Solomon Islands

 To the best of my knowledge, the only mention of this Commonwealth nation on BBC TV in the last few days has been in a round of the Pointless quiz. However, recent events may prove significant in the struggle to resist dominance by the Chinese dictatorship of the Pacific region.

Australian police are in the capital Honiara at the request of the authorities after days of rioting. Discontent had been rising over the high level of unemployment, but it seems that the softening of the attitude of the prime minister towards the Xi regime is a significant factor.

Eighty years ago

 The Daily Mirror reported on 28th November 1941 the beginning of the end of Nazi Germany's occupation of Libya.

FIRST ROUND WON BY LINK-UP WITH TOBRUK FORCE

With the link-up yesterday between the forces from Tobruk and the main armies, the first round in Britain's drive to crush Rommel's panzer army in Libya is won, though heavy fighting is yet to come, said a British military spokesman last night.

New Zealand forces operating with British tank formations battled through via Bardia and Gambut to recapture Sidi Rezzegh - centre of the new big battle - and occupy Bir El Hamed after stiff fighting on Wednesday night.

Meanwhile, the Tobruk forces had fought their way to Ed Duda, and there yesterday the link-up was made.

Another report foreshadowed conscription for all 18-to-50 year-olds, as a motion seeking approval for it was laid before the House of Commons. It came as something of a surprise to me, as I had not realised that conscription had started so late in the war.

Retreating from the climate crisis: wetlands' role

 According to Geoff Hilton, Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT) Head of Conservation Evidence, "the services wetlands provide knock spots off forests."

Wetlands can absorb water like a sponge, filtering out pollutants from our drinking supplies and slowing down the flow from river catchments to prevent flooding downstream. They can also provide coastal buffers against sea-level rise and storm surges. What's more, they can be some of the most effective carbon sinks on the planet, with peatlands alone storing twice as much carbon as the world's forests. And they are even good for our health and wellbeing - an imperative that has never felt more urgent than during the pandemic.

 - Waterlife magazine #217

Stephen Sondheim has died

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/26/theater/stephen-sondheim-dead.html refers. It seemed as if he could go on forever, but it was not to be. The Broadway family which embraced him as he escaped from his chaotic natural family will miss him, as will the thousands - possibly millions - he entertained as well as stimulated over the years.

He acknowledged a special debt of gratitude to British audiences who appreciated many of his shows before they became established in America. I'm glad the NYT obituary mentions his love of cryptic crosswords and word games. I recall an interview (probably on Radio 4) in which he confessed to seeing anagrams everywhere. He had recently passed a cinema showing "2001: a Space Odyssey" and spotted instantly that "Cinerama" is an anagram of "American". He was the best of America.

The new variant: timely action for once

 The United Kingdom's response to the news of a new SAR-CoV-2 variant with multiple mutations, dubbed omicron, has been commendably swift. Travel from South Africa where the variant was detected as well as from five adjoining countries has been interdicted. One of those countries is Botswana, the source of the sample analysed in South Africa. The SA authorities themselves are also to be commended for speedy notification to the WHO of the situation. It is unfortunate that their government has described the UK response as rushed.

On the contrary, if prompt action had been taken in January 2020, either preventing the return of travellers from known virus hotspots, or at least quarantining them, thousands of deaths would surely have been prevented. As for the UK, so also for SA. It is probable that the initial infection there was brought in by returners from ski holidays in Europe. Even under apartheid, there would have been sharing of space under the same roof; afterwards, there was even more opportunity for the virus to spread.

According to a WHO expert, the reason for the unusual number of mutations in the omicron variant is the compromised immune system of so many people in sub-Saharan Africa. This in turn can be traced back to the ignorant response by South African and other governments to the spread of HIV at the end of last century. 

[Updated 2021-11-27 00:15]

How other nations infringe civil rights is none of our concern - unless they are Islamic, of course

 Two interchanges at Business Questions today were instructive:

Patricia Gibson 

(North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)

this specific contribution

Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, so will the Leader of the House make a statement on the UK Government’s progress towards ratifying the Istanbul convention? Does he share my deep concern that, 10 years on, progress towards the UK’s ratification has been shamefully slow and the UK Government have still not given a clear commitment to deliver ratification, even after passing the Domestic Abuse Act 2021? Does he further share my disquiet at the alarming development of countries such as Turkey and Poland withdrawing from the convention altogether?

Mr Rees-Mogg [Leader of the House]

this specific contribution

The reality is that what matters is what we do domestically. It is much more important that we get on with the work I have already set out to the shadow Leader of the House. Under the violence Toggle showing location of

against women and girls strategy, £100 million has been spent on tackling this since 2016. There is a national police lead, the £30 million safer streets fund and the communications campaign to target the perpetrators and to get the message across that violence against women and girls is wrong, full stop. What we do domestically has an effect. Just signing up to things internationally may sound very nice, but it does not necessarily help people here in the United Kingdom.

Later:

Jim Shannon 

(Strangford) (DUP)

his specific contibution

Will the Leader of the House provide an update on the case of Maira Shahbaz, a 14-year-old Christian Pakistani girl who was abducted, raped, forcibly converted and forcibly married. On Red Wednesday last year, more than 12,000 people signed a petition calling on the Prime Minister to give asylum to Maira Shahbaz. One year later, having escaped her abductor, Maira is still living in one room unable to leave for fear that she will be killed as an apostate. Will the Leader of the House provide an update and remind the Prime Minister that there is an urgency when it comes to the safety of those who are persecuted and that more delay will not suffice?

Mr Rees-Mogg 

As always, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising such important cases. This case, following the appalling suffering of Asia Bibi a few years ago, shows that Christians in Pakistan often face terrible treatment for practising their faith. The Government condemn forced marriage and forced conversion of women and girls in Pakistan and regularly raise our concerns, including in individual cases, at a senior level with the Pakistani authorities. Her Majesty’s Government Toggle showing location of

fund projects in Pakistan to help to address child and forced marriages, gender-based violence and discrimination and intolerance, especially against minorities. Obviously, the Government are aware of Maira Shahbaz’s situation. As a request for asylum goes through a normal process, I cannot say what the outcome would be, but the aim of our Nationality and Borders Bill is to ensure that asylum requests that are brought in a lawful way by people who have come here properly will be treated more favourably, and we are trying to get a better system through the Bill. In the meantime, I will pass on to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what the hon. Gentleman has said as a matter of urgency.

No doubt Messrs Shannon and Rees-Mogg will argue that the Pakistan breaches of international norms are of a different scale, but surely the principle is the same in both cases.

Liberals oust ANC from control of SA's four largest cities

- and install first female mayor of Johannesburg

As a result of this year's local elections in South Africa, the Democratic Alliance (DA)  controls, either alone or in conjunction with the socialist EFF, the four largest cities in South Africa. Riven by faction fighting and facing indictment of some of its historical leading figures over a bribes-for-arms-contracts scandal, the African National Congress (ANC) is in retreat. Nevertheless, the ANC national government is still pushing its Zimbabwe-style land seizure programme.

The Liberal International-affiliated DA is the result of a merger of several parties including the South African Liberal Party which throughout the apartheid-era had a racially-blind membership policy, while the ANC was still a black-only party. (The only other multiracial party was the Communist Party of South Africa.) Although still seen as a white-dominated organisation, the DA appointed the first black parliamentary party leader in South African history in Lindiwe Mazibuko in 2011. 

Johnson's green mask slides off, revealing the petrol-head beneath

 Almost immediately after spouting fine words in Glasgow, prime minister Johnson supported his chancellor in reducing the tax on internal air routes. He followed this up with shamelessly promoting the M4 by-pass scheme which would encourage motoring and take acres of the carbon-absorbing Gwent Levels out of use.

Now we learn that he is pumping £4.3m into flights from Cornwall airport to Gatwick (handy for his new MPs in south-west England) and from Gatwick to Dundee, which will clearly undercut Scotrail's recent improvements there. 

Natonalists to keep Labour in power

So a deal has been struck with Plaid Cymru to ensure that Mark Drakeford will be assured that his Welsh government will be virtually untroubled in getting its business through for the rest of this parliament. Plaid were hardly negotiating from a position of strength and seem to have gained little apart from s couple of special advisers - presumably additional to the current roster, and at taxpayer's expense - in the government machine.

Some of the agreed policies are worthwhile. Making school meals free for all primary children will remove the stigma of poorer families having to apply for them. There are some hopeful noises about improving council tax and fair votes for the Senedd, but no firm commitment to doing away with the former in favour of local income tax or introducing STV for our national elections.

At least there will be no cut in the NHS budget as there was under the One Wales Government.

Earl Attlee and convict illiteracy

It is always pleasing when a distinguished politician coincidentally gives voice, and more coherent voice, to an idea which one has been mulling over for ages. So it was when Earl Attlee, grandson of the first post-WWII prime minister, himself a former government minister though on the Conservative side, stood up in the Lords last Wednesday. Attlee moved an amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill which would make a massive inroad into the illiteracy of prisoners. It would mean virtually that an illiterate prisoner - with some exceptions - would have no time off his sentence until he (or presumably she) had taken steps to correct their deficiency.

Earl Attlee said: When we debated short sentences and Amendments 212 and 213, I think that most of the Committee was sure that the current prison system was largely ineffective at preventing reoffending. After looking closely at our penal system during 2018 and 2019, I would say that the current system is not able, or even designed, to secure an improvement in education, training and conduct. Without improvements in these areas, reoffending is inevitable. Noble Lords frequently berate Ministers for the poor state and ineffectiveness of our prisons. Rather fewer noble Lords have been prepared to suggest significant reforms and how we could do very much better.

Internationally, we need to be an exemplar rather than a laggard in prison reform. Although there are many areas of potential improvement in our prison system, none is as pressing or potentially beneficial as the management of prolific minor offenders, or PMOs. I am sure that the Committee will accept that it is almost impossible for a functionally illiterate or innumerate young person to secure legitimate employment. At YOI Feltham, I have seen high-quality, well-motivated teachers with good facilities struggle to get illiterate offenders even to sit down in a classroom, let alone learn. I am not convinced that a conventional classroom environment is the right one for these youngsters. Furthermore, they need exceptionally strong incentives to improve their standard of education as well as their conduct. Unfortunately, there can be cultural issues pulling in the opposite direction.

Several factors militate against securing an improvement in their education, training and conduct. Most significantly, within conventional prisons, there is a drug and gang culture with a huge illicit economy, coupled with an illegitimate hierarchy. All this is facilitated by illegal mobile phones. In recent years, I have come to hugely admire prison officers and governors for their work. They do their very best, but it is the regime we ask them to operate that is a problem.

With my Amendment 241, I propose a new sentence for PMOs, and that is detention for training at Her Majesty’s pleasure, or DFT. Release would be dependent upon achieving the required, objectively measured improvements in education, training and conduct, and the level of improvement required would be set by the courts. If the offender fails to make reasonable efforts to comply, the court would be able to require the whole of the rest of the sentence to be served in the conventional secure estate. That is a very strong incentive.

I would like to be clear that this is not a rehash of “short, sharp shock”, a scheme that was designed to be beastly to offenders in order to deter them from reoffending; nor is it a boot camp. With the former, little was done to improve offenders’ skills, so it was not surprising that they continued to reoffend.

So Earl Attlee continues in the social work footsteps of his grandfather and of prison reformers from across the parties. Sadly, although the scheme would pay off in the long term in reduction not only of crime but also of demand on our prisons, it would need extra resources now. One cannot see the Johnson government whose horizon extends only as far as the next Daily Mail headline taking the necessary action.

Lib Dems opt out of orgy of virtue signalling

 If you were a Liberal Democrat MP, bearing in mind that there are no safe Liberal Democrat seats and there are always trouble-makers who complain that you are never seen in the constituency, on being told that a rare private members' bills day was coming up today but that all the measures were unexceptional and would pass or be withdrawn for government action, would you break your normal weekend routine and stay in Westminster? 

Thus it was that no Lib Dem (or Scottish Nationalist, or Green, for that matter) was present today. The Labour official spokespeople stood in for the whole of non-government MPs in effect. It was just the situation in which Sir Christopher Chope would normally have stood up and called: "Object!" in order to stop discussion on Bills in a poorly-attended House. But of course Sir Christopher had his own Green Belt Protection Bill on the list of Bills for Second Reading. Ironically, it was not reached partly because of the excessive speechifying which was to come.

Nor would Sir Christopher have wanted to block the passage of the first measure on the agenda, the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill aimed at forced marriages, which would belatedly bring England and Wales in line with a United Nations recommendation of 2016. It was a pity that it had to be left to a private member, Conservative Pauline Latham, to bring in the reform, but at least there was no dissent from the Tories present. It was welcomed by Sarah Champion and Andy Slaughter, supported by Virendra Sharma, on behalf of Labour so that there was surely no need for a couple of self-congratulatory speeches from the other side which added little while prolonging the debate.

The reason for the unusually large contingent of Tories became obvious during the debate on the next item The Planning (Enforcement) Bill was introduced by Dr Ben Spencer representing Runnymede and Weybridge. Dr Spencer currently has a 34.8% majority, but the constituency would be redistributed under current boundary commission proposals. It was noticeable that many of those present represented Home Counties constituencies or those otherwise under threat from Ed Davey's "Blue Wall" attack. The tone was set in an intervention on Spencer's introduction  by Anthony Mangnall (Totnes):

I find it extraordinary that in this House we spend a great deal of time on these Benches being attacked by the Liberal Democrats over planning and the lack of accountability of developers, yet on the day he brings forward a Bill that holds developers to account, the Liberal Democrats are nowhere to be seen

Speech after speech from the Conservative side hammered the same point while not adding much to the debate on the Bill. I suppose (for instance) Sarah Olney representing Richmond on Thames could have stood up to applaud the ambition of the Bill while pointing out its ineffectiveness, but it needed only Ruth Cadbury for Labour to expose basic misunderstanding of the nature of planning permission on behalf of the Bill's drafters and other inadequacies. In the end, the Bill was withdrawn.

Perhaps if the Bill had addressed the underfunding of local authorities' planning enforcement, Liberal Democrats would have come out in support.  Maybe it could have provided a right of appeal to ordinary people at the wrong end of a planning decision, a right currently denied while developers with deep pockets are able to appeal, and appeal, until they get the decision they want. Maybe the punitive nature of costs against local authorities who resist those appeals could have been mitigated. But of course those well-heeled developers tend to be contributors to the Conservative party. We shall see how much the Mangnalls and Spencers stand up for the little fellow when the government's own planned streamlining of planning law comes to the Commons.

Building back better?

 Treasury minister Lucy Frazer was on dangerous ground in drawing a parallel between reconstruction after the second world war and the current situation under this government when she introduced Tuesday's debate on the Finance Bill. People with memories of those days and those born later who trouble to look at the parliamentary record will note a Conservative party of the 1950s which accepted the necessary reforms of the Attlee government, while reversing some of its excesses, like the nationalisation of steel. It did not sell off utilities, the National Grid or parts of the NHS, It did not fragment the railways. The Macmillan government also attempted to recover lost ground in Europe after Labour's big mistake in refusing to join the ECSC - it was not Macmillan's fault that he failed. It was so different from today.

I fear that the economic rebound from Brexit, both the event and the mishandling of the subsequent treaty with the EU, and also from the pandemic (mishandled by Johnson and company as no government of the 1940s or 1950s would have done) will be nothing like that from the end of the world war.

HS2 truncation

Dame Cheryl Gillan, thou shouldst be living at this hour.

A selling-point of HS2 was that the high-speed line in being extended to Leeds would speed access from London and provide extra rail capacity at the same time. The case for HS2 was always marginal and many saw it merely an expensive way to increase commuter traffic from the Birmingham area to the capital. With today's announcement by Grant Shapps, that looks increasingly to be the case. One wonders how easy it would have been to pass the original legislation on the basis of today's truncated scheme. This also increases the cost per mile of all the consultants' work commissioned since the start.

Bringing forward improvements in rail connectivity between Lancashire and Yorkshire, as announced by Shapps, is clearly welcome. But why did the long-suffering commuters have to wait this long? These steps could have been taken ten years ago.

Electrifying the Midland Main Line is also welcome. But Shapps was less than honest in blaming Labour for holding this up. True, the Blair/Brown government did virtually nothing for new electrification south of the Border, but it was a Conservative transport minister who put a halt to the coalition's electrification scheme - in the case of the Midland Main Line, disgracefully just after winning an election.

And if the Midland Main Line electrification can be revived, why not Cardiff to Swansea? As I understand it, the required upgrade to the signalling has been completed and the Hitachi service facility in Swansea awaits. (If any of my facts are wrong, I welcome corrections.)

Destination double-take

 About to get on board my regular 34 bus back from Neath Victoria Gardens this morning, I nearly had a fit when I looked at the display panel at the end of the bus bays. (It is one of only two which are easily readable, by the way; others, mounted in the roof so that one has to crane ones neck, catch the sun which renders the computer-generated characters unreadable.) 34 - Merthyr Tydfil it showed. Had the route been changed to extend the service beyond Neath? No, it was clearly an updating error by a clerk, presumably in an office in Bristol, who was unaware that several localities in South Wales had that route number.

One despaired long ago of Neath Port Talbot councillors in the Civic bubble, most of them with a virtual job for life, mixing with the ordinary people who cannot use a car all or some of the time. But perhaps they might once or twice a year try a survey of the travelling public and take note of the findings. They might also consider greater local control of passenger information. After all, they are keen to encourage more visitors. It is not a great advert for NPT to confuse them or leave them in the dark.

Who will take the knee for cricketers of colour?

I have just come out from watching on TV a session of the DCMS Select Committee taking evidence on racism at Yorkshire Cricket Club. Principal witness Azeem Rafiq came close to breaking down several times during his moving testimony. Chair Julian Knight eventually granted him a five-minute break, at which point I broke off to record these immediate thoughts. 

Rafiq professed himself a proud Yorkshireman, in spite of having been born in Pakistan. When he first broke through into first-team cricket he had the support of the then captain and of the coach, Jason Gillespie. There was an undercurrent of racism, but Rafiq did not realise how serious it was to become. Later captains and coaches were racially prejudiced. When Gary Ballance came to Yorkshire from Derbyshire, Rafiq felt some sympathy as a fellow-outsider and for a time they formed a bond. Later Ballance was to become one of Rafiq's chief tormentors. Two events seemed to be key. 

Rafiq had built up some standing within the club when he and a number of fellow-players felt that Tim Bresnan was a bully and that his behaviour had gone so far that a complaint had to be made to the Committee. Minutes of meetings, recently made available in evidence, reveal that Rafiq was singled out as the complainant and that from being regarded hitherto as a future leader he was thereafter seen as a trouble-maker.

The other, and probably significant, turning-point was Rafiq's treatment after the death of his infant son. He noted how the club had gone above and beyond in supporting fellow-players who had gone through similar distressing personal tragedies. By contrast, the harassment of Rafiq if anything got worse when he returned after his loss.

A disturbing part of his testimony was his observation that things were no different in other county clubs. For instance, former Lancashire captain and later TV pundit David Lloyd was revealed as a closet racist.

One thinks back to the days of the Khans as captains of county cricket clubs. First Majid at Glamorgan and later Imran (now Pakistan prime minister) at Sussex appeared untouched by racism or Islamophobia. Partly this must be because both were scions of leading families back in Pakistan and carried an air of untouchability if not noblesse. But, partly, the 1970s through to the 1990s now seem to be a high point of inclusivity, in the top level of cricket at least.

A Yorkshire work colleague back in the 1980s explained the dearth of players from a sub-continental background in Yorkshire on economic grounds. Most local clubs, he said, relied largely on members with cars to get to away matches and car ownership in the Asian community was low. That is no longer true, and players of talent fill the county academies - but somehow few make it up to the professional level.

The appointment by Yorkshire Cricket as its new chairman of the consensual Lord Patel is an excellent move and one trusts he will effect changes in organisation, and, what is more difficult, attitudes at the club. Other county clubs clearly need to review their own situation with regard to players of colour.

Jeffrey Epstein and Barclays Bank

 Private Eye's In the City details the links between the American former CEO of Barclays Bank. Jes Staley, and the proven procurer of girls, Jeffrey Epstein. 

Staley ran the JP Morgan private bank from 1999 until 2009, when he took over the investment bank. Epstein played an important role in Staley's rise, steering clients to JP Morgan and facilitating the $1bn plus Highbridge Capital hedge fund purchase in 2004. Epstein reportedly earned $15m from the deal.

Staley remained close to Epstein even after his conviction, visiting Epstein while he was serving his 18-month sentence [in 2008 for soliciting sex from a minor] which allowed Epstein to work at his Palm Beach office on day release.  In 2011, Staley was photographed at Epstein's New York mansion along with [Microsoft co-founder] Bill Gates and former US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers. There were a number of mansion meetings.

Enough, one would have thought, for Barclays to avoid Staley like the plague, rather than pull strings to have him waved through by the UK authorities as the bank's chief executive. But one also has to question JP Morgan's ethics in taking Epstein on as a client in the first place. Even before news of his sexual empire broke, Epstein had been a partner with Steven Hoffenberg in Towers Financial, which turned out to be a glorified Ponzi scheme. In 1995, Hoffenberg was jailed for his part in the enterprise. Epstein got off scot free for reasons which remain unclear. Perhaps he was innocent - but in that case why employ a man who was totally oblivious to a massive fraud carried out for years by his partner? It is unlikely. Clearly, Staley and JP Morgan were not going to question the methods of a man who had a gift for attracting wealthy investors,  and Barclays - that once-principled Quaker bank - were similarly seduced by Staley.

Paterson sleaze: the story gets worse

 I assumed that the companies which Owen Paterson lobbied for had a previous connection with the former MP for North Shropshire. Not so. It turns out that they did not even recruit him. He actually touted his services around. The Open Democracy web site says:

Owen Paterson, the disgraced former Tory minister, did a “ring round” weeks after leaving government in an attempt to get a second job as a consultant [...] He was paid for consultancy work by a health diagnostic firm, Randox Laboratories, and a meat processing firm, Lynn’s Country Foods, both of which are based in Northern Ireland.

Randox Laboratories, which went on to win £479m in COVID-testing contracts, paid Paterson £120 an hour to act as a consultant. The firm told The Times the contracts, which were awarded without competition, were won ‘on merit’. But it has now emerged that Paterson also tried to get a consultancy job at CIGA Healthcare Ltd, another health diagnostics firm based in Northern Ireland.

The company’s owner, Irwin Armstrong, told openDemocracy he was “quite friendly” with Paterson after getting to know him when he was secretary of state for Northern Ireland.

“He did ring me up asking if there was anything available,” Armstrong said. “I said we’re a small company and we can’t really afford to be employing people as PR people or whatever.”

He said the conversation took place in 2014, “a few weeks” after Paterson left his final position in government.

OpnnDemocracy draws the conclusion that the practice is common among MPs. To my mind, they have not yet made that case, but no doubt their research continues.

[Later: on Sunday Supplement this morning, a former anti-sleaze campaigner and MP for Knutsford, Martin Bell quashed speculation that he might stand again: "at the age of 83, and walking on a stick, it would not be fair on the voters".]

Speaking truth to power can lead to loss of one's job, or liberty, or worse

The ICIJ has listed countries and territories from Honduras to Hong Kong where journalists have been put in jeopardy for exposing financial misdeeds. 

In this country, of course, the rich and powerful are less crude. But there is the legal cosh of the libel suit or the slimewash of a general denigration in the nation's "free press".

US indirectly helped controversial Wuhan research

Proof of concept research into the ease with which viruses from other animals could be made transmissible between humans was being carried out at the Wuhan international research centre. There is a tide of opinion, strongest in the States, that such an altered bat virus escaped through poor lab. security to cause the pandemic of SARS/CoV-2 from which the world is now suffering. This is, however, by no means proven and the original view that the virus mutated naturally in its bat host has not been refuted.

Now Anthony Fauci, for long regarded as one of the good guys in the States for standing up to President Trump's anti-science directives, has been caught out in not telling all the truth about US support for research into engineered viruses. The Christian Science Monitor reports:

 ‘I told you so’ doesn’t even begin to cover it,” tweeted GOP Sen. Rand Paul this week. In a scathing exchange earlier this summer, the Kentucky senator accused Dr. Anthony Fauci of not being straight with Congress about whether U.S. taxpayer dollars had been used to carry out a risky type of coronavirus research in Wuhan, China. “The NIH [National Institutes of Health] has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” responded a clearly perturbed Dr. Fauci. 

A lack of transparency has undermined trust in public health officials and scientists, who are not only dealing with the current pandemic but also trying to understand how to prevent future ones. At issue was research overseen by a New York-based organization, EcoHealth Alliance. Together with its partners in China, EcoHealth has worked extensively on identifying bat coronaviruses that could spill over into humans, with the idea that such work could help researchers get ahead of and thus prevent a pandemic. Dr. Fauci has long been a proponent of such research, and EcoHealth funneled at least $600,000 of NIH grant money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to carry out this research since 2014. But many scientists see such work as unnecessarily risky, especially when carried out in foreign labs that don’t have the same safety protocols and reporting requirements as in the U.S. 

 In a new twist, the NIH admitted this week that the U.S.-funded research had produced “unexpected” results. The agency, which wrote a letter to Republican lawmakers who have been demanding answers for months, maintained it had done no wrong. But it blamed EcoHealth Alliance for failing to immediately report back when a bat coronavirus it was tinkering with started killing humanized mice at an unusually high rate during the fifth and final year of its grant in 2018-19. EcoHealth filed its progress report on that research on Aug. 3 of this year. NIH told the Monitor it requested the belated report in July, and EcoHealth Alliance said it was working with NIH to address a “misconception” about its research and the reporting requirements. The NIH letter fuels mounting concerns about funding and oversight.

Rather like "climategate" over the supposed manipulation of data, which BBC security correspondent has examined on Radio 4 recently, this is liable to tarnish both the reputation of Dr Fauci 

Green road blocks

 It is all very well for the Westminster government to make sweeping decisions but they clearly do not have the capacity to think through the consequences. Banning the production of internal combustion vehicles is all very well, but all-electric vehicles are limited by the availability of charging points, and in particular rapid chargers. The Johnson government has provided no overall strategy, instead leaving it to local authorities in England to arrange the facilities. The result is piecemeal and unsatisfactory implementation as shown in this Liberal Democrat release.

The overall picture is summed up by Rob Hastings in the i last week;

There are now around 25,000 public charging devices available in the UK. But that number will need to be installed every year for the next 14 years if we are to hit the 480,000 devices and two million power leads that it is estimated we will need by 2035. That is on top of the 19 million home charge points needed, according to the energy regulator Ofgem.

The Welsh government has been more strategic, setting up its Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle Transformation Fund and last month publishing a plan to provide charging points at appropriate intervals along our key highways. The scheme needs to attract private-sector money to succeed, but at least it demonstrates forethought.

Now another limiting factor has come to the fore: the shortage of qualified mechanics to service electric vehicles. The outlets which sell the vehicles do not necessarily have the ability to maintain them. A recent TV news broadcast highlighted the case of a man who bought an electric car in Llandudno Junction but has to drive to Chester for its regular servicing. Will UK transport minister Grant Shapps rise to the challenge? Is this another area where Wales will show the way?

Parliamentary standards and outside jobs

 The immediate BBC TV news coverage of yesterday's standards debate in the Commons was disappointing. Laura Kuenssberg presented the session merely as a test of prime minister Boris Johnson. Note that there was no criticism of the Conservative party as such, and of course no acknowledgement that the emergency debate had been obtained by a Liberal Democrat. There was a more balanced report this morning from Adam Fleming, who in the short time he had available outlined the various strands of argument for and against an overhaul of the standards system and the extent of any changes. He also pointed out that there was substantial cross-party agreement on a number of points.

The first of these was laid down by the Speaker in his introduction: that the debate not be personalised. No aspersions should be cast on the prime minister or the leader of the Scottish Nationalists for their absences, of which notice had been given to Mr Speaker. This admonition was largely followed, though one opposition MP had to be sharply brought to order when he crossed the red line in an intervention.

Secondly, there was consistent support for the Commissioner for Standards, Kathryn Stone, and condemnation of the death threats she had received. Even the few MPs who thought she had too much power did not want to remove her, merely to have her responsibilities redefined. One trusts that she feels able to carry on and will not be forced out of office as a previous Commissioner was. Elizabeth Filkin suffered for carrying out her work on policing expenses claims too rigorously and transparently.

Thereafter, opinion divided as to whether Owen Paterson had been denied natural justice in being sanctioned by the Committee on Standards. There was surprisingly little support on the Conservative benches for his behaviour, but some doubt as to the process. The main contention was that it was wrong that the Committee itself should rule on appeals. The argument that an independent outside panel of high court judges should be the final arbiter was most exhaustively argued by Alberto Costa and Jeremy Wright who are unsurprisingly both lawyers. The model was the mechanism for handling complaints of bullying and harassment of parliamentary staff.

Such a final tribunal, ruling on the narrow point as to whether a sanctioned MP had received a fair hearing, would be preferable to the scheme that the government had in mind: another committee of MPs on which there would be a built-in government majority. As Conservative Kevin Hollinrake put it in an intervention on Steve Barclay's response to Wendy Chamberlain's opening statement:

My right hon. Friend has set out a gracious apology for what happened last week, but will he concede that one thing that was not right with the amendment the Government supported was that the members of the proposed Committee were hand-picked? If the standards of this House are to be reformed, would it not be better for such a Committee to be chaired by somebody who is elected by this whole House and for the Committee members also to be elected in the normal way for Select Committee members?

The fact that Barclay effectively ignored the question suggests that Johnson and Rees-Mogg are intent on pursuing their anti-democratic line. However, they may not have their own way judging by the number of Members on their own side who clearly rejected it.

The only major defender of the disgraced Owen Paterson was Sir Bill Cash. I find it increasingly difficult to follow Sir Bill's arguments. He seems to have progressed from debating the number of angels on the head of a pin to querying the metallurgical content of the pin itself. However, he seemed to be a supporter of an American legal type of system, where a defendant can continue to appeal to higher and higher courts until he or she gets their way or their money runs out.

Chris Bryant, chairman of the Standards Committee, in his response to the debate, rebutted the argument that the committee could not in justice rule on an appeal. He also pointed out that the Committee is in the middle of a review of the Code of Conduct, a regular duty which is part of the Committee's remit but which has had to be deferred in recent years by the frequency of elections. 

It seems to me that the government should now retreat from interfering in decisions which are properly the concern of the whole House. The House itself should wait on the recommendation of the Committee's review and any relevant significant independent assessments before proceeding. I trust that by the time this screed appears, the Leader will have drafted Motions to restore the status quo before the Leadsom amendment was passed last Wednesday.

Second jobs

In the debate yesterday, there were calls from several Labour members to ban MPs from paid employment apart from their work in parliament. Richard Burgon was first to make the point:

Let me attempt to help the Government. Is not the root cause of all this MPs trying to get paid even more than the £82,000 a year that they already get? I should not have to remind the Government that 95% of the public get paid less than MPs, nor that being an MP is a full-time job. Chasing corporate cash is, quite simply, short-changing the public. Will the Minister agree to help to clean up politics by backing my Bill to ban second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh jobs for Members of Parliament?

Revelations over the weekend of the eye-watering amounts some Conservatives received in outside employment added ammunition to the calls. However, I am with Steve Barclay (on this point only) and Alistair Carmichael in rejecting an outright ban which would in the latter's words

have the unintended consequence of making more people see this as an occupation from which there would never be any departure. The idea that people can come here for a term or two and then return to whatever profession or occupation they had beforehand is good and sensible

There does seem to be an assumption on the Labour benches, especially from safe seats, that being a MP is an elected job for life in the profession of politics. Moreover, it is relatively easy for a Labour member voted out of office to move into work for which no special skills are required other than those which they have honed in the chamber. Charities, trade unions and even friendly media organisations provide friendly berths for such people. 

For those who give up a profession in which skills have to be constantly kept up-to-date it is another matter. There is also the specialist knowledge which a practitioner can bring to parliamentary discussion. When I was on the local council, I did not begrudge those Labour members who continued to serve in the health service even after election. Their up-to-date experience was valuable. 

Obviously, parliamentary business takes precedence and no outside job should get in the way of that. Nor should sinecures or positions awarded simply because the recipient is a MP be allowed in future. That seems to have been the case with Paterson and is still prejudicial to the behaviour of some remaining MPs. 

I cannot resist adding that in 1867, when MPs were not paid for being Members and had to rely on income from estates or a profession to sustain themselves, Parliament sat only between February and August with an additional 16 days in November and December. They still managed to pass around 200 pieces of legislation including the important North America Act and the Second Great Reform Act.

Sewage overflow

 I see that our party's leader, Ed Davey, is calling for a "sewage tax". While agreeing that sloth in tackling the problem of sewage overflow on the part of private water companies - even our own not-for-profit  Welsh Water to a considerable extent - is reprehensible, I am not sure that a tax is the answer. It would not drive companies to build new or improve existing treatment works. Commercial undertakings would no doubt treat it as a business expense and pass the cost on to the customers, who have no control over the water company. Householders and businesses cannot even shop around in a monopoly situation, except in extremis by moving to Scotland where water supply and sewage processing are still under public control.

But developers and local authority planning committees have to own up to part of the blame. I can recall at least one Neath Port Talbot planning meeting where the committee voted to approve a housing development against the advice of Welsh Water who insisted that the existing infrastructure could not take it. I doubt that my experience is unique.

Jacob Rees-Mogg loves big bangs

 - and to hell with people's quiet enjoyment, pets and children's safety 

From Commons Business Questions last week:

Robbie Moore 

(Keighley) (Con)

Although bonfire night is fast approaching, many of my constituents are plagued by fireworks being let off at all hours of the night throughout the calendar year. I have even had it reiterated to me that fireworks are often used as a signal for drugs being dropped. May we have an urgent debate in Government time to discuss the licensing provisions on the sale of fireworks and to have a frank discussion on how local enforcement can clamp down on this antisocial behaviour?

Mr Rees-Mogg [Leader of the House]

this specific contri

Unfortunately I find myself in a degree of disagreement with my hon. Friend. I think fireworks are a little bit of harmless fun. People enjoy them, and we should not take every enjoyment out of people’s lives with endless licensing and regulation. 

Westminster emulates Tammany Hall

Without waiting to see what Peter Black has blogged, I usually avoid duplicating his subject for the day. I have my own special interests and he has his. But I imagine that yesterday's shameful proceedings in the House of Commons will be in the forefront of his mind as they were of mine. 

In a situation where the ability of a constituency to recall an erring Member of Parliament has been made more difficult than the original proposers of the Recall of MPs Bill intended, it is all the more important that there is a robust mechanism at Westminster to ensure that honourable members remain honourable. To that end, an independent parliamentary commissioner for standards has been instituted (current office-holder Kathryn Stone OBE) to investigate, among other things, breaches of the Code of Conduct for MPs. The Commissioner advises a Committee on Standards whose reports to the House are routinely accepted.

This changed yesterday. The Commissioner had, on her own initiative, responding to media reports, looked into the conduct of Owen Paterson MP. She found that Paterson had repeatedly broken the Code by lobbying for companies by which he was paid. The Committee agreed with her and recommended that the MP be suspended for 30 sitting days. It was this that came before the Commons yesterday, but rather than going through  "on the nod", the government promoted an amendment to the Committee report which in the first place stopped any suspension and in the longer term had a committee, on which the governing party would have a majority, look at changes to the procedure to allow appeals against rulings by the Committee on Standards. This would apply to the Paterson case. The inference drawn was that a Tory-majority appeals committee would exonerate Paterson and many MPs found guilty of paid lobbying in the future. Tempers ran high as Leader of the House Jacob Rees-Mogg attempted to defend the amendment and practically ignored the main report.

Some points stood out for me from yesterday's debate. SNP's Martin Docherty-Hughes observed that six of the members who had signed the amendment had form, in that they had allegations upheld against them in the previous twelve months. Labour's Thangam Debbonaire reminded the House that, since 1695, there have been rules on paid advocacy. A motion passed on 2 May 1695 said that “the offer of money or other advantage to any Member of Parliament for the promoting of any matter whatsoever…in Parliament, is a high crime and misdemeanour”. Since then, the only changes to the rules had been to strengthen them. She went on: "the Leader of the House stands up in front of us every week. If he wanted a debate on changing the rules and changing the system, he has had that opportunity every single week, but I have yet to hear him mention it until today, when we are considering a live case." (Lib Dems' Alistair Carmichael had previously objected to bringing forward such an amendment to procedure without having achieved consensus between the parties beforehand.) She hated "to remind the Leader of the House, but just last month Government Members said that they could not possibly support retrospective rule change; and yet, here we are. In the middle of a case, Tory MPs—yes, I am going to state that, because it is only Tory MPs who have signed this amendment—are trying to change the rules".  

The official spokesman for the SNP, Pete Wishart, after condemning the Tories for wanting to take us back to the days of the worst excesses of sleaze in the 1990s, thought that there might be some nationalist advantage. "I do not care if this place seems as sleaze-ridden and crony-ridden as it wants to be. In fact, it does me good if people from Scotland are watching and observing this place descending into the midden that we know it can become. It serves my purpose to see it do that." It has to be said, however, that his own party and parliament in Edinburgh are not exactly free of the taint of political corruption at present.

A telling contribution was made by the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley, a Conservative "grandee" as the current parlance has it. He felt that Paterson should have conceded the points made by the Commissioner and accepted the ruling of the Committee. There would be some justification in reviewing the workings of the Committee, but the amendment under discussion was the wrong way to go about it. "I do recognise that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said, the 2003 recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life is worth looking at. But that was 18 years ago, and this is a serious problem. It should have been brought back for consideration by the House or by senior Members of this House during the past 18 years. I am happy to bring it forward now as a way of changing what should be the normal process of upholding the Standards Committee’s endorsement of the standards commissioner’s advice to the Committee. I refer to the debate in 2010 when Jack Straw was the Justice Secretary and Sir George Young, as he then was, contributed for my party, as did I. We chose the system we are now using. If we want to consider changing it, we should do it in a proper way. I do not regard this as appropriate now." He would have been one of the thirteen Conservative members who voted against the amendment, as did his party colleague, Aaron Bell, who also intervened in the debate. It is a sad reflection of the current state of the Conservative party that more did not join them in the No lobby.

Summing up for the Committee, its Chairman, Chris Bryant, exposed the speciousness of the government's main arguments. The gist was:

The Member [Owen Paterson] promoted what he called “Randox’s superior technology”. He wanted the Government to use Randox’s calibration system. He repeatedly used his taxpayer-funded parliamentary office for commercial meetings. That is paid lobbying. In some shape or form, it has been banned since 1695 and expressly so since "cash for questions", which brought this House into terrible disrepute in the 1990s. One Conservative Member described it to me as a “catalogue of bad behaviour”. I have yet to meet a Conservative MP who has not said to me, “He clearly broke the rules.” I think that includes the Leader of the House. 

 The Member says that he was raising serious wrongs, but he did not say so at the time. If they were truly serious, one might have expected him to write articles or do media interviews, as he was perfectly entitled to do. He did not. He did the one thing that he was banned from doing: lobby Ministers time and again in a way that conferred a direct benefit on his paying clients. That is expressly forbidden. It is a corrupt practice.

On the process, the Member has had a fair hearing. We had legal advice from Speaker’s Counsel throughout. As one former High Court judge said to me yesterday, “the procedure is consistent with natural justice and similar or identical to workplaces up and down the country.” 

 We on the Committee spent many hours reviewing the evidence in this case without fear or favour. The Member had prior notice of the charges and the evidence against him at every stage. He had his legal advisers with him. The Committee invited him to make his appeal against the commissioner’s findings in writing and in person, and I hope he would confirm that we gave him every opportunity to make his case to us and that the session was conducted respectfully and fairly. I think he is nodding. 

 The Member has said that his witnesses should have been interviewed. Natural justice requires that witnesses be heard, but that does not necessarily mean that they must be heard orally or cross-examined. We did what many courts and tribunals do every day of the week: we reviewed all the witness statements, took them into consideration and published them in full.

The Member claims that the commissioner had made up her mind before she sent her memorandum. That is completely to misunderstand the process. As the commissioner has done in every other case, she started an investigation and invited the Member to meet her and/or to submit evidence. Once she had completed her investigation and, by definition, found on a preliminary basis that there had been a breach of the rules, she submitted a memorandum to him for his comments, and then to the Committee. That is when we heard his appeal, in writing and in person. 

[...]

 It is the very definition of injustice that one should change the rules or the process at the very last moment, and to do so for a named individual. That is what the amendment does. Retrospective legislation to favour or damage an individual because they are a friend or a foe is immoral and the polar opposite of the rule of law. That is why, as the Leader of the House knows, I spoke and voted with Conservative Members when we were considering a retrospective motion to subject the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) to a recall petition. The amendment should fail on that basis alone—it is the opposite of due process. 

 The amendment purports to set up an appeal process, but an appellate body must be independent and every single member of the body will be parti pris, by definition. They will have been whipped and taken a view today. They will almost certainly have voted. The proposed Chair, by agreeing to have his name put forward, is already not independent. I point out gently to the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire [Andrea Leadsom, who moved the amendment] that it was her motion as Leader of the House on 7 January 2019 that set up the Standards Committee in its present form. At that time, she said that “a greater element of independence was required, and that having seven lay members and seven parliamentary Members on the Standards Committee…provides the right balance—having the memory and the corporate understanding of being in this place, while at the same time ensuring that we can benefit from the experience and knowledge of independent lay members.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 128.] The body she proposes today will have no independent members—no independence.[...]

I agree with the Leader of the House: I hate investigations that take a long time, but I will point this out gently. The commissioner was, I think, right to suspend her investigation on the right hon. Member for North Shropshire after his wife’s death. It was only once his lawyers said it was okay to restart that she initiated it again. All the delays in the process have been down to his seeking further extensions of deadlines, and we have always sought to meet those.

[...]

 Let me end with this. I hope all Members know that I care passionately about Parliament. The vast majority of Members are here to do good. [...] But if the public believe that we are marking our own homework, our reputation, individually and collectively, will be tarnished. Independence is essential to protect us. A Conservative MP said to me yesterday: “There have been times when I have been ashamed of being a Member of this House, I don’t want to go back to that.”

2021-11-04: BBC News reports that, stung by the opposition to its behaviour yesterday, government ministers will no longer defer the decision on Owen Paterson's culpability and sanctions. One trusts that when the original motion is brought back to the House, government MPs will not be whipped and the House will accept the recommendations of the Committee on Standards without a vote. 

However, that does not address the government's unprecedented weakening of the system of enforcing the behaviour expected of members of parliament. Unless the proposal to set up a committee to design a government-dominated appeals body is abandoned, a signal will be sent that it will be all right in future to lobby for pay - or commit other breaches of standards - if you are on the government side.

Zero-carbon schools

 Not before time, the Welsh government has decreed that all new school builds shall be net zero carbon, It would help considerably if the education minister would also enforce his predecessor's Kirsty Williams' disposition against closing local schools. This would militate against the carbon and nitrogen oxides generated by car and bus journeys to a distant location.

The government's media release referred to the difficulty of converting legacy school buildings. However, net zero carbon for these may not be achieved quickly, but a start can be made in reducing their carbon footprint. I know of a school in the north of the county borough which installed photovoltaic panels on one roof in the days before it was fashionable to do so. Almost certainly these will have paid for themselves by now and the cost of these panels has tumbled since, allowing a much shorter pay-back time.

The county borough should also look at the practicality of increasing insulation.

So blogging is not dying

 Good to see The Woodshed back after a five-year absence.

Fishing disputes: a question not answered

 From the session initiated by SNP MP Deirdre Brock's Urgent Question last Thursday:

Mr Alistair Carmichael 

(Orkney and Shetland) (LD)

this specific contribution

As the shadow Secretary of State said, the next few weeks will be absolutely critical for fish exporters in this country. If the French do what they are threatening—which is only, as I understand it, what is allowed by the trade and co-operation agreement—then they risk damaging the confidence and the reliability of supply from this country. The Secretary of State has given the number of licences that he has issued. He should also be aware that a number of those are for super-trawlers over 100 metres and fly-shooters, that he has given away access to non-quota species without limit, and that this is on top of a TCA that allowed access to the six to 12-mile limits, which is not what was promised. When he has given away so much already, why is he risking this over such a small number of small boats that we must always have known would struggle to get the data to justify the creation of track records?

Scottish railways are doing their bit for decarbonisation but not Network Rail

"Dr B Ching" in Private Eye no. 1559 reports that, while the Scottish government has a rolling electrification programme, if anything railways south of the border are going backward. Because electrification is so disjointed, with stretches of unimproved line between electrified sections, one freight company, Freightliner has reverted to all diesel working. There are two other issues: the high price charged to operators for electricity and the failure to upgrade historic electrified lines.

Bedford-Kettering was recently electrified for up to 125 mph, but London St Pancras-Bedford was electrified decades ago for 100 mph commuter trains. Network Rail has long known the kit needs upgrading for electric expresses, but has only got as far as "assessing what changes to the existing network would offer the best value for money to enable services to run up to 125 mph".

The London-Sheffield service which should have been all electric by last year, is instead being operated by "Graylings", the former transport minister's potch-job "bi-mode" electro-diesels which can be viewed as diesel trains handicapped by having to carry electric motors or vice versa. Because they can run under diesel power at 125 mph and because the Bedford-Kettering section is only 7 per cent of the route and in any case the diesel engines must restart well before the train reaches the end of the power lines, it is more cost-effective to run the "bi-mode" trains as diesels all the way.

It is ironic that off a section of the Great Western main line scheduled by the coalition government to be electrified, another electrification shelved by Grayling, there is a Global Centre of Rail Excellence which aims to be in the forefront of green railway development.