The Dutch have changed on Energy - The UK should do the Same

The Dutch have been major supporters of Green Energy and during the lead up to the Kyoto Agreement took to chivvying other EU States to a near 'bullying; level. Now the Dutch Government has not so much modified its Green view of Energy, but written an entirely new Energy Policy, which has Green Elements, but has taken a pragmatic cost based view of how to meet the energy needs of the Country now and in the future.

How the average Dutch citizen view the change of direction I won't attempt to guess, but I suspect the EU Commission will be upset (possibly enraged). So what are the changes? In summary the major points are:

• Abandoning EU-wide target of producing 20 per cent of its domestic power from renewables.
• Slashing the Subsidies for wind and solar power from €4bn annual subsidy, it will be slashed to €1.5bn.
• Sanctioning the building of new Nuclear Plants, the first in 40 years.

With 20/20 Hindsight there has been at least one indication that policy change was on the way. The country's only nuclear plant (built in 1973) was initially scheduled for closure in 2003. At the time this decision was taken was a high point of the European (except France) policy of abandoning Nuclear Power Plants. The planned closure date was allowed to creep past the deadline and in 2006 was given an operating extension to 2034, plus the decision not build any new plants was reversed, but not actually giving even a tentative go ahead for new ones. But to some extent this can be seen to be in line with the Kyoto Protocol Agreement (adopted way back in 1997 but only coming into force in 2005) on reducing Green House Gases as Nuclear Power Plants, don't add these to the atmosphere.

So going back to Nuclear Power is one thing, but why the reversal on Solar and Wind Power?
The answer is, it appears simple they don't deliver on a cost effective basis. The cost of subsidising them, now and in the future, compared with their contribution to the country's energy requirements makes even less sense than going back to Nuclear. The Dutch haven't abandoned renewable energy, but have taken a view of what is cost effective and productive versus what is Green, expensive, inefficient and doesn't deliver.

So how does this affect the UK. Well as those who know me are aware I ceased my membership to Green Peace UK over their anti-nuclear power stance (one of the co-founders of Green Peace now views Nuclear Power as an essential element in the future - 40 years too late). As with Transport, the UK (unlike France) has never had a long term energy strategy that would gradually evolve over decades implementing a consistent approach to the country's energy requirements using a mix of Nuclear, 'Clean Coal' and Renewables, including something the Dutch cannot unitise, large scale Hydro Electric generation as in the Highlands. Plus the use of Wind Turbines where both sensible and effective (after all the first UK Wind Turbine went into operation on the Orkney Islands in 1951) and finally Wave Power (Solar is hardly something we in the UK could sensibly rely on, even less than the Dutch).  But instead successive UK Governments have played with Energy Planning based on purely political expediency rather than thinking beyond the next general election, or in some cases by-election. As with Transport, the lack of a cohesive Energy Policy is an indictment of the incompetence of generations of Politicians from the mid-1950's.

So where now for the UK?
Firstly follow the Dutch lead and abandon the EU target for renewables
Secondly have a cross party standing committee of cabinet and shadow cabinet members but including other parties with elected MPs. The 'Political Committee to be advised by a Technical Committee of Experts on Energy Planning, Generation, Production, Distribution and just as importantly Research (Fusion, Oil/Gas Extraction, etc), covering not just electrical power, but coal, oil and gas. To produce and Energy Master Plan to provide a cohesive Energy Policy starting in the near term but extending several decades into the future. Once the Master Plan has been formulated, the Political and Technical Committees will oversee its implementation and continue to evolve the Master Plan as circumstances and energy requirements change and technology improves.
This approach minimises 'Energy being a Political Football' and looks at what the Nation requires not what Politician think might keep them in Power. Although Parliament, will need to vote on some of the requirements of the Master Plan and its implementation as Policy, these votes should be viewed as of National, not Party importance.

Should UK cyber defences include offensive operations to protect UK interests?

This question was posed in a tweet by @Warwick_Ashford, which was retweeted to me. He raised the question because of this article US Cyber Command calls for offensive powers in Computer Weekly.

The debate in the US over this request is not over National Interest, or National Security, but over the Legality of offensive operations and some Senior Advisors and Lawyers want to limit such operations to existing War Zones, such as Afghanistan.

I see this as somewhat 'out-dated thinking' Cyber-war can be waged without forces deployed in the field and a state, or indeed individuals can mount an attempted Cyber Attack without escalation to a Military Deployment. Perhaps the 'rules of cyber engagement' should be no 'First Strike' and that any offensive response against the perpetrators  of an attack should 'be measured' and except in exceptional cases Politically Approved by the Prime Minister, or in the case of the USA the president/ This would seem to me to be a reasonable base line posture to adopt for UK, USA, NATO Countries and indeed other Western Nations.

I would be interested in comments

Dealing with Mentally Ill & Drug Addicted Criminals

In the Telegraph online for 08th November 2010 there is an Article, Headlined: Drug-addicted criminals will be spared jail which indicates Kenneth Clarke and his officials at the Ministry of Justice are working out plans to get the Police and the Courts to the Mentally ill and Drug Addicts from Prison sentencing to “treatment-based accommodation”.

As in previous posts on Law & Order, my views are that far too many people with Mental illness end up in Prison because of a total failure of the Care in the Community approach to their needs. Back in July in my Post: Crime & Punishment UK - Getting Emotive I covered this:

Reverse the Care in the Community approach to those with Mental Health Problems and as this will take a long time beginning by building (or converting existing buildings) to secure institutions and moving these people out of prison and then over a decade moving down the scale of danger to sheltered accommodation for the non-dangerous. Yes this will cost money, but these people should not be in prison, but at the same time cannot function in normal society, leading them into crime.

The Telegraph Article pre-empts the Planned Whitepaper, but the indication is that the plan is to reverse Care in the Community on the cheap. There is no indication that 'Treatment Centres' for the mentally ill will provide them with long term care and residence, nor that the Centres will be designed to handle the needs of the varied levels of illness.

Moving on to Drug Addicts: I did not go into detail in my July Post, other than note that there should be mandatory treatment for Drug and Alcohol Addiction.
I would go further, for those Addicted to Class A Drugs the treatment should be intensive and they should be detained in the 'Treatment Centre'  for a minimum of three months after they are deemed 'clean' and for the next two years they are to visit a Parole Office Weekly for testing. Failure to attend a test or the test shows a return to Drug Abuse would result in an immediate return to the treatment centre.

Where Prison for an Addict is deemed necessary (Crimes of Violence, Murder, Armed Robbery etc), the Mandatory Treatment is to be carried out there. But Prisons must start to crackdown on the smuggling to Drugs into Prisons, with all visitors to convicts treated as potential 'drug mules' and checks to be carried out on Prison Staff to ensure they are not bringing Drugs in for Prisoners.

My other concern is that Mandatory Treatment of Addicts and Intensive Searching of Prison Visitors and Staff, will fall foul of the European Court of Human Rights. So that situation has to be dealt with 'head on' by removing this Country from its jurisdiction.

The Man from MI5 Gives a Speech

In the Telegraph on the 17the Sept is the text of a speech given to the Worshipful Company of Security Professionals by Jonathan Evans head of MI5 in which he covers what the service sees as the current threats to British Homeland Security.

• The revival of Terrorist Activity in the Province of Northern Island.
  Extract: A persistent rise in terrorist activity and ambition in Northern Ireland over the last three years.
  Perhaps we were giving insufficient weight to the pattern of history over the last hundred years which shows that whenever the main body of Irish republicanism has reached a political accommodation and rejoined constitutional politics, a hardliner rejectionist group would fragment off and continue with the so called "armed struggle".
  
• The Al Qaida and its affiliates and those inspired by its ideology.
  Extract: To sum up the Al Qaida related threat. The country continues to face a real threat from Al Qaida-related terrorism. That threat is diverse in both geography and levels of skill involved but it is persistent and dangerous and trying to control it involves a continual invisible struggle. Counter-terrorist capabilities have improved in recent years but there remains a serious risk of a lethal attack taking place. I see no reason to believe that the position will significantly improve in the immediate future.
  
  
• The espionage threat - Both Traditional and Cyber.
  Extract: Espionage did not start with the Cold War and it did not end with it either. Both traditional and cyber espionage continue to pose a threat to British interests, with the commercial sector very much in the front line along with more traditional diplomatic and defence interests. Using cyberspace, especially the Internet, as a vector for espionage has lowered the barriers to entry and has also made attribution of attacks more difficult, reducing the political risks of spying.
  

I felt one of the most important messages delivered in the speech was contained within the part dealing with the Al Qaida threat:

It is interesting to note in this context that in the last ten years what might be called a "zero tolerance” attitude to terrorist risk in Great Britain has become more widespread. While it has always been the case that the authorities have made every effort to prevent terrorist attacks, it used to be accepted as part of everyday life that sometimes the terrorists would get lucky and there would be an attack. In recent years we appear increasingly to have imported from the American media the assumption that terrorism is 100% preventable and any incident that is not prevented is seen as a culpable government failure. This is a nonsensical way to consider terrorist risk and only plays into the hands of the terrorists themselves. Risk can be managed and reduced but it cannot realistically be abolished and if we delude ourselves that it can we are setting ourselves up for a nasty disappointment.

These extracts and the final quote, I hope will encourage you to read the transcript of the entire speech: Jonathan Evans' terrorism speech

Britain's Future Threats

Following my previous post: Defence of Britain, I read Thomas Harding's article: Strategic Defence and Security Review: four future scenarios and how they might play out in the Telegraph, which mentioned and in turn led me to read the Ministry of Defence Document: The Future Character of Conflict. Neither the Article, nor the Document make comfortable reading.

In the Article Harding look at 4 Possible Scenarios all an increasing number of years away: Iran 2016, 2018 Pakistan, Uganda 2023 and Baltic States 2023. To each of these he gives an opinion as to probability and Britain's readiness to deal with the situation. I do not doubt he has given considerable thought before selecting these possibilities as the ones to be published and he obviously has access to sources unavailable to me, but for the first two Iran and Pakistan, I feel the timeline may be shorter than he proposes.

The MoD Report is actually a much more sober and in many ways sombre text, less about scenarios but types of threat and why they might occur. This is understandable as this is an official document. In summary the report details:
Global trends that indicate increasing instability and growing opportunity for confrontation and conflict.
State failure, extremists, increased competition for resources and the changing global balance of power will dictate why, where and how conflict occurs.
The study concludes that the character of conflict will continue to evolve. Though it is impossible to accurately predict the exact character of the future conflict, in many future operations the armed forces are likely to face a range of simultaneous threats and adversaries in an anarchic and extended operating area.

I am not qualified to comment on the analysis and conclusions of the MOD Report, but as a result of reading it, I do feel that the chances of Britain's Armed Services being involved (whether HMG, or the Public wish it) in further conflicts within the next few years is inevitable. In addition attacks, whether by hacking penetration or direct action against the infrastructure of Computer Network Operations (CNO), or as I think of it Cyber War, will be an increasing factor in conflicts. Now that is a sobering and sombre thought.

Railways, Roads and Runways - Politics overriding National Interest

Over the Weekend I spent some time reading the Institution of Civil Engineers Report: Rethinking Aviation. This once again reminded me how pathetic British Transport Planning has been for the last 45 Years due to Party Political Interests being considered overwhelming important and the National Interest usually not only being an incredibly poor second, but often a even poorer third if a Cabinet Minister's constituency, or an important marginal is under threat. Couple this with Treasury and most other elements of the Senior Civil Service's distaste for spending money on infra-structure (bearing in mind where most of the Senior Civil Servants live, it is amazing any Infra-structure Projects, Major, or minor are ever progressed in the NIMBY dwelling Home Counties) and perhaps the current situation was inevitable.

My views on this subject have (at least in part) been covered in earlier posts notably: Politics of (Rail) Transport (October 2008) and High Speed Trains and Heathrows Third Runway (February 2010) and even in my Aviation History PDF Article on The Airlinks between Gatwick and Heathrow (Published back in August 2006 in the section: Current Situation and the Future - page 9).

My Post of October 2008 ended with the following:

Transport is too important nationally to be a political football. We have wasted at least 40 years, please, don't waste the next 40!

Well we are now over halfway through 2010 and I see no evidence that anything has changed for the better, just another change of Government pandering to populist politics! In my post of February 2010 I used the above Quote as my Highlight opening and then continued with:

In France where there appears a separation between National Interest and Party Politics so lacking in Britain, there has been a consistent integrated National Transport Policy, especially in regard to High Speed Rail for 40 Years. So the recent British political consensus on the need for High Speed Rail links and this cross-political support for some major projects has been a welcome 'chink of light'.

Unfortunately that Chink of Light was just the Head Lamp of onrushing Party Politics. So one of the first acts of the Coalition Government was to stop the third runway at Heathrow, Oh Good the National Interest loses again to doing what is popular rather than right! But then they are only continuing a tradition that stretches back to the mid-1950s and has continued regardless of the Party in Power.

In simple terms France (and Germany) make Strategic Plans that are then rolled out over decades, being updated as technology and national requirements change, but the basic plan survives all the changes in Government and proceeds on the basis of National, than Political Interests. In Britain, all plans however well structured and designed to meet long term national needs are not implemented as a structured package of complementary projects, at best they are cherry picked for short term political advantage and then argued over for years. Even if a small part of one plan finally makes it to being implemented, it sits in splendid isolation, locally of benefit but usually totally irrelevant to the overall National Requirement.

Railways, Roads and Runways are vital elements of National Infra-structure and the National Economy (to which you can add Ports, Shipping and thinking 'Green' the Inland Waterways) and should cover all regions of the UK in a unified long term plan. Almost every European Country thinks in these terms and those like France and Germany who have kept to their strategic plans have benefited whilst in Britain even the phrase 'Transport Policy' is an oxymoron as it is just one element in the Political Playground which has more in common with a primary school playground than mature considered policy making for the United Kingdom.

Crime & Punishment UK - Getting Emotive

That 'jolly nice chap' Andrew Bridges, the Chief Inspector of Probation has issued what his probably his last report (CIoP Report 2009-2010) before he steps down next year and in the process has raised a storm of controversy.
In the foreword, entitled What Price Public Protection? - No Trite Solutions he has taken the opportunity to raise some serious, but in his own words 'emotive issues'. The media has rightly picked up on these 'emotive' issues and I suggest both The Telegraph and Mail Online articles are worth reading if only to compare the coverage.

So what are these 'emotive issues'?

• Is the public prepared to accept the 'cost' of having more prisoners managed in the community, in terms of a proportionately small amount of reoffending, in order to achieve the 'benefit' of substantial financial savings, and knowing that people are not being expensively locked up for longer than they need to be?
• Describing prison as a "rather drastic form of crime prevention", he said it was time to consider dealing with more offenders in the community. He raised the "emotionally charged topic" despite accepting that risks to the public cannot be eliminated and that prison does reduce crime.
• He even said any "individual incidents" that result should not be viewed as a failing system.

The responses from various organisations were hostile:

• David Green, director of Civitas, a think tank, said it was "not his job" for Mr Bridges, who earns £96,000 a year, to comment on policy."I would have thought the probation service is sufficiently dysfunctional for him to find enough to do without adding to its problems by calling for the release of 2,500 dangerous criminals," he said. "In the end it does not come down to costs, it comes down to justice and public protection. He has taken a narrow view of this, a shallow view."
• Lyn Costello, of the charity Mothers Against Murder and Aggression, said she was "disgusted" by the comments. "You can never bring finance in to dealing with justice," she said. "If we are going to become a country that puts money before human life or a safe and peaceful life then I do not want to live here."
• Simon Reed, vice chairman of the Police Federation, said: "What price can we put on justice? I thought part of the criminal justice system was to punish and rehabilitate. It appears to be doing neither."
• Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "It is insulting to victims of crime and law abiding taxpayers who pay for the prison system to suggest that the public should accept an increase in crime if they want savings to be made."

Taking all of this 'on board I decided to look back at my major post on the subject of
Crime, Punishment and Politics - UK (November 2006) Whilst some of the points like Border Controls and seizure of Assets have been improved, much remains relevant.

However I have decided in this post I am going to raise some 'emotive suggestions' on the cost of Prisons and Reoffending:

• Always Deport Foreign Prisoners at the end of their sentence and inform the country of origin of their arrival - whatever danger they are in being returned to their homeland, is more than balanced by the lessening of danger to citizens in this country. This to be enforced even if their home country has and routinely uses the death penalty.
• While on the subject of the Death Penalty, hold a referendum to reintroduce it into the UK for second offences such as Murder and offered as an alternative sentence to those convicted to life without parole even if their first offense
• Those granted Asylum, regardless of their offense should be stripped of their British Citizenship and departed to their country of origin as per 1) above.
• Every privilege granted to a Prisoner must be earned by Good Behaviour and all TV, Radio should be delivered via Cable with what is made available determined by the Prison Authorities
• If a prisoner causes disruption, or is found to have contraband material, then all privileges are removed and have to be re-earned
• Bring the Scottish Prison System into the English/Welsh System and distribute certain types of prisoner across the System.
• Provide mandatory Education Classes for British Prisoners with Literacy Problems and mandatory treatment for Drug and Alcohol addition
• Provide large scale and almost open prison standard half way houses in all major cities for parolees who would otherwise be homeless. Paid work to be provided for those unable to find, or be placed in a job. Further Education being offered as part of the paid work providing attendance and effort can be proven.
• Prisoners who perform Paid Work, should receive the current Minimum Wage from which is deducted 50% to defray Prison Costs,
• Reverse the Care in the Community approach to those with Mental Health Problems and as this will take a long time beginning by building (or converting existing buildings) to secure institutions and moving these people out of prison and then over a decade moving down the scale of danger to sheltered accommodation for the non-dangerous. Yes this will cost money, but these people should not be in prison, but at the same time cannot function in normal society, leading them into crime.
• No one wants a prison on their doorstep so my suggestion of the Commissioning the design of offshore prisons for non-terrorist convicts should be considered. These to be built in British Yards to a Standard Design, which provides reasonable single occupancy cell accommodation for each convict (e.g. toilet, washing facilities, piped radio and small picture TV centrally controlled - no personal radio or, TV allowed), Intensive CCTV Coverage of all communal areas used by convicts, monitored from a secure control room and able to link pictures and information to a central incident room at the Home Office. Again this will cost a lot of Money but as a long term plan should be seriously considered, especially as eventually this could release land currently used for on-shore prisons.
• Overhaul the Parole Service, so that it provides proactive monitoring and has a zero-tolerance approach to non-attendance. Also overhaul the remit of Parole Boards, on the basis that the Danger to the public is the primary and overriding consideration.

Hopefully the above will result in a storm of controversy and I look forward to comments!

Politics of (Rail) Transport

Back in October 2008 I posted an Article on: High Speed Trains and Heathrows Third Runway which ended with:
Transport is too important nationally to be a political football. We have wasted at least 40 years, please, don't waste the next 40!

In France where there appears a separation between National Interest and Party Politics so lacking in Britain, there has been a consistent integrated National Transport Policy, especially in regard to High Speed Rail for 40 Years. So the recent British political consensus on the need for High Speed Rail links and this cross-political support for some major projects has been a welcome 'chink of light'. One project that seemed to be a beneficiary of this welcome change is the planned High Speed Link between London and the Midlands (part of a longer term plan: New high-speed rail plan unveiled BBC August 2009), which has been around for at least 5 years.

The Conservatives have broken the Political consensus on this project by commissioning their own panel of experts to look over the proposals, which were drawn up by High Speed Two, a public company. Now this panel has not yet issued its final report to its Conservative paymasters (gosh I thought all the parties were short of cash), but as part of the cross-party consensus the Labour Government offered the Conservative Opposition a preview of the forthcoming White Paper on the project and they refused.

The question is why chose this project?

Well Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary has decided to take the risk of alarming potential Labour voters by publishing a detailed London-to-Birmingham proposal in the white paper that locates the tracks to within five metres in urban areas and 25 metres in the countryside. Note: How refreshing a Government Whitepaper that actually details what is really planned.

But endorsing such a tightly planned route could spell even more trouble for the Tories as well because it is widely expected to slice through the Conservative heartland of Buckinghamshire, including a swath of the Chiltern Hills - one of 40 areas of outstanding natural beauty in England and Wales.

So the Guardian found a 'talkative Tory party source' who:
Acknowledged concerns that the route could go through key constituencies between the home counties and the West Midlands, triggering complaints about property blight from house owners. "We don't want to lose 10 seats backing a route blindly," said the source - Hmm also honest, but depressingly so. It's all about Party Politics and s*d the National Interest!

So there we have it National Interest No, Party Politics Yes and what I saw as a 'chink of light' that possibly would burn brighter by encompassing other National Projects has just been shut off.

For the Conservative Party this 'strategy' appears to have backfired (as it deserved to) as the both the Government and the Lib-Dems have been able to take the moral high ground:
First Norman Baker for the Lib-Dems talking to the BBC:
"This peculiar decision of the Tories coupled with Osborne's spending cuts strongly suggest that the Tories are trying to kick high-speed rail into the long grass." "The Tories can't be trusted with our railways."
Nasty little political kicker at the end there Norman and you were doing so well!

Now Lord Adonis:
"Full public consultation will of course take place on any route proposed by the government. The consensus I seek is on the principle of high-speed rail, so that it can be taken forward on a cross-party basis in the next parliament."

Amusingly since the Conservative announcement yesterday, the Shadow Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers has had to spend most of her time defending the Conservative line by denying they were "playing politics".
Sorry but you were!

As the General Election begins to looms, who to vote for:
Labour, Conservative, or Lib Dems - In each party there are a few (too few) with talent, a few (even fewer) I respect (and not always the same people), but actually the thought of any of these parties forming the next Government is for me depressing and the stuff of nightmares..

Links:
Department of Transport Britain's Transport Infrastructure: High Speed Two
January 2009 - Warning 5Mb PDF - Very Interesting

From the Newspapers
18th February:
Guardian:-Tory fears of vote backlash put high-speed rail route in doubt
19th February:
Telegraph:- High-speed rail route 'under threat' as Tories refuse to support Labour's proposals

Times:-Tories put high-speed rail line in doubt

A Bit of History Courtesy of the BBC:
Why put the brakes on high-speed rail?

The Politicians:
Lord Andrew Adonis:
Department of Transport Profile ,the Telegraph Profile and Wikipedia Entry

Theresa Villiers:
Official Website - Conservative Party Site and Wikipedia Entry

Norman Baker:
Official Website - Profile On Norman Clegg's Site and Wikipedia Entry