UK-Mauritius Agreement on the Chagos Archipelago
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I join with others in the very best wishes to what might be called the Boswell team. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, has shown by her speech that she has a thoroughly professional mind and training, which will bring great value to our counsels, and we are very lucky to have her here. I have known the noble Lord, Lord Boswell—I call him Tim Boswell—for years in and out of government. I always found that he was a rock of common sense, particularly in the Brexit quagmire, where a great deal of nonsense is talked. I shall be sad that he is going. All I say to him is that I hope he enjoys retirement and does not spend time trying—dare I say it—to write a Life of Samuel Johnson.
Noble Lords
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
I am glad that some noble Lords got the joke.
I will use my four and a half minutes to discuss the security aspects of the whole project, which are by far the most important in the present state of the world. The position of the Chagos Islanders has been strongly debated and is covered in our very thorough International Agreements Committee report, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, so excellently chaired and introduced today. I had the honour of being on that committee, like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I am sorry that, for legal reasons that I do not fully understand, the Chagossians have had—once again—virtually no say in their future. I understand that the last place into which many of them want to be subsumed is Mauritius, which is 2,200 kilometres away. An association or tie-up with Australia was much preferred by some, but it is too late for a more imaginative solution; that was not put on the table at all.
On security, in this very dangerous time the issue comes down, in hard terms, to leasehold or freehold. Are we safer hanging on to the freehold, which will be constantly challenged by various courts of various qualities around the world, with the prospect of continuous rulings against us? Or are we better off with a long lease, which in theory should be safe but can of course be abrogated or have new conditions applied or other changes made to it? Look at what happened in the case of Hong Kong—we should never forget that.
That does not even put the whole question in balance, because with the lease option comes the most enormous bill. I would like the Minister to explain just what that bill is. The Explanatory Memorandum talks about £3.5 billion in today’s money through the so-called Green Book methodology. When my noble friend Lord Callanan rightly and robustly questioned these issues, he mentioned £30 billion—so one side is almost 10 times the size of the other.
I have never known a debate like this before; I have been in these two Houses for 59 years, and I have never heard such a cavalier approach by a Government to cost. It is essential that, if they are to ask for approval of any kind from this House or any other body, Ministers make clear just what the monetary implications are. The sums are vast—think what we could do with them here at home. No doubt, Mauritius will make good use of these colossal sums of money; perhaps it might even lend us some back, as we need it. This certainly needs clarifying; we cannot stand in the complicated situation into which we have now been put.
The immediate security considerations are much clearer and more pressing. The immediate area we are discussing is either side of the 52nd meridian line, which roughly bisects the Indian Ocean and is teeming with activity by hostile powers—the so-called counteraligned nations, notably China. Most of our sea-borne trade, and 80% of all world sea-borne trade, has to cross that meridian line. The Chagos Archipelago is just about plumb in the middle of it. China is building ports all around, such as currently in Kenya. Chinese closeness to Mauritius is a fact, not an exaggeration, as one witness to our committee implied.
Disruption of sea trade would be devastating for all of Europe but especially for us; it has been christened as Europe’s nightmare. Remember that the Red Sea and its mouth at Bab el-Mandeb are virtually closed already, and shutting the mouth of the Persian Gulf at the Strait of Hormuz is also on the table. Benjamin Disraeli and other great statesmen of the past must be turning in their graves. This is all the more urgent when land routes are blocked and overflight western air routes to Asia are already shut off. Yet Asia is where all the growth comes from and where we must be.
The Government seem set on this change of status at what has become the cross-routes of the world. Let us pray and hope that it proves worth it and makes us stronger, not weaker, in the storms ahead.
National Security Strategy
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord has great respect in this House for his commitment to these issues. I cannot confirm his final point at all. However, I think that the heart of his question is how seriously we take the threat from China, which is absolutely clear from the document. Indeed, this was raised in the House of Commons this week by David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, when he spoke on the China audit and referred to a quote, which I will quote as well, on page 28 of the strategic defence review. I do not think that we can see this review alone: as I said, it is an overarching review. It states:
“China: a sophisticated and persistent challenge. China is increasingly leveraging its economic, technological, and military capabilities, seeking to establish dominance in the Indo-Pacific, erode US influence, and put pressure on the rules-based international order”.
I endorse and agree with that statement.
The noble Lord asks if our economic relationship undermines our commitment to security. I give him a categoric assurance that that is not the case. We have to manage both relationships, but security is first and foremost: it is of enormous concern, as he will know. We recognise, and I think it is highlighted in the strategy, that China is increasingly eroding the rules that have governed the international system. I do not think we have had a China audit before, but if we look at the history of our relationship with China, under a previous Government—I think it was in the Cameron era—it was a very close relationship. We then moved to not engaging at all. That is not a satisfactory way to proceed. It comes back to the Ernie Bevin quote: we have to deal with the world as it is and the threats that exist now. I give the noble Lord the assurance that we stand by what is in the strategic defence review and we stand by what is in the national security strategy to protect Taiwan.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for reiterating that security is more than just foreign security; it is also health security. One of the issues with Covid was the lack of preparedness within the NHS. We are working on that at pace. A significant preparedness exercise is about to be undertaken and we will again test the emergency alert system. We inherited a number of laboratories in a very poor condition so that their future was in doubt. That is why the investment in biosecurity is so important. So, there is the new biosecurity centre at Weybridge, with £208 million committed to that work over the next two years, but there has to be a complete network of biosecurity centres around the country. That is about disease, but it is also about health and animal products, our imports, and ensuring that we can foster innovation so we know what is coming next and can work towards it, including productivity. The £1 billion is across the current spending review period, which is three years, and it will be reviewed at the end of that period.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Does the noble Baroness agree that the growing Commonwealth network, with its people involvement at all levels, its unifying soft power—and indeed, increasingly, its hard power, as we have recently seen—and its maritime data integration powers, is a key part of our national security, our influence and our adaptation to a totally changed security world that is going on around us? Can she direct me to the page in the strategy where all this is mentioned? I cannot find it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord has looked very carefully to find it, so this question of which page might be rhetorical. No, I cannot direct him to a page, but if he looks across the range of documents we have produced he will know how much we value relationships. He is right to emphasise the importance of soft power, including that of the Commonwealth. One of the problems we have had in the past is that our relationship with Europe has had to be reset and renewed. Our relationship with America is one that we value, as, of course, are those across the world, including with the Commonwealth. We must have, build and value those relationships. It is not just soft power; it is actually a harder-edged thing as well. I will find it in some documents at some point, I am sure, but the noble Lord has only to hear Ministers speak to know how much that relationship is valued.
Parliamentary Commercial Department
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt, but I will try to press forward on that point. The Lord Speaker’s newsletter publishes some of the information. If the noble Baroness wants a quarterly report, rather than the minutes published after the meeting, that can be done, but it will be published in the same way as the minutes of the meeting are published. We will look into that, if that helps her.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
I hope the Leader of the House has not overlooked that every moment the unworking door remains unworking, we are haemorrhaging money. There will have to be permanent staff there to press the button, which will presumably require a team of three or four who will have to be salaried. In any normal arrangement, it should be mended tomorrow morning. Can we afford to leave it as it is?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It is quite difficult to answer that one. Yes, repairs are undertaken from time to time, but there has to be a systematic look at how the door can be made operable ongoing, without repairs being needed. If that cannot be done, alternative arrangements have to be made. That is the very issue I have been speaking about, and which we are looking at. It is a matter of urgency, and I hope that I have conveyed to the House that frustration is felt across the House and is understood.
North-west Syria
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
As a general point, one of the things that we are concerned about doing is giving support to refugees who have fled Syria, and we are working with all neighbouring countries. I do not have a specific response on Armenia, but I have taken the noble Lord’s point and will certainly raise it in the department. As a general principle, we are very concerned to ensure that those fleeing the conflict are properly supported in neighbouring countries.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, we need to remember that Bashar al-Assad has been kept in power by Russia to do all his dreadful, bloody work over 20 years or thereabouts. I am not quite sure where HTS comes from or what its stance is as it sweeps down from Aleppo, but we need to remember that Kissinger once remarked that there are many situations where one rather wishes both sides could lose—and I am afraid that this may be one of them.
More broadly, these situations arise again and again, and there will be many more in this high-tension area, where everything is amplified by the digital age and hyper-connectivity and where the bloodshed seems to increase all the time. Each time, we issue Statements, we talk with our allies, we wring our hands a bit and we go to the United Nations and have a good chat. Then, somehow, the situation slides on away from us, which is extraordinary, because 20 years ago we thought that democracy was winning everywhere, but now it seems to be sliding away. Are we really using all the modern communications technology, of the kind that the Chinese in particular use with great effect, to maintain the case against bloodshed, killing and Russian troublemaking and the case for democracy, balance and a sensible commitment to a degree of freedom and the rule of law? Our story needs to be brushed up a great deal.
Are we making full use of the Commonwealth of 56 Nations, although I understand that there are soon to be rather more than that? Are we making enough use of our UN representations, with the desperate need for UN reform at every level, despite having Russia and China sitting in there like cuckoos in the nest? This is a world in which the medium is the message 10 times over. It needs a constant and new story to be developed. I ask that we think of that and do not just assume that, having issued a Statement and talked to a few of our allies, there is nothing more we can do.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I absolutely share the noble Lord’s views about our values and how we can restate them. I attended the whole of the United Nations General Assembly, including many events where we engaged with civil society. Our policies should not be just about Government-to-Government relationships, and that is why the noble Lord is absolutely right about the Commonwealth. It is a commonwealth family as well as a commonwealth of peoples. The Commonwealth institutes great people-to-people and parliamentary contact, which restates the importance of democracy.
We also translate our policies through soft power, a term that I do not particularly like. Through the BBC World Service and other means, we are using greater, more effective communication tools and ensuring that we counter what the Russians are doing. It is important that we see the value of that sort of people-to-people communication.
I restate the position on Syria that I said earlier: we are supporting the United Nations Resolution 2354 and a political process that engages as many groups as possible. It is a political process; this is not a war that can be won by conflict. This situation can be resolved only by political dialogue and we urge all parties to engage in that.
G20 and COP 29 Summits
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am happy to give a very quick answer to the noble Baroness: yes, they are.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
It was a comprehensive Statement, but it included wording about
“a 2035 target to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions by at least 81% on 1990 levels”.
I know a clean energy mission is coming and we will learn the details there, but could the noble Baroness just explain how that squares with the aim of decarbonising all power by 2030 and an all-electric economy—or is that by 2035? Some of us are getting a bit confused with this and other developments. If we could just know roughly where we are going and whether these things are remotely attainable, that would help.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Targets are there to be attained and reached, and every effort is being made. The difference is that 2030 is the national target; 2035 is the international agreement reached at the summits. I hope that is helpful.
Command Paper Safeguarding the Union
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord supported Brexit at the time, and he will be aware that the way in which Brexit was undertaken brought with it enormous constitutional implications. We have always sought to safeguard the position of Northern Ireland in the UK and in the internal market, but he will understand the pressures on business. We will do all we can to reduce those pressures to make it as stable as possible. Northern Ireland is an integral part of the UK, and the internal market is an important part that we will do everything we can to safeguard.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Does the noble Baroness agree that, even since the publication of this report last January, there has been considerable and important new thinking on trade facilitation of all kinds, particularly within the United Kingdom? Will she assure us that the report published today by the Trade Facilitation Commission, which contains many of these ideas, is taken full account of by the independent monitoring group or whoever is going to be driving this pattern forward?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the most important thing here is to safeguard the trading position and the internal market. When ideas, suggestions and reports come forward, of course they will all get the due consideration that they deserve in the best interests of the Northern Ireland.
House of Lords: Composition
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Again, the noble Lord’s ingenuity is always impressive. He knows that that is not the case. He also knows that the Labour Party manifesto at the last election was the only one I have seen in recent years that praised the work of this House—we continue to do so—and recognised the valuable work that it has done. In my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I said that one of the important things in this House is incremental reform. As I have said before—I think the noble Lord was present when this was repeated at least twice in debate on the King’s Speech—the House will be consulted on the manifesto commitments on retirement age and participation.
The manifesto also talked about immediate actions on particular issues. The other commitments of course remain, and they will come forward in due course, after discussions and dialogue across the House.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, although the Minister is very good on these matters, she does not quite seem to understand that her party is dabbling with constitutional reform. Surely she, among many others, agrees that when it comes to constitutional reform it is absolutely essential that there is agreement between all parties, otherwise we spend years and years in useless argument, getting nowhere. Does the noble Baroness not accept on this issue, as she has just learned from some of the responses she has just had, that once you touch on constitutional issues, the time has come to try to work out a common way forward—the future common ground—in a sensible, mature and adult way, and not get lost in party ding-dong?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord is being a little patronising in saying that I do not understand constitutional issues. I will be happy to reach consensus, where it is possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, a quarter of a century ago there was eventually a consensus that transitional arrangements would be made for the remaining hereditary Peers.
Action Against Houthi Maritime Attacks
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, it is surely obvious to everyone—at least, I hope it is—that the Iranians are completely behind all these Houthi operations, with their advisers crawling all over northern Yemen and Sanaa. Indeed, some of their advisers may be actively helping to launch the rockets. It is pretty obvious that the motive is that they want to assert, against the opinion of the Saudis and others, that they are the top dogs in the region. I do not think they want escalation—otherwise, they would have given the green light to their Hezbollah friends, which they have not done—but they are very determined to show that they are the leaders in the axis of resistance, looking east.
In light of that, what moves does my noble friend suggest that we can take now to contribute more effectively? That could be either through stronger sanctions than those that came into action last December or by working in closer alliance with other powers in the Middle East. How can we build up and contribute to that kind of pressure and bring even more clearly to the attention of the world stage the fact that this is a murderous regime that is highly unstable internally and well in a position to be surrounded and not cowed to in any way?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend quite rightly stresses the importance of the role of the Iranian Government and the Iranian regime. One must not forget that, looking at the whole span of human history back to ancient times, Iran has been a vital and greatly civilised place in the world, and it will always be a powerful force in that region, whatever the circumstances. However, it is incumbent on people who have authority, power and strength to use them with wisdom and for specific and constructive purposes. That is not, as my noble friend said, what the Iranian regime is doing at all; it is doing the reverse and is responsible for a lot of the instability in the region, including in relation to the Houthis. We have made it clear to Iran that we view it as bearing responsibility for the actions of these groups. We will continue to discuss with allies what the appropriate further actions on Iran may be.
Parliamentary Democracy and Standards in Public Life
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I will concentrate on the parliamentary democracy side of our debate, since others have eloquently put the obvious point that, unless we maintain the highest standards of behaviour in Parliament and ensure that Parliament itself upholds these standards, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, rightly reminded us, no one will renew the much-diminished trust in and respect for parliamentary institutions today, whatever the circumstances.
For a gloomy and very serious subject, this has been quite an enjoyable debate so far. Everyone knows that we are facing an age of disorder and potential disintegration, but my worry is that far too few people in practising politics, the media or the so-called influencer class, whoever they are, recognise the causes or consequences of just drifting along on the technological tide. Some people are now calling for something akin to a new Enlightenment, with the philosophers stepping forward where the politicians and parties are so obviously and clearly failing to make an impact, or merely trading stale abuse and accusations while the world rolls away from them and us.
All aspects of this scene are in a state of flux. All pave the way for multiplying grievances, for placard politics in place of argument, for dissent shading into hate and for unrepresentative democracy to worm its way in. All these trends are already being fundamentally twisted in new directions by the communications revolution, the loss of deliberation in the immediacy of online response, the ugly intolerance of polarisation, the demands of uninhibited transparency and the general evaporation of trust in and respect for everyone and everything. If we add in a new universal balloon of fakery and misinformation, now being further inflated by the misuse of AI, that makes it all the worse.
I have only two immediate answers to this fragile and dangerous situation in the few minutes that I have to speak. The first is to take our parliamentary committee structure far more seriously if we want to keep pace with and get to the bottom of ever-swelling executive activity. That requires our committees to be properly resourced and empowered, as they are in many other democracies but not here. The second is to give maximum encouragement and space to deep channels of discussion throughout the UK, often far from the public gaze and well away from the media, where new thoughts may be taking shape.
Whoever forms a Government at Westminster, most of the major issues of our time are well outside the control of our national government. The levers of growth which are believed to exist—I believe that Sir Keir Starmer believes in them—are now in practice outside the state’s diminished reach, as it tries to do more and more but with less success. If that reality alone is grasped by Parliament and its leaders, then order and a mannered public debate can continue to be combined with freedom of thought, speech and ambition for our institutions and constitution—and, above all, with trust, which is so obviously missing from the whole parliamentary and political scene.
Long-Term Strategic Challenges Posed by China
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, we have heard some very interesting, excellent and clear speeches so far in this debate, starting with my noble friend the Minister. It is particularly a pleasure to follow the speech we have just heard from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.
The truth is that our relationship with China gets discussed almost everywhere on a whole spectrum of attitudes. At one extreme, we have those who say, “Stop worrying: do not get overly hysterical” and take a relaxed view that there is nothing much to be done—China is China, just carry on and it will rise and fall, and maybe rise again in the way things do in history. At another extreme, we have the “China is the enemy brigade” in line with the hard-line Manichean view held by some people in America like Mr Pompeo in the Trump Administration. It is an almost McCarthyite attitude that says China is going all-out to undermine and destroy everything around us, there are Chinese under every bed, and Chinese sympathisers must be hunted out and denounced.
Midway between these two extremes we have the UK official position, set out very closely by the noble Earl, as stated in the latest “refresh” version of the Downing Street integrated review—and I am afraid, with the way things are going, we are going to need another one quite soon, as events move so fast on this planet.
That one states, as my noble friend said, that China poses an “epoch-defining and systemic challenge” and calls for the three items that my noble friend mentioned: protection, which is safeguarding our critical national infrastructure and supply lines; alignment, which means working with everybody else to contain Chinese activities around the world; and engagement in varying degrees, which means creating space for a positive trade and investment relationship. All that sounds really quite sensible as far as it goes, but I believe—I am with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, here—that even this position, let alone the extreme stances described, is not really clever or subtle enough to deal with the phenomenon of today’s China.
I would argue that some deeper approaches are needed, which I will comment on. I first give a few facts. I begin with climate issues, which my noble friend on the Front Bench referenced. Even though China is an enormous investor in renewables—maybe the world’s biggest—its coal burning for electricity is currently around 1,000 gigawatts, which is about 58% of all its electric power. This is down from 80% but, with a recent surge of new coal-fired plants—with 45 being built or revived and 52 more planned—it is rising again. To put things into perspective, it now ends up at about 1,000 times our small, residual coal burn in this country. Together with India’s 250 gigawatts of coal plants and America at a little less, those three countries account for over 60% of rising world emissions. There is absolutely no hope of curbing climate violence, however zealous we are with our own net zero, unless these soaring emissions are somehow reversed. That is where full co-operation, and the full focus of our contribution to the battle, should be directed if we are serious about climate change.
Sometimes it seems that, with all our concentration directed inwards to achieving our very worthy net-zero goal, we forget the main aim, which is to curb world emissions and to head off the worst climate violence and planetary destruction. Sometimes I even sympathise a bit with Greta Thunberg, not her latest escapade with trying to stop oil now, which would of course cause huge world suffering and disruption for the poorest, but her more general fear that the next generation will feel completely betrayed. I do not see that the worthy but costly net zero here will make the slightest difference to the frightening rise in world emissions carrying on now. The UK is not making anything like the best and most focused contribution that it could to checking global warming, and that has strong implications for our relations with China.
Secondly, we must face the fact that, for all the rhetoric about China around the western world, trade with China is still extremely high and is growing in most areas. For the EU, it is back up to £450 billion for the last 12 months, and cheap electric vehicles are about to flood into the European system, to the alarm of the entire European motor industry. Then there is security. Obviously, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup said, Taiwan is there. The question is whether the Israel horror, coming on top of the Afghanistan withdrawal model, will tempt Xi to go earlier. Most people say that he will delay for a while, but I am not so sure. He must be looking at the situation again and wondering. I also wonder whether our eye is on the ball as China hoovers up the developing world and quite a lot of members of the Commonwealth with it. Let us keep our Five Eyes assembly, which we have just seen gather in a rather encouraging way, fully alert and supported. Whitehall seems to think that a lot of smaller islands in the South Seas and the Caribbean are too small or remote to be strategically important. But the Chinese foreign policy strategists think quite the opposite: the control of maritime routes and the so-called assistance to these small countries with policing, training and, indeed, even weapons and military advice is a crucial part of the strategic game of the world.
As for the heavy hand in Hong Kong and the appalling persecution of the Uighurs, I know that the speaker coming after me will explain with his usual perception and accuracy just what is happening. I hope we can somehow influence and delay the crushing of Hong Kong’s freedoms. It is China that will be the loser. Hong Kong was an enormously valuable asset to China in its full heyday and even now could be if China played things very differently.
As for the Chinese economy, it is a mixed picture. It all looked very good for China earlier this year. It appeared to be recovering from the Covid drama, but investment is plummeting and so is consumer demand. We now see in China slower growth; soaring debt; attempted, but of course resisted, capital flight; massive youth unemployment; a shrinking population; what is called economic long Covid; and a distinct alienation of China’s friends, thanks to the general aggressiveness of Xi Jinping’s stance. The belt and road initiative, which has been mentioned, is running up a lot of debts.
My advice would be in some respect the very opposite of that of the blinkered Sinophobes and hardliners who seem to want us to cut off all links with and somehow cancel China. We should not only engage but bring it all on. We should not only ensure that we do not cut off China but actively welcome Chinese capital, students, technology and brands. That would in fact weaken and undermine Xi’s imperial ambitions. The sensitive sectors should of course be protected, and we are going to do that, but much of Chinese intellectual property theft comes from cybercrime and espionage, some of which is very naive and childish.
Our story, under the rule of law and in freedom, is a lot better than the Chinese story. It should be told to the world with much more vigour and elan. The Chinese information flow, designed to undermine our values and our democracy, is formidably good and effective at reaching the free world and all the non-aligned countries, which is most countries now. I hope, but of course do not know, that ours is just as good in somehow reaching the Chinese on the dangers for China itself if it persists in stepping outside the comity of nations, flouting international law and disdaining the alliance of civilised nations against the coming dangers that threaten us all, of which the bestiality and bottomless evil of 7 October by the Hamas butchers is the most vivid example. The powerful attraction of an open society, draining capital out of China—as one commentator put it, “suction, not sanctions”—is the best way to weaken Chinese dominance and benefit us at the same time. It is the path we should follow.