Tag: Law

Build, but not here

Hearing Michael Gove on the radio this morning is almost a parody of reality. His warbling language doesn’t encourage listening. It wanders around with undulations and platitudes. He’s articulate in a way that’s like sugar dissolving in tea. I didn’t hear this, but I may as well have heard it:

Yes, we are going to feed your grandmother to crocodiles in the interests of the nation. I have great admiration for those who are stepping forward to be eaten.[1] It’s not just Labour grandmothers who will be affected but a whole range of different people. A government code of conduct will ensure they remain in Elysian fields, at least for the term of this administration. We are fully committed to our manifesto commitment (whatever). By the way: what was the question?

It’s strange that it has taken so long to recognise the virtues of another Michael, namely Michael Hesletine[2]. The idea that government intervention is needed to solve housing problems has resurfaced after a long hiatus. Lack of action over a decade, and more is one issue that may surface in next year’s General Election.

Over the weekend, I had a conversation with a parish councillor in a small village deep in the west country[3]. A landscape of great natural beauty. I said, I was all in favour of schemes to help local people buy property to enable them to build lives in rural communities. However, the prevailing view was that building is inevitably destructive and a not to be encouraged in an Idyllic village surrounded by rolling countryside. An urge to place responsibility for housing on towns and cities runs deep.

There’s a little terraced stone-built cottage in the village up for sale now. It’s priced well over £300,000. Yes, it makes sense for the owner to realises as big a receipt as possible for this property but it’s unlikely that anyone of modest means, who grew-up in the area will be the purchaser.

This small country village has a lively primary school, church, and village hall. Unfortunately, the pub is closed, and the village shop has long since gone. There’s now plans to lay fibre optic cable to better connect this rural community. So, with excellent communication one difference between rural and urban communities is eliminated.

Should such blessed places be reserved for those with deep pockets? The question is not a simple one since those incoming often restore and revive buildings and landscapes. My contention is that a balance should be struck. Rural communities that become isolated, museum like enclaves are not desirable or sustainable.

Minister Michael Gove has some workable ideas, but policy is focused on not upsetting the horses. Housing policy should be higher up the national political agenda, it shapes the fabric of our communities. It’s right at the core of determining who we are, not just now but for decades to come.

[1] Apologies to Monty Python.

[2] https://www.cityam.com/docklands-2-0-michael-gove-outlines-vision-for-new-higher-density-london/

[3] https://www.theblackmorevale.co.uk/2022/10/14/the-map-that-hardy-drew/

Energy Policy

Saint Augustine’s early life was not what we associate with a saint. As a young man he prayed “Lord, make me chaste (pure) – but not yet!” Just now that’s the way, I fear, we are thinking of the environment. Global, national, or local. It’s total human but it needs to be fully recognised for its downside. Yes, we would like to do more to restore our environment and fight climate change but we’d rather it happened tomorrow. Tomorrow, tomorrow.

The instinctive urge to put-off decisions for what appears to be an easier life now rattles down through history. The lesson we might learn is that this approach is generally a bad way of going about thing if long-term success is the aim. Civilizations have ended because they failed to change.

This blinkered approach could be called political expediency. It’s at the core of what has become political populism[1]. The drive to persuade an electorate by retreating from commitments and heralding jam today. This fits our social media saturated public debate to the tee. I want it, and I want it now. The future will look after itself.

It’s a sad philosophy. I say that because the premises is that we may as well live well today because we have no control over what happens next. In populist terms, that’s put down to an imaginary conspiring elite that will inevitably win regardless of what you do. Truly nonsense.

That might have been true in the stone age but its far from true in the 21st Century. In reality, and on average, individual citizens have more choice than they have ever had. I say “on average” because there’s a billion people in the world who still live on the breadline.

Anyway, my point is that putting-off environmental measure is foolish. I’m reacting to a Conservative Energy Minister, has said that the UK government will “max out” remaining reserves of North Sea oil and gas[2]. I’s almost as if the Minister thinks this has no impact. That’s other than short-term political gain amongst climate sceptics and right-wing newspaper owners.

If the target for Net Zero is – yes but not yet – there’s virtually no hope of achieving the goal. Events being what they are there will never be a perfect time to stop using fossil fuels. I’m in agreement that the rundown of fossil fuel use should be graduated. However, putting off real change doesn’t make change easier. In fact, it makes change harder.

In the run-up to a UK General Election the possibilities for policies of self-harm are all too evident. A Conservative Government desperate to cling on to power will wriggle and produce contorted justifications for delay. It’s a basic instinct.

I’m not saying that we should all become zealous exponent of hairshirt policies. What is desperate is that we don’t become side-tracked from practical measures that can be practically taken. Taken now.

Work as though everything depended on you, and the choices you make. That needs to be true of Government Ministers as much as every one of us[3].

[1] https://www.thoughtco.com/populism-definition-and-examples-4121051

[2] https://www.ft.com/content/407b834e-a503-4de9-acab-fcf88d76dbb3

[3] Pray as though everything depended on God. Work as though everything depended on you. Saint Augustine

Church & Law

It’s always struck me as a bit strange. Yes, there’s a historic context to this situation. But that can be said of a myriad of legacy rules that we have long since put to one side. Today, there will be a general debate in the Westminster Hall[1]. The topic of the debate is: “Bishops in the House of Lords”. The question being should they be?

The way our system of governance is set up is that bishops have an automatic right to sit in the House of Lords. Now, you can do a double take, if you like. It means that the senior people, representing one religion, have an automatic right to legislate in the UK. There are few countries in the world where religious leaders sit in the legislature. One of them is Iran, for example.

It’s not just one or two representatives. 26 bishops of the Church of England, selected by the church, sit in the House of Lords as a matter of right.

For many democratic countries a separation of church and state is written into their constitutions. The reasons for this are again historic. Conflicts, disputes, and persecutions of the past drove the framers of “modern” constitutions to ensure that religious bodies did not have exclusive influence over national laws.

I believe that one religion, namely the Church of England shouldn’t be allowed to appoint bishops into the House of Lords. In a 21st century democratic country we should take account of the variety of faiths in the country[2]. Each member of the legislature will bring their own faith to their work. So, faith is represented. Giving significant privileges to one faith is unjust.

Putting religious leaders in situations of public conflict with directly elected politicians creates its own problems. You could say that would be the same inside or outside of the legislature but it’s not. The singular privileges afforded to one religion, above all others, to table amendments to legislation is powerful. It’s far more than to speak out in public.

The Church of England is known as “the established church” because of this place in the establishment. It can be argued that this position limits the courses of action it may take. It constrains people of faith to fit an establishment model of behaviour.

I’m expressing these views fully aware of the good that Church of England members can do. The objections to bishops in the House of Lords are based on discrimination, unjust privilege, and unfairness not objection to the good that they can do.

The Church of England should not appoint bishops into the House of Lords. 

[1] https://whatson.parliament.uk/event/cal44066

[2] https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2023/6-april/news/uk/bishops-should-not-sit-as-of-right-in-the-lords-commission-argues

Bad Smell

Where is the accountability?

My desk, that’s the one in the early 1990s, faced towards the London Gatwick airport approach. It was a good reminder of the business we were in at the time. Seeing aircraft land and take-off about 500 m from the sheet glass windows of our office block was the daily background. Being in a rugged hermetically sealed building aircraft noise wasn’t a great concern.

Little more than 300m from the building and looking in the same direction was, and still is, the Gatwick sewage works. Its structures were low rise, so it was often hidden behind the greenery. Every so often, a strong wind would blow from the northeast. When it did a distinct odor filled the air. Yes, you guessed it. The sweet smell of the sewerage works would permeate the air conditioning.

This odor was at its most notable in the metrological conditions called an inversion[1]. In fact, given the seasonal frequency of these weather conditions it could be said that Gatwick wasn’t the most sensible place to build a major airport. These occasional pongs were a bit of a joke. Along with the occasional smells of unburnt aviation fuel it was just life at the airport. Lingering odors didn’t stay for long. A day at most and the wind would change direction back to where it normally came from – the south west.

Airports and sewage works are not a good combination for the health of rivers and streams. Long ago, when Gatwick airport was built the tributaries of the River Mole[2] were diverted. The part of that river, the Gatwick stream going north to south, at the end of the runway, is an unattractive V-shaped gully. Not nice for nature at all. There was a track that ran parallel with the river. In the summer, I’d walk that track at a lunchtime as it was a way of getting to the airport’s south terminal.

In the news, Thames Water are being fined for dumping raw sewage in the River Mole[3]. The consequences of the UK’s water regulator[4] taking a relatively hands-off approach to managing water companies, since privatisation in the late 1980s, has come home to roost.

I must admit, I’m not the least bit surprised. So far, the dance of those who shrug their shoulders astonishing. Ministers, regulators, company chiefs are all pointing fingers at each other.

The sequence of events is mind blowing when looked at over several decades[5]. Chief executives attracting massive salaries. Companies being loaded up with debt. Generous payouts to shareholders. Investments in infrastructure not keeping pace.

Ofwat, the regulator talks with incredible complacency. Such weak regulators are no more than a piggy in the middle as the powerful forces of unethical commercial behaviour and disinterested government oversight combine. As millions of families struggle with the cost of living this kind of failure is intolerable. Where is the accountability?

[1] https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/types-of-weather/temperature/temperature-inversion

[2] https://www.southeastriverstrust.org/river-mole/

[3] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/thames-water-sewage-spill-gatwick-airport-b2368707.html

[4] https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/

[5] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66103356.amp

Dog Days

It’s only when I looked this up that I realised how apt it was. Summer is upon us. Today, it’s not so hot, in-fact it’s been raining. Welcome rain. My garden looks fresher for it. These are the days of summer heat in southern England. They are known as “dog days”. It’s the period between early July and early September. These summer days can be delightful, but they can be uncomfortable, a source of fatigue and a time of unexpected thunderstorms. What I learned was that the term “dog days” comes from the appearance in the sky of the dog star, known as Sirius[1]. 

We are getting into the dog days of summer in terms of parliamentary time too. The House of Commons recess dates for this session of the UK Parliament are that it rises on 20 July 2023 and returns on 4 Sept 2023. That would be a useful time for the current Conservative Government consider calling a General Election. I can hear their death rattle so I suspect they will not.

Last evening, I caught a debate on the Parliamentary TV channel. The main business was the second reading of the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill. It’s a truly hopeless and appallingly badly drafted legislative proposal[2]. That’s when the thought of “dog days” came into my mind. The term has more than one meaning. My thought here was that we have truly entered a period of stagnation in common sense The current Conservative Government is tabling dreadfully ill thought-out and unsafe proposals that suppresses free-speech and will become a charter for lawyers to paw over for years.

The timing of this Parliamentary debate, given what is happening in Israeli-occupied West Bank, is terrible. A wise government minister would have pulled it.

It never has been ethical policy for a government minister, to supress democratic discussion. This bill would gag local government and other public bodies[3]. It’s poorly drafted text that will have a detrimental impact at domestic and international level.

The summer can bring drought. What we have here is a drought of political imagination, a cavalcade of populist babble that concentrates power and an unethical embarrassment. I remember the days when throughout the country people and democratically elected public bodies opposed apartheid. This bill, had it been in place at that time, would have outlawed such opposition.

A well drafted law that addresses the issues associated with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement might have been welcomed. A political consensus should have been sought. What has been tabled by this fading Government is sweeping yet vague powers that go way beyond addressing the one issue of BDS and Israel. It’s a direct attack on free speech and democratic government. This tired and worn-out Conservative Government needs to stand down before it does more damage.

#unethical

[1] https://www.history.com/news/why-are-they-called-the-dog-days-of-summer

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66086671

[3] https://www.local.gov.uk/parliament/briefings-and-responses/economic-activity-public-bodies-overseas-matters-second-reading

Momentous Vote

Will a line be drawn under the shenanigans of the last few years?

Number 3 on the BBC News list? This was not a vote in the Conservative Party it was a vote in the mother of Parliaments. It was a vote that put the likelihood of Boris Johnson making a political comeback at extremely improbable. Yet, it was number 3 on BBC News. Well, I guess it was considered by the newsroom as a minority interests subject at 10 pm in the evening.  

A House of Commons (HoCs) vote took place on the findings of the Committee on Privileges[1]. Not a great title but that committee thoroughly undertook the job of addressing the vexed question of a Prime Minister lying to Parliament. That means lying to us all. 

19 June 2023 should go down in British history. There was no civil war. The statue of Cromwell outside parliament remained unmoved. Parliament deftly asserted its right to take a view on the behaviours of a former member. Not just any former member but a former Prime Minister (PM). A PM being held in contempt of Parliament is not an everyday event.

The current PM staying away was a show of poor pollical antenna. Images of a vacuum in leadership will haunt him here on in. While another former PM endorsed the report and thanked the committee for their work. Several cabinet members did the same. The leader of the house acted with a solemn certitude that she is becoming known for.

For Conservative Members of Parliament, it was a sad and difficult duty. Each member was given the chance to make up their own minds about the report.

Upholding the truth matters. Both the Parliament’s HoCs and the Committee on Privileges set themselves on the path to restore public confidence in democracy.

Questions as to why Boris Johnson was ever elevated to the position of PM in the first place were not answered. Some members spoke with anger in their voice. It’s the case that magnificent oratory was missing from many contributions, but the heartfelt reflection of constituents’ rage was sincere.

To succeed, in the British political system a PM must have an effective working relationship with Parliament. They don’t need to like each other but a degree of respect is essential.

Parliament may look weak in that there’s limited meaningful sanctions that it can impose on a past member. A member who jumps before they are pushed appears to get off. However, the impact of the events of 19 June 2023 means that Boris Johnson will practice only with a media bully pulpit.

What remains for us to find out over the next few years is how that will play out[2]. Will a line be drawn under the shenanigans of the last few years?

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65953605

[2] https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-vote-sunak-privileges-committee-report-on-lied-to-parliament-12593360

Safety is poltical

It’s a surprisingly controversial statement. It’s particularly difficult for those working in traditionally technical specialisations to come to openly acknowledge “politics” in their work. By raising the subject, it’s almost as if one had stepped in something unpleasant.

I recall the period when a new aviation agency was being established. That’s in the dawn of this new century. EASA, the European Aviation Safety Agency came into operation in 2003, but the debate about its shape and form occupied many of the preceding years. Politicians, administrators, technocrats, and industry were vocal about the direction to take.

The impact of liberalising European civil aviation, that stated in the 1970s, was primarily a political drive. It envisaged both a commercial and social benefits. Separating the operation of aviation from the vagaries of political personalities seemed to offer a future that would be led by the customers needs.  

The general acceptance that State control of businesses, like airlines and manufacturers, had a stifling effect, limiting innovation and opportunity was questioned but not so much by those with the power to make changes. Momentum pushing liberalisation was given a boost by the apparent successes of businesses, like Southwest airlines[1] in the US. Freddie Laker had a big influence in the UK[2].

In these decades of transformation aviation safety has always been heralded as a priority. Whoever is speaking, that’s the line that is taken. Safety is number one. What industry has experienced is a decades long transition from the ways and mean of trying to control safety to an approach more based on managing potential outcomes. This is characterised in a shift from mostly prescriptive rules and regulations to other more adaptive approaches.

Back to the proposition that safety is political. There are several ways to address this as an exercise of analysis. There’s a mammoth amount of historical evidence to draw upon. However, my thoughts are more to do with anecdote and lived experience.

Number one is that our institutions are shaped by political decision-making. This is to varying degrees, from year to year, but international bodies, national ministries, administration, authorities, agencies, committees, learned bodies, all depend upon political support. If they do not muster and sustain this support, they will wither and die.

Number two, change is a constant, failures happen but safety achievement depends on a consistency, dependability, and stability. Maintaining public confidence. There lies a dissonance that must be reconciled. Governments and politicians instinctively insulate themselves in such cases and so the notion of “independent” regulation is promoted.

Number three, arguments for liberalisation or intervention do not stop. The perpetual seesaw of cutting “red tape” and tightening rules and regulation may settle for a while even if these are always in movement. This can be driven by events. The proximity of fatal accidents is always a significant political driver. Domestic fatalities, where consequences are borne locally, will have much more impact than similar events 1000 miles away.

Does any of this matter? Afterall it’s a context that exists, de-facto. It’s no good saying: stop the world I want to get off.

Yes, it does matter. Accepting that safety is political helps dispel some of the myths that persist.

A prerequisite to safety success is provision of adequate resources. Constantly cutting a budget has consequences. A blind drive for efficiency that doesn’t effectively measure performance invites failure. Much as lack of planning invites failure. Reality bites.

It’s reasonable to question of investigatory or regulatory “independence” from time-to-time. The reasons for safety decision-making can be purely objective and technical. Questioning that “purity” need not be impugning politicians, administrators, or managers in their motivations. Shedding light on contextual factors can help learning and avoidance of future failures.

Accepting the perpetual political seesaw of debate can help a great deal in meeting safety goals. What this means is the importance of timing. Making a proposal to tighten a rule concerning a known deficiency can meet a stone wall. Making the same proposal after an accident, involving that deficiency, can go much better. Evidence that is compelling can change minds. This is reality.

[1] https://www.southwest.com/about-southwest/#aboutUs

[2] https://simpleflying.com/laker-airways-brief-history/

Lables

Performance based regulatory systems are all the rage. That’s when regulatory action is taken based on the measurement of a key indicator or a series of indicators. Sounds like a good idea. It is for the most part. Set a target of reducing or eliminating something that is damaging or undesirable and track progress towards achieving that goal.

Wouldn’t it have been to the benefit of all if a performance-based approach had been applied in the 1989 Water Act which privatised water in England and Wales? A great deal of sewage flooding into rivers could have been avoided. 

However, it wouldn’t have helped to have nothing more than a simple “good” or “bad” indicator. In a performance-based system there’s a need for reasonably accurate measurement and graduated bans of performance achieved. The measurements taken need to be done in a timely manner too. Publishing measures that are a year or more out-of-date isn’t a good way of confidently plotting a way forward to hit a goal.

Listening to the News about Ofsted’s grading scheme, I can’t help but think that having a four-category grid is wholly inadequate for their purpose. Ofsted is the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills. The Education inspection framework (EIF)[1] in England is primitive in this respect. Shoe-horning every school in England into Outstanding, Good, Requires Improvement or Inadequate is brutal.

What’s the betting that at any one day many of the schools graded Outstanding are not, and many of the schools graded Inadequate are not either. The problem with these indicators is the crudity of the labels. We’ve all seen huge banners erected outside schools if there’s favourable news to communicate. What passers-by and parents see is the headline and not the reality of the performance of a particular school.

The sub-division of the lowest category into schools with serious weaknesses and in need of significant improvement doesn’t help much. Negative words get merged into a negative judgement.

Experience with risk management is that categorisation schemes face challenges when performance sits on the borderline between categories. That’s one reason why anything less than five categories is not often used.

The aim of a performance based regulatory systems is to improve performance. If the tools used become those that blame and shame, then that system is not working. Nothing, I’m saying here isn’t already written-up in the annals of quality management. People have been wrestling over different methods for 60 years, at least.

The current Ofsted’s grading scheme is poor and unimaginative.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/education-inspection-framework/education-inspection-framework

Deregulation

There’s nothing wrong with making an argument for deregulation. What’s absurd is to make that argument as an unchallengeable dogma. It’s the irrationality of saying that deregulation is good, and regulation is bad, de-facto. This kind of unintelligent nonsense does permeate a particular type of right-wing political thinking. It pops it’s head up in a lot of Brexiters utterances. For advocates of Brexit their great goal is to throw away rules and lower standards. Mostly, this is for financial gain.

Let’s take some simple examples. The reasons for rules and regulations can often be found in recent history. Hazards are recognised and action is taken.

There’s still lead paint to be found in many older houses. There was a time when such paint was used on children’s toys. Toy safety has been a confusing area of law, and there have been several sets of regulations since the 1960. From our current perspective this past laxness seems insane, but such lead paint mixtures were commonplace. In fact, all sorts of toxic chemicals have been used in widely used paints.

I remember working in one factory building where a survey was done of the surrounding grounds. Outside certain windows there were small fluorescent flags placed at in the grass verges. They marked places where minor amounts of radiation had been detected. This came from discarded paint brushes and tins that had accumulated in the war years. At that time radioactive luminescent paint was used to paint aircraft instrument dials.

Any arguments for the deregulation of toxic chemicals in commonly used paints should be one that is quashed instantly. However, some deregulation fanatics are only to happy to endorse a loosening of the rules that protect the public from toxic chemicals.

One result of the loosening of public protection is often to put greater profits in the hands of unscrupulous industrialist. Across the globe there are numerous cases studies of this sad folly. Newspapers and political parties that push the line that rules, regulations and regulators, by their very nature are crushing our freedoms are as bad as those unscrupulous industrialists.

Yes, there’s a case to be made for pushing back over-regulation. There’s risks we are prepared to take where the risks are low, and the benefits are large. This is a matter for intelligent debate and not throwing around mindless slogans. We should not be cowed by loud voices from small corners of society intent on tearing down decades of learning and sound practical laws. I could come up with an encyclopaedic list of examples. Opponents rarely, if ever want to address a particular case since it’s much easier for them to thunder off sweeping assertions. Beware these siren voices.

NOTE: The Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011 implemented the requirements of Directive 2009/48/EC, whose purpose is to ensure a high level of toy safety.

Protest

Any study about “change” will tell you that it’s not easy. Take a few of the big social transformations that have occurred over the last six decades. I can’t point to one that just happened without a campaign or fight. Social and political change comes when momentum has built-up. Pressure is needed. Often that pressure comes in the form of protest and extensive campaigning in public.

As ever faster digital connections are becoming universal, it’s still possible to buy physical digital media. Charity shops have piles and piles of CDs and DVDs as people off-load the stuff that clutters their shelves. It’s remarkable that yesterday’s whizzy new thing has become a historic artefact so quickly[1]. In 40-years, the optical digital disk has risen and then faded into the background.

I picked up a little bit of social history in a Red Cross charity shop. It’s a series of 3 DVDs that captures a slice of the career of the well-known journalist and broadcaster Alan Whicker. Stretching over six decades of travelling around the globe it’s a great watch. The series is called “Journey of a Lifetime” and was published in 2009[2]. Although, there’s plenty that dates Whicker’s documentary style there’s no doubt that his ability to quickly summing up big changes is a masterclass.

That straightforward diction and incongruous club jacket became a trademark. It gave him a neutral camouflage so he could talk eye-to-eye with hippies, dictators, evangelists, social campaigners, film stars and dubious gurus. That’s what created so many revealing conversations that are now time stamped as emblematic of an era. I recommend viewing the Whicker’s reflections on six decades of social history. It’s a great reminder of where we have been and how learning the lessons of the past is so difficult.

Back to my initial subject – change. It’s easy to say that it’s inevitable and unrelenting but its nature is less easy to discern. Change undulates. We go forwards then we go backwards in differing amounts.

I have a theory that our social progression can be plotted like an inclined wood saw. Yes, I know. It’s the engineer in me. Look at the shape of the saw’s teeth. They go forwards, and then quickly go backwards but they always go backwards less than they go forwards. That’s how a saw’s teath cut.

This is one of my abstrat reasons why the UK Government’s most recent laws to supress public protest are as stupid as political debate can get. Resisting change is nothing new. After all, the word “conservative” has a simple commonplace meaning. When all else fails, the basic political instinct to push out laws that comfort supporters is built in. As a direction for a whole country to take, this way of working is foolish and naive.

Locking up climate change protestors is not going to fix climate change. Locking up protestors against sewage on beaches and in rivers not going to fix greedy water companies. Locking up republican protestors is not going to fix the decline in public support for the monarchy.

Using the pretext that – this is what the public want – as a cover for these policies is to show the vacuum that conservative political thinking is thrashing around in. Sadly, as I’ve said, reflection on the last six decades of conservative thinking shows regressive tendencies in abundance.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/optical-storage-technology/zv7bpg8

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whicker%27s_World