w • w • s • edinburgh • cardiff europe international...

ConstitutionalReformJack Straw says changemust be incremental, butdo others agree?Dominic Grieve, DavidHowarth, VernonBogdanor and LordTyler debate the issues

City of CultureThe shortlist is down tofour, but who will be thewinner?

Digital BritainStephen Timms on theeconomic and technological benefits of innovation

Assisted SuicideMargo Macdonald MSPdefends her controversial bill

Praising NazismThe RussianAmbassador expressesconcerns about the riseof Nazi sympathisers

StormontIs the future reallybright for NorthernIreland after the recentagreeement?

Lord Oakeshott on Lib Dem terms for cooperation

March 2010, £10.00, j11.00 ISSN 2042-4167

GOVERNMENT GAZETTE

WESTMINSTER • WHITEHALL • STORMONT • EDINBURGH • CARDIFF • EUROPE • INTERNATIONAL

GO

VERN

MEN

T GA

ZETTEM

arch 2010

1:cenp1.qxd 22/03/2010 12:38

DEBATES,NOT DEMANDS...

Our ideas don’t come from head office. We work with manyof our 160,000 members in the UK’s schools and colleges tounderstand and address the issues that face them.

We take their experiences to the table when talking togovernment and employers. This is how we make a positiveimpact on pay, conditions and career development.

We are not politically aligned, but by working together we believe thatwe can come up with significantly better solutions.

We think that’s got to be good for education in the UK.www.atl.org.uk

Isn’t that a surprising thought from a union?

At ATL, we havefound that intelligentargument is by farthe best way topress our point.

15cordissoft:cenp1.qxd 19/03/2010 15:52 Page 1

GOVERNMENT GAZETTEFocus: Constitutional Reform

Jack Straw MP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Dominic Grieve MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7David Howarth MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Vernon Bogdanor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Dawn Oliver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10David Thomas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Lord Tyler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

AgendaThe Interview: Lord Oakeshott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,5Cabinet Office: Angela Smith MP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Culture, Media and Sport: Stephen Timms MP. . . . . . . . . . . 14CORDIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 17Cross-Border Cooperation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Culture, Media and Sport, Margaret Hodge MP . . . . . . . . . . 25Health: Norman Lamb MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform: Mark Hoban . . 30Media: Jason Beattie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Bribery: Lord Goodhart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Accountability: Jessica Crowe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,34Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Human Rights Watch . 35Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform: John Penrose . . 36

Government PagesHolyrood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Brussels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Cardiff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Stormont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Stormont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Europe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43, 44Dublin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Local Government. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

MiscellanyBooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Nigel Nelson’s Diary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Government GazetteMarch, 2010ISSN: 2042-4167

PublisherMatt [email protected]

EditorColin [email protected]: 020 7878 1002

Managing DirectorJonathan [email protected]: 0845 606 1538

Sub-editor/Staff-writerMarcus [email protected]: 020 7840 6095

Director of GovernmentRelationsDarryl [email protected]: 020 7840 6074

Advertising Sales ManagerHugo [email protected]: 020 7840 6096

DesignerPeter [email protected]: 020 7878 1003

[email protected]: 020 7878 1008

©2010, CPS. Printed by The MagazinePrinting Company plc, MollisonAvenue, Brimsdown, Enfield,Middlesex, EN3 7NT. The acceptance ofadvertising does not necessarily indicateendorsement. Photographs and othermaterial sent for publication are submittedat the owner’s risk. The GovernmentGazette does not accept responsibility forany material lost or damaged.

5, 6

30

40

GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, MARCH, 2010 3

32

3:Layout 1 22/03/2010 12:16 Page 1

4 GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, MARCH, 2010

Interview

LordOakeshott

Agenda

By Paul Richardson

When Liberal Democratsmet for their Spring Con-ference in Birmingham

they came under pressure to provideanswers about the course theywould pursue in the event of a hungParliament. In his speech to theConference, Nick Clegg denied thathe was a king-maker but insistedthat his party could be relied uponto be the ‘guarantor of good sense’in cutting the deficit.

The deficit is clearly a key issue inthe coming election and will be acrucial factor in any negotiations tosecure support for a minority gov-ernment after the election. MatthewOakeshott is Liberal DemocratTreasury and Work and PensionsSpokesperson in the Lords. Knownfor his grasp of financial affairs andsharp intellect, he has been animportant influence in shaping hisparty’s economic policy. I inter-viewed him just after the Birming-ham conference.

I begin by asking how the confer-ence has gone. “It has been a verygood conference,” he tells me. “NickClegg set out our most importantmessages. ‘Fairness’ is the mostimportant message of all and ChrisHuhne reminded us that you can’tbuild a fair society on an unfair vot-ing system. We are very muchfocussing on fairness and particular-ly on fairer tax saying that we wantto take everyone earning less than£10,000 out of tax.

“We also want to hit the rich.There is a terrible culture that hasdeveloped in this country in whichthe rich people say that tax is not forthem.”

Writing in the Spectator, AlistairHeath, editor of City AM hasclaimed that a hung Parliamentwould mean ‘chaos’, that it wouldsend the pound into free-fall andtrigger panic. Predictably, LordOakeshott does not agree.

“Nick Clegg put it well today,” hecomments. “The Conservatives arethreatening chaos if they do notwin. It is a form of protection rack-et. Vince Cable has accused theConservatives of destabilising themarkets. Single-party governmentssimply don’t guarantee stability. Acountry that has had single-partygovernment for many years isGreece and the Greeks are staringbankruptcy in the face.

“Martin Wolf in the FinancialTimes, Anatole Kaletsky in TheTimes, and Larry Elliott in TheGuardian have all pointed out that acoalition government might be bet-ter placed to take hard economic

decisions because it would havebroader support. Do we really thinkthat a government with a narrowmajority that had been elected byless than a quarter of the electoratewould have a mandate to govern? Itcould well be that government withbroader support would be betterplaced to take tough decisions.

“This is a very important questionthat voters need to think about overthe next few weeks. In my view hav-ing Liberal Democrats in a strongposition in the next Parliament willlead to greater stability and moreconfidence in the markets. The ideathat having Vince Cable as a majorplayer in a future Parliament with astrong influence on the governmentwill be bad for the markets is pre-posterous!”

Does either the Conservatives orthe Labour Party have a credible

policy to deal with the deficit?“The Conservatives want to cut

quickly but will not say how. Theonly spending cuts they have identi-fied so far amount to about £1.5 bna year. That is a weekend’s worth ofdeficit. How can they be taken seri-ously when they will not say whatthey will do? They say they will veryquickly decide after the election butthat is not very democratic. Wedon’t want Tory butchery behindclosed doors.

“Liberal Democrats have alreadyidentified about £15 bn of cuts inareas like public service pensiondeficit, stopping public sector payrises of more than £8 a week, endingpublic sector bonuses, and scrap-ping Trident replacement. We areactually taking hard decisions,which the Conservatives are duck-ing. They say they will be brutal butwon’t say how. We will have an opendiscussion about cuts as the Liberalgovernment did in Canada.

“As far as the Labour Party is con-cerned, we agree with them that itwould be dangerous, and in factmake the recession worse, to startcutting too early. We plan cuts in2012. Otherwise you could pushthe country into a double-dip reces-sion. But the Labour Party, like theConservatives, is not really offeringserious cuts. They announced bigsavings on the Consultancy Budgetwhich they said they were going tohalve.

“I have just discovered by askingParliamentary questions that theConsultancy budget is goingthrough the roof. The Departmentof Health has spent £450 million onconsultants over the past five years.The bill of consultants for HMCustoms is still going up. LiberalDemocrats also say there must be noring-fencing of expenditure inhealth or anywhere else if you wantto get the deficit down. That isanother big difference between usand the other two parties.”

‘In my view havingLiberal Democrats in astrong position in thenext Parliament will

lead to greater stabilityand more confidence in

the markets’

How the LiberalDemocrats candeliver stability

3xeng1eqPn//1d:03:2010//103 c//P. ae/1


InterviewA

genda

But can we wait to 2012 to startcutting the deficit? What happens ifthe government can’t go on borrow-ing money because Britain’s creditrating goes down? Will people over-seas want to lend to Britain if thepound is sinking?

“If you force the economy backinto recession that will make thedeficit worse. Unemployment goesup and you have to spend more onsocial security. What markets wantis a credible, medium-term planthat makes sense and that people aregoing to stick to. We need someoneas Chancellor of the stature ofStafford Cripps or Roy Jenkins whocan set out a plan for three or fouryears and stick to it and commandconfidence. The pound fluctuatesbut at the moment it is actuallyhigher against the dollar than it wasa year ago. There is a lot of scare-mongering going on. The gilt mar-ket has, if anything, been improvingslightly. But I agree that you need acredible policy for reducing thedeficit over the next few years.”

As well as public debt, we alsohave a mountain of private debt. Itwill be difficult to get people to con-sume again as long as they areweighed down with debt. Howwould the Liberal Democrats tacklethis problem?

“That has to be worked out. Wedo have too much private debt andpeople need to pay it off. But whatmatters in terms of the economy isbank lending. The nationalisedbanks, RBS and Lloyds in particu-lar, must meet their lending targets.RBS missed its lending target by amile last year and that was a legallybinding target on the basis of whicheveryone in the country put £1,200in to bail out this bank. We put£800 each into Lloyds and theywon’t even say by how much theyhave missed their lending target.What really matters is to get banklending going.”

Liberal Democrats are accused offence-sitting, of saying one thing inthe South where they fight Torycandidates and another thing in theNorth where they have to campaignagainst Labour. Does the party havea clear message?

“We have a clear policy of fair-ness. For example, we are proposinga tax of one per cent a year on thevalue of houses worth more than£2m. There are 80,000 of these inthe country. People who live inthem should make a contribution topeople lower down the scale. This isa very popular policy.

“We have not reversed our 50 per

cent on higher incomes but most ofall we are cracking down on loop-holes such as pension tax relief forthose paying a higher rate of tax. Wethink capital gains tax should beequalised with income tax. It isquite wrong that private equity mil-lionaires pay only 18 per cent ontheir gains. We also want to crackdown on non doms. People whohave lived here six years should payfull British taxes.”

We turn to Europe. Will there bea problem if Germany, France, Hol-land and Austria move out of reces-sion while the so-called PIIGS(Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece andSpain) remain in recession? TheEuropean Central Bank might thenfind itself having to raise interestrates for the sake of the northernstates at the cost of damaging theprospects of Mediterranean coun-tries.

“It is quite true that not all thestates in the Eurozone are going togrow at the same rate but I do notthink we are talking about a veryrapid recovery in Northern Europe.We are going to have differentspeeds but I don’t think that therewill be huge differences betweencountries.”

What about those critics whoallege Germany is too reluctant toconsume, causing an imbalance inEurope?

“Germany could consume a bitmore but they are not doing thesame as China which is piling up ahuge surplus which is destabilisingto the world economy.”

Does Lord Oakeshott still favourBritish entry into the Euro?

“Yes. It makes a lot of sense. Fromour point of view it would havedampened down some of the specu-lation that got us into debt. Itwould be very good for Britain if wehad a more European economy anddidn’t have the City of London sodominant. We would do better if wewere more like the Germans.”

Are we being too tough on Ice-land?

“I don’t think so. They very badlylet down the system of Europeanfinancial regulation. Iceland bor-rowed vast amounts of money fromBritish and Dutch savers and theyhave to take the consequences. If weare going to give charity we shouldgive to genuinely poor, undevelopedcountries.”

Lord Oakeshott has long spokenout against non-doms and intro-duced four bills in six years in theLords to clip their wings. At last thegovernment has started to listen.

Does he think they are hypocritical?“Yes. I had no help at all from the

government who were clearly fright-ened of Lord Paul. The Tories wereactively hostile. Now the pressurehas built up because of LordAshcroft and the government havechanged their mind and produced aBill that is based on mine and incor-porates most of my proposals. Imi-tation is the sincerest form offlattery!”

Martin Wolf has written that‘after 10 years at the Treasury, Gor-don Brown bears a heavy responsi-bility for the crisis in which Labourfinds itself ’. Does Lord Oakeshottagree?

“Yes, I do. Gordon wasn’t a badChancellor in the early years thoughhe did inherit a good economicposition from Ken Clarke. But Gor-don then got very arrogant and hebelieved that City could do nowrong. He dismissed warnings fromVince Cable and others about theoverheated housing market and hefailed to make many importantstructural changes. In his later yearshe was a very bad Chancellor. Inthis period he was consumed withjealousy for Tony Blair and schem-ing all the time to take over his job.He wasn’t running the economyproperly but was too focussed onshort-term political calculationsabout how he could take over thegovernment.”

What about the opposition. Wolfcalls them an ‘unknown quality’.How does Lord Oakeshott evaluatethem?

“I am very cautious about GeorgeOsborne. He is bright and a goodpolitical strategist but he has no eco-nomic or business experience at all.He has never had a job in the realworld. He doesn’t know what hedoesn’t know. I hear worryingreports from people in the City.When he visits them he doesn’tengage, doesn’t listen, doesn’t askquestions.

“One leading executive of a biginsurance company told me thatGeorge Osborne had been to seethem and after 20 minutes he wasn’tsure if Osborne knew the differencebetween an insurance company anda bank. CityAM had a poll showingthat more people in the City wantedKen Clarke for Chancellor thanOsborne. Vince Cable was closebehind Osborne. Given how Con-servative the City normally is that isquite a remarkable result. Less thana quarter wanted the shadow Chan-cellor as Chancellor. He is the Tory’sweakest link.”

P3xe3n1qgen 1d/0a/2010 103: 8 P. ge 1

The Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

Our system of parliamentarydemocracy is the product ofmany centuries of change,

some revolutionary but most grad-ual and evolutionary.

In keeping with our constitution-al traditions, the Government’sapproach to constitutional reformhas been a series of incremental, tai-lored responses to particular prob-lems, each with complex histories oftheir own.

There are five themes that capturethe essence of what the govern-ment’s constitutional reform agendais about: devolution, stronger citi-zens’ rights, greater openness, dem-ocratic reform, and reform of thejudiciary.

Our constitutional arrangementsreflect — and determine — thelocation of power in the UnitedKingdom. We have worked hard tobreak up traditional centres ofpower and make those who holdpower on behalf of others moreaccountable for their actions. Littlemore than a decade ago one Houseof Parliament was numerically dom-inated by members who sat theresolely by birthright – to whommerit or election as the route to thelegislature were entirely alien.

Since the removal of the majorityof hereditary peers in 1999, theHouse of Lords has become a muchmore active, independent andassertive chamber, defeating theGovernment on average 50 timesper year. Provisions in the Constitu-tional Reform and Governance Billpave the way for further reformingthe Lords, and the ultimate objec-tive of a wholly or substantiallyelected second chamber is now clos-er than it has ever been.

Overall, there has been a shift ofpower from Government towardsParliament and devolution hastransferred some power out of West-minster and Whitehall altogether –to positive effect. Devolution hasenergised political debate in Scot-land, Wales and London and policy-making has been improved by thecreation of the new political struc-tures, while the developments flow-ing from the Good FridayAgreement have transformed poli-tics in Northern Ireland.

The Freedom of Information Acthas strengthened the ability of indi-viduals to hold those in politicalpower to account, supported by anindependent Information Commis-sioner with the authority to investi-gate and override refusals to releaseinformation. And, if anyone previ-ously held doubts about the impactof Freedom of Information, the

experience of revelations over MP’sexpenses should have removedthem.

The Human Rights Act (HRA)placed the fundamental rights of theindividual against the state at theheart of our domestic law. I amproud to have been the Ministerresponsible for the HRA. The Actbrought rights home by incorporat-ing into UK law freedoms con-tained within the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights, adocument which British lawyershad helped to draft in the aftermathof the Second World War. We arenow exploring how best to build onthe protections provided by theConvention and Human RightsAct, from which this Government

will not resile, possibly through aBill of Rights and Responsibilities .

Our constitutional arrangementsneed to keep pace with social andpolitical developments. The two-party system of the 1950s is gonefor good, and there is a crisis of trustin our politics following the contro-versy surrounding MPs expenses.We need an electoral system thatsecures greater legitimacy for thepublic. So the ConstitutionalReform and Governance Bill alsoprovides for a referendum to beheld, early in the next Parliament,on the Alternative Vote (AV) systemfor elections to the House of Com-mons.

The key strength of our currentsystem is the single member con-stituency: it delivers effective repre-sentation and allows MPs to be helddirectly to account. The AV systemretains that strength, but wouldenhance it by ensuring that MPs canbe elected with broader support. Inan age of multi-party politics, thiscould enhance the legitimacy ofMPs and of Parliament as a whole.As with any constitutional changeof this magnitude, it should only bemade with the endorsement of theelectorate.

As I have laid out in several recentspeeches and lectures, we must har-ness the current momentum forParliamentary and constitutionalreform to further strengthen therole of Parliament and close the gulfwhich has opened between it andthe British public. The reforms wehave already made are real and far-reaching but there is more that mustbe done.

‘We have worked hardto break up traditionalcentres of power andmake those who hold

power on behalf ofothers more

accountable for theiractions’


Constitutional Reform

JackStraw

On the road to constitutional reform,one incremental step at a time

Agenda

P3xe3n1qgen//1d:0a:2010//1c312//P. ge/1

By Dominic Grieve QC MP,Shadow Secretary of State for Justice

The Ministry of Justice is sevenyears old. Created in a piece-meal fashion under Labour,

the MOJ oversees the most impor-tant and basic element of our con-stitution, the relationship betweenthe State and the individual.

We are all well acquainted withthe current debate on what it is tobe British. But suggestions as towhen to fly the Union Flag orwhether we should have a “Britain”day bank holiday are somewhat triv-ial against the bigger question ofwhat the 21st century British citizenshould expect by way of protectionfrom the power of the State, whatsafeguards there should be againstthe abuse of that power and whatresponsibility the citizen owes backin return. It runs through our legalsystem. It underpins the relation-ship between the judiciary and theelected lawmakers. It lies at theheart of our expectations of ourpenal system, and it is fundamentalto the argument as to how far thestate can override our personal liber-ties in the name of security oradministrative efficiency.

Conservatives believe that inrecent times the balance has shiftedworryingly against the maintenanceof the freedom of the individual.The Human Rights Act 1998,enacted as a key component of pro-tecting freedom, has notably failedto arrest that trend. The right totrial by jury has been diminished.There are some 1,000 powers underwhich the agents of the state canenter our homes without consent orcourt order. The police can retainthe DNA of the innocent and sub-stantial databases on the law-abid-ing public are being created with theintention that this information beshared where the public interest, asinterpreted by bureaucrats, requiresit.

Under Labour Governmentssome 4,300 new offences have beenintroduced to regulate our behav-

iour. Yet we have fuller jails than anyother western state due to highercrime rates. It is small wonder thatwe have seen a devaluation of civicparticipation, a growth in the cul-ture of individual rights and a senseof public demoralisation.

A Conservative governmentwould take a principled approach tosafeguarding our historic freedoms.We will replace the Human RightsAct with a new British Bill ofRights, which we will ensure is com-patible with the ECHR and ourinternational obligations. It wouldrestore the place of Parliament inprotecting our liberties: it wouldenshrine in law historic rights andliberties such as the right to trial byjury, define the limits of excessiveadministrative penalties, and pro-vide better balance where the rightsof the individual, which are notabsolute, compete with the rightsand security of others.

Our Bill of Rights would alsoallow British judges to develop adistinctive domestic case law onfundamental rights, based on ourown heritage. We will use a Bill ofRights to bring into one documentsome of the ideas of the basic build-

ing blocks of what British constitu-tional values are. It should become adocument more valuable and morerelevant to the average person in thestreet. As we develop our documentwe will engage a wide public debateof the principles affecting bothrights and liberties and ultimately,promote a sense of popular owner-ship of the concept, principles andcontent of human rights, which welack at present.

Labour’s attempt to clean upBritish politics has failed. We aredetermined to re-invigorate andstrengthen Parliament by restoring

public engagement and promotingaccountability. These changes can-not be affected by constitutionaltinkering. There is a widespreadsense that we are over-governed, towhich we will respond. We willreduce the number of MPs by 10per cent in time for the 2014/2015general election to ensure an evenratio of MPs and constituents. TheHouse would have 585 membersinstead of 650. This will contributeto the wider series of reforms to cutthe cost of politics.

In Parliament we will alsostrengthen the ability of legislatorsto hold the executive to account andbuild on the changes that we havesupported at the end of the presentParliament. We will ensure thatMPs are more accountable. We willintroduce a power of recall to allowelectors to remove their MP onproven wrongdoing. The salaries,expenses and office details of MPswill all be published online.

The public will be given aninvolvement in setting the parlia-mentary agenda. We will invite thepublic to participate in commentingon Bills in the House by introduc-ing a Public Reading stage. If a peti-tion is submitted to Parliament,supported by 100,000 voters, therewill be a formal debate on the topic.

We will ensure that the WestLothian question is resolved byintroducing new rules to ensure thatlegislation referring specifically toEngland or Scotland and Wales can-not be enacted without the consentof MPs representing constituenciesin those countries.

The challenges facing the nextSecretary of State will be immense.Of all the departments of State theMOJ protects one of the three mainfunctions of government – main-taining the rule of law. At a timewhen the majority of our citizensare disillusioned by the state of poli-tics, our prisons are running tocapacity and the maintenance of therule of law is compromised by fund-ing issues over access to Justice,there is much to do and we are com-mitted to bringing forward an hon-est agenda for reform.


EducationFocus

‘Under LabourGovernments some4,300 new offences

have been introduced toregulate our behaviour’

Putting power in thehands of the people

: 3xea31gnqn 12/0g/8010 1: 38c P. de 1

By David Howarth, Liberal Democrat Shadow Secretaryof State for Justice

Britain finds itself not in onecrisis, but in three simultane-ous crises – an economic cri-

sis, the end of which may or maynot be in sight, a crisis in statefinances, which will be with us formany years, and a crisis of confi-dence in our political institutions, acrisis that may prove fatal to ourability to solve our other problems.

The crisis in confidence goesdeeper. Trust in Members of Parlia-ment is very low (only 14 per centof the public trust MPs to tell thetruth, for example) and trust in gov-ernment in general is running about10 per cent lower in Britain than inother western democracies. This isnot a short-term phenomenon relat-ed to the expenses crisis. A HansardSociety survey has tracked confi-dence in politics for the last sevenyears and has found that confidencestarted low and has steadily wors-ened.

Political institutions that lacktrust, that lack all respect, will even-tually come to lack authority. If wecarry on in the direction we are trav-elling we will soon come to thepoint at which the legitimacy of ourinstitutions will come into question.That is why we need radical consti-tutional reform. It is not an intellec-tual game of imagining more perfectinstitutions. It is an immediate andessential political task.

The most important change thatwe need to make is to the electoralsystem for the House of Commons.As a result of first-past-the-post,Britain consistently elects govern-ments that are unpopular on the daythey are elected. The present gov-ernment was opposed by nearlytwo-thirds of those who voted at the2005 election. The next govern-ment is likely to be opposed by atleast three-fifths of those who voteon May 6. It is unlikely that such agovernment will have the politicalauthority to deal with the fiscal cri-sis, or even to resist the forces thatthreaten to break up the UnitedKingdom.

The constant and unabatedunpopularity of British govern-ments feeds the feeling of powerless-

ness and anger at politics. The ideathat first-past-the-post allows votersto throw out governments is entirelyfalse. In eight of the last 10 elec-tions, the people have voted against agovernment and yet it has continuedin office with an overall majority.

Liberal Democrats propose amove to the single transferable votein multi-member constituencies.STV retains the constituency link,albeit in larger constituencies (butwith the advantage of competitionbetween MPs, even MPs of the sameparty, to win support by their workbetween elections), but it also pro-vides proportionality. The result willbe an end to one-party rule exceptwhen a single party has sufficientpopular support to justify it. Gov-ernments will need a broader base ofpolitical support to make changes,and politics will become moreinclusive and engaging.

To back up electoral reform, andto concentrate the parties on thetask of coming together to governrather than on the next election, wealso propose fixed-term parliaments,removing the power of an estab-lished Prime Minister to call anelection to take advantage of a pass-ing favourable wind.

To complement the democratisa-tion of the Commons we also pro-pose the democratisation of theLords. We support 100 per centelection, on long terms, but subjectto a recall mechanism for seriousmisconduct or persistent non-atten-

dance. We also favour a recall mech-anism for members of the lowerhouse in cases in which they havebeen shown to have committed seri-ous misconduct.

We will also complete the reformof the prerogative, by transferring allprerogative powers currently exer-cised by ministers to parliament.That will include reform of warpowers and the restructuring of gov-ernment.

In addition to the changes wewant to see at national level, wewant to see a deepening of devolu-tion to Scotland and Wales and aradical decentralisation of power tolocal level, including proportionallyelected bodies to control the healthservice and the set policing policy.Radical decentralisation, combinedwith the introduction of propor-tional representation at Westmin-ster, will allow a big reduction in thenumber of MPs. We propose to cutthe number of MPs by 20 per cent(with a proportionate cut in the

number of ministers).In the longer term, we believe that

Britain needs a new start in its basicconstitutional arrangements. Wewill move towards a written consti-tution by establishing a constitu-tional convention. What comes outof the convention will be a matter ofdemocratic debate, but we favour,for example, the further entrench-ment of the Human Rights Act, amove that is only possible in thecontext of the formal ending of thesovereignty of parliament and itsreplacement by the sovereignty ofthe people in the form of a constitu-tion.

The Liberal Democrat pro-gramme of constitutional reform isthe most radical this country hasever seen. Unlike the constitutionalchanges introduced since 1997,they form a coherent whole, not aseries of unrelated fixes. But theirelegance is not the reason we pro-pose them. We propose thembecause we believe that they repre-sent the best hope for saving ourinstitutions from the crisis of legiti-macy they are currently staring inthe face.

‘The constant andunabated unpopularityof British governments

feeds the feeling ofpowerlessness and

anger at politics’



Pictured:Lib DemleaderNick Clegg

Forum A crisis thatdemands action

23xe3n0qgen 0d/1a/2101 02302 P. ge 0

By Vernon BogdanorProfessor of Government, OxfordUniversity

The three major parties arenow committed to House ofLords reform. The Liberal

Democrats have long favoured afederal upper house. The Conserva-tives favour a mainly elected cham-ber, though David Cameron saysthat this is a ‘third-term issue’, whileLabour is now apparently produc-ing proposals for a wholly electedchamber comprising 300 members.

These proposals raise many prob-lems. This article deals with just oneof them, the narrowing of thealready limited talent pool fromwhich ministers are selected.

A non-elected upper house per-forms many functions. It enablesgovernments to put tired or incom-petent ministers out to grass with-out embarrassment. WinstonChurchill once asked a colleaguewhat he should do about an incom-petent minister. ‘Give him a peer-age’, came the reply. ‘Better make ita disappearage’ retorted the greatman.

More important perhaps, theHouse of Lords as at present consti-tuted allows a Prime Minister tobring experts into government.Currently, a government, includingjunior ministers and PPSs, compris-es around 100 people. In 2005, 355Labour MPs were elected. Of these,some were serial rebels who wouldnot wish to become ministers; someare too old or have had their chance.Others may be incompetent. Theresulting talent pool is less than thatavailable to a small company.

Governments, therefore, appointoutsiders and give them peerages.The most conspicuous example isPeter Mandelson, made a peer andBusiness Secretary in 2008. But ear-lier, in 2005, Tony Blair had givenAndrew Adonis a peerage and a postin the Department of Educationwith a remit to develop city acade-mies. In 2009, Gordon Brownmade him Transport Secretary. Inboth posts, he has been a great suc-cess.

When he became Prime Minister

in 2007, Gordon Brown went fur-ther by appointing, as junior minis-ters in the House of Lords, peoplefrom outside the Labour Party. SirMark Malloch Brown became aminister in the Foreign Office, SirDigby Jones, a former President ofthe CBI, became a minister in theDepartment for Business Enterpriseand Regulatory Reform and theForeign Office, while Sir Alan West,a former First Sea Lord, became aminister in the Home Officeresponsible for security. They wereappointed to peerages, but appar-ently not required to join theLabour Party, though of course theyhad to take the party whip andaccept collective responsibility forgovernment policy.

But Labour’s current proposalswould prevent such appointments.For, by convention, all ministershave to become members of theCommons or the Lords. Admitted-ly, Digby Jones became a ministerbefore becoming a peer. But hisappointment to the Lords followedshortly afterwards. In October1964, Patrick Gordon Walker lost

his Smethwick constituency but wasnevertheless appointed Foreign Sec-retary. He was, however, required tofind another constituency and stoodfor Leyton in a by-election in Janu-ary 1965. When he failed to winthat by-election, he had to resign asa minister.

There are just two exceptions inmodern British history. In the FirstWorld War, Jan Smuts, a SouthAfrican, was appointed a member ofLloyd George’s Imperial War Cabi-net without becoming a member ofeither house. In the Second WorldWar, Richard Casey, an Australian,became Minister Resident in theMiddle East, outside the war cabi-net, in the Churchill government,without becoming a member of

either house. Such arrangements,however, are hardly possible in nor-mal peacetime conditions whenMPs demand the right to questionministers.

Britain remains unusual amongstmodern democracies in having sonarrow a talent pool from which tochoose the political executive. Inpresidential systems such as those ofthe United States and France, mem-bership of the executive is incom-patible with membership ofparliament. But, even in some par-liamentary systems, such as theNetherlands, ministers resign theirseats upon appointment.

In Germany, the federal systemallows ministers to acquire executiveexperience before taking office inthe national government. Of post-war Chancellors, all but three wereheads of provincial governmentsbefore heading the federal govern-ment. In Britain, by contrast, TonyBlair and most of his ministers hadnever held any executive officebefore becoming Prime Minister;neither has David Cameron.

How can our talent pool bewidened? The former Cabinet Sec-retary, Lord Turnbull, has proposeda new separation of powers inBritish government by which anyMP appointed to the governmentstands down from the Commons.That would also strengthen Parlia-ment, since backbenchers wouldcome to regard themselves as legisla-tors rather than potential ministers.‘Democracy’, Lord Turnbull argues,‘would be better served by ministerswho are less political and moreexpert but held to account by anindependent, self-confident Parlia-ment’.

Creating a new upper house can-not be seen, therefore, as an isolatedreform. It will make us rethink therelationship between governmentand Parliament. Indeed, it will haveradical repercussions upon ourwhole system of government.

Vernon Bogdanor is editor of `FromNew Jerusalem to new Labour:British Prime Ministers from Attlee toBlair’, published by Palgrave Macmil-lan.


Constitutional ReformFocus

‘Britain remains unusualin having so narrow atalent pool from whichto choose the political

executive’

Widening the talentpool in Government

23x2a31gnqn 1: /0g/e010 183e8 P. d2 1

By Dawn Oliver, FBA, Professor of Constitutional Law, University College London

In the run-up to the forthcominggeneral election all three mainparties are committed to a range

of constitutional reforms, and toopposing many of their adversaries’reform proposals. High on the agendasare:

•Human rights•Electoral system•Administration of elections•Reform of the House of Lords•Reform of the House of Commons

Many of these reforms ought not tobe matters for party political com-petition. Surely reforms to preventelectoral fraud ought to have beenput in place long before, rather thanafter, the forthcoming general elec-tion? Surely the House of Com-mons ought to be able to agree toincrease the power of backbenchersover the House agenda and commit-tee membership as against the gov-ernment without all the hassle thishas caused?

The fact of the matter is, however,that constitutional reform is in thewrong hands in the UK, the handsof the government of the day andthe government in waiting. Theopposition parties assume a role ofopposition to government proposalsalmost as a matter of principle. Butthey look forward to enjoying powerthemselves. Party is all.

Agreeing with other parties oncontroversial issues is regarded as asign of weakness. Mistrust is every-where.

The orthodoxy is that the Houseof Commons holds the governmentto account. But there is in reality –most of the time — no such thing asthe House of Commons: there isinsufficient sense of corporate iden-tity and corporate belonging, colle-giality, in the House to enable itsmembers to stand up to pressuresfrom their parties and to see them-selves as, collectively, having impor-tant functions that are exercisable

(i) in good faith, (ii) in the public interest and (iii) in a spirit of public service.

These are three fundamental princi-ples of the UK constitution, and

indeed of other Western liberaldemocracies.

The one time some members ofthe House have, recently, demon-strated some sense of corporateidentity and collegiality has beenover the expenses scandal, wheremany members from all sidesretreated into a bunker in agreementabout how unfair the row has beento them. The House of Commonseven passed a Bill to exempt themfrom the Freedom of InformationAct as they saw the disclosures abouttheir expenses looming. (The Billwas lost for lack of support in theHouse of Lords. What would thatHouse have done if it had beenelected?) But interestingly on March4 2010 the Commons voted by asubstantial majority to implementmost of the proposals of the Wrightcommittee to enhance the role ofbackbenchers in the House of Com-mons – despite objections from theparty leaders: here we can see theinterest of MPs in enhancing theirstatus after the expenses scandalcoming before their party loyalties.The group that is all MPs had astronger pull than the groups whichare the party of government and theparty in waiting.

The history of constitutionalreforms since 1998 illustrates thesepoints. Devolution — and the PR itintroduced — was introduced inorder to protect the Labour vote inScotland and Wales from going tonationalist parties: Labour will notintroduce PR for the House ofCommons, however, as that wouldundermine the Labour vote. (AV isnot a proportional system.) TheHuman Rights Act 1998 was intro-

duced to counteract what Labourperceived to be Thatcherite authori-tarian policies (and to protect theUK from embarrassment caused byadverse findings by the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights and dam-age to the UK’s reputation amongmembers of the Council of Europe,more worthy if also self-interestedreasons). Freedom of Information

was introduced as a reaction againstnew Labour’s experience in opposi-tion of secrecy under the Conserva-tives — but the initial very liberalproposals were watered down inresponse to the self-interested objec-tions of the civil service and minis-ters then in power before the Billwhich became the Freedom ofInformation Act 2000 was intro-duced.

All this is not to say that thesereforms have been against the publicinterest. My own belief is that devo-lution, the Human Rights Act andFreedom of Information have allbeen highly desirable reforms whichpromote the good faith, public serv-

ice and public interest principles. When we ask ourselves what

reforms will be introduced by thenew government after the electionand how should we judge them, wemust not overlook the followingsupplementary questions: What isin it for the government? Will itundermine the government? , andthey will be in it for themselves.They will not introduce any reformsthat damage them.

We should also ask ourselves whatprotection there is in the systemagainst a government with a majori-ty in the House of Commons abus-ing its powers over theconstitutional reform agenda? Thecourts? No. The Second Chamber?Often – yes.

And this brings us back to theproposals for election of the Houseof Lords. In my view that wouldproduce a House that was much lessable and willing to hold governmentto account for abuses of power,especially power over the constitu-tion. It would be more ‘legitimate’but less effective. That is a verystrong reason for the fact that par-ties who are looking forward tobeing in government support elec-tion.

‘We would be naïve tooverlook the fact that

constitutional reform isin the hands ofgovernment’



Focus A question of the protection ofordinary voters in reform proposals

103xeng1eqPn 1d/0a/: 010 1a381 P. 3e 1

By Mike Thomas

It is commonly assumed thathung parliaments must necessar-ily produce weak governments.

The unhappy experience of 1974-9,when a Labour (successively minori-ty, then tiny majority, then minorityagain) government travelled, viaraging inflation, to the IMF andthen to the ‘Winter of Discontent’is the father to this thought.

However, as with much of the restof our political system, nothing is soset in stone. What quality of gov-ernment we get, once an election isover, depends entirely on the actionsof politicians. They can act wiselyand in the interest of the nation ifthey choose. In the current atmos-phere of toxic contempt towardsMPs and the political process, theywould be well advised to put asidetheir party-centric instincts if the2010 election gives no one party anoverall majority.

The growth in numbers of Lib-Dem MPs and of the representationat Westminster of the national par-ties in Scotland, Wales and North-ern Ireland, make it ever more likelythat a hung parliament will be theresult of 21st century elections.

If that is what occurs in 2010, thepoliticians will have some choices tomake. The cynical political analystmight say: “the Tories can do a dealwith the Unionists; Labour can buyoff the Nationalists. If push comesto shove Gordon can hang on as aminority government if Labour’sstill the largest party; or Cameroncan threaten them to risk a financialcrisis by pushing him out, if he’s gota few more MPs than Labour andcan have a go himself.”

Charter 2010 believes theseoptions only have to be articulatedfor it to be clear how unpalatable tothe public they would be in thepresent climate of almost total dis-trust of politicians.

First, these stratagems would notachieve the basic objective claimedas a virtue of one-party government:a strong government capable of tak-ing difficult and unpopular deci-sions. As the Cabinet Secretary

pointed out recently to the JusticeCommittee of the House of Com-mons, any fragile narrowly support-ed government arrived at in thisway, would be weak and anathemato the financial markets.

Second, such a transparentlyunprincipled process would be pro-foundly unpopular.

Charter 2010 recently asked Pop-ulus to conduct a nationwide surveyof the voters’ reactions to a hung par-liament. The results are revealing:

Nearly nine in 10 (89 per cent)believe that, in the event of a hungparliament, it would be “in Britain’sbest interests for the political partiesto work together and try to agree onmeasures to address the country’s eco-nomic and financial crisis”.

Three-quarters wanted the partiesto agree that there should not beanother election for four years andfor the parties to work together.Only a quarter believing that a hungresult should be followed by: “a sec-ond general election to try to get amajority for one party”.

There is little comfort for Labouror the Conservatives in the poll.When asked what “would be thebest outcome for Britain in terms ofdealing sensibly with the country’smajor problems?” only 30 per centof those polled thought “A govern-ment made up of a single politicalparty but which four in 10 of theelectorate or less had voted for”.

Seven in 10 preferred “A govern-

ment made up of a coalition of par-ties that between them had beenvoted for by more than half the elec-torate”.

For the Liberal Democrats therewas a different message. About thesame number of voters (31 per cent)would support the LibDems if theybelieved they would hold the bal-ance of power in the House ofCommons as if they thought theywould get a majority (29 per cent).So it seems there is no need forthem to campaign only on whatmany see as an unrealistic platformof ‘winning’ the election. They wouldcommand just as much support ifthey talked openly about plans tocooperate with other parties in theevent of a hung parliament. And sig-nificantly more than they wouldreceive if people believe they would“only win a few seats” (17 per cent).

The poll was conducted for Char-ter 2010, who advocate that the par-ties should plan before the electionfor the eventuality of a hung parlia-ment. Full details of the poll are atwww.charter2010.co.uk .

Charter 2010 proposes that amulti-party supported governmentfor a fixed term of four years wouldprovide the stability to get to gripswith Britain’s difficulties. We urgethe party leaders to say now thatthey are open to this approach inthe event of a hung parliament andto agree how they would proceed toachieve it if it is necessary.

The political price of notresponding to the public mood afteran indecisive election, should beone none of them will want to pay.After all, one of the defining fea-tures of an election resulting in ahung parliament, is that is has notgiven any one party a glowingendorsement. The MPs in a new‘hung’ parliament should pay thatfact some serious respect.

Mike Thomas is the Website Modera-tor at www.Charter2010.co.uk. Hewas formerly MP for Newcastle uponTyne East 1974-83 (Labour and,from 1981, SDP). He is a business-man and founded the parliamentaryjournal The House Magazine.


Constitutional ReformForum

Politicians have towake up to the realityof a hung Parliament

112. Pa31gnqx 12/0g/P010 1P218 3qcP 1

By Lord Tyler, Liberal Democrat spokesman onConstitutional Reform in the Houseof Lords

After 13 years of a LabourGovernment, three mani-festo commitments, count-

less committees and commissions,and very substantial majorities forchange in the House of Com-mons, momentum towards anelected second chamber is stillbarely detectable by reformers’radar.

Recent weeks have seen LabourMinisters return to the issue,promising (once again) draft legis-lation, and spinning their radicalcredentials to the media, but atthis late stage in the Parliament,we know their press releases and‘leaks’ will come to nought.

It is only now as Labour loses itsgrip on the near absolute powerconferred by large Commonsmajorities that it is beginning tosee the benefit of a bicameral par-liament where one half cannotsimply be dismissed as illegitimate.

Conversely, the Conservatives –who seem to presume that theyshould be next to grab untram-meled power in the Commons –retreat by the day from their oppo-sition flirtations with progresstowards democracy in the Lords.And at present, they are evenreluctant to use their votes in theexisting chamber to defeat thegovernment, lest the Lords get inthe habit of being too assertive.

What is so astonishing about theGovernment’s approach to thiswhole issue is their willingness tolet turkeys veto Christmas. Irecently challenged the JusticeMinister, Lord Bach, to explainwhat on earth he and his col-leagues at the Ministry of Justicehad been doing for the 89 weekssince they published a WhitePaper with firm proposals forreform, which had been carefullynegotiated to ensure cross-partysupport. His answer was that somebackbenchers in the Lords hadn’tagreed with the White Paper.

If objections on the part of themore cretaceous elements in theLords were going to be an obsta-cle, what on earth was the point ofspending all that time talking

through substantial proposals inthe first place?

We secured agreement on thedetail of composition, of how andwhen elections should take place,term limits, retirement arrange-ments, you name it – all, appar-ently, for nothing. Did Ministersever dream that members of thepresent House, who assume theirright to legislate in any policy areaon account of their expertise – orformer expertise – in just one area,would roll over at the compellinglogic of the cross-party paper anddemand legislation to get the jobdone?

Surely not. If the Governmentwanted to make progress, it wouldhave had to show real convictionby introducing a Bill, and repeat-edly overturning defeats in theLords with their Commons major-ity. They are happy enough to doit when Ministers want yet moredraconian powers to detain sus-pected terrorists, or when theywant to wrest more planning con-trols from local people; why notinsist on democracy in both endsof our Parliament? If there wereever an issue on which the collec-tive views of the Lords itself oughtnot to be a first order considera-tion, it is on reform of the cham-ber – it is no surprise that a largenumber of Peers want things toremain exactly as they are.

Their reluctance to abandonboth 18th century heredity, and19th century patronage, alongwith modern ‘loans for peerages’as a basis for gaining seats in Par-liament, does not negate theurgent and persuasive case fordoing so. To people outside Parlia-ment, it seems bizarre that reform-ers should even have to state theirbasic case – that those who legis-late on our behalf ought to be cho-

sen not by party leaders but by thepeople. Yet within Westminster itis all too often necessary to reassertwhat would be considered a tru-ism in other democracies.

Most reformers want to main-tain the primacy of the House ofCommons, so the cross-party pro-posals for reform would have seenelections to the new chambercome in thirds – once every fouryears – with members sitting one,long, single term of 12 years. TheLords (or the Senate, as I would

call it) as a whole would neverhave a more recent mandate thanthe Commons. The position ofthe Commons would continue tobe underpinned by the ParliamentActs. We recommended that sen-ior Cabinet Ministers, and certain-ly the Prime Minister, shouldcontinue to be drawn from theCommons. Crucially, too, govern-ments would continue to rely onthe confidence of the House ofCommons. It would be extremelyunlikely that any party would everget a majority of seats in the sec-ond chamber, so the present bal-anced approach – where everyvoice is heard – could continue.

What could no longer continueis that age-old Ministerial refrain,‘the elected House must get itsway’. All too often, that is code for‘the government must get its way’.And whoever that government isafter May, that is no way to run aParliament.

‘What is soastonishing is their

willingness to letturkeys vetoChristmas’



Focus The time has come for reformingour outmoded institutions

Pictured:JusticeMinister,Lord Bach

1: 3x83n1qgen 1d/0g/: 010 1: 312 P. a8 1

By Angela Smith, Minister of the Third Sector

Over the past 10 years, thepace at which technology ischanging the world has

accelerated beyond all expectations.Desktop computers have spreadinto every office in the country andthe verb “to google” has even madeit into the Oxford English Diction-ary.

But the more significant changesare often taken for granted; homesas well as business have been trans-formed by ICT. Everything is quick-er, more flexible and moreresponsive. Changes have trans-formed financial services, the trans-port industry and countless othersectors. Instant messaging systems,digital collaboration and the adventof web conferencing have made theworld smaller and more efficient.

Public services are entering atransformational phase, as the Gov-ernment moves to meet the demandfor cheaper, faster and more sustain-able services. Benefits are alreadymore accessible with computerisedpayments, paying car tax online isnow simpler and quicker and broad-band access in all secondary schoolsteaches our children the skills theyneed to thrive in this digital age.

But the journey does not stopthere. In these economically diffi-cult times, we recognise the pressingneed to save. These fiscal realitiescoupled with a drive to moderniseled us to publish in January arefreshed Government ICT strategy,which sets us on the path to asmarter, cheaper and greener publicsector. This provides the backbonefor improvements in public services.It delivers the infrastructure thatwill enable us to adapt and mod-ernise ICT across the whole of thepublic sector and to deliver servicesin the way that the public wantsthem.

At the heart of this strategy is £3.2billion annual savings – enough tobuild 12 new hospitals. We willremove unnecessary overlapsbetween departments and avoidcostly duplications of technology.

The technology world is buzzingwith talk about ‘cloud computing’;it’s the biggest development in theway IT services are delivered sincethe advent of the internet, allowing

resources to be delivered over theweb rather than each organisationrunning them locally. Onceinstalled, the Government Cloud,or G-Cloud, will be one of the firstof its kind in the world, placing theUK right at the forefront of ICTinnovation.

This will enable every area ofGovernment to access multiple sup-pliers and systems, drivingimproved value for money andimproved delivery of services tothose who need them most. Fur-thermore, the G-Cloud provides theability to cope with surges indemand. Without the G-Cloud, wewould be forced to invest in costly

spare ICT capacity that would hard-ly ever be used.

Closely associated with the devel-opment of the G-Cloud is the con-struction of an online GovernmentApplications Store (G-AS). This isan online portal, hosted on the G-Cloud, for the sharing and reuse ofonline business applications, servic-es and components, which willdeliver significant savings.

G-AS will cut down much of thelegwork for government procure-ment teams and lower costs throughthe standardisation and consolida-tion of software. It will also enablegreater choice for buyers withincreased opportunities for customi-sation only where it is needed tomeet local requirements.

But the benefits enabled by ICTcome at a price beyond financial

costs. The computing industry pro-duces around three per cent of glob-al carbon emissions, as much as theaviation business. But unlike theaviation industry, carbon emissionsfrom ICT continues to rise as weincrease our exploitation of newerequipment and the capabilities itcan deliver. It is our duty to addressthis and lead the way to a more sus-tainable future.

Our commitment to the environ-ment runs right through the ICTStrategy and we have already madegreat strides. A year after welaunched our Greening Govern-ment ICT Strategy in September2008, we had slashed carbon emis-sions by over 12,000 tonnes, saving£6.8 million to boot.

Currently, public sector ICT sys-tems rely on a huge and disparatenetwork of data centres to storetheir digital information; CentralGovernment accounts for 130 datacentres, the police for another 80and there are countless more in localgovernment. This is costly to boththe environment and the publicpurse. We have made a commit-ment to reduce the number of gov-ernment data centres to between 10and 12 secure, resilient services.This is expected to cut power con-sumption by up to 75 per cent peryear and infrastructure costs by upto £300 million per year.

Effective sharing and use of infor-mation is central to the challengesfacing the public sector, whether inimproving health services, tacklingchild poverty or protecting the pub-lic from crime and terrorism. If weare to do this effectively, we must beable to guarantee the security of thedata Government holds. As part ofthe ICT Strategy we will deliver anenvironment where citizens andbusinesses can enjoy the full benefitsof Government information systemswith confidence in their security,integrity and availability. All publicsector ICT systems will incorporateinformation assurance from designthrough to implementation and dis-posal.

By modernising how public sectorworkers use and access ICT systemson their desktop computers we willtransform our public services, mak-ing them more efficient, we willshrink our national carbon foot-print and save billions of pounds.

‘We will transform ourpublic services, makingthem more efficient, wewill shrink our nationalcarbon footprint and

save billions of pounds’


Technology

Encouraging technological innovationwill deliver widespread benefits

Agenda

13:cenp1.qxd 1e/03/2010 12:2e P3ge 1


Digital Britain

Agenda

By Stephen Timms, Minister for Digital Britain

Over the past decade wehave become increasinglydependent on the digital

economy. Not only is it wortharound eight per cent of GDP inits own right, but the technologyand infrastructure it providesunderpins all businesses and serv-ices whatever sector they operatein.

Whether at work or at home wehave all come to depend on digitaltechnology to communicate witheach other. It has given us previ-ously un-thought of access toinformation and given birth to awide range of social networks thatallow us to share experiences andswap and create content.

In Britain, we are among thoseleading the way in this global revo-lution. However, we cannot affordto be complacent. There needs tobe a clear strategy to secure ourposition and, where needed, legis-lation put in place to support andprotect its growth.

In June last year, the Govern-ment published its Digital BritainWhite Paper, which set out ourvision. The Digital Economy Bill,now going through parliament,aims to enshrine in legislationmeasures to secure that vision.

We need to strengthen andmodernise the country’s commu-nications infrastructure. It isessential that we ensure that agood basic broadband service isavailable right across the country.In the Digital Britain White Paperwe set out our universal servicecommitment (USC) to ensure thatall homes in the UK can access aline capable of delivering 2 Mbps.This is the floor for connectivity,not a ceiling for ambition, and weare confident we will deliver it.

The centrality of our communi-cations infrastructure to our econ-omy and society has grownsignificantly since the Communi-cations Act 2003. We need to cre-ate the right environment tosupport innovation. The DigitalEconomy Bill is crucial for doingjust that. And we want businessesand individuals alike to benefitfrom the digital revolution in a fairand safe way.

The Bill also outlines how we

will make more radio spectrumavailable for next generation,faster, mobile data services. Inaddition, this year’s Finance Billwill include legislation for a 50pper month levy on phone lines toprovide - over seven years - £1bnin investment for next-generationbroadband outside the big cities,with the target of being accessibleto 90 per cent of UK homes by2017.

The Digital Economy Bill givesOfcom an additional duty to pro-mote efficient investment in com-munications infrastructure and toassess the nation’s infrastructureevery three years. This modernises

Ofcom’s role and will help toensure that we have a first-classand resilient digital infrastructure.

Britain has an impressive recordin making and selling originalcontent and building creativebusinesses. Our ambition is tomake the UK one of the world’smain creative capitals. The seriousissue of unlawful peer-to-peer filesharing is causing significant dam-age. In our view, there is nothingprogressive about piracy.

The UK copyright framework is300 years old this year. Designedfor an analogue world, it is often

ineffective at managing copyrightin the digital present. Film, musicand content companies must nowwork alongside Internet ServiceProviders to develop online servic-es that offer consumers the bestdeal for downloading content.And unpicking the knotty issue of‘orphan works’ – works whosecopyright owner is not known orcannot be traced – is an increas-ingly pressing need. It is essentialthat these problems are addressed,and that we find ways forward thatprotect both consumers and thecreative industries. The DigitalEconomy Bill contains our solu-tions.

Creating an environment wheredigital innovation and entrepre-neurship can flourish also meansensuring that everyone can liveand work online safely and withconfidence. We need up-to-dateframeworks for keeping childrensafe, and keeping the UK’s inter-net domain secure. The DigitalEconomy Bill also responds tothese unprecedented security chal-lenges, supporting adoption ofnew security models that ade-quately reflect the modern world.

The countries that take actionnow to support and drive forwardtheir digital communications sec-tors will gain a substantial long-term competitive advantage andmaximise the benefits to their citi-zens. Setting out a clear vision andacting on it is vital. With the Dig-ital Britain White Paper, the Digi-tal Economy Bill and the £1bnnext-generation broadband fund,that is exactly what we are doing.

‘We want businessesand individuals alike to

benefit from thedigital revolution in a

fair and safe way’

The pressing need to ensure thatcommunications support innovation

1: 3xP3n1qgen 1d/0a/2010 1231d P. gP 1

15cordissoft2cenp1.qxd 18/03/2010 17229 Page 1


CORDIS

Focus

PhilippeLebaube andMargaretWarton-Woods

By Marcus Papadopoulos

The Lisbon Strategy, an actionand development plan of theEuropean Union, aims to

turn the economic bloc into “themost dynamic and competitiveknowledge-based economy in theworld capable of sustainable eco-nomic growth”. However, in orderfor this objective to be realised theremust exist “vehicles” for communi-cating research information to therelevant audiences concerned. Andone such vehicle is the CommunityResearch and Development Infor-mation Service, or more commonlyknown as CORDIS.

During a face-to-face interviewwith this writer in Luxembourg, thehead of CORDIS, PhilippeLebaube, said that in a “Communi-cation of the Commission” in1988/1989, a decision was taken bythe research general directorates tocreate a body which would make

available information relating to theresearch activities of the EuropeanUnion, or the European EconomicCommunity as it was then called.Enter CORDIS.

Coming on-line in 1990,CORDIS became a “common plat-form for dissemination on the worldwide web” starting with on-linedatabases. Mr Lebaube said thatCORDIS continues to remain a“leading edge in the way informa-tion is disseminated”. For instance,CORDIS was one of the first servic-es of the EU to be on the web, evenbefore the Commission was withthe Europa portal. “We are linked toinnovation and research and so nat-urally we are very much alive to newICT technologies”, Mr Lebaubecommented.

All of the EU’s R&D frameworkprogrammes are covered byCORDIS, including Euratom, andfrom the Fourth Framework Pro-gramme to the current SeventhFramework Programme. The

themes that CORDIS covers arethose from the various Frameworkprogrammes, ranging from health toenergy to environment and climate.Mr Lebaube said that all CORDISinformation is published in Englishwhile top-level pages are in six lan-guages. For specific pages or paperedition, if needed, documents havebeen translated into languages suchas Mandarin at the request of infor-mation providers who use CORDISas a “port of information” for proj-ects they are involved in or promot-ing. Further to this, CORDISpublishes magazines (such as theResearch * eu supplements) whichalso convey information listed on itswebsite.

When asked what the mandate ofCORDIS is, Mr Lebaube said thatit is broken down into four pillars:

informing on funding opportuni-ties, disseminating research out-comes, the transferring oftechnology and communicatingwith the wider public.

Informing on funding opportuni-ties involves providing all informa-tion regarding programmes. So forexample, concerning the SeventhFramework Programme CORDISprovides information as to what itis, offers all the supporting docu-ments and publishes the calls forproposals on EU funding. MrLebaube noted that CORDIS “facil-itates the participation in EU fund-ed research activities”.

Disseminating outcomes fromresearch sees CORDIS publishingthe results of projects while thetransferring of technology involvesCORDIS showcasing, in the form

Propelling European projects into thefrontline of worldwide innovation

‘CORDIS was one of thefirst services of the EU

to be on the web’

18Ppea31gnqd 1n/0c/: 010 1PP: P 2xge 1


CORDISFocusof articles written by its staff, rele-vant projects including providingsummaries written for non-expertsand contact details.

The fourth pillar, which is themost complex according to MrLebaube, is enabling the wider pub-lic to understand and debate whatthe benefits of research and innova-tion are for society.

Funding for the work ofCORDIS comes from the SeventhFramework Programme, whoseobjectives are: Cooperation, Ideas,People and Capacities. The pro-gramme “bundles all research-relat-ed EU initiatives together under acommon roof playing a crucial rolein reaching the goals of growth,competitiveness and employment”.

For an organisation that producesa mammoth amount of work withstrict deadlines to meet, CORDIS’workforce is comparatively small,although its activities are mainlyoutsourced. Governing CORDIS isa Secretariat. But within the actualoffice of CORDIS there are 18 peo-ple, and these individuals are divid-ed into “Content”, which includeseditorial and publishing work, and“Service Developments”, such asmanaging the website; in essence,the technical aspects.

The groups of people who useCORDIS are as diverse as the areasit covers. Margaret Warton-Woods,head of CORDIS’ Content Sectionand who also participated in theinterview, cited the following users:academics, such as scientists, privatesector research workers, includingbusiness people, research institutes,semi-governmental organisations,policy-makers, the press, schools,NGOs and informed citizens.

Concerning the usage ofCORDIS’ website, Mr Lebaubesaid that he is in receipt of regularstatistics. Every month the websiteis visited by more than 200,000users who look at approximately 2.5million pages and who downloadroughly 450,000 documents. MsWarton-Woods commented thatthese visitors are all looking for“specific” information and that it isthe job of CORDIS to ensure thatthis information is always “contem-porary” and “easily accessible”.CORDIS is highly referenced bythird party websites dealing withresearch; this is why it is so wellindexed by internet search enginessuch as Google.

There exists a CORDIS ServiceManagement Board – CSMB-whoCORDIS is accountable to. MrLebaube said that this “governing

structure” is composed of represen-tatives from all research directorates,and this is how CORDIS reports toits stakeholders. On a quarterlybasis Mr Lebaube reports back tothe CSMB, informing its members,for example, on work programme,new projects, satisfaction surveysand of course budget.

When asked to name major proj-ects or documentary films whichhave been based on informationpublished and publicised byCORDIS, Mr Lebaube and MsWarton-Woods cited impressiveexamples. The film An InconvenientTruth by former United States Vice-President Al Gore and the GSM areboth based on EU funded research.

Mr Lebaube averred thatCORDIS is a vital organ of the EUfor communicating research whichis funded by Brussels. He said that:“CORDIS is a trusted, authoritativerepository of factual informationregarding EU research. If you arelooking for a project, its outcome, acall for proposals, then CORDISprovides the platform for discover-ing the information to this in anaccurate and thorough manner.CORDIS is the platform, the facili-tator for the research community.”

Regarding CORDIS and thefuture, Ms Warton-Woods notedthat plans are underway to improve

CORDIS’ “user-friendliness” andthis includes involving even furtherusers and citizens. For instance, shesaid that people who had written tothe help desk are now being askedfor suggestions on how CORDIScan be made more “user-friendly”.

Staying on the subject ofCORDIS’ plans for the future, MrLebaube said that the CORDISPartners Service could be a platformfor the research community to iden-tify potential partners for its proj-ects.

Lee lacocca, the former ChryslerCEO, once said that: “You can havebrilliant ideas, but if you can’t getthem across, your ideas won’t getyou anywhere.” Research is crucialto the economic and social develop-ment of society. However, without avehicle to communicate and high-light research results, policy-makersand journalists, for example, will benone the wiser. And so that is whythe role played by CORDIS isinvaluable. CORDIS is the linkbetween the research communityand those who will implement itsfindings or inform the public aboutits outcomes. But it is also a link tothe wider public who have a right tobe kept informed of past, currentand future research projects aimedat improving its overall well-being.

CORDIS occupies a prominentposition within the informationwebsites managed by EU institu-tions. And this position will becomestronger as Brussels places evengreater emphasis on the importanceof research to the lives of the mil-lions of ordinary people who makeup the bloc.

CORDIS’ foundation is set instone while its role in the EU isindispensable.

‘CORDIS is the linkbetween the researchcommunity and thosewho will implement itsfindings or inform the

public about itsoutcomes’

PhilippeLebaube

123xe3n1qgen//1d:0a:2010//1P32g//P. ce/1

15 April 2010, 7.30pm

DM Thomas on The White HotelChaired by Eva Hoffman

The fourth in the Library's lecture series, 'Writing Wrongs: The Nazi Era in Fiction', examining the historical perspective of Nazi era fiction.

at The Wiener Library, 4 Devonshire Street, London, W1W 5BH.

Admission is free but places are limited. To reserve a place, please telephone 020 7636 7247.

The Holocaust: Propaganda, Experiences, Memory

This new Birkbeck module is offered in partnership with the Wiener Library, the world’s oldest Holocaust memorial institution. Drawingon the Library’s rich and unique collection of primary material, we will engage broadly with Holocaust historiography, which has grownexponentially in recent decades. Close thematic foci will include Nazi propaganda, the experience of the Jewish communities, and thememory landscape of the twentieth century’s definitive crime. For more information on the course, please visit Birkbeck's website.

Time: Monday evenings, 6.30pm-8.30pm, beginning 12 April 2010 and continuing for 11 meetings.Cost: £175 (£90 concessions) / £200 (£100 concessions)

Run by: Chris Dillon, MA and Kim Wunschmann, MA

The course will be held at The Wiener Library, 4 Devonshire Street, London, W1W 5BHEnrol online via the Birkbeck website.

22 April 2010, 7pm

FilmTalk: The Ambivalence of Disgust – Jud Süss in Nazi Germanyby Dr Daniel Wildmann, LBI London, Queen Mary, University of London

What emotions did antisemitic films in the Third Reich speak to in their German viewers? How were these emotions linked to 'Jews' onthe one hand and to moral feelings on the other? Can these films be understood as an attempt to generate emotional and moral justifica-

tions for the antisemitic policies of National Socialism? Part of the FilmTalk series Jews, Nazis, Hollywood, this lecture investigates thesequestions by analysing the beginning of the film Jud Süss by Veit Harlan (1940).


Admission is free but places are limited and must be reserved in advance. To reserve a place, please telephone 020 7580 3493.

26 May 2010, 7pm

Jews in Football: Mediating between the Gentleman's Sport and the Professional Gameby Prof Detlev Claussen, University of Hanover

A special lecture by Professor Detlev Claussen, organised in collaboration with the Leo Baeck Institute.



17 June 2010, 7pm

FilmTalk: Marlene Dietrich: the Prodigal Daughter returns. A Foreign Affair (Billy Wilder 1948) by Prof Erica Carter, University of Warwick

This lecture takes the film A Foreign Affair (Billy Wilder 1948) as a starting point to explore the sexual and political ambiguities surround-ing Dietrich's star image, and considers her mixed reception by German audiences.



wienerad2:cenp1.qxd 19/03/2010 13:40 Page 1

Milford Haven Port Authorityis responsible for one of thelargest oil and gas ports in

Northern Europe. As a Trust Port, the regulation of the Haven Waterway

and its commercial activity is careful-ly balanced with a continued supportof projects that enhance social andcultural development.

With the support funding of theEuropean Regional DevelopmentFund (ERDF) through the IrelandWales Programme (INTERREG 4A),the Authority is leading a new part-nership that focuses on bringing eco-nomic opportunities to the coastalregions of Wales and Southern Ire-land.

Entitled ‘Rising Tide’, themulti-faceted project is adevelopment of the previ-ous locally focussed Inter-reg IIIA project, “CelticMaritime Connections”.Included in its multiplefacets are; the regeneration of coastalcommunities, the creation of a unifiedbody for maritime heritage in bothWales and Ireland, and training forsocially excluded groups in marineskills.

Rising Tide is a project that covers ageographical area of 6 counties on theWest Wales Coast, with a similar geo-graphical area in South East Ireland. Itwas conceived in order to create a tideof regeneration in coastal communi-ties in Wales and Ireland, using Mar-

itime Heritage and culture as econom-ic drivers for tourism, whilst recreat-ing a pride and ownership.

In a recent step towards developingthis agenda the Rising Tide projectachieved an outcome seldomachieved in Wales, as it broughttogether maritime event organisersfrom across the Country. Organisa-tions from local authorities to volun-tary bodies all came together under

the banner of Rising Tide toshare their prob-lems and issuesand to discusssolutions, agree-ing to unify inorder to achievethis goal.

The MaritimeHeritage of bothWales and Irelandis sadly neglectedand Rising Tide is

setting out to change this by creating abody that will bring attention to thisheritage whilst securing the associat-ed culture and stories for the future.Participation in UK and EuropeanMaritime Heritage forums will pro-vide the support necessary toimprove interpretation and highlightWelsh and Irish Maritime history.

Rising Tide will also offer peoplenot in full time employment, educa-tion or training the opportunity to

learn new skills in boatbuilding andmaritime traditions, whilst gainingconfidence and the ability to re-engage with individuals and commu-nities.

The official launch of the RisingTide project will take place on May20th, European maritime day.

For further information on RisingTide visit www.Rising-Tide.eu telephone 01646696371 or email [email protected]

This project is part-funded by the European Regional DevelopmentFund (ERDF) through the IrelandWales Programme (INTERREG 4A)

19milford:cenp1.qxd 19/03/2010 13:33 Page 1


Cross-Border Cooperation

Europe facilitates cooperation amongregional neighbour states

Agenda

By Marcus Papadopoulos

One of the guiding objectivesof the European Union is toimprove the economic and

social wellbeing of the lives of thepeoples who live within the bloc.Today, there are numerous projectsauthorised by the European Com-mission that aim to achieve this.And one of the most important isthe Cross Border Cooperation(CBC).

The CBC is a central element ofthe European Neighbourhood andPartnership Instrument and is cate-gorised as Interreg 4A (Interreg —‘inter-regional’ — being an initia-tive to stimulate interregional coop-eration amongst the 27 EUmember-states with an overall aimof promoting the Lisbon andGothenburg Agendas). Its purposeis to reinforce “cooperation betweenmember states and partner coun-tries along the external border of theEuropean Union.”

Contained within the CBC strat-egy are four listed objectives: •“Promote economic and socialdevelopment in border areas”• “Address common challenges”•“Ensure efficient and secure bor-ders”•“Promote people-to-people coop-eration”

The duty of participants in theCBC is to “analyse their commonneeds and to identify priorities andactions that are most relevant totheir local situation.” Overseeingthe programmes are local andnational authorities who have beenchosen by those countries involvedin the work.

Various obstacles, however, existthat can impede the work of theCBC. That is why the Europeangroupings of territorial cooperation(EGTCs) were created. Composedof member-states, regional authori-ties, local authorities and publicbodies, EGTCs “facilitate and pro-mote cross-border, transnationaland interregional cooperationbetween its members and imple-ment territorial cooperation proj-ects co-financed by the Communityor undertake cooperation measuresat the initiative of the Member-States.”

Funded by the European Region-al Development Fund (ERDF),CBC programmes encompass all

the regions of the EU and tackleeconomic, environmental and socialissues. One such example is theEuropean 2 Seas Cross-borderCooperation Programme. Createdin 2008, this programme involvesthe coastal regions of Britain, Franceand Belgium. The managingauthority of the 2 Seas programmeis the Nord-Pas de Calais Regionand this is supported by a technical

secretariat to “drive forward andmonitor the programme”.

Tim Caulfield, the project unitcoordinator of the 2 Seas pro-gramme, told Government Gazettethat: “Cross-border cooperation inthe 2 Seas area is of crucial econom-ic and environmental importance,which is why the Commission gaveits support to this zone for the2007-2013 period. Our main chal-lenge is to ensure that the projectswe approve are well coordinated anddeliver high quality results, whilstreinforcing the sense of proximitybetween some of the key coastalregions of Britain, France, Belgiumand the Netherlands.

“In the Programme so far, a totalof 29 projects have been approvedamounting to just over 106 millioneuros. Projects are supported underfour priorities: economic develop-ment; environment; quality of lifeas well and a common priority we

share with another Interreg Pro-gramme - the France (Channel) –England Programme — to developjoint projects with partners in the 2areas concerned.”

Another CBC programme is theIreland Wales Programme, whichinvolves development projectsbetween the east and south east ofIreland and the western coastalcounties of Wales. Simon Baily,head of unit of the Ireland WalesSecretariat, informed GovernmentGazette that there are presently 22approved projects and that thesehave attracted roughly €26 millionof ERDF investment into theregion.

Commenting on the aims of theIreland Wales Programme, Mr Bailysaid: “Ireland Wales seeks to workwith projects that will have a posi-tive impact on local communities inthe cross-border area … to promoteinnovation, entrepreneurship, theknowledge economy, climatechange, sustainable developmentand the provision of more and bet-ter jobs between the two EU neigh-bours.”

CBC programmes are not onlyhelping to address and remedymany of the challenges facing theregions of the EU but they alsohelping to enhance the bloc’s imageas a “family of European states”.Through CBC work, regions of theEU are being brought together towork together to benefit togetherthe lives of their respective peoples.

At a time of global economicuncertainty, CBC represents a flameof hope to the many people of theEU who have serious concernsabout their future security and well-being.

‘CBC programmes arealso helping to

enhance the bloc’simage as a “family ofEuropean states”.’

Current CrossborderCorporationprogrammes

: 1Pp83n0qged 0n/1g/: 101 02P: g 2xa8 0

INNOPOLIS: boosting innovation and competitiveness in university city-regions

Innovation is one of the key drivers of economic development and a key source of new employmentopportunities. Indeed, the Regional Innovation Scoreboard shows that 35% of the variation in regionalper capita income (at the EU level) can be explained by differences in innovative performance. Encour-aging innovation is, therefore, a key policy objective at the regional level. The scope for expansion ininnovative activity is considerable in areas with a strong higher education-based knowledge infrastruc-ture.

INNOPOLIS is a project, co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and madepossible by the INTERREG IVC programme, which aims to identify and disseminate best practice ininnovation policy in university city-regions. More specifically, the project focuses on regional policy thatcan facilitate knowledge transfer between universities and enterprises. It involves universities and region-al authorities in four diverse European university city-regions: Greater Manchester, Helsinki, Lodz andThessaloniki.

The project is led by the University of Salford, with its strong record of engagement with enterprises,and also involves the North West Development Agency. This three year project, worth over 1.5 millionEuros, will map existing policies and identify best practice. The project will also study the case of the USwhere policies have been particularly successful in supporting knowledge transfer. The results of theproject will include a policy simulation and a guide which will be used by policy makers in transferringbest policy practice and developing their skills in this area. Diffusion of these outputs will be achievedthrough a multitude of dissemination activities.

Project leader Prof Christos Kalantaridis from Salford’s Centre for Enterprise & Innovation Researchsays: “Encouraging innovation is central to the success of regions in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Akey challenge for policy makers, within this context, is how to tap into the knowledge endowments ofuniversities, and encourage closer co-operation between academia and enterprises. INNOPOLIS aimsto identify and explore the transferability of best policy practice from the EU and the US, to universitycity-regions in the UK. “

For more information:Elena Vasilieva at Centre for Enterprise & Innovation Research, University of Salford

[email protected]

21salford:cenp1.qxd 19/03/2010 13:35 Page 1

• Communication

• Social Interaction

• Flexibility of thought andbehaviour

Often accompanied by differ‐ences in how sensory informa‐tion is processed. The lifelongmanifestation of ASD can chal‐lenge services and practition‐ers to examine theirprofessional practices and

beliefs. Individuals with ASD can be,

and have been, highly success‐ful in their chosen careers andlive independently in their owncommunities, but others maynot lead completely independ‐ent lives. Hence a variety ofsupport structures and plannedopportunities need to be estab‐lished so individuals with ASDcan achieve their potential postschool. However, levels ofunderstanding and awarenessabout ASD amongst typical postschool providers (careers, high‐er and further education;leisure services and employers)are often minimal or misin‐formed.

Deis‐Cyfle! aims to increaseemployability and providegreater opportunities forschool leavers with ASD by pro‐viding a greater knowledge andunderstanding of Autism. Thiswill be achieved, through thecollaboration of The Irish Socie‐ty for Autism and AutismCymru, by developing a 3‐daytraining package and self evalu‐ation tool. These materials will

be tailored for secondary teach‐ers, leisure and higher/furthereducation providers andemployers of people withAutism. The co‐operationbetween the partners will bringtogether their complementaryskills of training, knowledgeand practice expertise toenhance the secondary schoolexperiences of many with ASDand aim for an achievable edu‐cational and employmentfuture for them.

Ultimately, the project aimsto enable individuals with ASDto achieve their potential in theworld of jobs, leisure and edu‐cation.

The Project’s main activitiesare constructed around train‐ing/evaluation/research activi‐ties in an Ireland/Wales areaprescribed by the EuropeanRegional Development Fund .

This article reflects the part‐ners’ views and the Programmeauthorities are not liable forany use that may be made of theinformation contained herein.

The Deis‐Cyfle! Project ‐ Developing Skills for Employmentand Educational Integration is a partnership between 2national charities for autistic spectrum disorders (ASD) –Autism Cymru and The Irish Society for Autism.

Autism Cymru as the lead partner has built up a strategicand political profile since its creation in 2001.

The Irish Society for Autism has built up a portfolio ofservices for people with ASD and has worked to serve par‐ents and families of people on the spectrum since 1963.

The rising incidence in the diagnosed cases of ASD world‐wide (1:100 , Baird et al. 2006) has led to a large demand inawareness and skills training for a wide variety of practition‐ers and others. The medical diagnosis of ASDs is assessedupon significant impairments in the areas of:‐

The Deis-Cyfle! Project - Developing Skills for Employment and EducationalIntegration is a partnership between 2 national charities for autistic spectrum

disorders (ASD) – Autism Cymru and The Irish Society for Autism.

Dean Beadle a young man with Asperger Syndrome ata Deis Cyfle event.

Members of the Deis Cyfle steering group

For more information on the Deis Cyfle project please contact Lynn Plimleyon +44 (0) 7775 428114 or [email protected]

22deiscyfle:cenp1.qxd 22/03/2010 17:11 Page 1

Europe's largest public library coupled with a new state-of-the-art campus for the arts and media faculties ofBirmingham City University are due to open during the

summer of 2013, the year of Big City Culture.

Birmingham knows it can deliver. Thrust into the limelightfollowing the multi-million pound find of Anglo-Saxon gold, itsmuseum ably demonstrated that it could quickly mobilisestaff and resources to deal with the thousands of visitorsthat descended foraglimpse. The40,000 people who visitedduring the 19 days came from around the globe.

Birmingham is a city full of potential. Its population of amillion residents, the second most diverse in Europe, is setto rise by 10% within the next 10 years and it has theyoungest profile of any major city in Europe. It has theopportunity to set a benchmark for cultural engagement

which is better aligned to the needs of a modern citypopulation and which takes full advantage of digitaltechnology in its creation and distribution. Big Blank Canvasis a project which enables residents toshape the futureofcultural provision to their own agenda. In addition, asignificant part of Birmingham's 2013 programme will bedevised, curated and managed by young people.

A vibrant and inclusive city which has evolved from a richindustrial past to a centre of digital media, entertainment andsport Birmingham's remaining manu- facturing base hasbeen badly hit by the economic downturn and it now has thehighest unemployment in the country.

The relationship between culture, creativity, innovation andthe new economy which will sustain the city into the nextcentury is a major focus of the Big City Culture programe.

Birmingham's bid to be the UK City of Culture comes as nosurprise as it has always been a big city with big plans

Big city plans

28birm:cenp1.qxd 22/03/2010 12:11 Page 1

Sheffield is already a great city for culture - with everythingfrom our theatres and galleries to our international music pedi-gree, our track record in delivering major events and most of allthe passion in the city for everyone to get involved in arts andculture.

However, we still have some way to go and our bid is aimed atcreating a step change in cultural participation, tourism and thecreative economy and ensuring a lasting legacy.

The city has embarked on the biggest-ever 'conversation' withthe cultural sector and the wider public about our bid. We alsointend our programme to be co-produced with some ofSheffield's and the world's leading artists - to ensure that ourprogramme is made in the city but is world class at the sametime.

To Leader of Sheffield City Council, Councillor Paul Scriven,choosing Sheffield would recognise its support for the arts andcultural activities over the years but also offer a long lastinglegacy for the city, the region and the UK.

He added: “Sheffield is a city where great things can and dohappen. Itʼs a city that is not loud and brash but has a strongpride that resonates. People are waking up to the potentialSheffield offers and in the last 12 months weʼve been namedas a Candidate Host City for Englandʼs World Cup bid, hostedsome of the biggest and best names in entertainment from U2and BBC Sports Personality of the Year to home grown successes such as Music City – hailed as an ʻurbanGlastonburyʼ, Galvanize – celebrating artisans and craftsman-ship in metal and silverwork and Grin up North, the northʼsbiggest comedy festival attracting major British comedians. We believe Sheffield has the perfect mix to do the title of UKCity of Culture justice.”

Councillor Sylvia Dunkley, Sheffield's Cabinet Member forCulture, Sport and Tourism, added: "Sheffield is a melting potof cultural creativity and innovation. From our diverse range ofperformers within our communities, such as the sword dancersin Grenoside and Handsworth, to our nationally recognised theatres complex, this is a city that lives, breathes and makes culture.

“We want to prove that in Sheffield culture is not limited to aselect few, but is something which we all take part in every day.Whether it's through our superb music, our popular literary festival, our celebration of the city's metalwork heritage orexcellent exhibitions at our galleries and museums, we wantSheffield to be a city where people see culture as part of theireveryday experience, and winning the City of Culture Bid wouldhelp us achieve this."

Sean Bean, who is from Sheffield and has excelled in the inter-national cultural realm, endorses the Sheffield bid: “Sheffieldboasts an impressive array of cultural facilities, events and celebrations and is renowned for its diverse festivals aroundthe city. As a city that prides itself on its history of creating culture, Sheffield has the passion and the capacity to make ithappen. My message to the city is good luck with the shortlist, Ithink you've got the ability to go all the way and win it!”

Created and Made in Sheffield

sheffi:cenp1.qxd 22/03/2010 12:28 Page 1

By Margaret Hodge, Minister for Culture

Last month, I had the pleasureof announcing, live on BBCRadio 4, that the race to host

the first UK City of Culture wasentering its final phase, as our 14finalists were shortlisted to a fantas-tic four. Birmingham, Derry/Lon-donderry, Norwich and Sheffield allmade the cut – and now they arepreparing their final bids in aneffort to achieve the coveted title ofUK City of Culture 2013.

We got the inspiration for ourcompetition by watching the wayLiverpool thrived in 2008, when itwas European Capital of Culture.We loved the way it went fromstrength to strength -- before, dur-ing and after they were bestowed thehonour. Liverpool proved all thegloomy naysayers – and there werequite a few - gloriously wrong. And,over the course of 2008, they did usproud.

The city held 7,000 events; host-ed 13 royal visits; had over one mil-lion visitors to the Tate Liverpool(an increase of 68 per cent); enjoyed3.5 million new visitors; saw a£200m media event; and generated£800m worth of economic benefitto the Liverpool City Region.

But we didn’t like the fact thatwith an expanded European Union,we might have to wait until 2032 atthe earliest to be able to host theCapital of Culture again. So, myDepartment launched its own com-petition – open to the whole of the

UK – to build on Liverpool’s success– and bring the competition closerto home, where smaller cities upand down the country could shoutabout their cultural achievementsand dreams.

And that’s what they are begin-ning to do with much more convic-tion. Culture is something that wein the UK are incredibly good at,but we have long underplayed our

success in making this country ahub of cultural excellence. From theshores of Weymouth to the spires ofDurham, history and culture areingrained in our national conscious-ness.

Winning this competition meansthat the city and its inhabitants willbenefit in a tangible way. Not onlydoes it become a focus for nationalattention in 2013, but it could hosthigh-profile media events includingthe Turner Prize, BBC Sports Per-sonality of the Year, The Brits andthe RIBA Stirling Prize as part oftheir year in the spotlight. The long-term goal is for successful cities tosee economic and social benefitsflow in, leaving a lasting legacy.

As we know, culture is not anamorphous concept: it is really atthe heart of everything we do.Again, I think we can look to Liver-pool as an example of a city thatreally captured the essence of theaward in a number of ways. It hasthe largest collection of Grade IIlisted buildings outside London; ithas one of the best collections ofEuropean art; and, of course, it’s the

birthplace of the Beatles. Aside from these things however,

there was a sense during their bid-ding phase that the whole city gotinvolved with and behind the bid towin Capital of Culture 2008. It gen-erated a real sense of communityand spirit. And that is as importantas anything else. Getting the com-munity behind these bids - encour-aging and inspiring people to lookat culture in a new and innovativeway - is in many ways the real prizeof this competition.

So, what happens next? Well, theindependent panel will assess thefinal four bids, and make a recom-mendation for UK City of Culture2013. A key judgement for theselection team has been the extentof the step change a city sets out toachieve and I’m pleased that thefinal four cities have all had anambitious, but credible vision forwhat it will achieve both in the yearand afterwards. There is no doubtthat, in each city there is much tocelebrate culturally, but there canonly be one winner, and it will be aclose race to the finish.

‘The long-term goal isfor successful cities to

see economic and socialbenefits flow in, leaving

a lasting legacy’


City of Culture

Liverpool Skyline

Fine cities that could win the covetedUK City of Culture accolade

Agenda

2 3x83n1qgen//1d:0g:2010//12320//P. a8/1

“We don’t just have Ireland’s oldest walls and youngest people,there’s an ambitious attitude to life that sets us apart. This city hasa unique story to tell about our people, our place, our past and ourfuture and during 2013 we will share this story with creativity, ener-gy and style”.

While our bid is around the themes of people, place, past to futureit also focuses on celebration and inquiry. Derry~Londonderry willbe celebrating significant anniversaries such as the 400th anniver-sary of the Plantation of Ulster and the building of the Walled Cityof Derry in 1613 by the Livery Companies of London. Appealing toour unique local and international connections, adding to our exist-ing list of festivals and events and bringing international artists topartner with and showcase our local talent is central to our culturalbid. Celebration is also joined by an Inquiry theme to explore issuesthat go to the heart of our communities through culture and creativ-ity.

And that’s just part of the story explains Town Clerk and ChiefExecutive of Derry City Council, Valerie Watts:

“The will to succeed and to go that extra mile is an essential ingre-dient of what makes us different. We’re setting a cracking pace as athriving regional hub,from over £100million ofplanned investment inregeneration projects to acreative industry sectorthat brings internationalacclaim; we’ve emerged asa switched-on creative citythat thrives on its connec-tions across the globe.Understanding these cre-ative connections is whatmakes us culturallyunique and the essence ofour compelling story”.

Winning the accolade ofUK City of Culture 2013 isa perfect opportunity toshowcase creativity andtalent both locally andinternationally. Strongpartnership exists to gen-erate ideas and buildupon opportunities forlocal communities,tourism and investment. Derry~Londonderry has a reputation as acreative and innovative place for the arts and business. This senseof creativity is essential for success and there are many cultural,community and business stakeholders who have already advancedideas and creative thinking towards a successful bid.

“The opportunities are endless,” explains Aideen McGinley, ChiefExecutive of Ilex. “There’s a real sense of opportunity and fun surrounding our bidwith an easy sense of engagement that will help us express theuniqueness of our people and place. We have already received somany innovative ideas to develop a rich and diverse cultural experi-ence and deliver this accolade for our City and Northern Ireland”.

The bid partnership of Derry City Council, Ilex urban regenerationcompany, Strategic Investment Board, cultural and business part-ners are confident that Derry~Londonderry’s will to exploit itsundiscovered potential is taking this shortlisted candidate to evengreater heights. With the final bid deadline just a heartbeat away,there’s an energy and ambition pulsing through the city’s veins, thefuture couldn’t look brighter.

Visit www.cityofculture2013.com for more information.

Derry~Londonderry’s bid for UK City of Culture 2013 signals a city thatis on the cusp of change with ambitions to build local confidence, reachinner city communities, create international appeal, boost tourism and

create new sustainable jobs. The City has a compelling legacy and aunique story to tell explains Mayor Cllr Paul Fleming:

26derry:cenp1.qxd 19/03/2010 13:46 Page 1

Culture is already helping to drive social and economicregeneration in Norwich and the bid to become UK City ofCulture 2013 will be used to transform the city. Our vision is for a year-long programme of diverse events which will not only impact on the city centrebut on all neighbourhoods and communities, and have a lasting legacy.

Norwich is steeped in history and heritage. Norwich Cathedral, Norwich Castle and The Guildhall are just three of theNorwich 12 – a unique set of landmark buildings in the city – there are 1500 listed buildings within the city walls andmore pre-reformation churches than in any city north of the Alps. Stroll around Norwich and you will discover a compactand very walkable network of medieval streets, filled with character.

However, while its cultural heritage is well documented, a better kept secret is its tradition of radical and independentthought and the cauldron of cultural activity bubbling away beneath its more familiar surface. A thriving undergroundscene exists, with music, visual arts, poetry and live literature events continually springing up in small arts venues. As wellas the annual Norfolk & Norwich Festival, the oldest city-based arts festival in the country, there are other carnivals andoutdoor events such as the Lord Mayor’s Celebration which mean the city’s social calendar is always a busy and communi-ty-focused one. The Theatre Royal is one of the most successful in the country and the presence of other venues ensures awide range of arts events throughout the year.

Shoppers travel miles to visit Norwich, which has two major shopping centres and is one of theUK’s top 10 retail centres. Hundreds of small, independent shops, bars and cafes mean-

while give it a distinctive and creative atmosphere, many of which can be found in aquarter known as The Lanes.

Norwich is also a hotbed of literary talent and a centre for the visual arts.The Writers’ Centre Norwich was established following the 2003 bid to

become European Capital of Culture and the city is now bidding tobecome the first ever English UNESCO City of Literature. The

Sainsbury Centre for the Visual Arts has won international acclaimand there is a dedicated University College of the Arts. Pop artistColin Self is a native of the city and continues to live and workhere.

As for why Norwich is well placed to become the UK City ofCulture, Stephen Fry says: “Norwich is a city with a long historyand a distinguished one at that. But it is not a chocolate boxtown, rather a thriving, living city, and a contemporary placewhich has consistently moved ahead in its own distinctive, radicaland independent way.

“With many ‘firsts’ already to its credit, including Julian ofNorwich, the first woman to write a book in English, the first pedes-

trianised street, London Street, and Harriet Martineau, the country'sfirst female journalist, I fervently hope to see Norwich as the first UK

City of Culture in 2013.”

Norwich - a f ine cultural ci ty

27norwich:cenp1.qxd 22/03/2010 11:47 Page 1

By John Penrose MP, Shadow Business Minister

Since 1997, Britain has seenan unprecedented numberof new regulations. The

British Chamber of Commerce’sburdens barometer uses the Gov-ernment’s own figures to calcu-late the cost of red tape onBritain’s economy by £76bn since1998. This exponential increasein regulation has not only hitbusinesses (particularly smallbusinesses), but has alsoincreased the bureaucratic bur-den on individuals, charities,public bodies and social enter-prises. It has hindered innovationand social action and has also ledto a rapid increase in governmentspending on administration andinspection regimes. And it willmake our economic recoveryfrom recession far weaker andslower than it should be.

Of course, some regulations area necessary and desirable part oflife. We all want better regulationof banks and financial services,for example. The challenge is todistinguish good laws from badred tape – a test that successivegovernments have woefullyfailed. Politically, the problemisn’t convincing people that weneed better regulation – every-body hates red tape – but rather

finding effective mechanisms tostop it.

We need to create a fundamen-tal culture shift amongst policy-makers in Whitehall and beyondif we’re going to turn around thisregulatory supertanker that’sbeen going in the same directionfor decades. It will require signifi-cant culture change in Whitehall,Westminster and beyond.

The Conservatives have alreadybeen working on such reformsand six months ago, Ken Clarkeand I launched the party’s plansto cut red tape and quangos per-manently. These include settingup a powerful new ‘Star Cham-ber’ cabinet committee, whichwill enforce a stringent ‘One In –One Out’ requirement where anynew law must include cuts in oldlaws. We’d also apply a ‘Sunsetclause’ to every Regulator and

they will not only be reassessed,but their duties reviewed, andtheir mandates and budgetsshrunk wherever possible. AndParliamentary Accountability forregulators and inspectorates willbe strengthened with SelectCommittees holding the keypublic service regulators toaccount, too.

The reactions to our policyproposals have so far been over-whelmingly positive. But there’sbeen a fair amount of cynicism,too. Successive Governments,both Labour and Conservative,have promised to sort the prob-lem out before and, with somehonourable but temporary excep-tions during the Thatcher years,no-one has managed to turnthings around successfully. Soeven though people like whatthey’re hearing, they’re under-standably cautious about believ-ing that this time might bedifferent. And quite right, too! Inthe end, people will only be con-vinced if we make real, visibleprogress in reducing the weightof the huge regulatory millstonewhich has been hung around ourcollective necks. Of course, itwon’t be until the Conservativesare in Government that we’ll beable to implement the policy, butI hope people are reassured thatwe’re on the right track.

Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

JohnPenrose

Agenda

It is time to cut the red tape

Business SupportKent (BSK) is acommunity enter‐prise with a pas‐sion for helpingbusinesses, start,grow and innovatein an increasinglylow carbon market.In 12 years wehave worked withover 20,000 smallcompanies, sup‐porting them through a range of publicly funded programmes,sharing our expertise and knowledge. Currently we are managing a range of insight and action pro‐grammes, expanding low carbon expertise in SMEs.EcoMind ‐ Securing the success of low carbon businesses offeringsessions on sustainable success stories, food and packaging, eco‐innovation, design, retrofitting, funding, marketing , new technolo‐gies and leadership. Check the EcoMind LinkedIn page for eventsdetails or for free intensive expert assistance. EnviroSkills ‐ New skills for new low carbon Over 1,000 partici‐pants, 40 new short business courses delivered throughout theSouth East of England Energy Grant500 ‐ Saving money and CO2 Behavioural change

programme linkedto metering and£500 grant.Delivering averagebusiness savingsof 7.5 tonnes car‐bon/annum, 20%reduction carbonfootprint, £1,370savings/annumand payback with‐in 4.5 monthsBSK works closely with policy makers and representatives locally,nationally and at European level to understand and translate com‐plex policy requirements and targets into real business action.Recently BSK, in partnership with Kent County Council broughttogether 8 European countries action plans for creating a suc‐cessful SME low carbon economy. View the event details onwww.international.kent.gov.uk.We believe that tomorrow's world is going to be very differentfrom the one we live in today. Being zero carbon will be just thenorm.For further details, please contact BSK via [email protected]

Successful low carbon small businesses


0P2n8ng1eqPd//0a:2a:0212//122gg//eq38/1

By Norman Lamb,Liberal Democrat spokesman on Health

Over the past few weeks,social care has leapt up thepolitical agenda. Whilst it is

good news that this vital issue isreceiving attention, the puerilepolitical point scoring which hascharacterised most of the publicdebate on this issue threatens toundermine any attempts to makeprogress.

On the one hand you’ve got thePersonal Care at Home Bill; one ofthe most depressingly politicalpieces of legislation to emerge inrecent years. Twelve years ago, TonyBlair told the Labour Party confer-ence that he was determined toaddress the crisis in social care. It isshameful that more than a decadelater the sum of Labour’s efforts islikely to be this bill – and proposalsfor legislation in the next Parlia-ment. Instead of reform, we’ve beengiven an electoral trap. It is law-making of the worst possible kind.People deserve more from a Govern-ment.

On the other hand, the Conserva-tives don’t have a viable position.Their proposed £8,000 voluntary

levy only covers the cost of a carehome but does nothing to help payfor care at home. This is despite thefact that everyone is agreed that weshould be enabling people to stay athome if they want to. It is also a flatrate, which means that the coupleon modest means living in a smallsemi would pay exactly the same asthe multi-millionaire. We do notpay for any other essential service inthis way. The NHS, for example, isfunded from general taxation, withpeople contributing according tothe ability to pay.

Labour has given us a bill that isquite simply not fit for purpose. It islittle more than a smokescreen thatattempts to crudely mask their

obsession with newspaper headlinesand election leaflets. As a result, itmanifestly fails to address the realunderlying problem: the unfair andunsustainable long-term funding ofthe care system in England. A par-tial solution which helps only asmall proportion of those who arefailed by the current system is notwhat is needed. As many distin-guished people have pointed out,the real risk is that we create per-verse incentives that actually end upcausing problems elsewhere in thesystem.

While it is difficult to argueagainst measures that seek toimprove the care available to thosewith critical needs, it is clear fromthe supporting documents for thisBill that the calculations underpin-ning the costs and the impact of thisBill are haphazard at best and delib-erately inconclusive at worst. Intheir dash for a headline policy in aspeech to a party conference,Labour has decided to put realreform on hold. Remarkably, theGovernment’s own impact assess-ment concludes that it would be thewealthiest group of pensioners whowould benefit most from this Bill.

Of perhaps most concern is theconclusion of the local authoritiesthat the costings have been seriouslyunderstated. With no more moneyavailable from the Government, itwill be local authorities which haveto come up with any shortfall, andthe risk is that this will result inother vulnerable people losing their

care and support just to help fundthis bill – robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The Liberal Democrats believethat solving the crisis in social carerequires a solution that sees politi-cians set aside their differences andstart working together. This is whywe believe it is vital to establish across-party commission chargedwith reaching a consensus on socialcare funding within the period ofone year.

One of the key points that theGreen Paper made was the need torecognise that reforming social carerequires a system which creates apartnership between the state andindividuals. This is why our long-term vision is for a system based onthe proposals set out by Derek Wan-less. This system provides everyonewith help from the state towardsbasic care costs and encourages peo-ple to plan for their futures by pro-viding matched funding to coverthe remaining costs. We believe thatthis represents the fairest solutionand would push to see a similarscheme adopted by the commission.

The Government’s contribution,under this approach, would befunded from taxation, just as wefund all other public services.

However, we have to recognisethat with public finances in such amess, implementation of such a sys-tem would be impossible in theshort term. For this reason we allhave to be open-minded about howa reformed system can be funded.The debate has raged over whetheradditional contributions should beon a voluntary or a compulsorybasis. We have to avoid lurid cam-paigning with posters depictingtombstones and accusations of adeath tax. Instead, we should have acalm debate with no pre-conditionsruling out any particular approach.

The need for reform is over-whelming. Many elderly people arenot getting the care that they needand the existing system of means-tested funding is widely seen to bedeeply unfair, penalising those whohave budgeted carefully throughtheir lives but who could not be saidto be well off. With an ageing popu-lation the crisis will get worse andworse. We have a duty to act and toput party politics to one side to finda solution that is both fair and sus-tainable.


HealthA

genda

‘We have a duty to actand to put party politics

to one side to find asolution that is both fair

and sustainable’

Why we urgently need reform in thearea of social care

23xP3n0qgen//02:1g: 101//01322//P. aP/0


Environment

Agenda

By Mark Hoban, Shadow Financial Secretary

The financial crisis of the lasttwo years represents a policyfailure of historic propor-

tions. An unsustainable boom wasfed by an asset price bubble fuelledby cheap debt. The flawed tripartitesystem of regulation created by Gor-don Brown and a decade of fiscalimprudence, meant our economywas more vulnerable than most, andwhen the bubble burst the UK wasone of the first countries to enterrecession, and the last G20 countryout. We must never repeat the mis-takes of the last decade.

We must move away from amodel of growth dependent onunaffordable public spending,unsustainable consumer debt, andan over-reliance on financial servic-es. We need a new economic modelbuilt on savings and investment anda more balanced economy. Part ofdelivering this new model of growthis radical reform of financial regula-tion.

Financial services is an importantBritish industry that employs hun-dreds of thousands of people. Con-servatives want the industry tosucceed, compete and grow - but todo so without putting financial sta-bility at risk. Proper regulation byable regulators would benefit theindustry, consumers and the widereconomy by creating strong plat-form for future growth.

We will abolish the failed tripar-tite system and give the Bank ofEngland responsibility for main-taining financial stability. As macro-prudential supervisor it will beresponsible for assessing risks tofinancial stability and preventingthe build-up of risk in the system.

We will also give the Bank respon-sibility for the micro-prudential reg-ulation of banks, building societies,and all other significant financialinstitutions including insurancecompanies. This will create a singlepoint of responsibility, and account-ability, for the stability financial sys-tem, and create a regulator with theauthority and strength to exercisejudgment — not simply tick boxes.

If we want a more sustainablemodel of economic growth, we needto encourage families to save moreand borrow less. This means,

amongst other things, strengtheningthe regime for consumer protection.Under our proposals, a new Con-sumer Protection Agency will takeover the responsibilities for protect-ing financial services consumers thatare currently confusingly dividedbetween the Financial Services

Authority and the Office of FairTrading. This new agency will pro-vide a more coherent, transparentand rigorous approach to consumerregulation.

But we must also help businesses,too. We will use Government guar-antees to create more diverse sourcesof affordable credit for SMEs, build-ing on our proposals for a big, boldand simple National Loan Guaran-tee Scheme. After the consolidationin the banking sector in the last cou-ple of years, we will hold a competi-tion review so consumers and SMEscan get a better deal.

As the financial crisis has demon-strated, there will need to be a newemphasis on international co-opera-tion to deal with global financial

institutions. The G20 and the Euro-pean Union are increasingly activein financial regulation. Given theimportance of financial services toBritain’s economy, we are commit-ted to defending the vital interestsof our financial services sector inEurope. In a Conservative Govern-ment a senior Treasury minister willbe given responsibility for Europeanfinancial regulation and will spendas much time as necessary in Europeto build alliances and defendBritain’s interests.

Britain should also seek to play amore active role in shaping theglobal debate on regulation. TheConservative Party has long beenadvocating international agreementon the separation of high-risk activ-ities such as proprietary tradingfrom mainstream banking and theintroduction of “stability” fees forbanks. Discussions which are nowgetting underway following Presi-dent Obama’s support for thesemeasures.

Under the old model, unsustain-able growth was driven by higherand higher levels of debt. When thebubble burst, we suffered thelongest and deepest recession sincethe 1920s. We must learn the les-sons from the financial crisis andthis means radical reform to regula-tion so that the financial servicessector strengthens the stability ofthe British economy rather thanundermines it.

‘If we want a moresustainable model ofeconomic growth, we

need to encouragefamilies to save more

and borrow less’

Radical reform is the lesson from therecent worldwide financial crisis

: 02. Pa31gnqx 1e/0: /P010 182: 1 3qgP 1


Media

John Major:but did theSun reallywin it forhim in1992?

Agenda

By Jason Beattie, deputy political editor of the Daily Mirror

THE story of the 1992 Gener-al Election relates that it wasthe “Sun wot won it.”

This history tells us that thanks tothe paper’s unremitting and at timestoxic demolition of Neil Kinnock, ahatchet job which culminated in themocked-up image of the Labourleader as a light bulb accompaniedby the headline “If Kinnock winstoday will the last person to leaveBritain please turn out the lights”,John Major was able to walk backinto Downing Street.

And given that history tends to bewritten by the victors it is unsurpris-ing that Britain’s best-selling(though not necessarily most enter-taining) daily paper likes to takecredit for having inflicted on thecountry another five years of Con-servative Government and, in theprocess, of having created themythology that it is a paper ofunsurpassed influence.

The power of this myth saw New

Labour’s assiduous, and ultimatelysuccessful, courting of The Sun inrun-up to the 1997 election.

Thirteen years later and the paperhas yet again changed sides, comingout during the Labour Party confer-ence and to much media fanfare infavour of David Cameron.

What is less clear this time roundis whether the paper’s re-found alle-giance to the Conservatives willhave quite the same impact as it didin 1997 or in 1992.

It is, of course, in the vested inter-ests of politicians and the press toramp up the influence of newspa-pers. Those who work in the media,whose practitioners are scientificallyproven to exaggerate their impor-tance more than any other profes-sion, are hardly likely to say theywrite in a vacuum, while the innate

insecurity of politicians means theyare desperate to amass support inthe same way a Victorian huntsmancollects the heads of stuffed animals.

All the main political parties willtherefore be keeping a tally ofendorsements from the nationalnewspapers.

Some are already clear. The Sun,The Daily Telegraph, The SundayTelegraph, The Express titles and theSunday Times are all regarded as sup-portive of the Conservatives. TheMirror and the Sunday Mirror haveshown a consistency which theirred-top rivals have lacked by beingunashamedly Labour papers,though not Labour Party papers.(Though, interestingly, their stable-mate the People has gone off pisteand may not back Gordon Brownthis time round.)

The Guardian flirted embarrass-ingly with Cameron but appears tobe shifting back to its soggy formerposition of Lib-Labbery, while TheIndependent and The Independent onSunday look set to drift, barelynoticed, in the insolated sea of cen-tre-leftdom.

This leaves The Times, supportiveof Labour at the last two elections,but looking, thanks in part to thefriendship of its editor James Hard-ing to Cameron, to return to theTory fold, and the Financial Times,a champion of Blair but showingsigns of disillusionment.

The Mail titles are natural Con-servative papers but their position iscomplicated by editor-in-chief PaulDacre’s closeness to Gordon Brown.While they will endorse the Tories,their support for David Cameronmay be tempered and could be sym-

pathetic to Brown personally, if notthe party he leads.

A rough aggregate makes thateight for the Tories, three forLabour and four undecided.

But will having the majority ofnewspapers lining up behind oneparticular party make a great deal ofdifference to the result this timeround?

In the 1992 election, 45 per centof Sun readers voted Conservative,36 per cent Labour and 15 per centLib Dem. Five years on and thebreakdown was 30 per cent Conser-vative, 52 per cent Labour and 12per cent Lib Dem, suggesting TheSun can make a difference.

But media psephologists willpoint out that Labour still won in1974 despite having the support ofnewspapers papers accounting foronly 22 per cent per of circulation.

This is not to say a sympatheticpress is not helpful, not leastbecause they are less likely to do thedigging which results in scandal sto-ries, deconstruct policies or applythe forensic questioning which candamage a party’s fortunes.

Much of this work has passed tonew media, with blogs, Twitter andsites such as Conservative Homeand Left Foot Forward provingincreasingly influential.

But we should remember thateven the most successful blogs haveless than a twentieth of the reader-ship of The Sun or the Mirror or theDaily Mail.

What may matter more at thiselection is not which party a paperdecides to endorse but the press

ensuring as many readers as possibleturn out to vote.

In 2005 only 52 per cent of Sunreaders bothered to vote.

If the paper can persuade even afew of these disillusioned readers toturn out it could change the result,possibly to Labour’s favour, as, iron-ically, it is Labour supporters whoare least likely to trudge to the ballotbox.

‘All the main politicalparties will therefore be

keeping a tally ofendorsements from the

national newspapers’

How important will newspaperendorsements be in the election?

‘In 2005 only 52 percent of Sun readers

bothered to vote’

21PpP3n1qgeg 1n/02/: 010 10Pc1 2xaP 1

By Lord Goodhart QC, Liberal Democrat Peer

Late one afternoon in Decem-ber 2006 I was sitting at myoffice desk in the House of

Lords. Most members had gonehome. Unexpectedly, a notice cameup on the annunciator that theAttorney-General, Lord Goldsmith,would shortly make a statement. Idecided to go down to the Chamberto find out what the statement wasabout. It turned out to be anannouncement that the investiga-tion as to whether BAE had com-mitted bribery in its dealings withSaudi Arabia was being dropped, onthe decision of the head of the Sen-ior Fraud Office, but with a gooddeal of encouragement from LordGoldsmith and the Prime Minister.

The decision to drop the investi-gation was controversial at the timeand remains controversial today. Itbrought the question of bribery, andparticularly international bribery,into the forefront of politics. Workon the Bribery Bill was alreadyunderway at the time, but the effectof the BAE case will have given it ahigher priority.

Why is a Bribery Bill needed? TheBritish law of bribery has remainednearly unchanged since the early

days of the 20th Century. There is acommon law offence of bribing theholder of a public office. There arethree statutes about bribery, enactedrespectively in 1889, 1906, and1916. Only one of these – the 1906Act – extends the criminalisation ofbribery into the private sector. Thelaw has remained unchanged since1916, though by the Anti-Terror-ism, Crime and Security Act 2001the courts of the UK now have juris-diction to try cases of bribery out-side the UK if the alleged crime hasbeen committed by a UK nationalor a corporate body incorporated inthe UK.

In recent years internationalbribery has been a matter of increas-ing concern. Its effect on developing

countries can be devastating. Com-bating bribery has been the subjectof a number of international con-ventions that have been signed bythe UK. The most important ofthese is the convention drawn up bythe OECD (the Organisation forEconomic Cooperation and Devel-opment).

The Bribery Bill was introducedin the House of Lords in November2009 – a mere 12 years after theLaw Commission had first begunwork on such a bill. The new draftBill received a much better recep-tion than the 2003 version. It wasimproved further as a result of therecommendation for changes madeby the Joint Committee, most ofwhich were accepted by the Govern-ment. It was improved again as aresult of debates in the House ofLords.

What does the Bribery Bill add tothe existing law? First, it provides amuch clearer description of whatconstitutes the crime of briberythan the law now provides. Second,if someone acting on behalf of acommercial corporation commitsan act of bribery, the corporationwill now be liable to prosecution,even if its officers were not aware ofthe bribery, unless the corporationhad in place adequate proceduresfor preventing such acts of bribery.This liability is balanced by a dutyon the Government to publishguidance about the proceduresneeded to be put in place in orderfor the corporation to avoid prose-cution, though it is not envisagedthat the Government will giveadvice about particular cases.

The Bribery Bill also extends thejurisdiction of courts in the UK overbribery committed abroad. A per-son who has “a close connectionwith the UK” can be prosecuted foracts committed outside the UK ifthose acts would be an offence of

bribery if committed in the UK.The Bill also removes the require-ment that prosecutions for a statu-tory bribery offence require theconsent of the Attorney General.Instead, prosecution requires theconsent of the Director of PublicProsecution, the Director of theSerious Fraud Office, or the Direc-tor of Revenue and Customs Prose-cutions. However, the AttorneyGeneral retains the right to directthat a prosecution be discontinued.

The Bill contains a provisionwhich exempts from convictionpeople who can prove that theiractions are necessary for the properpurposes of the intelligence agenciesor, when on active service, thearmed forces (the previous exten-sion of exemption to law enforce-ment agencies having beenwithdrawn by the Government).This led to a conflict at third read-ing in the Lords, when a group ofvery distinguished lawyers persuad-ed a majority of members (mistak-enly, in my view) to substituteexemption based on previous autho-risation of the bribery by a Secretaryof State. The Bill has now gone tothe House of Commons and theGovernment is planning to intro-duce amendments which will, it ishoped, satisfy the lawyers in theLords while removing the practicaldifficulties of their original propos-als.

The Bill is now very close to royalassent. However, time is short. TheGovernment’s new amendmentswill need to be approved in theCommons and the Bill will thenhave to be brought back to theLords for consent. It would be atragedy if this important Bill, whichhas received wide consent in thiscountry and from internationalorganisations such as the OECDand Transparency International,should fall at the last hurdle.


Bribery and Corruption

It would be a tragedy if this Bill wereto lose out as Parliament closes

Agenda

‘It would be a tragedyif this important Billshould fall at the last

hurdle’

LordGoodhart

823x2a31gnqn//1d:08:2010//1P32e//P. g2/1


Bribery and CorruptionA

genda

By Jessica Crowe, Executive Director of the Centre for Public Scrutiny

Over the last year, the conceptof accountability has cometo occupy the centre stage of

political discourse. Greater account-ability has been demanded over theway Parliament is run, the safety ofchildren, the quality of hospital careand the way our money is invested.Many commentators perceive thereason to be a crisis of confidence inthe current political order, or a gen-eral cynicism about the motivationsof policy-makers and decision-mak-ers alike.

However, it is possible that thedriving force is something morepositive. Outcry and anger overmatters of public controversy sug-gest that people are interested in,and want to be a real part of, thepolitical and decision-makingprocess. In short, they are seeking to‘hold the powerful to account’.

At the Centre for Public Scrutiny,we have been interested in issues ofaccountability since our inception

in 2003. Our mission, “betterscrutiny for better government”,encapsulates our belief that thosewho make a decision should not bethe only ones to review or challengeit and that independent scrutiny canimprove both the quality of thatdecision and the outcomes soughtby the decision-maker. Scrutiny isthus a key element of accountability,but it is not the only element.

In fact, while no one would denythat accountability is a good thing,it is much harder to define and pindown exactly what all the elementsof accountability are and how theywork. Perhaps the crisis of confi-dence and apparent cynicism is notsolely due to the actions of the pow-erful themselves, but stems from alack of clarity about how to makethem accountable for what they do.

We have been trying to bringsome clarity to what we earlier

described as the “crowded goldfishbowl of accountability” in the pub-lic sector (the NHS in this instance,CfPS: 2007), through a new docu-ment, “Accountability Works!” Ourwork has established a number ofkey features of the “goldfish bowl”.Accountability is complicated andcultural. A large variety of peopleand organisations hold decision-makers to account in various ways;for accountability to be effective,decision-makers need to understandwhy they are being held to accountand by whom. They need to acceptthe credibility and legitimacy ofthose holding them to account and,importantly, they need to accept theutility of the process in helpingthem to improve the way they dobusiness.

Another feature is the need forinvestment. It is not enough toassume that accountability andtransparency are the same thing,and that making more informationavailable to the public will enhancethe impact that the public and non-executives can have on the decision-making process. Formal structuresare required so that something canbe done with the information pro-vided.

The most important feature of all:accountability is vital. Now morethan ever, accountability is playing acrucial role in the public sector,building links across partnerships,contributing to the democraticprocess and helping to save moneyby making recommendations tomake public services more efficient.It is a crucial way in which the pub-lic can be reconnected to politicsand to the decision-making processin the public sector.

Is it possible to sum up accounta-bility in a single phrase? A recentacademic attempt saw accountabili-ty as:

“A relationship between an actorand a forum, in which the actor hasan obligation to explain and justifyhis or her conduct, the forum canpose questions and pass judgment,and the actor may face conse-quences.”

The trouble with our modernpublic services landscape is thatthere are many different actors,forums, judgements and conse-quences. We have identified, forexample, the following forms ofaccountability:

•Through the ballot box and elec-tions;•Through the media investigatingand reporting publicly on decisions;•Individually through the marketand consumers exercising choice orraising complaints and seekingredress for wrongs;•Through regulation, inspectionand audit;•Through internal managementprocesses; •And through scrutiny carried outby lay non-executives in a range ofsettings such as select committeesand local government overview andscrutiny committees, as well as bypeople not subject to direct electionsuch as the members of policeauthorities and probation boards,Local Involvement Networks, Com-munity Health Councils in Walesand school governors.

Faced with so many, often com-peting, ways of being held toaccount, it is hardly surprising ifdecision-makers seek to prioritiseand determine that some forms ofaccountability are more importantto comply with than others. Howev-er, all of our research into effectivescrutiny and our examination ofother forms of accountability tellsus that simply complying, perhapsunder the threat of some kind ofsanction, does not lead to real andlasting change in behaviours. With-out behaviour or cultural change,we fear that the cynicism and lack oftrust described earlier will notdiminish.

Treating the different forms ofaccountability as a hierarchy in

‘Now more than ever,accountability is playing

a crucial role in thepublic sector’

Why accountability is the key togetting better public services

continued on page 34

: : 3xea31gnqn 1d/0: /2010 1032c P. ge 1

which some are more importantthan others is part of the problem.We argue instead for adoption ofthe idea of a web of accountability –a collection of people involved in allthe different forms of accountabilityhighlighted above who, we think,should try to work together to influ-ence and complement each other’swork. This would incorporate dif-ferent sorts of accountability – both‘hard’ (where it provides sanctionsand redress for complaints) and‘soft’ (where its power relies on itsability to persuade, advise and influ-ence).

This mirrors recent developmentsthroughout government towardsmore effective partnership working,notably the opportunities offered bythe programme known as TotalPlace. Supported by the Treasuryand Department of Communitiesand Local Government, and pro-moted heavily by local and nationalpoliticians from all parties, TotalPlace has tried to establish the totalsum of public money spent in localareas, with a view to identifying effi-ciencies and better ways of deliver-ing services across departmentalboundaries.

We seek to take the idea of TotalPlace further, however, in highlight-ing the need not just for institution-al joining-up or pooling of budgets,but the opportunity to revisit, cul-turally, socially and politically, therole that accountability plays acrossthe delivery of all of our public serv-ices. Taking decisions about howbest to tackle the “wicked issues” ata more local level and with morefreedom to allocate funds beyondthe Whitehall silos makes absolutesense – particularly given the needfor major efficiencies to be found inpublic service budgets. However, in

arguing for more devolution ofpower, we must not lose sight of thefact that all power needs to be heldto account, wherever it is exercised.Total Place requires Total Accounta-bility.

While some will argue thataccountability through the ballotbox provides what is needed, webelieve that while necessary, it is notsufficient to deliver the kind of realaccountability that we all want tosee. Taking the approach of the“web of accountability” would allowthe powerful to be held to accountin the most appropriate forum at

the most appropriate time, drawingon the outcomes of other forms ofaccountability to strengthen andinform its work.

For example, we might considerthe “Summer emergencies 2007”scrutiny inquiry held by Gloucester-shire County Council. Followingextreme flash flooding, river flood-ing and a resultant cut in mainswater supplies, GloucestershireCounty Council set up a scrutinyinquiry to look at what lessonscould be learned from the experi-ence. Scrutineers from county anddistrict councils talked to local peo-ple, businesses, utility companiesand other stakeholders.

The inquiry resulted in SevernTrent, the local water company,investing £35 million in providingan alternative water supply forGloucestershire and improvementsin the way that future emergencies

are planned for. The impact of thereport led the national Pitt Reviewof Flooding to recommend theinvolvement of scrutiny in floodmanagement and planning workacross the country.

This is a particularly good exam-ple of the “web of accountability” atwork because it involved scrutineersfrom different democratic institu-tions working together, enablingpublic views to be fed into a struc-tured accountability processthrough opportunities for residentsto contribute their experiences ofthe flooding. It also involved themain decision-maker (Severn Trent)taking an open approach to beingheld to account in this way (whichit was not required to do by law),seeing it as an opportunity to learnlessons and rebuild local trust in itsservices, and consequently led totangible outcomes. Finally, it influ-enced and informed another formof accountability (the Pitt Review atnational level).

From this and other examples, weconclude that a more complete con-cept of accountability would see itas comprising five elements. Firstly,it is the right of the public, as citi-zens, to challenge decision-makersdirectly as part of the democraticdecision-making process. Secondly,it should be viewed as part of a dem-ocratic debate about matters of pub-lic concern in the past and futuredelivery of public services. Thirdly itcomprises an obligation on the partof decision-makers to respond toand act upon the concerns andinsights of those holding them toaccount. Fourthly it offers a way fordecision-makers to improve theservices they deliver, ensuringresponsiveness alongside quality andvalue for money. And finally, as aresult of the foregoing, accountabil-ity forms one of three pillars thatsupport effective and strong democ-racy – the other two being involve-ment and transparency.

The “web of accountability” offersa way to connect these five concep-tual elements of accountability andto start to join up accountabilityarrangements alongside joining upservices. If this does not happen,there is a risk that the old, institu-tional forms of accountability willstruggle to keep up with morejoined-up service delivery partner-ships. This in turn could disconnectthe public still further from thepublic services that they fund andon which they rely. “AccountabilityWorks!” is the Centre for PublicScrutiny’s call to action to ensurethis does not happen.

‘It is the right of thepublic, as citizens, tochallenge decision-

makers directly’


Bribery and Corruption

Agenda

Gloucestershireflooding in 2007

P 3x83n1qgen//1d:0P:2010//103 g//P. a8/1

By Tom Porteous,London Director of Human Rights Watch

On March 17 the ForeignOffice launched its annualreport on human rights.

The report showcases good workthat the UK is doing on humanrights internationally, shines a spot-light on human rights abuses in 22“countries of concern” and is clearlydesigned to demonstrate the gov-ernment’s commitment to promot-ing human rights around the worldas an integral part of its foreign pol-icy.

But the UK’s credibility as achampion of human rights is seri-ously undermined by the continu-ing refusal of the government toaddress credible allegations that theUK itself has been complicit in thetorture of terrorism suspects over-seas. A judicial inquiry is now thebest way not only to get to the bot-tom of these allegations but also torestore the British government’s rep-utation and its ability to speak withcredibility on human rights aroundthe world.

The allegations of UK complicityin torture are not a matter ofhearsay and rumour. They haveemerged unequivocally in court rul-

ings in relation to the case of formerGuantanamo detainee BinyamMohamed and from in depth docu-mentation by Human Rights Watchand the Guardian newspaper of thecases of several British citizens ille-gally detained and interrogated inPakistan. The allegations aredetailed and specific.

Last year the Foreign AffairsCommittee heard evidence fromHuman Rights Watch and others,and concluded that the governmenthas serious questions to answer. TheJoint Committee on Human Rightsalso held hearings and has called foran independent judicial inquiry.This call has been echoed by manypoliticians from all parties including

the Liberal Democrat leader, NickClegg, the former Attorney General,Lord Goldsmith, the government’sindependent reviewer of counterter-rorism legislation, Lord Carlile, theformer Conservative Home Affairsspokesman, David Davis, and thechair of the APPG on renditions,Andrew Tyrie.

But as the evidence, awkwardquestions and calls for an inquirymount up, the government hasresponded with a combination ofblanket denials and pleas for publicunderstanding of the difficult cir-cumstances faced by the securityservices in the face of the threat ofterrorism. It has repeatedly failed toaddress the specific and detailedcharges that have been made.

There is no doubt that the threatof terrorism poses hard questionsand choices for the security services.But the government confuses, onthe one hand, necessary cooperationwith foreign intelligence agencieswith a poor record on human rightsand, on the other, complicity withthose intelligence agencies in thetorture of terrorism suspects.

There is now little doubt that theUK crossed the line on a number ofoccasions. It is therefore essential tofind out how this came to happen,how widespread the consequentabuse was, who was responsible andwhat needs to be done to make sureit does not happen again.

The only concession to trans-parency the government has so farmade was a promise a year ago (andnot yet fulfilled) to publish new

guidelines to security agenciesinvolved in counter terrorism inter-rogations overseas.

But that does not go nearly farenough. We also need to know thefollowing: what guidelines were inplace at that time of the allegedcomplicity; what steps the govern-ment took to ensure that torturewas not used in any cases in which itasked foreign intelligence agenciesfor assistance or cooperation; whataction was taken when the govern-ment learned that torture or ill-treatment occurred in a particularcase; and why the Intelligence andSecurity Committee was apparentlyunable to exercise effective over-sight?

What’s at stake here is not just thecredibility of the UK government asa champion of human rights andthe rule of law, but also the moraleof the security services, who, with-out a proper inquiry, risk being usedas scapegoats for the government’sshortcomings.

There’s also an important strategicdimension to this story. The preven-tion of violent extremism is a corestrand of the government’s counterterrorism strategy (CONTEST II).As the FCO’s latest report onhuman rights says: “denial, or abuse,of human rights has the potential tobe a driving factor … that can drawpeople towards violent extremism.”

The UK often calls for accounta-bility and transparency for othercountries. It’s time that it followedits own advice and authorises anindependent judicial inquiry.


Human rightsA

genda

‘The allegations of UKcomplicity in tortureare not a matter of

hearsay and rumour’

A judicial inquiry is the only way torestore Britain’s reputation on rights

qe2. Pga1n3gx 12/0q/P010 1e2: P 3qcP 1


Young People

Agenda

By Ginny Lunn,Director of Policy and Development, the Prince’s Trust

It is no secret that young peoplehave borne the brunt of thisrecession. One in five young

people in the UK is now unem-ployed.

It is all too easy to dismiss theseyoung people as Britain’s “lost gen-eration”. But each one has skills andtalents that could make a real differ-ence to this country.

I speak to young people all thetime who tell me, before theyreceived help from The Prince’sTrust, that they found it difficult tospeak to people on the telephone ormeet their eye.

We know the implications ofyouth unemployment stretchbeyond the dole queue. The emo-tional effects on young people areprofound, long-term and canbecome irreversible.

The Prince’s Trust works to com-bat the barriers that prevent youngpeople from moving on with theirlives. We give them the skills andmotivation to get the jobs that areout there, building their self-esteemand emotional resilience.

The Trust’s Team programme, a12-week personal developmentscheme, builds young people’s con-fidence and workplace skillsthrough a series of team-based com-munity challenges, CV-writing sup-port and work experience.

We also help young people

through our pre-apprenticeshipscheme, ‘Get into’. This is a shortvocational course in a specific sector– such as retail or construction.Working with local employers, TheTrust provides young people withthe key skills to fill local job vacan-cies.

Some unemployed young peoplefind that self-employment is thebest option. The Trust gives youngentrepreneurs support to get viablebusiness ideas off the ground,

through low-interest loans andmentoring support.

These small businesses go on togive back to the economy: every £1into our Business Programmeresults in £2 back to the Exchequer.

We can’t afford to stifle young tal-ents, particularly as we emerge fromthe longest recession on record.Those with fewest qualificationsneed our support the most, as theystruggle to compete with unem-ployed graduates flooding the jobsmarket.

The Prince’s Trust and the CitiFoundation recently conducted oneof the largest ever UK studies ofyoung people not in employment,

education or training (NEETs),revealing their crushed ambitionsand undiscovered talents.

The report found the UK couldmiss out on up to 19,500 doctorsand nurses, 62,000 teachers and1,500 plumbers if youngsters can-not pursue their ambitions. A fur-ther 93,000 potential entrepreneurs,16,000 mechanics and 31,000social workers could also be lost.

The research also revealed that 39per cent of NEETs say they lack theexperience to get a job and almost aquarter (24 per cent) feel they don’thave the confidence.

The research marked the launchof The Prince’s Trust’s new cam-paign, Undiscovered, aiming to sup-port tens of thousands ofunemployed young people this year.

Out of the 44,000 young peoplewe supported last year, more thanthree in four went into work, educa-tion or training.

In light of the recent economicdownturn and current youth unem-ployment levels, the work of TheTrust is arguably more relevant thanever.

We need Government and busi-nesses to work with charities likeThe Trust to address the issue ofyouth unemployment. We aim tohelp more than 40,000 young peo-ple again this year but we need vol-unteers, donations and vital fundingfor our schemes in order to do this.

Only by investing in young peo-ple now can we ensure this undis-covered generation isn’t lost forever.

‘The emotional effectsof unemployment on

young people areprofound, long-term

and can becomeirreversible’

‘Britain’sLostTalent’

Ginny Lunn

36v2:cenp1.qxd 24/03/2010 11:30 Page 1

By Margo MacDonald, Independent MSP

The End of LifeAssistance Scotland Bill isnow into the most important

part of the process whereby it maybecome law in Scotland, and, possi-bly, influence the law on assistedsuicide south of the border. Fromthe start, it should be emphasisedthat the Bill has not been construct-ed as a ubiquitous answer to thedilemmas posed by people going toSwitzerland to bring about theirown deaths. Nor has it been con-ceived out of sympathy for peoplesuch as Dr Anne Turner whobrought about her own death per-haps earlier than she might have inorder to comply with Swiss law.Neither was it prompted by theexperience of two mothers, each ofwhom helped a much-loved child todie, but whose actions were judgedquite differently by theEnglish courts.

If the Bill in the Scottish Parlia-ment becomes law, patient autono-my will be the accepted, legal norm.There may be a change in the lawon assisted suicide in England, per-haps the new House of Commonsafter the General Election will

reflect the interest in and supportfor the high-profile testimonies ofTerry Pratchett and other promi-nent figures. But whether assistedsuicide is made legal according tomy preference for professional assis-tance, rather than have assistancegiven by a relative or friend, thedilemma in the second case referredto above will be unresolved if legali-ty is to be conferred by the patient’sexercise of autonomy. WestminsterMPs may be able to devise safe-guards that meet the wishes of theperson, where these are notexpressed clearly and consistently, toaccess assistance to die.

However, having researched thisissue to the best of our ability, I andmy colleagues believe that helping

someone to achieve the peaceful,dignified end to life sought by mostof us is best accomplished by a will-ing professional, acting in accor-dance with the patient’s clearlyexpressed wishes. We believe the“patient” should be known to thisperson and that specialist opinionmust be obtained as to the patient’scompetence and state of mind. Also,professional intervention can pre-vent splits in families where siblings,for example, might disagree with aparent’s wish to bring their life to aclose before the very unpleasant endof life that confronts some unfortu-nate patients with MS and Parkin-son’s, for example. Medicalprofessionals are more likely to pre-vent something going wrong, a notuncommon occurrence, we havebeen assured by doctors and familymembers of patients who have triedto die.

The fact that some people in Ore-gon and elsewhere have changedtheir mind and never used the pre-scription drug that would haveended their lives is not proof of thefailure of the law, but rather itshould be judged as successfully

proving the feasibility of, andrespect for, patient autonomy.

Opponents of the Bill, who con-demned it before it was printed,attacked it because, they claimed, itwould threaten elderly and vulnera-ble people who would feel obligedto ask for help to end their lives soas not to consume scarce publicresources. A second line of attackwas that elderly people would becoerced by greedy relatives into ask-ing for help to die.

Whilst not agreeing with thesesentiments, I have neverthelessattempted to meet such fears bydefining the groups of people whomight choose to seek help to die:those suffering from progressive,irreversible conditions, and patientswho are classified as being terminal-ly ill.

The Bill would have patients exer-cise their autonomy by initiating arequest, witnessed by two peoplewith nothing to gain from theirdeath, to a medical professional.The medical professional then hasthe responsibility of arranging foran appropriate specialist in mentalhealth to examine the patient. If thepatient is suffering from depression,for example, this must be treated.Whether or not this is the outcomeof the patient’s request, after a fort-night has elapsed, the request mustbe repeated. After two days, thepatient could request help to drink,or to be injected with a fatal dose ofdrugs.

The patient can change his or hermind at any point in this process,and the medical professional willhave made a conscious choice toassist patients as described above.There will be a strict requirementfor record-keeping, as post-mortem,the PF will investigate such deathsas being “unusual.” Judging fromthe consistent numbers of assisteddeaths recorded in the widely vary-ing communities where they arelegal, Scotland might expect torecord annual totals of around 50deaths.

We are not alone in consideringthis question and it is my belief that,contrary to the fears of the church-based groups campaigning againstthe Bill, should it become law, it willnot weaken the faith or beliefs ofchurchgoers... or so many have toldme.


Holyrood

Why my Bill will give patients a level ofautonomy they deserve

Governm

ent

‘If the Bill in theScottish Parliamentbecomes law, patientautonomy will be theaccepted, legal norm’

83PpP3n1qged 1n/08/: 010 10Pg0 2xaP 1

By László Andor, European Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion

As the economic and financialcrisis continues to gripEurope’s economies, over 80

million Europeans – or more than17 per cent of the EU population –are living below the poverty line. At19 per cent, the rate in the UK iseven higher.

People are considered poor if theyearn less than 60 per cent of themedian wage in the country wherethey live. What is more, one in 10Europeans lives in a householdwhere nobody has a job and one infive children across Europe live inpoverty.

In every Member State, long-termunemployment is one of the maincauses of social exclusion, which hitsnot only individuals, but their fami-lies too. There are particularly vul-nerable groups among migrants, theRoma, low-educated rural popula-tion. Children coming from fami-lies with long-term unemployedparents are particularly vulnerableand have less of a chance of integrat-ing into society than others. Theyfrequently end up jobless in laterlife. That’s why a job-creation andefficient employment policy is thecornerstone of effective social poli-cy. The efforts of the private sector,regional and national governmentsand the European Union need tocome together to reduce unemploy-ment and poverty all over Europe.

Tackling poverty togetherAlthough the main responsibilityfor social policy lies at national level,Europe has an important support-ing role to play. A recent Euro-barometer survey on attitudes topoverty and social exclusion showedthat not only do 66 per cent ofBritons see poverty as a widespreadproblem but that 85 per cent wantthe government to take urgentaction. Expectations are similarlyhigh for EU action with three out offour Europeans saying Europe has arole to play.

The EU already works to combatsocial exclusion and poverty byhelping Member States to worktogether and to share experiences.Its added value is to develop com-

mon approaches from which eachcountry can draw inspiration orapply at their national level.

For example, the UK was one ofthe first EU countries to take anintegrated approach to tacklingchild poverty. The EU then put anincreasing emphasis on this issueunder the social inclusion process,calling in 2006 for member states torapidly and significantly reducechild poverty. “Sure Start” – theUK’s strategy for tackling childpoverty launched in 1999 – hassince inspired similar, joined-upapproaches in countries such asFrance, Poland, Lithuania andMalta.

EU policy is also backed up byfunding available for activities toprevent and combat poverty andsocial exclusion, in particular underthe European Social Fund (or ESF).It represents £8.5 billion or 10 percent of the EU’s annual budget. Atthe moment, the ESF is investingover £3 billion in jobs and skills inthe UK for the period 2007-2013.Its training programmes help disad-vantaged people overcome barriersto work. It also helps to reduce childpoverty by improving parents’access to the labour market.

Raising awareness and taking actionTo take efforts to reduce povertyeven further, the EU has declared2010 the European Year for Com-bating Poverty and Social Exclusion.The current crisis has only aggravat-ed the situation making the fightagainst poverty even more pressing.With the dire social and economicconsequences of the crisis setting in,especially in terms of rising unem-ployment, which is nearly 20 percent in some countries, the timingof this campaign is particularly fit-ting.

During the European Year, vari-ous activities are taking place all

over Europe. The aim is to raiseawareness and change people’s per-ceptions of poverty. Poverty goesbeyond having insufficient income;it is also about lacking opportunitiesand hope for a better future. This iswhy the Year will encourage govern-ments to focus on poverty, renewtheir efforts, commit and activelyengage in the fight against poverty.We will not eradicate poverty by theend of 2010, but the campaign canact as a catalyst for action on allpolicies that impact on social inclu-sion, such as access to work andaffordable childcare.

A time for solidarity In parallel, the European Commis-sion has also just proposed in earlyMarch a fresh target for MemberStates to reduce the number of thoseat risk of poverty by 20 million overthe next 10 years. As an integral partof the new Europe 2020 strategythis target is an expression of thedetermination to make progress,especially during the European Yearto Combat Poverty and SocialExclusion. The goal is ambitiousbut realistic. Each country has thetools to meet the target but strongpolitical commitment is required.For example, protecting those atrisk of poverty means protectingresources through more efficientsocial spending, or through long-term structural solutions, coveringareas like better access to education,jobs and healthcare.

The European Year will mobilisekey partners, such as governmentsand social partners, as well as thepublic, into action and commit-ment. At the end of the Year, wehope that when EU leaders meet atthe European Council, planned forDecember 2010, they will make aconcrete pledge to cut poverty.

For now, European Year activitiesare taking place all over the UK,including campaigns, events andvoluntary initiatives at national,regional and local levels. Maybeyour town or community are organ-ising events — you can getinvolved, too. Go to the UK Euro-pean Year website to see how youcan participate:http://www.dwp.gov.uk/european-year-2010

www.2010againstpoverty.eu


Brussels

Tacklingpoverty

Why Europe has poverty andexclusion in its sights for 2010

Governm

ent

P23xe3n1qgen//1d:0P:2010//103 2//P. ae/1


CardiffG

overnment

By Jane Davidson, Environment Minister in the Welsh Assembly Government

There is no doubt in my mindthat how we treat our wastereflects how we treat our

country and planet. Simply buryingour waste in the land to rot is nolonger a viable option. Instead, ourproducts and services must bedesigned so that they reduce wasteor optimise its use as far as possible.

In 2008-09, Wales produced 1.7million tonnes of municipal waste.Forty per cent of this was recycled,composted or incinerated but 60per cent was still landfilled. I wantto radically improve on this.

We know that landfilling is a poorenvironmental option. It has anextremely negative effect on climatechange as the breakdown ofbiodegradable waste releasesmethane, a harmful greenhouse gas23 times more potent than carbondioxide. Based on information pub-lished in 2003 and 2007 respective-ly, approximately 61 per cent ofboth municipal waste and 61 percent of industrial and commercialwaste that is landfilled is biodegrad-able.

Furthermore, much of the wastecurrently landfilled is a valuableresource, either as a recyclate or forhigh efficiency energy generation,which is the Welsh Assembly Gov-ernment’s preferred treatment forresidual waste. Although we havemade good progress in managingour waste more sustainably in recentyears it is clear that we have muchmore to do in this area.

That is why I was delighted whenWales was granted new powers tomake its own laws on environmen-tal matters earlier this year.

Without going into unnecessarydetail, February saw our Environ-mental Legislative CompetenceOrder, or LCO, reaching its finalstage in the approval process when itwas made by Her Majesty the

Queen in Privy Council. By thatstage it had already been approvedby the National Assembly of Walesand both houses of Parliament.

An LCO provides the NationalAssembly for Wales with the abilityto consider and pass legislation on aparticular subject. As a result of theEnvironment LCO being made, theNational Assembly now has thepower to pass Welsh laws, or Assem-bly Measures as they are known, inthe areas of waste, pollution andnuisances.

This was — and is — really greatnews for Wales. Although environ-ment policy has been a devolvedissue for over a decade, until now wehaven’t had the power to pass ‘madein Wales’ legislation based on ourspecific Welsh priorities and needs.

As a result of the LCO beingmade, I was able to introduce a pro-posed Waste Measure to the Nation-al Assembly that will help usto radically improve the way wemanage our waste in Wales. TheMeasure will now go through anextensive scrutiny process but, onceapproved, will be a key tool in help-ing us to achieve our waste ambi-tions.

The Waste Measure allows us toestablish statutory targets for thepercentage of municipal waste thatlocal authorities recycle or compost,culminating in a 70 per cent targetby 2025, and will mean that WelshMinisters will have the powerto impose financial penalties onlocal authorities failing to meet stip-ulated targets.

It will also enable the Welsh Gov-

ernment to ban or restrict specifiedkinds of waste, such as food, wood,glass and plastics from landfill.

It will support my work to intro-duce a mandatory charge for carrierbags, which is due to come intoforce next Spring, and willenable the Welsh Assembly Govern-ment to ensure that retailers pass onthe revenue raised from the carrierbag charge to specified environmen-tal projects.

And finally, it will provide theAssembly Government with thepower to introduce fees and charg-ing schemes for Site Waste Manage-ment Plans relating to theConstruction and Demolition sec-tor in Wales. This should ensurethat the relevant enforcementauthorities have the appropriateresources to monitor and enforceSite Management Plans.

This is an exciting time for wastemanagement in Wales and we havethe opportunity to make a huge dif-ference to how Waste is managed.

We will shortly be holding a pub-lic consultation on landfill bans andlater in the spring, I will be launch-ing our waste management strategyTowards Zero Waste which will setout our ambitions of becoming ahigh recycling country by 2025 anda zero waste country by 2050.

I am confident that this suite ofactivity will drive Wales towardswaste management practices thatare much more sustainable, and willhelp us to work towards our ambi-tion of ensuring that within a life-time of a generation Wales uses onlyits global fair share of resources.

Devolution is helping Wales to gettough on environmental protection

‘I was delighted whenWales was granted

new powers to make itsown laws on

environmental matters’

e22. Pa31gnqx//12:0e:P010//102 e//3qgP/1


Stormont

Governm

ent By Professor Paul Bew, Queen’s University, Belfast

The great significance of theMarch 9 vote in the assemblyto proceed with the devolu-

tion of peace and justice is clear. Itensures the likely stability of thelocal power-sharing institutions foranother year. It is an indisputablefact of recent political history thatthe devolution of policing and jus-tice has been part of the dialoguebetween Sinn Fein and the Unionistleadership since 2003. In effect,Unionism promised that inexchange for IRA decommissioningand Sinn Fein support for thepolice, powers over policing and jus-tice would be devolved to Stormont.The vote on March 9, therefore,might be said to mark the comple-tion of the peace process.

There are, of course, ambiguities.For the longest time senior figuresin the British Government took theview that Northern Ireland was awholly inappropriate place to whichto devolve such powers, given thestrength of its ongoing sectariandivisions. It is also arguable thatTony Blair’s weakness on thedecommissioning issue in effectcompelled the Unionist leadershipto throw in this new bargainingchip as the only means of securing adeal, rather than because the policyimplications were properly thoughtout. Be that as it may, Sinn Feinwere right to say that they had animplicit deal, even if one wonderswhy in Republican theology it issuch a big deal to replace Mr PaulGoggins by Mr David Ford as thelocal Minister for Justice while liv-ing happily with a large, still inde-pendent British Intelligenceoperation in Northern Ireland.

But where do we go from here?Some recent polls suggest that theDUP, having screwed its courage tothe sticking point, will be rewardedby the electorate for its imaginativebreakthrough. It may very well beso. But the Northern Irish electoratehas a habit of not rewarding imagi-native breakthroughs with any greatenthusiasm. The last electoral test inNorthern Ireland was the June 2009European election, and this revealeda three-way split in the Unionistvote between the DUP, the UUP,and the TUV and seemed to mark adecisive end to DUP electoral hege-

mony. The European election is,however, an appropriate occasionfor a cost-free protest vote in North-ern Ireland as elsewhere, and it mayvery well be that voters will be more

reluctant to reward, for example, thehardline TUV in a Westminsterelection. But it is worth remember-ing that the local commentariat wastaken by surprise last June and thepossibility exists that it may betaken by surprise again.

Gordon Brown was a big winneron March 9. It can reasonably besaid that he sustained Tony Blair’sIrish legacy and worked very hard toensure that there was a deal. It is lessoften remarked that another bigwinner is David Cameron. His alliesthe Ulster Unionists felt compelledto vote against the deal despiteCameron’s support. (It has to be

said that the DUP wooing of theUUP was less than enthusiastic, onthe one hand insisting that theyneeded UUP support and on theother hand continuing to denouncethe UUP as the party of the sell-out.) Nevertheless, the UUP votewas an embarrassment to the Tories,but it is now of little significance asthe waters have closed over thisevent. More substantively,Cameron’s project for Northern Ire-land presumes the stability of Stor-mont, which is now secured, and ismore concerned with the quality ofNorthern Irish representation andinvolvement in Westminster, wheremany of the great issues of publiclife are still decided.

As the general election approach-es, there is one key question to beresolved. In the discussions onunionist unity which will certainlyfollow in the succeeding 12 months,who will be the dominating force?There are many strains withinUlster unionism – Little Ulsterism,sectarianism, liberalism, and abroader UK sentiment. The electionwill give us a clue as to which ofthese elements are the most impor-tant.

‘The Northern Irishelectorate has a habit

of not rewardingimaginative

breakthroughs with anygreat enthusiasm’

Stability in Northern Ireland isensured, at least for one more year

DavidCameronand GordonBrown

: 13xea30gnqn 02/1g/P101 0e3P8 P. ce 0


StormontG

overnment By Professor Richard Wilford,

Queen’s University, Belfast

The vote in the Northern Ire-land Assembly on March 9endorsing the devolution of

policing and criminal justice powerswas overwhelming, but not unani-mous.

The Ulster Unionist Party(UUP), which plans to contest thegeneral election in alliance with theConservative Party, while in princi-ple committed to their devolution,alone opposed the transfer of pow-ers chiefly on the ground that thefour-party Executive has been andremains, in the word of its leader,Sir Reg Empey, ‘dysfunctional’.From that perspective, and againstthe background of, in particular, afailure to secure Executive agree-ment on a range of wicked issues,not least the continuance of aca-demic selection (which it supports),the UUP argued that the context forthe devolution of new powersremains unstable.

This stance is not new. Like itsother junior coalition partner theSDLP, which has just one seat at thetop table, the UUP regards theDUP-Sinn Féin axis as a dyarchy,intent on marginalising the twosmaller governing parties. Certainly,the two major parties have the num-bers (a combined total of 63 out of108 members and nine of the 12Ministerial posts) to ensure thatthey meet the necessary threshold ofcross-community support for keyvotes in the Assembly, as was thecase on March 9. Moreover, the pro-tracted negotiations in early Febru-ary at Hillsborough Castle, whichpaved the way to the planned trans-fer of policing and justice powerswere not, as far as the UUP andSDLP are concerned, fully inclu-sive, but conducted largely by theDUP and SF in concert with theUK and Irish Governments: aprocess that further aggravated theminor parties’ shared sense of mar-ginalisation.

In addition, an earlier agreementstruck between the DUP and SFconcerning the process by which aJustice Minister will be appointed(on April 9) has alienated the SDLP.Under the terms of the Belfast andSt Andrews Agreements, all Minis-ters are appointed by means of the

d’Hondt formula. However, the Jus-tice post will instead be filled bymeans of a cross-community vote inthe Assembly, a signal departurefrom the status quo and which, inthe albeit tortured reasoning of theSDLP, deprives it of a second Execu-tive seat.

While the two major partiesdeclared that neither would nomi-nate one of its own as a candidatefor the post, this joint self-denyingordinance applies only until 2012,

when it will be replaced by an as yetundetermined alternative means ofappointment: itself, a possible polit-ical accident in the making.

Moreover, the interim adoptionof the cross-community vote proce-dure means that the Justice Ministerpost is in the shared gift of the DUPand SF, the likely beneficiary ofwhich is the head of the seven-strong Alliance Party, David Ford,albeit that the SDLP’s new leader,Margaret Ritchie (who is seeking tosucceed party colleague EddieMcGrady as the MP for SouthDown) has nominated one of herown, Alban Maginness QC, for thejob and will, no doubt, be support-ed in the division lobby by the UUPon April 9.

These difficulties are thrown intosharp relief against the backdrop ofthe looming general election. Themuch vaunted UUP-Conservativeelectoral alliance looks fragile (theyhave yet to announce a fully agreedjoint candidate slate) and is itselfchallenged by the offer from theDUP to the UUP to run agreedunionist candidates in two West-minster seats currently held by

nationalists: South Belfast (theSDLP’s Alistair McDonnell) andFermanagh and South Tyrone (SF’sMichelle Gildernew).

As far as the Conservative Party(which urged the UUP to supportthe transfer of policing and justice)is concerned, this is an offer that theUUP can and must refuse. Howev-er, notwithstanding the fractiousrelationship it has with the DUP,the UUP may yet conclude that thisis an irresistible proposal, especiallysince its sole current MP, SylviaHermon (North Down), has reject-ed the link with the Conservativesand is likely to run as an Independ-ent candidate. Indeed, without anelectoral agreement with the DUP,the UUP could find itself bereft ofany representation in the House ofCommons: for it, a demoralizingprospect.

To complicate matters further, theunionist electorate will split threeways at the general election giventhe challenge posed by TraditionalUnionist Voice (TUV), led by theDUP’s former MEP, Jim Allister,who regards both the UUP and,especially, his former party as moral-ly bankrupt having entered into theExecutive alongside SF. Thoughmost unlikely to capture a West-minster seat (Mr Allister is to con-test the North Antrim redoubt ofthe DUP which will be defended bythe son of the incumbent, Dr IanPaisley), the contest offers an oppor-tunity for the TUV to buildmomentum towards the next sched-uled Assembly election in the earlyspring of 2011. Should it secureeven a modest representation, itspresence in the chamber will cer-tainly enliven Assembly proceedingsand heavily underscore the divisionsthat exist within the unionist elec-torate.

In sum, despite the policing andjustice vote and the unanimity ofthe parties in the face of dissidentrepublican violence and criminality,the health of Northern Ireland’sbody politic remains in a chronicstate, akin to the (political) equiva-lent of a grumbling appendix. And,once again, the province’s drearysteeples may yet figure in the land-scape of the new, possibly hung,parliament: to borrow a phrase,Northern Ireland ‘hasn’t gone away,you know’.

“To borrow a phrase,Northern Ireland

‘hasn’t gone away, youknow’.”

The Northern Ireland issue is still ahot topic in the Province

Prof RichardWilford

: 12. Pa31gnqx 1e/0g/e010 182g: 3qcP 1

By Mike Tuffrey, Leader of the Liberal Democrat London Assembly Group

Last year saw the marking of 10years of devolution for Walesand Scotland. This was widely

reported and a lively debate stillcontinues as to what further powersshould be devolved.

In London we are also celebratingan anniversary, but I doubt manyLondoners, whatever their politics,have given much thought to the sig-nificance of 10 years of regionalgovernment under a Mayoral sys-tem.

Perhaps this is not surprising.After all London has had some formof regional government for over acentury. The London CountyCouncil, the predecessor to theGreater London Council (GLC),was created as long ago as 1889.

In London regional government isaccepted and simply taken as thenorm. The years from 1986 to 2000were a temporary and harmful aber-ration. Very few Londoners serious-ly want to go back to those days.Whatever the situation in otherparts of England it is absolutelyclear that regional government ishere to stay in London.

So perhaps a degree of apathy isinevitable as the tenth anniversaryof the Greater London Authorityfast approaches, however I believe itwould be unfortunate if thisanniversary came and went withoutany debate about the future.

A good starting point would be awider understanding of the powersthat the Mayor of London actuallyhas. If pressed, most Londonerswould recognise that the Mayor hassome powers in relation to publictransport and setting of the budgetfor the Metropolitan Police. Theymight also mention simply ‘speak-ing up’ for the capital.

What few people would immedi-ately think of is that the Mayor hashuge powers in the provision ofaffordable housing. Boris Johnson isactually in charge of 40 per cent ofthe government’s affordable housingbudget. Over three years he candirect a staggering sum of £3.3 bil-lion. Yet any study of the extensivemedia coverage devoted to theMayor would show only a minisculeamount devoted to this key bread-

and-butter issue for many London-ers.

Equally, few people would recog-nise the Mayor’s immense powers inrelation to key planning decisions.Acting alone and in private he canmake significant decisions as to

whether planning applications forlarge and often controversial devel-opments go ahead.

With all these powers, there is anurgent need for the next decade toimprove how Londoners hold theirMayor to account, so that we getbetter decision-making at City Halland in turn help improve the quali-ty of life in London.

Three key changes are needed. Firstly, we should open up how

decisions are made and involve Lon-doners much more in the decision-making process. Above all else,mayoral planning meetings must beheld in public. The Mayor should

also have an obligation to consultthe public about fare rises – whichcost Londoners 20 times more thancouncil tax changes.

Secondly, at City Hall thereshould be a proper cabinet system.Mayoral advisers should also beexpected to come once a month, oras often as needed, before London’selected Assembly.

And thirdly, some changes in laware necessary. We should abolish thegovernment office for London anddevolve more power and money toLondon, including health expendi-ture. Yet at the same time we shouldgive more powers over spending tothe London Assembly, which atpresent lacks any real ability to chal-lenge the Mayor’s budget or to bur-row into the Mayor’s £13 billion ofexpenditure across the police, fire,transport, housing and economicdevelopment.

After 10 years of a Mayoral systemand 121 years since London firstgained regional government, thefuture of how the capital is governedmight not excite many. Yet whenthe dust finally settles after May 6 itis vital that, just as in Wales andScotland, a debate does actuallycommence.

‘There is an urgentneed for the next

decade to improve howLondoners hold their

Mayor to account’


London

LondonMayorBorisJohnson

A decade on, we need a new debateon London’s regional government

Governm

ent

23xP3n1qgen//1d:0g:2010//103 //P. aP/1


EuropeG

overnment By Marcus Papadopoulos

This May marks the 65thanniversary of the defeat ofNazi Germany, an event that

symbolised the triumph of mankindand civilisation over what wasdepicted in Dmitry Shostakovich’sSeventh Symphony as “naked evil”.

The principal countries whichcomprised the anti-Hitler coalition— Russia, the United States, Britainand France — will hold ceremoniesto celebrate the crushing of Nazismincluding an even larger than usualRussian military parade on RedSquare on May 9 which may involveAmerican, British and French bat-talions.

However, the forthcoming cele-brations are being overshadowed bya dark and sinister cloud: the glorifi-cation of Nazism. The resurrectionof the continent’s darkest chapter bythe governments of Estonia, Latviaand, up until recently, Ukraine isthe vilest affront to the memory ofthe millions of people who eitherdied fighting the Nazis or who weremurdered in the Nazi-run concen-tration and extermination camps.

In recent years, the authorities inTallinn and Riga have unashamedlypermitted annual parades by Waf-fen-SS veterans. This grotesquespectacle involves former membersof the 20th Estonian SS Divisionand the Latvian Legion parading infull uniform, adorned with SSinsignias, in the centre of the Eston-ian and Latvian capitals.

These Baltic States are in the

process of rewriting the history ofthe Second World War. The SovietRed Army, which liberated Estoniaand Latvia from the Nazi yoke in1944, is today portrayed by Eston-ian and Latvian politicians andschool teachers as an “occupyingforce” while those who foughtagainst the Russians in SS divisions

are regarded as “national heroes”. But that argument is a distortion

of history and ignores the roleplayed by Estonian and Latvian SSdivisions in the Holocaust. In regardto the annual procession by veteransof the Latvian Legion, Dr EfraimZuroff, director of the SimonWisenthal Centre in Jerusalem,said: “By permitting a march tohonour those who fought alongsidethe Nazis for a victory of the ThirdReich during World War II, the Lat-vian authorities are sending adeeply-flawed message which dis-torts the historical events. And byhonouring all the Latvian SS Legionveterans, even though among themare many who were active partici-pants in the mass murder of Jews inLatvia and Belarus, the organisers ofthe march are insulting the victimsof these murderers and reinforcingthe myth that Latvians bear noresponsibility whatsoever for theannihilation of Latvian Jewry.”

Concerning the parades by veter-ans of the 20th Estonian SS Divi-sion, Dr Zuroff was equal in hiscondemnation. He argued: “Theconsistent failure of the Estonianauthorities to prosecute any localNazi war criminals ... and the con-tinuing glorification of Estonian SSveterans ... make Estonia a leader inHolocaust distortion… Only byfacing its bloody Holocaust past willEstonia ever be able to truly over-come its record of collaborationwith the Nazis and the active partic-ipation of numerous Estonians inthe crimes of the Shoa both in Esto-nia and outside its borders.”

The falsification of history, how-ever, is not just confined to speechesby politicians or chapters in schooltextbooks or parades by SS veterans.In 2007, the Estonian authoritiessanctioned the removal of a SovietWorld War Two monument, alongwith the graves of Red Army sol-diers who died liberating Tallinnfrom the Nazis, from the centre ofthe capital.

During the Presidency of ViktorYushchenko, Ukraine embarked ona course similar to that undertakenin Estonia and Latvia. For a countrywhich was ravaged during the Sec-ond World War as a result of theNazi occupation — between fiveand eight million Ukrainians diedwhile over two million were deport-ed to Germany as slave labourers —and one which was well representedin the ranks of the Red Army, MrYushchenko’s glorification of Nazicollaborators and his attempts topresent Soviet soldiers who foughtthe Germans as “enemies ofUkraine” was a monumental act ofdisrespect to the memory of thecountry’s wartime deaths and a bla-tant effort to distort history.

In what was undoubtedly a finalsnub towards Russia before leavingoffice, Mr Yushchenko this Januaryposthumously bestowed his coun-try’s highest honour — Order ofUkraine — on wartime Nazi collab-orator Stepan Bandera, leader of theOrganisation for Ukrainian Nation-alists which murdered thousands ofJews and Poles as well as organisingresistance to the Soviet army.

Stepan Bandera’s collaborationwith the Nazis is substantively doc-umented as is his role in the mur-dering of Jews. One example ofBandera’s anti-Semitism and hisresolve to eliminate Ukrainian Jewscan be found in two quotes. Firstly,Bandera argued that: “The Jews arethe most faithful prop of the Bol-shevik regime and the vanguard ofMuscovite imperialism inUkraine… The OUN is engagedwith a struggle with the Jews.”

The second quote is from YaroslavStetsko, head of the Ukrainian gov-ernment which was proclaimed fol-lowing the German invasion of theSoviet Union and supported byBandera: “We are of the opinion

‘The resurrection of thecontinent’s darkest

chapter by thegovernments of

Estonia, Latvia and, upuntil recently, Ukraine

is the vilest affront’

65 years on the ghost of Nazismresurfaces across Europe

Continued on page 44

Nazisupportis on therise

0P2. P3n1qgex//1d: P:2 1 //1121 //3qaP/1


Europe

Governm

ent

continued from p43that a struggle against the Jews ofUkraine should be undertakenaccording to German methods, andso I am firm in my view that theJews must be annihilated complete-ly, and the German methods for liq-uidating the Jews should be broughtto Ukraine.”

The glorification of Nazism is theultimate offence to all who died atthe hands of the Nazis but in partic-ular to the six million victims of theHolocaust and the 28 million Sovietpeople who perished in the war.However, it is also helping toincrease anti-Semitism and is creat-ing serious strains between the gov-ernments of Russia on the one handand Estonia, Latvia and Ukraine onthe other. It should be noted, how-ever, that with the recent election ofViktor Yanukovych as President ofUkraine, the period of elevatingNazi collaborators to hero status inthis former Soviet republic has cometo an end.

During an interview in the resi-dence of the Russian Ambassador tothe Court of St James’s, Yury Vik-torovich Fedotov told this writerthat his government views “verynegatively” what is occurring inEstonia, Latvia and Ukraine andconsiders that such behaviour is“unacceptable in a civilised world”.

Speaking on behalf of a country

which bore the brunt of the Naziwar machine and which was respon-sible for more than 80 per cent ofthe German military’s overallwartime losses, Ambassador Fedo-tov said that the Russian govern-ment cannot and will not “accept”the glorification of Nazi veterans asthese people participated in “crimesagainst humanity”.

He argued that: “No one isallowed to rewrite the history of theSecond World War. The Nurem-burg Tribunal clearly defined the SSas a criminal organisation. Theseacts [in Estonia, Latvia andUkraine] have no justification.”

When asked about the case con-cerning Stepan Bandera, the Russ-ian ambassador averred that theUkrainian nationalist leader and histroops had carried out the “massextermination” of Russians,Byelorussians, Poles and Jews and

that this had been “determined” bythe Nuremburg Tribunal.

The Russian government, accord-ing to the ambassador, has noticed a“trend” in these newly independentstates in which they create a nation-al identity based on anti-Russian

sentiments. “These countries mayneed to revisit their history but thisshould not be done at the expenseof their relations with their neigh-bours, including Russia”, Ambassa-dor Fedotov contended.

The failure of the United Statesand the European Union to adopt atough stance towards countries glo-rifying Nazism was put to Ambass-dor Fedotov, including how the USand EU states refused to support aresolution passed last year by theUnited Nations General Assemblywhich condemned what is occurringin Estonia, Latvia and Ukraine.

He commented that although theAmericans and the Europeans havesent signals to these states express-ing “concern”, these have, never-theless, been “too mild and toopolite” and he added that Wash-

ington and Brussels need to for-mulate their position in “a moreprincipled way”.

Staying on the subject of theWest’s response towards states prais-ing Nazism, Ambassador Fedotovagreed with this writer that it isindeed ironic that the American andBritish governments are preparingto celebrate the 65th anniversary ofNazi Germany’s defeat but are at thesame time failing to vigorously con-demn attempts to glorify war crimi-nals. However, he noted that byhaving invited American, Britishand French troops to take part inthe Victory Day parade this May inMoscow, the Russian governmenthopes that by remembering all whodied in the war, this will “preventother people from rewriting thewar’s history”.

“History cannot be rewritten; his-tory must be honoured; and allattempts to glorify those who com-mitted crimes during the war muststop”, was part of AmbassadorFedotov’s closing remark in theinterview. The Russian government,he said, will continue to reply“strongly and negatively” to the re-writing of history and the glorifica-tion of Nazism.

By turning a blind eye to what isoccurring in Estonia, Latvia andUkraine — as a result of the geo-strategic importance attached tothem by Western foreign-policy-makers —Washington and Brusselsare not only unwittingly helping toincrease anti-Semitism but are alsoforgetting just how close mankindand civilisation came to beingdestroyed by the Nazis.

When marking the defeat ofHitler this May, Western leadersshould think carefully about whattheir peoples fought for during thewar; and they should never forgetthe human toll incurred as a resultNazism.

‘Western leadersshould think carefully

about what theirpeoples fought for

during the war’

RussianAmbassadorYuri Fedotov

2. Pa30gnqx//02:1e:P101//0c2eP//3qgP/0

The Road Haulage Association works with its members to provide profitable, efficient and sustainable services.

We advise members on compliance and business issues, we train hundreds of driver trainers and thousands of drivers and we campaign on behalf of this essential industry upon which we all rely.

Deliver UK focusses on an issue critical to the recovery of the UK enonomy: the long term success of the UK haulage industry

Competitiveness Our hauliers provide an efficient reliable service, and expect to generate realistic returns for their efforts.

Modal Choice It is essential that the transport debate recognises the criteria that are used when consignors choose how freight will move.

Fuel Duty There is an urgent need to de-couple the duty paid on fuel used in trucks, which is a tax on industry, from that used in cars.

8 2. P3n1qgex//1d:0g: 010//1c2Pd//3qaP/1


Dublin

Governm

ent Dr John Coulter is a political columnist with the IrishDaily Star and Tribune magazine

The House of the Oireachtas,the National Parliament ofthe Irish Republic, is no

longer the political House of Hor-rors to Unionism – thanks to theimpressive range of cross-borderinstitutions spawned by the 1998Good Friday Agreement.

Gone are the days when Unionistpoliticians would be severely disci-plined if they dared to cross theIrish border to carry out their civicduties.

This was due in part to the DailEireann, the House of Representa-tives, or the main Dublin Parlia-ment, failing to adopt a ‘gloves off ’policy towards republican terroristsfrom the Provisional IRA and INLAusing the Republic as a springboardfor attacks on the Northern Union-ist community and security forces.

But thanks to closer cross-borderco-operation between the Dail andWestminster, with Stormont in themiddle, Northern and Southernsecurity forces are implementing arealistic policy which is adoptingzero tolerance towards dissidentrepublican terrorists bitterlyopposed to the Irish peace process.

Cross-border co-operation is at itsstrongest, not just since the signingof the Belfast Agreement in 1998,the St Andrews Agreement in 2006,or even the Hillsborough CastleDeal earlier this year.

Indeed, among Northern Union-ists, the 30th Dail – or lower house

– which was constituted followingthe May 2007 General Election, isperhaps the most constructive andpopular since the Dail moved to itspresent home in Dublin’s LeinsterHouse in 1922.

1999 was a key year in cementingDail/Stormont relations. That waswhen Articles Two and Three of theIrish Constitution was amended totake account of the consent of theNorthern Ireland people if theywanted to join the Republic.

Central to the Irish peace process

is the current Southern Prime Min-ister, or Taoiseach, Brian Cowen,the veteran centre-Right Fianna Failleader. In May 2008, Cowen suc-ceeded Bertie Ahern as Irish PMand FF leader, one of the key archi-tects in developing a stable,devolved Stormont administration.

In early March, the StormontAssembly gained the necessarycross-community votes to secure thetransfer of policing and justice pow-ers back to a Northern administra-tion; the first time since the early1970s.

The seeds of this process weresown by Cowen during his years asIrish Foreign Minister and deputyIrish PM.

The Dail can also provide someparliamentary lessons for the Stor-mont Assembly. The Dail has 166members representing 26 Irishcounties, compared to the North’s108 Assembly members represent-ing six counties.

The Dail has mastered the art ofcoalition government. Cowen’sFianna Fail has 77 TDs, orDeputies. He heads the largestparty, but not enough to form agovernment.

This was achieved with a coalitionwith one of the minority parties, theGreens. But what has strengthenedthe Dail’s relations with Stormonthas been the range of successfulcross-border institutions.

These include: the North SouthMinisterial Council; the six NorthSouth Implementation Bodies, andthe British Irish Inter-Governmen-tal Conference set up in 1999.

Ironically, the present global eco-nomic crisis will see the need for theDail and Stormont to work evencloser.

The Dail prided itself on develop-ing a strong economy within the

European Union. It became knownas the Celtic Tiger.

The worldwide banking fiasco hasseen the roaring Celtic Tiger deteri-orate into the strangled yelps of adying pussycat.

The Republic benefited consider-ably from its EU membership, butwith the South set to become main-ly a giver of European fundingrather than a receiver, it took theFianna Fail coalition governmenttwo attempts to secure a Yes vote forthe Lisbon Treaty.

The success of the Northern peaceprocess and growth of cross-borderinstitutions may not be enough toconvince Southern voters thatCowen’s Fianna Fail should contin-ue to run the Republic.

A Southern General Electioncould be on the cards next year – thesame year the next crucial Stormontpoll is expected.

A rainbow coalition is being con-sidered by parties opposed to thecurrent FF/Green government.

The 31st Dail could be a rarepolitical concoction of the Right-wing Fine Gael, the socialist IrishLabour Party, and the centre-LeftGreens and Progressive Democrats,plus a gentle smattering of Inde-pendent TDs.

Sinn Fein may be the juniorpower-sharing Executive partner inthe North, but in the Republic, theparty is viewed with suspicion as ahardline Marxist movement pre-tending to be a nationalist move-ment for Irish unity.

As the Southern Protestant popu-lation begins to grow again afterdecades of decline, the new politicalpartnership which the Dail hascemented with Stormont has takena new twist with some sections ofthe Unionist community.

Just as the Dail was the key playerin convincing Unionists to embracea power-sharing Executive, so too,some Unionists want the Dail toembrace a new relationship with theCommonwealth, and especially theincreasingly influential Common-wealth Parliamentary Association.

Political jungle drums are sound-ing a steady beat of a visit to theRepublic by the Queen herself laterthis year. Many Unionists see this asa potential springboard to get theRepublic to have a closer bond withthe CPA, of which the NorthernAssembly is already a member.

‘Some Unionists wantthe Dail to embrace anew relationship withthe Commonwealth’

A new political partnership that theDail can cement with Stormont

BrianCowen

: P2. Pa31gnqx 1d/0e/2010 1P2ce 3qgP 1


Local GovernmentG

overnment

By Neil Turner, Labour MP for Wigan

The Labour Government hasdone much to transform localgovernment since it was elect-

ed in 1997.There has been a huge investment

in assets such as schools, hospitals,waste disposal and improving coun-cil houses. Few could deny that thisinvestment was not needed. InWigan, 26,000 council homes havebeen brought up to the decencystandard, and there has been parallelinvestment in private sector hous-ing. The ‘Building Schools for theFuture’ programme will see everysecondary school in the Boroughrebuilt, and primary schools are alsoto be rebuilt.

Local government has enjoyed 10years of increased funding from thecentre. This has led to, amongstother things, improvements in edu-cation attainment, better servicesfor the increasing elderly populationand, despite some high profiletragedies, better care for looked afterand vulnerable children.

As we move into an era wheregrowth in Central funding cannotbe expected, the search for evenmore efficiencies and improvedeffectiveness will become a hugechallenge.

However, local authorities, whichare already recognised as being themost efficient part of the public sec-tor, are likely to respond wellbecause of their track record anddemocratic accountability. Whilst itis inevitable there will be a focus onimproving back office support func-tions, for example, through sharingarrangements, the front-line cannotbe exempt from change. It is in thisarea that the challenges will begreatest.

This is because services providedby local authorities are not just vitalto the lives of all our citizens, expec-tations have been raised by years ofsustained improvement. Local

authorities will only be able to makeefficiencies in frontline services bydoing things differently, workingmore closely with their public andthird sector partners, and by recruit-ing and retaining the best staff,properly rewarded.

With this as the background,what should the next Governmentdo to help local government meetthe economic challenges of the nextthree years?

First will be to build on what hasalready been put in place and avoidthe temptation of further structuralreorganisation.

Second, this Government has pio-neered three-year financial settle-ments for local government. Theyheld their nerve and confirmed theoriginal figures for 2010/11, despitebeing faced with a much more diffi-cult financial situation than whenthe figures were first determined.The Government has invested bothto slow the recession down and togrow in the future. Three-year set-tlements therefore need to continueand, I would contend, develop intothree-year rolling settlements.

Third, the Government hasreviewed the formula used to dis-tribute taxpayers’ money to localauthorities so that it better reflectsan authority’s needs. However,because the Government wanted toavoid “turbulence” in the system, itintroduced ‘floors and ceilings’ toprevent large year on year losses orgains for authorities. The result isthat the formula has still not beenfully implemented. This situationneeds to be rectified as soon as pos-sible as it is demonstrably unfair towithhold money from Councilswhose needs are greatest whilst con-tinuing to resource other Councilsat a higher level than their needsdictate.

The figures are not insignificant.In 2010/11, Wigan Council will

receive an increase in formula fund-ing of just over £4m or 3.1 per cent.Had the formula been implementedin full the increase would have been7.4 per cent equivalent to a further£5.4m of grant.

Fourth, whilst the Governmenthas reduced the number of ring-fenced grants, giving local authori-ties more flexibility on how themoney should be spent, this trendneeds to accelerate.

Fifth, the Government shouldreturn business rate determinationto local control, ensuring that thereare effective equalisation measuresin place to take account of the wide-ly varying ability of Councils toraise revenue from this source.Whist I would like to see the threatof Council Tax capping removed,the business community will needassurances that if their rates are tobe determined locally, they will notbe unfairly treated.

My final improvements would beto the Council Tax system. Thereshould be an increase in the numberof bands at both the lower andupper ends, and the ratio of pay-ments should more fairly reflect thevalue of the property. An immediaterevaluation should be carried out,and then regularly thereafter. Thiswill not mean an overall increase inspending by local government, butit will mean that some householdswill pay more whilst others will payless. If a revaluation is not carriedout urgently, I believe the whole sys-tem will fall into disrepute andbecome unsustainable.

At the heart of these reforms is mybelief that a democratically account-able Council knows and will deliverservices that reflect the needs andwishes of its people. Central Gov-ernment should trust local govern-ment to do the right thing.

As I step down from Parliament, Iam immensely proud of what myGovernment has done for local gov-ernment. Citizens have beenrewarded with better and moreresponsive services, and with coun-cils more accountable to them.However, there are always improve-ments that can be made, but unlikemany proposals to Government,nothing I have proposed wouldincrease local spending, but the dis-tribution of resources would be fair-er and accountability improved.

‘Local government hasenjoyed 10 years of

increased funding fromthe centre’

Labour has a proud record on itscommitment to local government

23PpP3n1qged//1n:0a:8010//18P8a//2xgP/1

By Professor John A Kirk, Department of History, Royal Holloway, University of London

Imagine, if you will, the first eth-nic minority British Prime Min-ister of the modern age —

elected under the banner of theBritish National Party (BNP).

True, that prospect seems remote,especially given the recent wranglesover BNP membership. But it isworth noting that Barack Obama,the first black president, was electedunder the banner of the DemocraticParty. That party banned AfricanAmerican members in the southernstates for many years.

In the period after the AmericanCivil War (1861-1865) freed slaveswere given the right to vote. Theirparty of choice was the RepublicanParty, the party of President Abra-ham Lincoln, the Great Emancipa-tor. At the end of Reconstruction(1865-1877), when the Republicansgave up on attempts to create a bira-cial democracy in the South, theDemocratic Party stepped in. Itchampioned white supremacy inorder to return to power those whiteplanters who had ruled in the ante-bellum era.

One of the goals of the Democ-rats was to remove the civil rights offormer slaves. By the 1890s, a set of“Jim Crow” laws had cast a perva-sive net of segregation and disfran-chisement to prevent blacks fromexercising any power in southernsociety and politics. This wasdespite the fact that the FifteenthAmendment to the US Constitu-tion, passed in 1869, made it plainthat the vote could not be denied“on account of race, color, or previ-ous condition of servitude.”

That did not stop Democratsfinding other means to disfranchiseblack voters. Some demanded a polltax, which was beyond the means ofmany impoverished former slaves.Others required literacy tests, whichdisqualified many African Ameri-cans since it had been illegal toteach slaves to read and write. Therewere even states which adopted a“grandfather clause,” stating that ifan elector’s grandfather had been aslave, their grandson could not vote.One generation away from slavery,that again excluded most blacks.

Another method used by some

states was exclusion from the Dem-ocratic Party and its primary elec-tions. So comprehensive wasDemocratic domination in somestates that the Republican Partybarely existed. In general elections,many Democrats ran unopposed.The most important election wasthe Democratic Party primary,which chose the unopposed candi-date. Since blacks could not be mem-bers of the Democratic Party, whichclaimed it did not have to admit thembecause it was a private organization,they could not vote in party primaries.

By the 1920s, when it was clearthe Republican Party had lost inter-est in black voters, and that in theSouth the Democratic Party was thereal party of power, southern blacksbegan to seek party membership.Wider developments aided theircause. The stock market crash of1929, followed by the GreatDepression, brought a more liberalDemocratic administration topower under President FranklinDelano Roosevelt. Increasingly, themore liberal national Democratswould grow apart from the moreconservative, segregationist south-ern Democrats.

Roosevelt’s New Deal in the1930s gave millions of AfricanAmericans hope that a more sympa-thetic and more pro-active federalgovernment would act to secure thecivil rights they still lacked. AfricanAmerican voters defected en massefrom the Republican Party duringthe decade because of this.

Roosevelt’s appointments to theUS Supreme Court also helped thecause of civil rights. A more liberalcourt proved willing to roll back dis-crimination in the South. In thelandmark case of Smith v Allwright(1944), the court ruled that state

Democratic parties could not pre-vent black participation in primaryelections, since the primaries werean integral part of the whole elec-tion process. Despite some initialresistance, many southern Democ-rats eventually gave way, openingthe door later to full party member-ship for African Americans.

The national Democratic Party’ssupport for civil rights caused aschism within the party that ledsouthern Democrats to defect to theRepublican Party. This shift wassealed in 1965 when southernDemocratic president Lyndon BJohnson threw his support behindthe Voting Rights Act, whichoffered federal support to quash ille-gal practices preventing the exerciseof the black vote in the South. Inthe 1968 presidential election, seg-regationist Alabama governorGeorge Wallace took five southernstates as an independent candidate.In 1972, Richard M Nixon sweptthe South for the Republican Party.For the most part, the South hasstayed Republican since.

Barack Obama’s election in 2008completed a startling turnaroundfor the Democratic Party, from theparty of southern white supremacyto the party of the first black presi-dent. Admittedly, the BNP does nothold anywhere near the power andinfluence that white southernDemocrats once did. But in raisingissues of party membership andracial and ethnic discrimination, theBNP anachronistically harks back toanother distant time and era, whichseems so curiously out of place inmodern British politics.

And who knows what lies aheadfor Mr Rajinder Singh, the BNP’sfirst, recently admitted ethnicminority member?


Washington

Governm

ent

How parties can perform remarkableturnarounds in their policies

3Pp8ng0eqPd//0n:1a:2101//01P 3//2x38/0

The Conservative Party: From Thatcher to Cameron, Tim BalePolity, hb, £25.00

Why did the ConservativeParty take so long to learnthe lessons of its defeat in

1997? Generally reckoned theworld’s oldest political party, theTories are also judged to have beenone of the most successful, rulingthe UK for much of the past twocenturies. But defeat in 1997 sentthem into the political wildernessfor a long period. No less than threedifferent leaders failed to find a wayout. Only with the arrival of DavidCameron did prospects begin toimprove. What went wrong?

In the opinion of Tim Bale wewill not understand what happenedto the Conservative Party after 1997unless we focus on the ‘intersection,the interrelationship and the recip-rocal influence of ideas, interestsand institutions’. Added to this, wehave to remember that actions anddecisions taken early on influencewhat happens later – an idea Balerefers to as ‘path dependence’ (justabout the only time he makes use ofacademic jargon).

In the light of this analysis, Baleprovides us with a narrative historyof the Conservative Party from thefall of Margaret Thatcher down tothe present in which he attempts toshow the way in which personali-ties, ideas, institutions and ‘pathdependence’ have determinedthe course of events. By institu-tions he means not only theConservative Party itself but therole played by the press and byConservative columnists.

Quite rightly Bale begins hisstory with John Major because agood deal of Conservative histo-ry cannot be understood with-out looking at the record ofMajor’s government and the splitsin the party with which he had todeal. Although Bale is correct to saythat it was under Major that theparty began to lose the plot, moremight have been said about whatMajor managed to achieve despitethe odds weighed against him. Withthe various opt-out clauses hesecured, Major actually did wellfrom his party’s point of view innegotiating the Maastricht Treatyand a good case can be made forarguing that Ken Clarke as Chan-cellor laid the foundations for the

future growth for which GordonBrown was to claim the praise.

Part of the problem Majorencountered was caused by theunwillingness of constituency par-ties to bring rebel MPs into line.Bale argues that the reluctance ofthe local parties to act was due lessto the Euroscepticism of membersand more to a tradition of inde-pendence and loyalty to sittingmembers.

As Bale points out, critics fromthe old guard in the ConservativeParty who can boast of their success-es in the 1980s cannot be writtenoff as easily as Tony Blair wrote offthe left of the Labour Party as abunch of losers. Cameron hasalways made the right noises aboutThatcher but as Bale rather bluntlyputs it ‘her transformation from aconstantly carping critic to a frailold lady has provided its own formof closure’. Interestingly another‘carping critic’ from another wing ofthe party, Ted Heath, is not men-tioned in the narrative.

As well as the influence of

Thatcher, WilliamHague and Michael

Howard appear to have been misledby the fact that on certain issuessuch as Europe and Immigration,they were in tune with the publicmood. What they did not realisewas that although the public agreedwith them on these questions theydid not rate them as important asthe public services or the economy.Blair’s mantra of ‘education, educa-tion, education’ and his commit-ment to the NHS chimed with aswing away from uncaring Thatch-erism towards the belief that there isindeed such a thing as society.

Particularly in the first term ofBlair’s government the Tories misseda trick by not arguing that NewLabour was in danger of wastingspending of public services if it didnot at the same time introducereforms. In the case of the NHSreforms introduced by Ken Clarkewere reversed before Blair came tosee their usefulness. But to make thecase for reform the Tories wouldhave had to convince voters thatthey really wanted to improve serv-ices rather than cut them and thiswould have been difficult.

For all his ability, Hague comesbadly out of this narrative. Hisinstincts were right wing and he wasno moderniser. He never tried toreach out to the middle ground andhe always placed his hopes on apopulist strategy, believing peoplewould rally to a call to ‘save thepound’ despite the fact that Labourhad promised a referendum beforeentry into the Euro. MichaelHoward set out to tackle the party’sreputation for being leaderless anddivided but he did little to changepolicy. Again his own instincts werepopulist and right wing though heoften came across as an opportunist.

Ian Duncan Smith did see theneed to move in a more compas-sionate direction but he didn’t havethe ability to be leader and kept feel-ing the need to throw a bone toappease the right wing of the party.

Only with the arrival of DavidCameron as leader did the partystart to look like a more credibleforce. Cameron has struggled attimes, notably in his attempt to finda coherent response to the economiccrisis, but he has seen the need tomove the party to the centre groundand has been able to impose hisauthority so that this has happened.

Problems lie ahead for Cameron.There are doubts about how far hehas really transformed his party and,as Bale warns, his approach toEurope amounts to ‘fantasy poli-tics’. There is little chance he will beable to secure agreement from otherstates about some of the changes towhich he is committed. Voters maybe Euro-sceptic but few believe it isin Britain’s national interest to leavethe EU.

Bale has provided essential back-ground reading for the days ahead.History does not usually repeat itselfbut there is no denying ‘pathdependence’. Paul Richardson

The evolution of the Conservative Party

The Tories move to the centre ground

Book Review

s


DavidCameronwithBaronessThatcher

: 23x23n0qgen 02/1a/P101 0c3Pe P. g2 0

The stage is set. The playershave learned their lines. Andthe audience will now decide

who to applaud when the perform-ance is over. Or even to sit on theirhands if they cannot be bothered toget up off their bottoms. Yes, thedrama that is the General Electioncampaign is about to begin its run,with the final curtain set to fall at10pm on May 6. And, in a latechange to the cast-list, the leadingmen will be joined by their leadingladies.

There will be a lot of firsts in thiselection; the first TV debatesbetween party leaders; the first e-election as the campaign goesonline. And the first time that mod-ern party leaders have felt the needto hide behind the skirts of theirwives. It is almost a cliché now tosay Sarah Brown is Gordon Brown’sgreatest asset, but cliché or not, sheis. Her supporting role for her hus-band has twice stolen the show atparty conferences, and people warmto her because she has the socialskills the PM lacks.

But the big surprise is for shySamantha Cameron to have agreedto trundle round the TV studios.SamCam, as the tabloids now callher, hates the spotlight, and evenher unavoidable public appearances

at party conferences are obviousagony for her. So things must bereally gloomy at Conservative Cam-paign HQ to have persuaded her toface the cameras. But she cameacross rather well when she met SirTrevor McDonald, even if we didnot learn the answer to that mostimportant question of all; whatmakes Dave tick?

Instead we were treated to somebanal, domestic stuff – which, ofcourse, is exactly what CCHQ PRwiz Andy Coulson wanted. As a for-mer News of the World editor heknows that the only thing morelikely to fascinate voters than what

goes on in the kitchen would beSam talking about what goes on inthe bedroom. In the event she man-aged to give a glimpse of both.

“He’s definitely not perfect andlike any husband he has lots of irri-tating habits,” she chirruped. “I’dsay one of the brilliant things abouthim is he loves cooking. But he, youknow, he makes a terrible mess. Heis not very good at clearing up as hegoes along. He is not very good atpicking up his clothes. He’s a terri-ble channel flicker. I have to bequite firm about him not fiddlingwith his phone and his Blackberrytoo much, cos it can be, you know,quite annoying.” So there you haveit. The man who would be Britain’snext prime minister: untidy butendearing. An image worth a dozenparty politicals.

Of course Sam would haveexpected to be seen on the cam-paign trail. It’s the fact she openedher mouth which is the departurefrom tradition. Britain is not Amer-ica. The spouse of our nationalleader has no official role. There areno First Ladies in Downing Street.Which is why when I went to TonyBlair’s Islington townhouse duringthe 1997 campaign to do an ‘athome’ feature with him and Cherie,the deal was she would appear in thepictures but he would do all thetalking.

Many would consider it sexist tosuggest that spouses of politiciansshould be seen and not heard. Andit is a pity that top-level politics isonce again dominated by men. Butthat’s the way it is. And it is the menstanding for election, not thewomen they married. So MiriamClegg may care to consider the pos-

sible backlash if she is minded tofollow in her business suit.

But the opinion polls are so closethat all parties will be tempted to dothings they may not otherwise havedone. That explains the extraordi-nary attacks made on GordonBrown by shadow Defence Secre-tary Liam Fox and ex-PM Sir JohnMajor over his recent visit toAfghanistan. Sir John accused MrBrown of using soldiers as “politicalprops” by being pictured alongsidethem so close to an election. AndMr Fox chorused: “This is not theway to treat our armed forces.” OnlyNick Clegg managed to be even-handed, saying that the PM had “aconstitutional duty” to show theUK’s “collective sense of gratitude”to British troops for their efforts.

The Tory criticism was grosslyunfair. I accompanied the PrimeMinister on his Afghanistan trip,the second time I have been therewith him. And I can promise you itis a hell of a long way to go for a dayout. It’s not the danger I mind somuch as the discomfort. It involveslong charter flights and little sleepand painful hours in an RAF Her-cules, which is a bit like beingencased in a giant dentist’s drill. If itwas punishing for the journalists itis doubly so for the PM who doesnot stop from the time he hits theground to the moment he leaves it.And the soldiers I talked to appreci-ated his presence.

If the PM had really wanted topull a political stunt then there aremany easier ones to be had by stay-ing at home.

Nigel Nelson is Political Editor ofThe People

‘If the PM had reallywanted to pull a

political stunt thenthere are many easier

ones to be had bystaying at home’


Nigel Nelson’s Diary

The stage is set for an exciting andunpredictable General Election

Diary

P02. Pa31gnqx 1e/0g/8010 1: 2gc 3qdP 1

eq2c8np1.qxq 13/: d/d: 1: 1d2d3 Peg8 1

52roger.qxd:cenp1.qxd 22/03/2010 12:51 Page 1

w • w • s • edinburgh • cardiff europe international...

Documents