 |
Spies are back in the news.
Revelations that a great-granny spied for
Russia's KGB, have been followed by claims that a
Hull University Professor betrayed Britain to the
East German Stasi.
Spy stories can seem like a throwback to a dim
and distant era. Indeed, these revelations are,
but they ought to be used to remind us that
Britain needs the Secret Services as never
before.
Not because there is an imminent threat from some
world superpower. But because there isn't.
Let me explain this seemingly odd logic.
During the Cold War, with few exceptions, most
world trouble spots could be analysed by
reference to Soviet-American stand-offs. Awful
things happened, but in a bizarre way, both sides
had a shared interest in containing rogue
dictators. There was a sort of dreadful certainty
about security issues.
The end of the Cold War changed all that. Of
course, the collapse of Soviet communism was a
welcome development, but the world became a more
dangerous, uncertain place.
Former Yugoslavia. East Timor. Growing tensions
between Pakistan and India. |
It's
brought a world where defence policy must change.
And a world where Britain's MI5 and MI6 play an
ever more crucial role.
After leaving university at Oxford, I gained a
privileged if brief insight into our Secret
Services. It was clear that the vast bulk of work
carried out by MI5 and MI6 was no longer focused
on the Soviet Union's ambitions.
Spies today fight battles against drug
traffickers, international terrorism and nuclear
proliferation. Their information-gathering on
certain countries and organisations is even more
important in forming Britain's foreign policy in
a world devoid of "Iron Curtain"
stability.
With this changing role for our modern-day spies,
however, comes an even greater need for MI5 and
MI6 to be more open, and more accountable to
Ministers and Parliament. Perhaps then we could
decide whether an 87 year-old lady should be
punished more harshly than the traitors Philby or
Burgess.
We could safeguard the security of undercover
operations, while ensuring the Secret Services
stay within the law. If the spy could come in
from the cold, we would love the spy.
|
| |
|
|
I’m having a water meter installed.
And I’ve no choice about it. What’s
more, I’m not alone.
Out of the blue, many local people have been
written to by Thames Water, telling them they
must have a meter.
Thames Water are targeting local houses that have
been altered structurally in the last nine years.
As current water charges are based on old
rateable values, houses extended since 1990 are
being deemed by Thames Water to have incorrect
rateable values. So they are requiring all such
homes to have meters.
The 1991 Act that privatised water gives complete
power to the water company. They can force you to
have a water meter. That’s the law the last
Government bequeathed us.
If that weren’t bad enough, it seems Thames
Water have become rather heavy-handed in using
this power. In recent weeks, several constituents
have contacted me with stories that those fitting
the meters have used tactics bordering on the
intimidatory.
I know why Thames Water are in a hurry.
There’s a new Water Bill going through
Parliament which will give those with a new meter
a 12-month trial period, after which they can
choose to revert to a non-metered form of
charging. |
So Thames want to fit plenty of meters
before the new law is implemented.
But their approach is hardly a vote of confidence
in their own metering system. If it is so good,
surely people will stick with it, after the trial
period?
It’s ironic that in the recent past
I’ve helped some constituents trying to get
water meters from Thames Water, but who’ve
been refused on "technical" grounds.
I hope we can persuade Thames Water to think
again. I’ve won the support of Ofwat, the
industry regulator. They told me back in April:
"we still feel that Thames Water’s
policy would make more sense and be more
acceptable to customers if the scheme only
included extensions that would potentially result
in extra water use."
I’ve now asked Thames Water’s Chief
Executive to review their metering policy, and to
apologise to local residents who have been
intimidated.
Monopoly companies providing key public services
have to be held to account. And not just to
shareholders. |
| |
|
It's
time to abolish slavery. Not the slavery William
Wilberforce campaigned to abolish nearly 200
years ago. But the debt slavery that brings
misery to millions living in the world's poorest
countries.
The new anti-slavery movement is led by the
Jubilee 2000 Coalition - formed from churches and
groups like Oxfam and the World Development
Movement. The aims are simple: to cancel all
unpayable debt, owed by the world's poorest
countries to the richest, as THE millennium
celebration.
This isn't some idealistic dream. It's based on
practical proposals, consulted on with
international financial bodies.
Debt cancellation would be conditional: money
saved must be used to reduce poverty. Debt
freedom could then bring a double benefit - and
ensure corrupt governments can't abuse this
opportunity, by buying arms for example.
What relevance has this to Kingston? Well, for a
start, many Kingston people believe debt slavery
is totally immoral.
I've had many letters from constituents about
this. The Kingston branch of Jubilee 2000 has
collected a petition of over 4,000 signatures. |
Last
Sunday Jenny Tonge MP and I joined over 100 local
people at Westminster, as links in a human chain
round the Thames, to send a message to
governments meeting at the G8 summit in Cologne
next weekend. Our message was clear: drop the
debt, now.
Rich countries are enslaving the poorest if we
continue to force them to spend more on debt
repayments than they spend on health or
education. In Africa alone, for every £1 spent
on health, £4 is spent on servicing debt.
That cannot be right.
British Chancellors, from Nigel Lawson to Gordon
Brown, have led the debate for more generous debt
relief. This is a cross-party issue. Past
stumbling blocks have been the German and
American governments.
But there is now hope. The new German Government
appears to be supportive. Clinton and
Vice-President Al Gore, facing election, have
turned positive.
Gordon Brown may have won agreement to involve
more countries, to receive more generous debt
relief.
Yet if we want to break the chains of debt, if we
want to celebrate the new millennium with a party
the entire planet can join in, world leaders in
Cologne will have to do much more. Kingston is
watching. |
| |
|
Food is fast becoming one of the top
political issues.
After BSE, we've got the genetically-modified
(GM) food debate.
It seems perverse that Ministers imposed a ban on
beef on the bone, when the risks were known and
were infinitesimal. And then, for GM crop
production, where the risks are unclear and may
be large, Ministers opposed a five year
moratorium. Government should have done the
reverse.
Food remains on the parliamentary menu, as the
Commons debates a law to establish a Food
Standards Agency, to strengthen the consumer's
voice.
This is right: the Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food should be broken up, so
commercial interests are separated from the
public's interests.
However, I recently surveyed local restaurants
and cafes about this proposed Food Standards
Agency because Ministers wanted to charge them
all £90 to pay for the agency - £90 for
Sainsbury's, £90 for the corner café.
Local businesses were strongly against. Results
from surveys like this must have had an effect:
Government have now dropped the £90 poll tax!
|
This week the food debate continued, as
Liberal Democrats called a Commons debate on
large supermarket chains. We voiced concerns
about how chains abuse their market power,
pushing up prices, and forcing smaller shops out
of business. With inflated prices, UK
supermarkets earn much larger profits than
American or European equivalents. I'm glad there
is now an investigation by the Competition
Commission into this.
Last week I joined this food policy frenzy when I
called a Commons debate on nut allergies and
labelling. A constituent brought to my attention
problems faced by people with nut allergies,
particularly when eating in restaurants and
cafes. After some research and correspondence
with Ministers, I became convinced that the
labelling rules do need to change.
As a result of the debate the Minister promised
to consult with the catering industry on my
proposal for a new, enforceable Code of Practice
to help people with food allergies. I've
suggested it covers menus, staff training and
best kitchen practice.
If you're interested in this subject, please
write to me at the House of Commons, London SW1A
0AA. |
|