Author: johnredwood

I hear the cost of the NHS and how to pay for it is back on some people’s agendas. Let’s make it clear once more. We Conservatives fought the last election on a pledge to keep NHS treatment free (other than the cross party prescription charges and charges for eye and teeth treatments already introduced). I do not expect the new government to deviate from that promise. Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems still also support this approach.

I heard an interesting interview with the Labour Shadow Health Secretary where she made a number of good suggestions. She recommended buying out some of the very expensive PFI schemes the NHS is struggling to pay for. Labour should know about them, as they negotiated many of them. Now could be a good time, given low interest rates, to buy out future obligations. She wanted less use of agency staff. That’s a policy she shares with the Health Secretary. All governments have found it difficult to deliver, but that’s no reason not to try again. She proposed more use of generic pharmacueticals, with lower medicine prices. That too is cross party commonsense, but it is always worthwhile having another push.

I think a Conservative government can add to that list of helpful ideas. I will relaunch my proposal that the NHS should get better at collecting equipment when people  no longer need it, and recycling it for future use. It may need maintaining or checking, but it should be cheaper if the former patient or their family drops the item back after use. The NHS should get better at charging visitors from overseas for all non urgent treatments, as they are meant to do. I am quite prepared to give them my NI number or some other support of identity for treatment if they need to make more checks on access. Easier still is to require all non urgent referrals to come through a GP, and for GP Registration to be the point at which you either register as a UK citizen with free entitlement, or a foreign user who has to pay one way or another. You should provide proof of nationality when first registering.  EU visitors from the continent would qualify for free treatment  but the NHS should demand payment from their sponsor states.

The NHS has hospitals and surgeries that I have seen outside my constituency that could benefit from better quality management systems. More getting things right first time, proper controls over use of expensive supplies, and working well as a team with good use of employee time are all important features of quality working that also cut costs.

There are reports of further tensions in the eastern parts of Ukraine where fighting continues between pro Russian rebel forces and the Ukrainian government military. There are also reports of concentrations of Russia power along the border and in Crimea.

This provides a difficult background to Theresa May’s stated intention to improve UK-Russian relations. I still think she is right to wish to do so. Having better communications, and striking deals or agreements with Russia as an important power does not mean the UK has to be a soft touch or let down NATO. I am quite sure the Prime Minister will uphold the security of NATO countries territory and will not send any misleading signals  about NATO’s commitment to protect all member states. NATO has taken recent action to demonstrate that the Baltic Republics near Russia are NATO members which NATO wishes to support.

The truth is there can be  no peaceful settlement in Ukraine without the engagement and agreement of Russia. Nor can there be a peaceful settlement in Syria without the involvement of Russia. Ukraine and the Middle East are much closer to Russia than to us. Russia has long standing alliances in these areas, and has an ability to project military power there at speed and on a large scale.

The West cannot easily accept the transfer of Crimea to Russia,  but nor is it going to seek to reverse that by military means. Neither the EU nor NATO has any known plan to intervene militarily in the eastern parts of Ukraine where the Ukraine government is finding it difficult to re establish its full and peaceful authority over the territory. It is be hoped that Russia does not herself seek to occupy or force the conflict in favour of the rebels,  but western involvement is about diplomacy. There is clearly  no military plan to protect eastern Ukraine in the way there is for NATO territories.

Given the need for some Russian goodwill to see a quicker and peaceful settlement in both the Middle East and Ukraine it would seem necessary to pursue diplomatic solutions, whilst demonstrating firmness of purpose over all those places and areas where NATO has the approval of national governments, a duty to protect, and the capability to intervene militarily if necessary. In Syria and Ukraine not all of these factors apply, meaning we need to take other steps.

The heart wrenching photo of a five year old boy startled and wounded by bombing in Syria has been a wake up call the world of the ugliness and violence of the continuing Syrian civil war. Unfortunately that one boy stands as a symbol for many more children who have been killed or badly wounded in the daily atrocities against the civilian population.

Russia is playing a larger military part today than the west. It is doing so because it does not share the West’s worries about helping Assad, still the head of the official Syrian government, to put down  ISIL and other rebels and enemies. Russia is able to do so as an ally of Iran, with access to safe military facilities close to Syria. The West has to recognise today, as it does, that any involvement in Syria needs to be discussed with Russia to avoid clashes or misunderstandings.

The West’s policy to Syria has been beset by at least three major obstacles. The first is that whilst the West is strongly against ISIL, it is not in favour of the Syrian government  regime which also wishes to defeat ISIL. The West sees the violence and damage being done by Assad against his own people and country and is appalled.

The second is the West wishes to support the creation and military success of a moderate opposition to the Assad regime which also opposes Muslim fundamentalism. It has proved difficult to identify and  nurture such a moderate opposition, and to turn a moderate opposition into a tough fighting force capable of defeating  both Assad and ISIL. There are other violent extremists in the country organised loosely into fighting forces who do not fly the flag of ISIL to complicate matters. It also does not help if the West arms apparently moderate rebels, only to see the weapons fall into less friendly hands one way or another.

The third is the West is understandably reluctant to cause yet more casualties and devastation by its bombing, and  even more reluctant to send in many ground troops. The electorates of the West are concerned about the results of some past military interventions where unpleasant dictators have been successfully displaced, only for there to be a failure to establish a better democratic government in their place. The West is seeking high standards of evidence before unleashing any military strike, as it is very damaging if Western bombs end up hitting a school or hospital or wedding party instead of  known extremist forces.

Many commentators, stock market participants and surveyors have been warning us that housebuilding and the homes market will be badly damaged by the vote to leave the EU. We were told to expect an immediate shock to confidence, leading to falling purchases and plunging prices.

Yesterday a leading housebuilder, Persimmon, brought us up to date with their trading. In the first half year there was a 6% rise on the numbers of homes they sold, and a 6% rise in the average price of homes they sold, with good growth in revenue and profits.  Worries about the vote did not drag them down. Since the vote they tell us there has been a 20% increase in the number of visitors to their sites, and a 17% increase in reservations of homes by buyers. In other words, the very opposite of the gloomy forecasts has once again happened.

If this is the experience of one of the UK’s larger housebuilders, it is difficult to believe other housebuilders would have experienced the opposite. Persimmon are planning to increase the numbers of homes they build, as they foresee more demand ahead.

Would those who forecast the immediate shock and have said they think the housing market is falling like to comment? It is difficult to understand why the share market marked down housebuilders so savagely after the Brexit vote. They of course are busily revising their view and have marked housebuilding shares up again since.

Meanwhile we had another of those surveys which pessimists have welcomed to their cause. This one is a bit different. The CBI Industrial trends survey showed output expectations at a modest plus 11 compared to plus 6 in July. This implies rising industrial output over the third quarter of 2016.  Total orders were at -5 compared to -4 in July. These are often negative – they were at minus 18 in October last year for example, and negative for several other months long before the referendum became an influence.

Mrs Merkel went to Ventotene yesterday to meet the Italian and French leaders to try out her latest sound bite. She says she wants a better EU, not more EU.

The meeting however was full of images and associations pointing to more integration and more EU. Ventotene itself was chosen as the island where Spinelli and Rossi wrote their manifesto for a federal Europe. The three leaders commemorated his impulse to EU integration at his grave whilst there.  They highlighted the work of the Garibaldi, the Italian aircraft carrier leading the EU Sophia naval mission to tackle migrant smugglers and assist with Libya. These were not convenient or easy venues, so someone wanted to make strong points that with the UK leaving the EU can get on with more integration and more common foreign policy , more common borders  and security policy.

In practice France and Italy do want to press on with more EU involvement and integration, but they also want to relax the German controls over the purse strings. France wants much more EU infrastructure investment to boost economies. Italy wants to relax the 3% budget deficit ceiling imposed on Euro area members and strongly recommended to non Euro members. France too would probably welcome fiscal relaxation at the national level. Germany will be unwilling, feeling that more borrowing by less prudent states will end up with Germany paying more of the bills. Germany is always ready to remind anyone who will listen that they get on just fine in the Euro with a large balance of payments surplus, so why don’t the others?

Mrs Merkel will return from her needlessly complex travels in Italy to receive various EU leaders at Schloss Meseberg near Berlin. There she will have to reassure the Scandinavian EU members and the Netherlands that their worries about too much EU interference and too much migration will be tackled, just after hearing the case for more integration in Italy. They will  be followed by eastern European leaders wanting to know that freedom of movement will still be untouched and that subsidies will still flow to the lower income countries after the loss of the UK contributions.

The French President is in a weak position domestically, with polls pointing to his exit at the forthcoming Presidential election. He now faces an opponent from the left wanting to restore more national independence, as well as the attack by the National Front. The Italian Prime  Minister has committed himself to a constitutional referendum which he may  not be able to win, which is damaging his standing.

When the three leaders say they want a reset, a new EU rebuilt from the bottom up, they are all acknowledging that the EU project is losing support and traction in their own countries and making their political positions difficult. Yet when you listen to what they want to do about it, they sound boxed in. They cannot easily change the Treaties or relax the laws that bite from the EU. They are unable to sort out the migration issues posed by common frontiers.  They cannot even agree amongst themselves to relax the controls on spending and borrowing. So they stand on an Italian aircraft carrier talking of more co-operation, when their grip on events is loosening.

That was a great result. The large number of  medal winners , and the even larger number of competitors from the UK who also put in brilliant world class performances is a tribute to their hard work, dedication and skill. The nation is rightly proud of them all. It is a fine thing to reach Olympic qualification standard, and an amazing thing to end up Olympic champion in your chosen sport.

I don’t think it is mainly about money, though obviously the money to provide backing and support helps. The Lottery has been a good means of allowing more people to spend their time in training.  It is mainly about the sheer determination and stamina of each competitor, their coaches and mentors, and of their families. It  shows that people  can achieve great things if they put their mind and body to it.

To me the Treaty we signed to help establish NATO is a model international agreement. It is short, straight forward, and preserves our freedom for independent action. Any party may leave the Treaty Agreement one year after giving notice. When NATO is considering taking action each member state can determine how and whether  it wishes to participate and what level of participation it offers.

During the Referendum campaign pro Remain spokespeople often asked   people like me how we could live with the supranational commitments under NATO but  not under the EU. I replied that NATO does not seek to lock us in to decisions and issues  against our will.  It does not have legal authority over us, our budgets, law codes and decisions. It is a very different kind of international collaboration from that of the strict legal requirements of the EU.

The opening statement of the NATO declaration is a pledge to promote peace and diplomatic solutions to problems.  It states  that each state agrees to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN”. It also says such independent NATO actions will cease once the UN is in charge.

The central pillar of the alliance which most latch on to is the tenet that “an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack upon them all”. (Article 5) It is collective defence security through strength in numbers.  It goes on to say, however, that a member state if challenged by an attack upon another member  shall “take such action as it deems necessary” which may include military action. It does not lay down that every member state has to go to war immediately, nor does it presume to say which forces a member state has to supply to the common cause.

Mr Corbyn is therefore entitled as someone who wishes to be Prime Minister both to call to leave NATO or to rule out certain types of military action whilst staying in NATO. Both courses of action would  be legal under the Treaty. The issue is does he undermine our safety by so doing? Collective defence through a voluntary agreement like the NATO one rests on any potential enemy believing there is a  credible threat of military response if they attack a NATO country. It weakens the UK’s defence and our collective defence if potential aggressors to parts of NATO come to  believe  that the UK, NATO’s second largest military contributor to the alliance, is not willing to go to the military aid of another member state should need arise. For the defence alliance to work properly   any aggressor has to think that in extreme circumstances the UK and other NATO members will use force to resist aggression.