The independent commentary on British political affairs.
The independent commentary on British political affairs.
May 2008
Vol. 11, No. 11
A People's War: Brenda Boardman | The shadow over Brown's plan's to change the way we are governed: … More…
Available for subscribers to download now, in the Print Magazine section.
This article is provided free-to-view for all visitors to thepolitician.org.
A climate watchdog
SIR: Your article by Alice Bows and Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre on why the government’s planned cut in UK carbon dioxide emissions of 60 per cent by 2050 is inadequate was spot on, and your editorial highlights the gap between claims and reality with the Climate Change Bill.
For exactly these reasons, the Liberal Democrats called in the debate on Tuesday 8 May for more ambitious targets for all greenhouse gases (not just carbon dioxide as the government proposes) and tougher action. You rightly point out that it is hard to see a minister being taken to court for infringing a target. You might have added that if targets solved problems, this would be the best governed country in the world. That is why the Liberal Democrats have repeatedly laid the greatest emphasis on the practical measures — the green tax switch, our WarmHomes package funded by energy mortgages and so on — to deliver the ambitious cuts in carbon emissions we need to make.
However, the principle of a Climate Change Bill is worth defending as it would establish an independent statutory body — the carbon committee — to report annually on government progress. A failure to meet targets would lead to public opprobrium for the government from an authoritative source, and it is this pressure which would help us to maintain momentum on the long march to decarbonise the UK economy.
The carbon committee should in our view assess progress against an annual target — not a five-yearly one — as this would allow on-going assessments of progress in a normal government’s term of office. Five-year targets in a four-year parliament are merely NIMTO targets — not-in-my-term-of-office targets. The practical difficulties — making allowances for weather, growth and energy prices — are easily resolved given that economists are used to making such adjustments to detect underlying trends.
Moreover, the carbon committee is set to assess progress after the year in question has finished, so any special factors are also already known. The carbon committee should also be able to recommend changes in the overall targets for reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Chris Huhne MP, Liberal Democrat Shadow Environment Secretary.
SIR: A key purpose of the Climate Change Bill is to apply some external rigour to future governments’ efforts to reduce carbon emissions. The fact that, despite all the talk, the UK continues to increase its climate change impacts is evidence enough of the need for this. Government departments are amongst the worst offenders and we need a step change in the way that Whitehall thinks about this issue.
The Bill is also about providing certainty to all of us, but in particular businesses making long-term investment decisions, that the direction of travel is inexorably towards a low-carbon economy.
Business needs to know that governments are going to take climate change seriously so that they can plan responsibly with their shareholders’ money.
The Climate Change Bill is not a solution in its own right. There is in any case no solution which is not a global one. But applying binding framework targets along the way to an emissions cut of at least 60 per cent is a start. A genuinely independent body to set and monitor emissions targets would help scientific necessity to triumph over political expediency. And using rolling annual rate of change targets would enable early action as well as enhance accountability.
Yes, the way that the Bill envisages binding successor governments to action is ‘unprecedented’. But so is the threat of climate change; the effort needed to stabilise global temperatures will last longer than any one parliament. We need an inter-generational framework. Muddling through is just not good enough.
Peter Ainsworth MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
For the sake of the ill...
Sir: Rosie Winterton implies that those who oppose the Mental Health Bill are standing in the way of the government’s strategy to decrease suicide rates (‘For the sake of the ill’, May 2007). Nothing could be further from the truth. Valuable progress has been made in reducing suicides in recent years, and everyone would like to see this trend continue. However, to tie this to the introduction of controversial Community Treatment Orders is to make an emotive but completely unfounded link. In fact, there is no solid evidence to show these orders will improve adherence to medication or reduce suicide.
The evidence which exists around Community Treatment Orders is highly sketchy. The government-funded report: ‘International experiences of using community treatment orders’ published earlier this year, showed no evidence that they actually work. Without clear, well-constructed research we do not know what consequences these orders may have. Conceivably, they may decrease the likelihood of someone seeking help from services until they reach crisis point, or they may divert resources to those on orders, leaving less help available to those who wish to access support voluntarily.
Neither of these would achieve the aim which we all have for new mental health legislation — to enable people to have access to the support they need and want as early as possible, and with the minimum restriction on their right to exercise choice over their own care.
Moira Fraser, Head of Policy, Mental Health Foundation, London SE1.
Ending child poverty
SIR: Donald Hirsch (Where now on the long road to ending child poverty?) makes clear that the Comprehensive Spending Review is crucial to meeting the 2010 target of halving child poverty. But while a major push in investment before 2010 is required, more is needed to meet the longer-term target of eradicating child poverty by 2020.
The government must now open up new fronts to attack poverty. It’s time to address the structural causes, including Britain’s dependence on poverty-pay jobs and high levels of inequality in Britain compared to European countries with low child poverty rates, particularly for risk groups such as families affected by disability.
Gordon Brown must not just find the policies and investment to meet these challenges, but must convince the public of the importance to us all of eradicating child poverty, making a compact between voters and politicians that will sustain the commitment needed. Increasing universal child benefit, as Guy Palmer suggests, would not only help to reduce child poverty but would underline that commitment, reminding us of the value of every child.
Kate Green OBE, Chief Executive, Child Poverty Action Group.
SIR: In 1998 the prime minister set an extremely ambitious target for this government. It will take a cohesive, long-term and holistic approach by Whitehall to halve child poverty by 2010 and eradicate it by 2020. Every child should be given the best start in life with the promise of high quality education, staying safe and remaining healthy and research shows that good quality early years provision improves children’s social and intellectual development until at least the age of ten.
Over 600,000 children have been lifted from poverty since 1999 and this government is committed to seeing that figure rise.
We have also seen a vast improvement in children’s services, particularly for those who have come from deprived backgrounds. In fact there are now 1,250 Children’s Centres, offering services to a million children and their families. We also spend £2m a day on the childcare element of the Working Tax Credit.
However, despite this progress we are aware there is still much more to do. Decades of neglect are now being addressed with investment and a clear policy focus on increasing a child’s well-being.
Beverley Hughes MP, Minister of State for Children, Young People and Families.
Junking junk food
SIR: Of course Sue Palmer (A nation of children sold as slaves to the market) is right to state that, ‘Any decent society should strive with all its heart to further the social, emotional and moral well-being of its children.’ It is disappointing, however, that she also talks of a ‘half-hearted ban on junk food advertising’.
I wonder whether she has actually read the stringent codes that regulate advertising. If Sue had sat through advertising code of practice meetings, as I have, she would be amazed at the detail and draconian nature of many of the restrictions, which are rigorously applied.
The new rules brought in to regulate advertising on broadcast and non-broadcast media are tough but fair. The important thing now is for the advertising industry to act within the spirit as well as the letter of the new codes. I have been impressed by the progress that has already been made in this area.
Advertising is an important, creative and responsible industry. I hope that as Sue looks at the evidence she will reappraise her views.
Baroness Buscombe, Chief Executive, Advertising Association London SW1.
Joined-up government
SIR: New Labour’s introduction of assymetrical devolution in the United Kingdom presented a unique opportunity for progressive lesson-drawing in public policy across the nations and regions of Britain. Yet the development of policy instruments for deliberating upon and diffusing best practice have at best been short-lived.
Moreover, despite abundant rhetoric to the contrary, the government’s Modernising Civil Services agenda has failed to develop the conditions for effective organisational learning within the public services.
Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the absence of integrated skills training at the heart of the British civil service; where departments are allowed to go their own way and training in evidence-based practice is given a low priority.
At the very least inter-ministerial committees in the main arenas of public policy should be empowered to act as instruments for deliberating upon and diffusing good practice. Moreover, a similar role in deliberative terms could be envisaged for a reformed second chamber and dare I say it — a resurrected Council of the Isles.
It is unlikely that this government will ever meet its commitment to ‘deliver, deliver, deliver’ until it is able to develop public organisations which have the capacity to learn from their mistakes and build on theirsuccesses.
Professor Mark Evans, Post-War Reconstruction and Development Unit, University of York.
I’m a Scot, Mr Salmond, so I want a vote too
Sir: I was born, brought up, educated and married in Scotland, but live in England — like millions of other Scots who do not need Mr Alex Salmond to decide the future of our natural country without our having a say in it. Scottish independence would deprive me of my British status just as English independence — I am not English — would leave me an outsider in my own country.
So if Mr Salmond wants a referendum, let us insist that those who are entitled to vote include those like me with Scottish birth certificates and who are citizens of the country he wants to break up. Being British is not just a label, it is a birthright. If Mr Salmond wants to deprive me of it, I want a voice in that first.
Besides, residency is not the absolute condition for democratic voting. French and Americans living in Britain do not lose their voting rights in consequence, and nor do the British living abroad. So, Mr Salmond, there you have it. If you get your referendum, count me in or stand accused of disenfranchising your fellow Scots. In the meantime, perhaps our new British prime minister might have a word in his ear... for his own sake.
Rosemary McLellan, York.
The skill to succeed
SIR: David Bailey’s article, Why Britain Needs a New Kind of Industrial Revolution, was both timely and welcome. There may be fewer than 3 million people employed in manufacturing — the lowest number since records began — but output continues to rise. We are still making things here, and the growing importance of the contribution of design, logistics, innovation and after-sales service means we need a better understanding of modern manufacturing, too.
Developing and improving skills policy is a central way of redressing the balance. How many people realise that a level 3 qualification — two A-levels or their equivalent — is increasingly the benchmark for employability in manufacturing? Around half of the current manufacturing workforce has not achieved that level.
I welcome the Leitch report’s recommendations for a ‘demand-led’ skills strategy, although this strategy must be focused as much on the needs of employees as of employers. We all need to tackle the negative perception of the manufacturing industry, especially among the young, and so encourage more women and skilled graduates into the sector. Above all our country needs to understand that investing in manufacturing skills is an investment for the future.
Peter Luff MP, Chairman, DTI Select Committee.