China is so obviously a ‘potential risk to UK safety or interests’ that if there is an ‘enhanced’ tier under our Foreign Influence Registration Scheme, China should be on it. We keep re-learning, but then forgetting, that China is always using covert means to extend its power over western countries, thereby undermining trust. Our government still cannot find the right words to express the problem because it is itself conflicted. This week, following the announcement of a possible infiltration of parliament, ministers tied themselves in knots over the difference between a ‘threat’ and a ‘challenge’. The truth is that China is both, and this should be officially said. Why, for example, does the government not tell us how Beijing’s United Front Work Department operates? Next month, I shall be host in the House of Lords to the formal launch of the charity UK-China Transparency (UKCT). This body has been formed by three alumni of Jesus College, Cambridge, disturbed by how their college untransparently built up its links with China and the Chinese Communist party. In its short existence, UKCT has established a project called Cambridge China Files and already investigated the dubious role of Confucius Institutes at UK universities. Last week it revealed the extent of Cambridge University’s collaboration with the Chinese military. Following the old Chinese dictum revived by the late Deng Xiaoping, but disliked by Xi Jinping, UKCT ‘seeks truth from facts’.

Something strange, by the way, about the infiltration story. It seems to have been leaked at a high level within parliament, rather than by government. Why? On the second day, the Times published the name of the person accused. Again, to what end? Getting too much out too early could prevent a successful trial.

I have written elsewhere about how the National Trust arranges its own processes to make sure the existing bureaucracy stays on top, notably by its AGM ‘Quick Vote’, offered only to members who take the National Trust’s management line. There is also a strange provision in the ‘affirmation’ which each candidate for the Trust’s council must sign: ‘In the interests of fairness between candidates, I understand that the primary source of publicising my candidacy will be to members via any printed or online election material issued by the National Trust. I confirm that I will not seek methods of publicising my candidature through organised or formal channels.’ This provision is unfair, because it helps only those council candidates (five this year) who have been endorsed by the Trust’s nominations committee. The ‘election material issued by the National Trust’ is a tightly edited one-off, which confines anti-establishment candidates to 250 words.

So the rest of us must help their cause. This year, the five most prominent anti-establishment candidates for the NT council have all been recommended by Restore Trust, the forum for Trust members whose aims are neatly expressed in its name. They are, in alphabetical order, Philip Gibbs, Andrew Gimson, Violet Manners, Philip Merricks and Jonathan Sumption. Each is independent and none is controlled (as opposed to endorsed) by Restore Trust. I was about to say that each can speak for him- or herself, but, for reasons stated above, that is not true. In the case of all, their enforced silence is ludicrous. In the case of Lord Sumption, it is truly tragicomical that the Trust wishes to silence one of the greatest jurists of this century. I am glad to say I can find no NT by-law which forbids me praising them. I know and admire all five. Each has different areas of knowledge – Sumption being so strong on the collections and the houses, Manners on what people now call the visitor experience, Merricks on farming and nature conservation. I know Gimson the best (he was deputy editor of this paper when I was editor in the 1980s). The one I know the least is Gibbs, but I am particularly struck by his determination, expressed in his promise in his authorised election address: ‘If elected, during my three-year term I commit to and will much enjoy visiting every National Trust open house and garden [well over 200], seeking out ways in which our offering might be improved.’ The readiness to attend to the lovely and important things the Trust owns, rather than chatter about public policy and saving the planet (i.e. attention to what you can directly assist rather than to what you can’t) is the sine qua non of a good candidate.

On the whole, there are far too many laws telling us what we must or must not do. Far too few people oppose these. Just occasionally, however, there really is a need for more legal or regulatory intervention, yet it never happens. I can think of two such examples. The first is the dog licence. This used to exist when I was a boy, but politicians did not dare increase its amount – 7 shillings and sixpence (37½p) – and so it came to cost more to collect than it raised. It was abolished. There has recently been a new outbreak of attacks by dogs. There is renewed demand to ban certain breeds, but stigmatising breeds is probably the wrong way to go. Better to find a licensing system to test each owner’s suitability. It won’t happen, however, because it would be so hideously unpopular. The other example is the driving licence. It is obvious that large numbers of people over the age of 70 are driving very badly. It would be sensible to make them all take a second driving test: it would prevents thousands of accidents. But it would also take hundreds of thousands of old people off the road against their will. It won’t happen, therefore, because it would be so hideously unpopular. Meanwhile we busily legislate for things of absolutely no purpose whatever, such as a ban on the import of hunting trophies.