC’s views on six different topics related to experiments on animals, on the basis of that response they then decided whether that PPC either supported or not their campaign to “Vote Cruelty Free”. On their website I am down as supporting their campaign, which I think is an overly simplistic representation of my rather complex views on their six complex topics. A paraphrased version of the response I sent to the BUAV is shown below and I have asked the BUAV to publish my actual response so that people can see what I actually said. NOTE: Sections in itallics were not in my initial response to the BUAV but I have added them here for clarity.

I did not know the exact number of animals used in research in the UK each year but I did not think it would be as high as it is. I find it most disappointing that despite the coalition governments pledge more animals are used in research now than 5 years ago, we should be striving to reduce the number rather than letting it grow. It turns out that the coalition governments pledge was to reduce the number of animals used per experiment, which has happened. It is because a greater number of experiments are being performed that, despite the reduction in the number of animals being used per experiment, there has been an overall increase in the number of animals in experiments.

I will be honest with you and say that I do feel it is acceptable to use animals in research but only in certain cases not in all cases. The poor rate at which drugs shown to be successful in animals convert to being successful in humans is something I have been aware of and concerned by for some time and is part of the reason I feel more efforts should be being made to move towards methods by which the currently crucial role animal testing plays in research is no longer necessary.

In response to the 6 specific points:

1. Ban experiments on cats and dog. Generally I would support a ban on experiments on cats and dogs, with an exception on specific cases where it could be shown that the research was firstly both of sufficient importance and need to warrant the use of the animals and secondly that it could only be done with cats and dogs. Unbeknownst to me this is essentially the current situation, so my views match current legislation.

2. End the secrecy surrounding animal experiments. I feel a compromise should be reached here, between some reduction in secrecy whilst maintaining the safety of the individuals involved in the experiments. I am all in favour of increased transparency in all aspects of life but I also recognise that there have been instances where researchers have been persecuted by certain individuals and I would not want any change to the law to encourage that. It turns out that the vast majority of researchers involved in the field share this viewpoint of mine and that there is already widespread political support for this change.

3. Stop importing monkeys for use in laboratories. Again I would generally support a ban on importing monkeys for use in laboratories, with an exception on specific cases where it could be shown that the research was firstly both of sufficient importance and need to warrant the use of the animals and secondly that it could only be done with monkeys. Unbeknownst to me this is essentially the current situation, so my views match current legislation.

4. End non-medical experiments. I wholeheartedly support an end to non-medical experiments and feel it should have already happened. The issue I had here was that I did not understand the definition of “non-medical experiments”. I interpreted this to mean essentially just cosmetic and industrial testing which I do think should be ended in the few cases where it has not already been done so. Actually the term includes all veterinary and fundamental biological research and I do not support an end to veterinary or fundamental biological research

5. Stop genetically modifying animals pending a review. I feel a review should be conducted into the use of genetically modified animals, but that the outcome of the review should dictate any changes made and therefore that there should not be a stop until we know whether the review concludes that there should be or not.

6. Stop suffering in the most extreme experiments. Experiments that cause unnecessary and extreme suffering should be stopped and stopped as soon as possible.

Hopefully you find my answers on these issues helpful, animal research is a complex problem that I have very mixed feelings about and I feel this may be reflected in my answers.

Supporting the Public Service Users Bill

It is not right, nor fair, that public services can be privatised or outsourced with the users of said services having a say, particularly when the sums of money involved are so large. It is also not acceptable that you or I can’t find out about the performance of service providers, or do anything when the service they provide is not up to scratch.

A bill that promotes transparency, accountability and makes sure all tiers of governments consult the public more is something I would definitely support. I also feel strongly that if it would make government at all levels take the possibility of public ownership of services, where it is suitable, more seriously then that would be hugely beneficial. All information being publicly available and the right to recall poorly performing providers would also be most welcome.

This link to a scorecard showing how well each party matches up against the principles is most informative and it is also encouraging to see relative (minus Conservative and UKIP) cross party support for the Early Day Motion in support of the bill.

Budgetary considerations cannot justify discrimination

Ending violence against children

After receiving a number of emails about Unicef UK’s campaign to end violence against children throughout the world, High Peak Liberal Democrat PPC Stephen Worrall gives his views.

I was shocked to learn that every 5 minutes a child dies as result of violence, I felt the problem was a very serious one but I did not quite realise the full scale of it. The toleration of this horror has gone on too long.

Having raised the issue with Nick Clegg, specifically mentioning the potential for the new UN Sustainable Development Goals to include a robust target to end abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence and torture against children, I am pleased that my party has committed to supporting a global target to end violence against children in the new global development goals being agreed at the UN in September.

Childen’s safety is not an issue to play politics with and all parties should commit to ending violence against children, or at least in the short term to significantly reducing it, so that we can begin to make sure every child grows up safe.

Humane, sustainable farming

After receiving a number of emails about humane, sustainable farming High Peak Liberal Democrat PPC Stephen Worrall gives his thoughts.

I wholeheartedly agree that we need to ensure that farm animal welfare is of a very high standard, the use of cages and crates being to my mind unacceptable.

With regards to outdoor systems I feel that the use of appropriately large barns (with ample space, plenty of straw, natural light and effective ventilation) may in some cases be preferable to outdoor systems, but it is clear that one out of those two set ups is the least that we should provide for our farm animals.

Genetic selection for fast growth or high yields should only be pursued if it does not compromise the welfare of the animal in question, mutilations should be out of the question.

Encouraging the adoption of diets consisting of a lower proportion of meat is a complex issue. I do completely accept that there would be undoubted health benefits and that if less meat was consumed there would be less farm animals and therefore less methane emitted, but I feel a little uncomfortable with the state trying to coerce people into changing their behavior. On balance I feel I would be supportive of such a measure, but it would have to be carefully constructed.

The issue of how to ensure that the valuable income that farming provides to rural communities, like many in the High Peak, is maintained is I think another tricky one. If higher welfare production leads to the farmers produce being more valuable then even if there was a modest reduction in demand, due to the increased price, then their incomes would be protected. However if the price of meat was raised uniformly like this then it would be poorer families who would be having their diets forcibly changed, whilst the well off were little affected. This is of concern to me and I am not sure of a way round it to be quite honest, one way would be to try and ensure that the increase in price was not too large so as to not affect those on low incomes as much.

I am fully behind the reduction in the amount of cereal used to feed animals, as it is an incredibly inefficient way to use a human edible crop and is not what the animals would eat naturally in most cases.

Overall a careful approach needs to be taken to ensure that despite our best intentions with regards to animal welfare there are not negative unintended consequences from our actions to others in society.

A Walking Britain

After receiving a number of emails about the Walking Britain campaign High Peak Liberal Democrat PPC Stephen Worrall gives his views.

I’m afraid I don’t get out walking as much as I would like due to a large number of other commitments, however I do manage to get out reasonably frequently to walk my girlfriends dog around where we live in Charlesworth. In terms of other specific places away from Charlesworth I personally very much enjoy the walk around Mossy Lea and (whilst not technically in our area) the walk down from Marple Road into Etherow Park I find particularly relaxing, particularly on a quiet day when it can feel like your the only ones around.

Personally I very much support the creation of a “Walking Britain” and think that the next government should, as part of a wider commitment to promoting active and healthy lifestyles, promote the benefits of walking, I also think that we need to ensure that our best walking areas are not lost, either through development of land or neglect, however a little development to improve access to some fantastic “walking spots” would be beneficial.

I know, as do we all, that regular walking is good for you but the numbers are truly staggering in terms of the advantages:

* Regular walking can reduce the risk of developing heart disease, stroke, diabetes, Alzheimer’s and some cancers by between 20 and up to 50%.
* Walking can reduce the chances of developing depression by up to 30%.
* In addition, walkers spend over £6 billion a year, supporting up to 245,000 full time jobs

Of all the benefits of walking it is hard to choose the most important to our area as all are I believe vital. If you pushed me I think I’d have to say the improved health it brings as this has so many knock on benefits to the local area and to the whole country.

The facts about cancer in the High Peak

Cancer treatment and care is a big issue at this election, as it should be, and it is important that we know the facts.

As part of their Cross Cancer Out campaign Cancer Research UK has published a fantastic tool where you can go and find out how cancer incidence, diagnosis, treatment and survival in your area compare to national averages. Go to http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/local-cancer-statistics/ and put in your postcode to see how things are in your area.

Living where I do in the High Peak our cancer care is pretty much in line with national averages. The positive exceptions being that a higher than average number of:

– people get treatment both within 31 days and 62 days of diagnosis.

– people get tested diagnostically, and specifically for bowel cancer, within 6 weeks.

– women make use of cervical and breast cancer screening services, both young and old.

– people make use of bowel cancer screening services and quitting smoking support services.

Additionally other positives are that:

– a lower than average number of people develop prostate cancer.

– lung cancer mortality rates are lower than average.

– we are less obese than average.

Despite the fact that there are a few negatives, a higher than average number of people have oesophageal cancer and a lower than average number of girls have the HPV vaccination, over all we are in a positive position in the High Peak with regards to cancer care.

Much more needs to be done to combat cancer, but we appear to have got ourselves into a good position ready to take the fight to cancer.

Stephen Worrall pledges to become Arthritis Champion for High Peak

Stephen Worrall has today agreed to become an ‘Arthritis Champion’, supporting Arthritis Research UK in their efforts to find a cure for arthritis while calling for policy change to prevent its onset and transform the lives of people that have musculoskeletal conditions.

Musculoskeletal conditions include osteoarthritis, back pain and osteoporosis. People with these conditions often experience a great deal of pain and a loss of mobility. Over 10 million people in the UK have a musculoskeletal condition.

By agreeing to become an Arthritis Champion, Stephen has pledged to:

campaign to make musculoskeletal conditions a public health priority
fight to ensure that people with arthritis get high-quality care at the time that they need it
champion the UK’s leadership role in medical research.

Speaking about the manifesto, Stephen said, “I am delighted to become an Arthritis Champion. Musculoskeletal conditions affect a huge number of people and are a significant cause of disability in the UK. These are painful conditions which can have a massive impact on every aspect of people’s lives. We need to see change that creates the best possible policy environment in which to prevent and cure these conditions. We also need an urgent transformation of the services available to those that are living with these conditions now.”

Dr Liam O’Toole, chief executive officer of Arthritis Research UK, said, “I’m delighted that Stephen has become an Arthritis Champion. We need their help to champion the needs of people with arthritis both nationally and locally.

“Our Arthritis Research UK manifesto sets out an exciting vision for the future of musculoskeletal conditions. We are calling for policy changes to support the prevention, transformation and cure of musculoskeletal conditions. There is much that can be done: but we can’t do it alone. We need to work in partnership to put the needs of people with arthritis on the political agenda and transform the lives of people living with arthritis.”

High Peak Liberal Democrat PPC gives his views on Animal Welfare

High Peak Liberal Democrat PPC Stephen Worrall has recently received a number of emails from constituents asking him to complete a survey on his views on Animal Welfare issues as part of an International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) campaign.

Stephen commented “These issues are obviously ones that concern a lot of people in the High Peak and I think therefore it is only right, fair and proper for as many residents as possible to know my answers to this survey as we head towards election day. That is why I am sharing my answers here.”

The survey consisted of five questions to which PPCs could respond Yes, No or Don’t Know. The questions are set out below as well as Stephen’s answers in bold.

1) If you were elected, would improving the welfare of animals be one of your top priorities?

Yes.

2) Do you think that the UK should continue to lead international efforts to combat the illegal trade in endangered wildlife and wildlife products?

Yes.

3) Do you support an end to commercial whaling?

Yes.

4) Do you think the Hunting Act should remain in place?

Yes.

5) Would you be likely to support initiatives to better protect native wildlife species?

Yes.