Category: Blog

I wrote two books around the turn of the twenty first century about the changing shape of great power politics. The first, "Stars and Strife" (2001) predicted that the European Union’s attempt to rival the USA would peter out, both because the population numbers of the EU would fall and because the EU would be unable and unwilling to spend enough on military technology and hardware to back up its foreign policy. The foreign policy too, would remain dogged by disagreements and differing national interests amongst EU states. Whilst the EU would become a substantial and more integrated economy with its own currency for most of the members, it was no contest when it came to superpower politics. Its economy would also continue to underperform the USA owing to the choice of a high tax high regulation model.

The second, "Superpower Struggles" (2005), predicted that the USA’s true long term rival would be China. I concluded "One day China will turn her new found economic power into military power as well. For the time being her success will be heavily concentrated in industrial products and product markets,and her main impact on the west will be felt in the rising price for commodities as Chinese demand surges. Unlike Japan, she will not remain neutral and lightly armed.As her economic success develops so too will her military and political might" (Rise of China)

I now realise that the rise of China is happening much more rapidly even than I thought a couple of years ago. China has accelerated her path to great power status by two main means, both related to her grasp of the capitalist system and her generation of huge surpluses on trade account. By the end of this year the Chinese trade surplus will be running at over $500 billion a year, and China will have foreign exchange reserves in excess of $1500 billion. She is using these surpluses to buy herself a strong position in parts of Africa, Asia and South America where there are important natural resources. China wants more control over and access to the raw materials that are needed to feed her powerful industrial machine. She also sees the political leverage this gives her over the nations that produce the commodities, creating a new kind of Chinese empire based on Chinese contracts to buy the commodities, and Chinese investment in extracting the materials from the ground.

China is also now in a position to demand a place at the table of the rich west, as she can have an important impact on the value of the dollar and the interest rate on dollar bonds. Her large holdings give her the power to support or undermine US markets by buying or selling clumsily. The large dollar and Euro reserves also enable China to buy any freely quoted company in the west she chooses, enabling China to buy technology and management by takeover of the whole company that has them. This is in addition to the wide variety of partnerships, investment contracts and other negotiated deals which give China access to Western technology at home as she invites in an increasing number of western companies to help develop the Chinese economy.

This has come about because China has been allowed to keep her currency relatively low for a long period, giving Chinese goods an even greater competitive advantage in world markets. At a comparable stage in Japanese development there was intense pressure for greater upwards movement in the yen. The USA has understood this issue, but has proved unable by diplomatic means to get a sufficient revaluation of the Chinese exchange rate.

We see the way this economic power is translating into political power. China has shown her ability to influence North Korea, and the USA has accepted China’s position in dealing with this difficult country. One day, after the Olympic games have revealed the extent of China’s economic transformation to the world, China will up the pressure to take over Taiwan. This issue may prove to be the test of the political maturity of both China and the USA. China has to judge if and when the USA will no longer think she can protect Taiwan from Chinese takeover and no longer has the will to do so, and the USA will have to judge if and when they reach the point where trying to keep Taiwan independent is unrealistic.

It is difficult to believe that yet another Labour Prime Minister, and yet another Labour team of senior law officers and Home Secretary have bought the crazy idea that to protect our liberties we first need to destroy them.

I find 28 days detention without trial or charge bad enough – the longest period in the free world. Doubling it to 56 days would make us a pariah of the free democracies, turning our back on the important advances this country pioneered to establish that a person is innocent until proven guilty, and has a right to life and liberty unless charged with a serious offence, the charge backed up by evidence and supported as a case to answer by a junior court.

Yesterday in the Queen’s Speech debate on security and crime I asked the Lord Chancellor (Jack Straw) if it really could be this government’s policy to let proven criminals who had been sentenced for serious crimes out early in order to make prison places available for people for up to 56 days against whom no charges were laid. He told me my question was not up to my usual standard. This was I guess a kind of back handed compliment, but answer came there none. So I take that to be a "Yes" then.

I do hope the government thinks again about this. I like them wish to prevent terrorism. The way to do it is not to change the rules of a free society, but to use them to ensure justice is done. By all means charge a terrorist suspect with a lesser charge and then take the power to carry on examining him or her to see if they should also stand trial for a more serious charge. A Court should be involved in the process so there is some external check on its use. iI necessary part of all of the proceedings could be in camera to protect the identity of informants and witnesses. Allow the prosecution to use in court all the evidence that led the authorities to suspect the individual in the first place. It is farcical if there is good intercept evidence that someone is about to commit a terrorist act, but this cannot be used so the authorities have to spend 56 days on a fishing expedition to try to find some other evidence.

We need to take tough action to try to prevent terrorism, but we must avoid locking up hundreds or even thousands of people -we are told there are 2000 being monitored – when we cannot bring any charge against them and when some if not many of them will be innocent.

Two representatives of the BAA came to a Lords Committee Room yesterday to hear the comments of Parliamentarians and to answer our questions. I would like to thank them for coming.

I asked them why they had allowed such chaos in our leading airports following the change of security requirements. I pointed out that the queues were unacceptable, and reflected badly on them There were not enough security screening devices, too few lines to queue in, and a set of procedures which are comples but not necessarily helpful to achieve greater security.

They replied that service had been poor immediately following the new regulations, but felt that it is now better at their airports. They said at the beginning they lacked staff, and were now recruiting more. They claimed they were now freeing more space for more lines and machinery. In discussion it emerged that the worst delays now were caused by government services for Immigration on the way into the country, and we were reminded that the security requirements were designed by the government rather than by the BAA.

Their latter points were carefully phrased as they understandably have no wish to have a row with the government. What we do need is a sensible discussion between government and Airports over the following:

1. Will the government place enough staff and enough desks in the Passport Control area to make sure we have properly policed borders, whilst allowing most people rapid entry or exit from the country? Apparently if two jumbos land at the same time it can take 45 minutes to clear Passport Control at Gatwick.

2. Will the government review the requirements for the security checks? Why do they insist on such complex checks before getting onto a plane, leaving so many people vulnerable to terrorist attack in the departure hall before security? Have they taken on board the fact that the last terrorist incident at an airport was an attempt to burn people in the departure area by driving a vehicle at the doors and igniting it?

3. Will the government review why they have such elaborate checks for flights and no checks at all for train travel? Have they taken on board the horrendous terrorist attacks on trains on the continent?

4. Will they ask why it is necessary for most people to have to take off shoes, and for all to have to show their after shave or face cream in a plastic bag at an airport? Will they exmaine how effective the video technology assisted baggage search is, in the light of findings in the USA that in some airports too many planted devices went undetected when they tested the system? Can’t more be done by the technology? Couldn’t more be done by random sampling rather than making everyone go through the same checks?

The truth is we are more likely to intercept terrorists by surveillance, infiltration of their networks, eavesdropping and by being observant and alert. We should be concentrating on those where the authorities have reason to think they might be terrorists, rather than on most people who just wish to get on with their lives and go about their business.

For once when I asked the government a written question I received an answer.

I asked?? <em>"How much carbon dioxide is put into the atmosphere each day ,and what proportion is from human sources"</em>

The answer stated "The amount of carbon dioxide emitted from human sources is small in comparison to natural flows:at around 3% emitted from the land and oceans to the atmosphere"

The Minister also told me "In 2004 the UK emitted approximately 1.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per day "(I think from human sources). This compares with?? the "25 billion tonnes emitted each year globally" from human sources and the total emissions of 800 billion tonnes from all sources.

It is just useful to understand the scope of the problem and the UK human component.?? According to the government the UK human component represents 2% of the world total human emissions, or 0.06% of total emissions.

So what should we conclude?

Climate change theorists point out that the human element may be very small, but it is the one which is growing quickly, and at the margin will do the damage. People who follow the precautionary principle say this theory may well be right, so we had better act. Many other people say they believe the theory but do not act – like the Prime Minister who tells us this is a serious crisis, but he has no intention of cutting his air miles.

Common sense suggests that because the UK represents such a small part of the problem, we are going to depend on decisions in India, China and the USA to make a bigger impact on human emissions. Of course our government should seek to influence them, and stress the value of greater fuel efficiency and stricter controls on emissions. We should also continue to cut our own fuel use at home, at work and on the move. Technology can be our ally in this.??Prudence??nonetheless dictates that we should take action now to proect ourselves against the possible bad consequences of??global warming.

There are two main bad consequences put forward for the UK. The first is a possible water shortage in the drier south and east of the country. The second is too much water in some rivers at flood time, and in the sea, leading to inundation.

Government should take action now to build stronger sea defences, especially close to the London conurbation where most people are at risk. This could be paid for by creating new land in the shallows of the Thames estuary, and selling this for development to finance the higher tidal surge barriers we will need.

The government and the water regulator should include a capacity target in the regulatory structure, to require the industry to put in more water capacity – whether by way of mending pipes more quickly or building extra reservoirs – to eliminate anyt possibility of water shortage. The Environment Agency should order works on our main rivers to guarantee better containment of flood water levels, or safe deposit of excess water on flood plain.

Yesterday the Opposition held a debate in the Commons on the worrying presence of the killer bugs, MRSA and CD, in some of our hospitals. We did so because we are concerned by the number of deaths and serious illnesses contracted whilst in hospital. We did so in the spirit of wanting the government to cure the problem, not in??a sensationalised or partisan way.

How did Ministers respond? They spent much of their time trying to run down Conservative health policy. They told us there were cases of MRSA as long ago as 1992, implying that the present strains are the great great great..grandchildren of tory bugs, as if that absolved the present government from responsibilitiy. They told us dropping targets from the centre would make the problem worse, and they told us MRSA infections are now falling, whilst carefully sidestepping the question of??CD infections.

It was another disappointing performance. When a Minister faces such a serious problem as unacceptably high death rates in NHS hospitals we should expect some humility, a lot of analysis, and some positive recommendations of action to put matters right – not a crude political bash of their opponents. Ministers are paid high salaries, given ministerial cars and other perks so they can do a high level job. I don’t begrudge them that, but I do expect them to offer some value for the money.

Health Ministers could redeem themselves by answering the following questions, to show they are analysing the problem properly. They have access to the best advice the country can find to help them.

1. Why are many private hospitals free of killer bugs?

2. Why are military operating units in Iraq free of these infections?

3. What is the pattern of infection? Do healthy people on the staff or visitors contract these diseases, implying it can be passed on by touch of inhalation? Is it just patients who contract it? Is is usually a result of invasive surgery and a wound? Is it related to patients on antibiotic treatments which can lower immune system responses?

4. When we know the pattern of disease and the likely transmission mechanism, then we can set about prevention.

5. If it is usually the result of surgery we need to concentrate on the cleanliness regime in operating theatres. If it is the result of being an in patient we need to look at ward hygeine. If sufferers are usually on drugs we need to ask about the drug regime. If it affects the healthy we need to think about screening all poeple going into the hospital for the presence of the bug. Minsiters should give us a clearer view of its prevalence, its likely causes and the remedial action being taken by experts in the hospitals.

It is no use getting sidetracked by a debate about whether this is something Ministers should be involved in or not. Under current arrangements Ministers are ultimately responsbile, and Parliament has a duty tomdebate matters of grave concern about the NHS. If Ministers want this to be solved entirely at the local level then they can require and defend that proposition. If they want to offer guidance or set targets they can do so. What they can never do is duck out of answering MPs and public questions about why this is happening and what is being done about it. Yesterday revealed a worrying lack of understanding at the top.

Gordon Brown has dined out on his success in making the Bank of England independent. Many give him credit for this and assume it has led to a uniquely favourable out-turn for interest rates and inflation.

In practise the UK has continued to pay a price. Our interest rates have been continuously higher than US, Japanese and Euro rates throughout the period. Japan’s rates have typically been under 1%, ECB rates around 2% and US rates around 3% compared with 4% plus for the UK since "independence".

Now our inflation rate, always well above Japan’s, is also above Euroland’s and the US, so the extra pain of higher rates is not giving us the gain of lower inflation.

In parctise there has been plenty of political intervention in the workings of the Bank. The msot notorious was the foolish decision to shift the target rate from the RPI to the CPI in 2003. This was a deliberate and misguided politcal decision to try to bring us more in line with the Euro. From this point onwards our path has diverged from Euroland as our inflation rate has accelerated, and our growth advantage has eroded. It seems to have encouraged easy money for a bit at the Bank, when they cut interest rates before inflation was under control. It is all part of the continuing price we pay for the Euro dream – just as the Bank of England and Gordon Brown were keen advocates of the ERM and have never said sorry for their mistake, shared with the Conservative government of the day.

In addition Gordon Brown appoints a majority of the members of the Bank of England, and Ed Balls clearly takes a close interest in what they do. The Chancellor has both delayed appointments unreasonably, and made some controversial choices.

The Bank has been thrown off course by the CPI switch and are now having to inflict higher rates on us to rein things back. The Bank and the system are not independent enough, and Gordon’s infallible knack for making the wrong call, as he did with the ERM, has not deserted him.

London’s economy is growing twice as quickly as North and west. The South-east is also a relative hot spot.

Labour began by wanting to even things up, but now they want to bulldoze the surplus houses in the North, whilst concreting over the south. Instead they should ask themselves what is making?? London and the South-east so much more successful.

It’s not the fact that London has an elected Mayor. He is part of the problem, not the solution. His Congestion Charge has burdened Londoners with enormous bureaucracy, and has priced the lower paid off the roads. Far from making London a more inviting place to live in and do business, it makes our city the most spied on??area in the world.

What has worked in London is the financial service industry.?? It has attracted much of the talent coming out of UK universities. It has welcomed in skilled people and capital from all round the world. They have been nimble at finding new ways of doing business outside the grip of the ever tightening regulation.

This has been supplemented by offering favourable tax status to rich people from abroad who want to spend some of the year in London. That has been very beneficial, helping build the large financial area with their cash and contacts.

London and the south-east gives us the formula for success – combine well educated people with an openness to foreign?? capital, and you can grow quickly. Other parts of Labour’s Britain base their hopes on public sector activity, and ever higher taxes. That does not work.

Yesterday we debated the government’s proposals to reorganise local government and local health services. As so often with this government they spun a good yarn. They told us there needed to be more local decision taking, greater freedom for Councils, and more patient involvement in the work of the NHS.

If only. That is exactly what many of us have been seeking for a good few years. As we probed the detail, we discovered that once again the government’s idea of devolution was to let us do locally whatever they think we should do.

Let’s take the issue of whether a locality should have to answer to an unelected regional government. I am pressing for the abolition of the Government of the South-east. It’s a waste of money and often makes us do things we do not want. When the government held a referendum in the North East on whether they wanted regional government or not, the people said? No? . The government ignored that: we still have to pay for an unelected version the North-east doesn’t want. In the south-east we don’t even get a referendum. I asked Ruth Kelly what part of "No" she did not understand. The answer was we need regional government – so the people got it wrong! It’s like all those EU referenda where people have to vote again if they dare vote down another power grab by Brussels.

If a Council wants to have a committee structure so that all Councillors can be fully involved in the work of the Council, that will be against the law. Why? An area has to decide on an elected Mayor, or an indirectly elected Leader, but cannot have the committee based system which most Councils used successfully for many years.

The Secretary of State told us she wants to legislate to give elected Council Leaders security of tenure, so they can have three years in the job to achieve something. Yet she conceded that a Leader would have to quit if he or she lost a motion of No Confidence, so I don’t think an unpopular Leader will be sleeping any easier at night.

Worse still, at exactly the same time as we are told local government will have more say and more control, the government is determined to settle more planning issues nationally. My constituents write to me more about planning than any other issue. They clearly want more planning decisions taken by local Councillors in touch with their views, than by remote quangos and Inspectors who so often side with the developers. They will discover that this latest brand of devolution? takes more planning power away from local Councils.

The Health proposals are no better. We used to have Community Health Councils which allowed interested local people to represent patients’ views to the NHS and through local MPs to the government. This government abolished them, perhaps because they were too candid about the problems. Ministers then spent a lot of our money on setting up patients forums, only for these now to be given the last rites by Ruth Kelly’s latest Bill. We are instead to create new local involvement networks?. That will mean more money spent, more disruption, and another couple of years when the people who ought to be offering constructive criticism of the NHS will be worrying about their own positions.

Giving more power to local people and to local Councils would be a good idea, but the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill will not be bringing that anytime soon. Instead we have a government riding rough shod over local communities, determiend to implement a regional government led scheme to bring us into line with the EU model.

Today in the House we will debate the government’s Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.

Despite??this long winded and apparently democratic title, we discover the Secretary of State wants powers allowing her to decide whether Counties and Districts should survive or whether they should be abolished. The costs of compulsory reorganisation would, of course, fall on the hard pressed Council taxpayers. She wants to design a Balkanised England suitable for Brussels to run.

What we want instead is a bill which abolishes all the unelected regional government in England, and gives the powers of regional government to elected Councils??where there needs to be any government involvement, and abolishes them where there doesn’t. We want a bill which gives local communities more say over the important planning issues that this government increasingly settles in the centre by overrriding local wishes. We want a bill which gives more scope to Councils to make their own decisions, and to keep the tax bills down where that is the wish of local electors.

Instead we have more top down bossiness. The government still thinks it knows best. It still rides roughshod over the wishes of the North East, who decisively voted down regional government, but still labour under an unelected version of it.The government refuses to give the rest of us referenda on regional government, knowing how strongly we feel against it.

Why is this government so pig headed in wanting to implement the EU regional scheme, and in the meantime, so keen to force communities to do things they don’t want to do through the dictats of Whitehall and the regions? Why won’t they give local communities more say over how much building there should be, and how they run local services?

Ten days on, and still no boardband or phone line. The engineer who came on Friday to fix it told me it was probably a fault in the exchange, and he was not qualified to deal with that! It almost as bad as it used to be when BT was a nationalised monopoly. We need more competition in the provision of the lines, to match the competition for phones and call services.