Simply click on the links below to view archive posts.
2012 Blog Posts
2011 Blog Posts
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
2010 Blog Posts
2009 Blog Posts
BLOG: A Whitehouse Spokesperson says (2011 archive)
December 2011
Government support for UK life sciences: too little, too late?
This week has seen Prime Minister David Cameron set out a renewed Government strategy to boost support for the life sciences and pharmaceutical industry. In doing so he championed the crucial role of the sector and said the new reforms would revolutionise the drugs industry, encouraging innovative cures that may save thousands of lives.
Reforms include a new catalyst fund to support biomedical start-ups that bridge the gap between new drug discoveries and the final delivery of treatments to patients. There will also be a new scheme that would give seriously ill patients access to drugs around a year before they were licenced for general use. In addition to the new investment it should also be noted that the Prime Minister announced a raft of tax breaks and tax credits for the industry, although unsurprisingly in the current climate this was less publicised by the Government.
While many have suggested this package of reforms are only a superficial gesture (only £180 million new money will be provided compared with the £500 million that has been earmarked for a tunnel in the Chilterns to stop the HS2 high-speed rail scarring the landscape) many more are asking why it has taken the Government 18 months to publish a blueprint for one of the most important sectors and one in which the UK is widely recognised to be at the world’s forefront. The pharmaceutical industry carries out far more research than any other industry sector in the UK, bringing major health benefits to patients in Britain and across the world. This lack of vision is made all the more curious considering that Andrew Witty, the CEO of the UK’s largest pharmaceutical company GSK, has been deployed for more than a year at the Department for Business Innovation and Skills as the Lead Non-Executive Board Member.
One reason is, of course, that it has only recently dawned upon the Government that despite an annual turnover of £50 billion and an employment roll of more than 165,000 people, the life science sector has suffered in the current financial climate with the loss of key research and development centres in recent years. Earlier in the year the sector was dealt a heavy blow when the world’s second largest pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, announced it was closing its research and development centre in Kent. Companies have long complained of a lack of Government funding, a shortage of laboratory space and high rents stifling the industry resulting in threats to move abroad to more favourable conditions.
These measurers outlined are Number 10’s response to these perceived problems but only time will tell if they will deliver, and failure could see parts of the sector move abroad taking with them precious jobs and discoveries.
Gary Jones, Consultant
November 2011
London local housing allowance claims double in three years
Research by the Whitehouse Consultancy has found that the number of local housing allowance claims to London borough councils have more than doubled in three years.
Chris Whitehouse, Managing Director
The address book is dead – lobbying should now become what it always should have been. Persuasion by strength of argument.
If the last month has proved anything, it is that politicians at every level are now likely to have to be far more careful about the company they keep, and that some public affairs professionals – or lobbyists as they’re known to the rest of the world – are going to have to change the way they do business.
If public and political demand for a statutory register of lobbyists is heeded (as indeed it should be), this will help end the image and practice of lobbying as a ‘mates game’, where decisions are made or changed based on a wink or a nod and where access to politicians is based on who you know, not what you know.
Frankly, it’s about time and this will offer organisations of all types the opportunity to get involved in the political process – if they can back up their beliefs and wishes with cogent arguments to the MPs and Peers who have a natural affinity with the organisation’s issue, be it for constituency or personal reasons.
These arguments will have to be backed up with evidence and made at the right times – rather than when a former school friend who is now in politics has time in their diary for a drink or dinner.
The last few weeks have been considered a period of political scandal. But maybe it’s time to think of the bigger picture and see this for it is. An opportunity to make sure the system works fairly and the way it’s supposed to.
Frances Powrie, Junior Consultant
October 2011
Lobbyists must be statutorily registered
The Whitehouse Consultancy’s managing director Chris Whitehouse comments in The Observer, The Sunday Telegraph and Public Service Europe on the need for a statutory register of political lobbyists, a compulsory code of professional conduct, a ban on lobbyists holding parliamentary passes, and the need for MPs and civil servants to declare all meetings with lobbyists.
Click here to read Chris’ letter to The Observer
Click here to read Chris’ letter to The Sunday Telegraph
Click here to read Chris’ article for Public Service Europe
Chris Whitehouse, Managing Director
Leading lobbyist joins calls for statutory register
A leading lobbyist has joined calls for a statutory register of statutory register and code of practice for lobbyists, following the resignation of former Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox.
Chris Whitehouse, managing director of the Whitehouse Consultancy and long-time proponent of statutory registration for political lobbyists, has criticised the current voluntary self-regulation of lobbyists, claiming it is outdated and has been proven to be unfit for purpose. Whitehouse has claimed that a statutory register would ensure greater fairness, and would limit future accusations of ‘cronyism’ against leading politicians.
Whitehouse has also argued that parliamentary pass holding by lobbyists should be strictly prohibited, and that all meetings conducted by lobbyists with politicians or civil servants should be declared on websites established specifically for the purpose.
Chris Whitehouse, Managing Director of the Whitehouse Consultancy, said:
“It’s important that businesses, charities and individuals have the opportunity and ability to contribute to the political debate and the formation of policy decisions – but we are in a position at the moment where the playing field simply isn’t level and this isn’t good enough.
“The self-regulation of lobbyists has been insufficient and unfit for purpose for some time. There is no place for even the suggestion of murky, back alley deals in this business – and that’s exactly what the current system allows. There needs to be a statutory register of lobbyists, who also need to be compelled to adhere to a compulsory set of professional standards. Participation in the political debate should always be determined by what you know, not who you know.”
Chris Rogers, Communications Manager
September 2011
Party conferences create nothing more than credit card bills and hangovers, says senior lobbyist
A leading lobbyist has claimed that he cannot understand why anyone would go to a political party conference, dubbing them a “staggering waste of money” and claiming delegates are unlikely to come away with more than a credit card bill and a hangover.
Ahead of the Conservative Party conference, former Conservative parliamentary assistant Chris Whitehouse, now managing director of the Whitehouse Consultancy, has criticised the “grandiose” culture of conferences, claiming that companies and charities would be better off donating their money to good causes - or even pouring it down the drain for all the good it will do them.
Whitehouse has also criticised the culture of party conference fringe events, which he has argued are little more than money spinners wrapped in the guise of an opportunity to meet senior political figures and engage in substantive discussion.
Chris Whitehouse, managing director of the Whitehouse Consultancy, said:
“Having watched the various parties in recent weeks, and having seen Conservative conferences – which tend to be more party rallies anyway – first hand, I truly believe that party conferences have had their time and frankly are more of a drain on resources than anything else, particularly at a time of such economic uncertainty.”
“I’m surprised these days when people come away from a party conference with anything more than a hangover and a huge credit card bill. Year after year there seems to be this illusion among delegates, business leaders and charities that they’re going to be hanging out and hobnobbing with ministers, putting the world to rights. This might happen in some cases, but I would feel confident in arguing that this is the exception rather than the rule.”
Chris Rogers, Communications Manager
Will the Government listen to Dilnot?
As the political posturing over the Health and Social Care Bill recommences, the Government's Commission on the Future Funding of Care and Support is fading into distant memory. It remains to be seen whether Prime Minister David Cameron and Health Secretary Andrew Lansley will be prepared to accept the report's conclusions, which have the potential to dictate how social care will be funded for generations to come.
The Commission, chaired by Radio 4 Money Box presenter Andrew Dilnot, called for a partnership model where the total cost to the individual of their social care would be capped at up to £50,000, with the Government covering any additional costs.
This model aspires to protect the ever increasing older generations from the cost of exceedingly expensive care, and the poverty this can lead to in old age. However, with the cost of care rising and the widespread adoption of telecare and domiciliary solutions some way off, the Government faces a significant financial commitment in agreeing to meet these costs in an era of substantial budgetary constraints. The Department of Health has pledged to produce a Social Care Funding White Paper in spring 2012.
But, concerns continue to grow over the existing social care system, which is approaching breaking point as local authorities are forced to make savings wherever they can. It remains to be seen whether the Government will risk tabloid wrath and adopt Dilnot's recommendations, or if his report will go the way of Derek Wanless' 2006 Commission into social care.
With the proportion of the population over 65 set to continue to grow rapidly for the foreseeable future, and Dilnot calling on the Government to make an increased contribution to the cost of care, it will be George Osborne and Danny Alexander at the Treasury who are left to devise a workable solution over the next six months that they can sell to the public, the press and their parties.
Simon Lucas, Junior Consultant
August 2011
Can Cameron change the story?
If David Cameron had to pick a single word to describe 2011, ‘trying’ would surely be near the top of the list. Certainly the Prime Minister would have ample reason to consider this year a tough one: the Coalition has faced huge criticism from every angle over a raft of policies – particularly defence, education and health – all the while attempting to reduce the biggest budget deficit in the country’s history, and reacting to serious and complex financial developments abroad and the ongoing political upheaval in the Middle East.
Yet for much of the past year, Cameron has been able to keep on the public’s good side – often positioning himself above the daily cut and thrust of the political debate, and stepping in to back up his ministers when necessary. It’s an approach that has served him well, as he has enjoyed popularity ratings considerably higher than his ministerial colleagues and Ed Miliband.
However, in the last month – and at least in the eyes of the public – the halo has slipped slightly, and David Cameron is now much closer, perhaps uncomfortably so, to the political mudslinging than at any point in his premiership to date thanks to the continuing saga of the phone hacking crisis that has allowed political opponents to question the Prime Minister’s judgement over his own relationship to News International and Murdoch family, but particularly his decision to employ ex-News of the World editor Andy Coulson as Director of Communications for the Conservative Party and then Downing Street.
Whether this was an error in judgment is to a great extent beside the point – but as the political parties head toward conference season, it is entirely possible that the next month will be critical in determining what impact the phone hacking scandal will have on the Prime Minister’s long term future.
It is very significant that, despite the tremendous upheaval in Libya, financial problems in the Eurozone and national outrage over the recent riots and looting, stories related to phone hacking (most recently that Andy Coulson received severance payments from News International while working for Downing Street, and that due to contractual agreements the company has been paying his legal costs) continue to feature heavily in the national newspapers. Clearly there is a significant opportunity for News International’s competitors to make hay while the sun shines – but the fact that the news agenda remains stuck on the scandal despite other stories of such significance remains a huge problem for Cameron and his advisors.
The Conservative Party Conference will present a real opportunity for Cameron to wrestle back the initiative, and while it is cliché to suggest that a conference speech could determine the future of a Prime Minister, there is a serious possibility that failing to move the news agenda on could leave phone hacking as a – and possibly the – defining chapter in David Cameron’s premiership.
Chris Rogers, Communications Manager
July 2011
Whitehouse names Hop Skip and Jump as pro-bono client
Westminster based public affairs specialist The Whitehouse Consultancy has announced that it is to represent respite care provider Hop Skip and Jump as its pro-bono client for 2011-12.
Whitehouse will provide free public affairs and public relations support over the next 12 months for the Gloucestershire-based charity following a competitive applications process.
Hop Skip and Jump provides respite support for carers, with locations in Bristol, Cheltenham and a newly opened facility in Swindon. Whitehouse will be working with the charity to highlight its successful model to local and national government, and to campaign for the provision of respite support for carers across the UK.
Chris Whitehouse, Managing Director of The Whitehouse Consultancy, said:
"While we received some incredibly worthy applications, the importance of respite support for the hundreds of thousands of carers in this country really struck a chord with our team.
"Hop Skip and Jump has achieved great things with its existing centres and has perfected a model that has brought desperately needed relief to hundreds of people. We are really looking forward to helping highlight the urgent need for further such facilities across the country."
Clarissa Mitchell, Founding Trustee of Hop Skip and Jump said:
“We are delighted to have this opportunity to press our case to the highest levels of government, and to demonstrate the effectiveness of our work in providing much needed support to parents and families who take on the full time role of carers for ill or disabled dependents.
“We already see families travel hundreds of miles to make use of our facilities and get a few hours break from the constant demands of being a carer. There is an urgent need to expand on the work we have already done, which has provided a very cost effective solution to what is a very pressing issue.”
For further information or comment from Chris Whitehouse or Clarissa Mitchell, please contact Chris Rogers on 020 7793 2536 / 07720 054189, or email chris.rogers@whitehouseconsulting.co.uk.
Chris Rogers, Communications Manager
Allegations mean it’s time to hack up BSkyB takeover bid
While it has long been suspected that certain journalists and executives have engaged in unethical and illegal behaviour in order to deliver ‘exclusives’, the latest allegations against News International go much further than the obtaining of celebrity gossip. Rather they mark a sinister and hugely important turn in the storm that has surrounded and now engulfed News International – one that promises to have far reaching implications.
The very suggestion that journalists could have targeted vulnerable people such as victims of crime or the families of service personnel killed in action is in itself repulsive – and if true is nothing short than a blatant and deplorable trafficking in human misery. As alarming are the lengths to which executives are alleged to have gone to cover up the apparent casual disregard for personal privacy by their journalists – not limited to allegedly destroying evidence, but also, worryingly, allegedly blackmailing or bribing of police officers.
The Government has found itself in an extremely uncomfortable position thanks to these allegations – which significantly have called David Cameron’s personal judgement into question for the first time due to his apparent closeness to senior executives at News International and above all his appointment of Andy Coulson as Director of Communications in Downing Street.
Iffy performances in Prime Minister’s Questions and a subsequent press conference have not helped, but the Downing Street machine is now running full steam ahead to insulate the Prime Minister and fast-track the divorce from Rupert Murdoch’s empire.
Key to this will be the proposed takeover of BSkyB, which is now politically untenable to the Government. It is no surprise that Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt has called a pause to what was already a hugely controversial decision, nor is the involvement of Ofcom to provide additional scrutiny. Cameron has also sought to personally distance himself from News International’s key personnel – but his greatest challenge will be to find a means of legally blocking any NewsCorp takeover in a way that cannot be challenged.
Chris Whitehouse, Managing Director
Tough week for Gove as the Government’s vision for teacher training is overshadowed by teacher walkout
This week has been busy for Education Secretary Michael Gove MP, who has launched the Government’s new teacher training strategy while coincidentally facing a major showdown over pensions with two of the key teaching unions. Earlier in the week Gove outlined the Government’s new vision to drive up the standards of the next generation of teachers. Plans were focused on tempting high performing trainees to take up the profession and ensuring a greater focus on improving trainee teachers' basic skills.
Like many of the Coalition’s education reforms to date, on the surface the new proposals seem to differ only slightly from the previous administration. However, in reality much has changed in education over the last year because the Government has quietly and effectively gone about implementing its key priorities. For example almost a quarter of secondary schools are, or hope to shortly become, academies. In addition the first free schools will open later in the year, and more than 200 further applications are in the pipeline.
A lot of the Government’s new landscape for teacher training fits nicely with its localism agenda and should see a gradual transfer of power for much of the system from the Government to schools. The Government has been seen to favour in-school teacher training over university-based courses, and one of the reasons for this is the perceived practical benefits of schools being more involved in training teachers over the more theoretical nature of university courses. Schools will be encouraged to take on responsibility for training and up to 100 of them will be awarded specialist "teaching school" status later this year, entitling them to extra funding.
In opposition Gove was consistently critical of the lack of specialism in teaching, citing figures that a quarter of teachers in many subjects do not have any qualifications beyond an A Level in the course they teach. He sees attracting the best graduates into teaching as a crucial piece of the jigsaw in closing the stubborn educational achievement gap between rich and poor. It was no coincidence that the Government’s Schools White Paper was titled: “The Importance of Teaching”.
Under new proposals, students with first class degrees will be given financial incentives to teach subjects where there is considered a crisis in staffing numbers. For example, students with first class degrees could receive up to £20,000 – up from the current level of £9,000 – to teach students in these subjects, which include biology and maths.
There is also to be a key focus on standards of new teaching recruits. Trainee teachers would face tougher English and Maths tests and would have only three chances to pass them. However, in a move which will no doubt centralise more power in Whitehall the Government will have the ability to withhold funding from those training courses it deems unsuitable to maintaining high standards in classrooms.
These proposals have been overshadowed somewhat because the Government has faced a major showdown over pensions with two of the key teaching unions. Thousands of public sector workers - including members of the National Union of Teachers and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers - are striking over changes to their pensions. Gove has claimed that striking would be harmful to the reputation of the teaching profession and even went to the extreme lengths of suggesting that parents should help keep schools open during the strikes. These statements have only served to aggravate many teachers who feel their concerns have not been taken seriously by the Government.
In reality neither the Government nor the teaching unions have anything to achieve from the current strike action. From the union’s prospective, strike action at a time when the general public are themselves struggling with pay cuts and increasing living costs will inevitably lead to an evaporation of public support quickly. On the other hand with the Government undertaking controversial public service reforms and also engaged in conflict in Libya many will see this as an unhelpful distraction. Both sides have a strong incentive to speed up developments at the negotiating table to thrash out a deal so they can focus on the key issue of what actually takes place in the classroom.
Gary Jones, Consultant
June 2011
“What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate”
Like Paul Newman in the iconic 1960s film Cool Hand Luke, the three main political parties have each faced communication difficulties of late.
These problems have hampered their respective efforts to fully articulate policy positions to the electorate, and have prevented any one party from fully grabbing the initiative and really securing public support.
For the Conservatives, these problems have been borne out of a number of very public u-turns on policy, when David Cameron has been forced to step in and take personal responsibility for initiatives, thereby bringing him directly into the policy scrum that (at least in the eyes of the public) he has adroitly avoided in his first 12 months in office – as demonstrated by personal approval ratings that have far exceeded those of other ministers or the Coalition as a whole.
The changes in tack have been made all the more damaging by being in health – where the Conservatives have long fought to convince the electorate of their standing as the protectors of the NHS – and justice, an area in which Tories are expected to be forceful and decisive. In the meantime, other decisions such as rubbish collections continue to fester, with largely public spats erupting between ministers. However carefully and successfully these recovery efforts have been managed, the fact they were necessary at all highlights deeper communication problems that have damaged the Party’s efforts.
Labour’s message has been undermined by continuing questions over the Party’s leadership – and the shadow of David Miliband has loomed large over his brother in recent weeks amid rumours of a sustained family rift and senior party figures calling for more robust leadership. Party backlash over suggested amendments to the shadow cabinet selection procedures has also not helped Ed Miliband, while the articulation of ideas such as an emergency cut in VAT by Balls – without explanation of how this will be funded – have done little to reinforce Labour’s position.
The Liberal Democrats have faced their own difficulties. The Party’s recent militancy over NHS reforms, while headline grabbing, stretched relations with their Coalition partners but has not really generated the level of public opinion shift that party leaders might have hoped for (a recent Ipsos MORI poll found that only eleven percent of respondents considered the Liberal Democrats the best party for health policy).
Nick Clegg has also found the going tough in maintaining his personal momentum following the public divergence with the Conservatives over health – most typified by his suggestion of giving the public shares in the state-owned banks, which was somewhat contemptuously dismissed by Ed Balls as an effort to draw attention to Clegg’s trade mission to Brazil.
All three parties possess formidable communication skills and personnel, and it is only a matter of time before these difficulties are resolved – yet the lesson from recent events is clear. The impetus is there to be grabbed by the political party that is first able to resolve its troubles, which all must do much sooner rather than later as a “failure to communicate” is likely to have serious ramifications come the next General Election.
Chris Rogers, Communications Manager
Government victory is resuscitating health reforms
The Government’s changes to their health reforms will be deemed a triumph by Number 10. The aim from the outset was to show that the Government was prepared to listen and adapt and it was therefore imperative that headlines pronouncing ‘significant changes’ resulted.
The eleven pages of text that represent the Government’s ‘new’ position are, however, fascinating; not for how much has changed but how little. Services will still be opened up to significant competition, there will still be a level playing field, Monitor will still have concurrent powers with the Office of Fair Trading and competition rules will still be applied.
This response reflected a need to confirm what the reforms were not about and, arguably, were never about. The Government was never going to pursue competition for its own sake nor encourage the market share of any particular sector of provider. Tariffs were never going to be set that did not reflect clinical complexity and commissioners were not going to be allowed to ignore “best value” principles when tendering for non-tariff services.
The Government can be very pleased with the outcome of its Listening Exercise, which has helpfully restated its original reforms but packaged them to look more appealing. The race to claim credit binds in the Liberal Democrats, the health unions and the experts into a helpful alliance all now committed to seeing this process through. David Cameron deserves great credit for snatching such a resounding victory from the jaws of disaster.
David Hare, Director
Crossbow
The June issue of the Bow Group's Crossbow magazine, edited by the Whitehouse Consultancy's Gary Jones, has now been published.
To visit the magazine's website, click here.
Gary Jones, Consultant
May 2011
Abolish system of privilege
The Whitehouse Consultancy’s managing director, Chris Whitehouse, argues against lobbyists having privileged access to the European Parliament in European Voice Magazine.
Click here to read Chris’ comments in full.
Chris Whitehouse, Managing Director
Electoral reform now off the table
The resounding rejection of voting change in the referendum takes electoral reform off the political agenda for at least a decade.
David Cameron can be pleased with the result he secured in local government elections, seeing the number of Conservative councillors increase.
Labour should be deeply disturbed by the collapse of their support in Scotland, raising serious concerns for the future of the Union.
Despite the hammering his party received Nick Clegg should not panic. The result for the Lib Dems was no worse than expected and the right response is business as usual for the coalition – the Lib Dems did not go into coalition to secure electoral reform, but because there was a need for a strong response to economic crisis. That crisis has not gone away and the electorate would not forgive the party if they collapsed the government now.
Chris Whitehouse, Managing Director
April 2011
Creating a voice: The Whitehouse Consultancy calls for applications for 2011/12 pro-bono scheme
The Whitehouse Consultancy has launched its 2011/12 pro-bono scheme and is calling for applications from third sector organisations keen to benefit from 12 months of free public affairs and political communications consultancy and support.
Click here for further details.
Chris Rogers, Communications Manager
Where now for the Government’s health reforms?
It was always going to be a tall order and so it has proved. Dealing with the deficit was going to be so all consuming that many political pragmatists felt that turbo-charging the Blairite health reform agenda might have been a little too much. Andrew Lansley thought differently however and leapt in to the biggest shake up of the NHS in its history with his NHS White Paper (July 2010) and resulting Health and Social Care Bill (January 2011).
The bold radicalism contained within those policies has, however, rebounded on Lansley, with the usual trade union opposition (Unison, the BMA etc) joined in alliance with, well, just about everybody and Lansley’s now sat on the naughty chair whilst his political masters decide what to do with the mess he’s left them.
So, where next?
For my money the chief changes will be:
- A strengthened role for Monitor, the economic regulator, to prevent providers of any form ‘cherry-picking’ the best services. Don’t expect reputable independent sector providers to mind this however since NHS providers have been doing this for years
- Bringing forward the planned date of a review by the Competition Commission into the effectiveness of the market
- Strengthening the power of the NHS Commissioning Board to ‘audit’ consortia, with greater powers given to them to deal with commissioning failure
- Changing the name of ‘GP consortia’, perhaps even retaining NHS [place name] to provide a local link
- Changing the substance of GP Consortia so that their Board structures change, perhaps including a wider array of healthcare professionals and locally elected politicians
- A more coherent failure regime for commissioners
- Strong national regulation on managing conflicts of interest at the clinical level, replacing the current provisions which allow consortia to manage those issues locally
- Encouragement given to aspirant consortia to align themselves with Local Authority boundaries wherever possible to aid joint working
- A slowing down of the timetable, with the structural changes gradually introduced between 2013 and 2015
Ultimately the crucial thing from all of these changes will be whether it gives sufficient succour to the Liberal Democrats to enable them to claim some sort of victory and then also whether enough sceptical crossbench Peers in the House of Lords are convinced to vote this revised Bill through. If the Government cannot manage both then expect this to be a spring, summer, autumn and winter of discontent for Andrew Lansley.
David Hare, Director
Will the Budget help the recycling sector?
The Whitehouse Consultancy’s Carl Thomson comments on the likely impact of the Budget for Recycling & Waste World.
Click here to read the article in full.
Carl Thomson, Consultant
March 2011
Lobbyists as well as MEPs must learn from scandal
Whitehouse Consultancy managing director Chris Whitehouse considers the implications of the Sunday Times’ undercover investigation of three MEPs and what lessons the public affairs industry must learn for Public Service Europe.
Click here to read Chris’ article.
Chris Whitehouse, Managing Director
Will the new Parliamentary Public Reading Stage really let the public draft new laws?
At the end of 2010 the Government outlined a new Public Reading Stage of future Bills designed to open up the legislative process to the wider public. This new stage is currently being piloted during the passage of the Freedom Bill, which according to the Government will roll back the ‘tidal wave’ of criminal justice legislation and infringement of civil liberties. Under this pilot, the Public Reading Stage builds on previous public engagement (prior to the introduction of the Bill) through the Your Freedom website, which was used to ask the public for views on what laws should be repealed by the Freedom Bill.
This new Public Reading Stage takes place between the Second Reading and Committee Stage, and will allow members of the public to comment on each clause of the Freedom Bill by posting comments on a Government website. These comments will then be collated by the Cabinet Office and presented to the Freedom Bill Committee, who will feed this information in to its scrutiny process. Commenting on the proposals, the Prime Minister said, “Right now a tiny percentage of the population write legislation that will apply to one hundred percent of the population. This makes our laws poorer because it shuts out countless people across the country whose expertise could help.” But will this new Public Reading Stage really have a significant impact on the policy process, or is it simply a public relations exercise?
It is possible that the new Public Reading Stage will result in Bill Committees feeling greater pressure to assert themselves over the Government if they receive an overwhelming public response on a particular issue. However, given the deluge of responses the Committee is likely to receive, individual voices will almost certainly be lost in the din. In addition, Bill Committees will have no obligation to accept any suggestions from the Public Reading Stage and will continue to issue their own separate calls for evidence. Therefore, for the time being, those seeking to influence the Freedom Bill will be best off continuing to engage with the Bill Committee directly.
There has also been criticism of the fact that the responses to the Public Reading Stage of the Freedom Bill are being collated by the Government via the Cabinet Office, rather than by the Bill Committee itself, with concern that the new reading stage will be used merely as a mechanism to demonstrate support for the Government’s existing position, rather than as an effective lever of scrutiny. As the Wright Committee concluded in its Rebuilding the House report in November 2009, "Opening up the process of legislation and giving a real opportunity to the public to influence the content of draft laws should be a priority … for the House and not for Government."
However, the direction of travel towards greater public involvement in the Parliamentary process is increasingly evident. As well as the new Public Reading Stage, the Education Select Committee has recently launched an online discussion as part of its ongoing inquiry into Services for Young People, and the House of Lords conducted an open debate on parenting last month in which members of the public were able to submit questions in advance via an online forum. Indeed, it is possible that as new channels of communication are opened, the public will be more willing to exploit these opportunities, particularly if they feel their voice will really be heard, leading to greater demand for accountability and a more prominent role for Parliament as the collective voice of public dissent. Going forward, Parliament will certainly have to consider the impact of the Public Reading Stage on the passage of the Freedom Bill and the longer term impact this may have, not only on the legislative process, but on the role of Parliament itself.
Liane Cresswell, Junior Consultant
Lessons to be learned from Wales: The AV referendum
In a referendum earlier this month the Welsh electorate voted with a winning margin of 27 percent to extend the powers of the Welsh Assembly and alter the nature of the political system in Wales. The changes will come into effect from 5th May and the Assembly will then have a mandate to pass primary legislation without reference to the UK Parliament in Westminster.
But, as always, the devil is in the detail. Turnout in the referendum was only 35.4 percent, falling noticeably below 30 percent in some areas. And this is actually much better than many feared - begging the question of just how important these changes were to the Welsh public.
In just over a month’s time, the full UK electorate will face a much more complex referendum question: namely, whether to change the political system and the nature of political representation by adopting the Alternative Vote electoral system. As Westminster faces only its first full UK referendum since 1975, what lessons might Wales’s experience hold for the voting public and those leading the official campaigns?
Many are extremely worried by the potential impact of low turnout on the outcome of the AV referendum, and the Government has fought hard to stave off a challenge mounted in the House of Lords to amend the Parliamentary Reform Bill and impose a minimum turnout threshold of 40 percent on the referendum.
In fact, low voter turnout for the Welsh referendum was mostly attributable to a lack of official ‘YES’ or ‘NO’ campaigns – no party met the Electoral Commission’s requirements to represent the ‘NO’ vote. As a result nearly 50 percent of all potential voters simply felt they were not nearly well enough informed.
Supply of information may well not be the problem for the AV referendum. But, the question facing the country on 5th May is a much more thorny issue: complicated, replete with implications and for many a somewhat intangible process. The lesson from Wales does underline the vital importance of providing straightforward, easy to digest information - especially since a recent polling exercise conducted by Populus found a 12 point lead for YES when they just asked the referendum question, but found a 14 point lead for NO when they told people what the two voting systems were.
Faced with the complex nature of electoral reform, it remains to be seen how many people will feel strongly enough to come out and vote for, or for that matter, against on 5th May. However, as the Welsh example shows, there is a very real possibility of low turnout being the deciding factor in the referendum result.
Whatever the result on 5th May, it is clear the political stakes are high. One way or another, the result will change the make-up of British politics.
Alexandra Goody, Consultant
Lobbyists must come out of the shadows
Whitehouse Consultancy managing director Chris Whitehouse comments for Public Service Europe on the European Union’s voluntary public affairs register.
Click here to read Chris’ article.
Chris Whitehouse, Managing Director
February 2011
Articulating the Big Society
David Cameron has this week been attempting to re-launch and re-energise what has paradoxically managed to become both a cornerstone of policy and something of a millstone around the neck of the Government in the ‘Big Society’ with a series of speeches and policy announcements that have included efforts to enlist young people in a new National Citizenship Programme, and encourage the voluntary sector to take on more local services.
No-one can doubt Mr Cameron’s commitment to the Big Society ideal, which in itself might seem strange given his own admissions that it will not make him popular and does not constitute a vote winner. However, the Coalition’s efforts at a re-launch face a significant hurdle in that, at least to date the public has struggled to grasp exactly what is meant by ‘The Big Society’.
This confusion has owed to the articulation of Mr Cameron’s vision, which commentators generally agree has been confused and often disjointed – leaving the Government open to criticism of policy initiatives and susceptible to accusations, such as those made by Labour, that the Big Society is a cover for further public sector cuts.
Clarifying this message will be one of, if not the most important task of Mr Cameron’s new director of communications, Craig Oliver.
There has been some surprise at Mr Oliver’s appointment, particularly given that he has no public affiliation to the Conservatives and is by background a journalist with comparatively modest print media experience compared to his many years in broadcasting.
It is, however, worth remembering that Mr Oliver is highly regarded for his powers of dissemination and edited the BBC’s coverage of the General Election in 2010. If he is successful is his new role, then the change in levels of understanding and acceptance towards the Big Society will rival anything seen on the ‘swingometer’.
Chris Rogers, Communications Manager
January 2011
NHS reform: bold ambition or Russian Roulette?
Crystal ball gazing is a risky business but Number 10 and the Treasury have been doing a lot of it recently. Why? Primarily because they know that if the country slips back into recession and their strategy of tough love is felt to have been the cause, then they’re toast. But there’s another area where the soothsayers have been active and that’s on NHS reform.
The reason for this is simple. The NHS touches everyone’s lives. Whether it be through care for themselves or their family, their contribution as a taxpayer or the reassurance it gives for simply being there, any politician that messes it up can expect a ferocious public backlash. And for the Conservatives this is particularly perilous territory since whilst they are well ahead of Labour on trust to run the economy, people are more sceptical about their capability to manage the NHS, with prominent Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan’s pre-election comment about the NHS being a “60 year mistake’ continuing to arouse suspicion that they want rid of it.
Why then the sweeping change proposed last July in the NHS White Paper which has hit the headlines again this week with the expected publication of the Health and Social Care Bill on Wednesday?
The answer is simple. David Cameron and Andrew Lansley watched closely as the Labour Party stop-started on reform of the NHS and understood the Blairite frustration that the project was left incomplete. They saw those reforms as a progressive step on the road to modernising the service and making it fit for purpose in the 21st century. They also knew that the Coalition would be fragile and that time was of the essence.
But as critics ranging from the usual suspects like the trade unions through to professional bodies like the NHS Confederation and the King’s Fund as well as the Commons Health Select Committee have pointed out, wholesale structural change in little over two years whilst delivering £20 billion efficiency savings will be, in NHS Chief Executive David Nicholson’s words, such a big challenge as to be “seen from space”.
Few doubt that reform is necessary. The increasing cost and complexity of medicines, the rising expectation of quality and an ageing population are all set to add to the burden of delivering healthcare in England in the same way it will do in many other parts of the world. But the growing assertion that the reform is out of control, moving at breakneck speed with Ministers unable or unwilling to work through the challenges of implementation risks fuelling suspicion that this is a Tory plot cooked up to privatise the NHS or, perhaps worse, a sign that the Coalition simply doesn’t know what it is doing.
Either way this next step on the road to reform marks a further opportunity for Ministers to explain their plans and reassure the public that they are both on the side of the NHS and can be entrusted with its stewardship. If they fail they risk every hospital death or incidence of clinical negligence being attributed to their perceived reckless handling of a national treasure. If that happens, watch their poll ratings plummet.
Andrew Lansley and his team of Health Ministers have been hugely ambitious in their plans. For their own sake and that of the future of the NHS, as well as the future of the Coalition Government, they have to hope that they have not reached too far.
Messrs Cameron, Clegg and Osborne will need to stand by their crystal balls for a while yet.
Chris Whitehouse, Managing Director
Petitioning for change. Will Government proposals mean greater public engagement in policy?
At the end of 2010 the Government outlined a new initiative to allow online petitions receiving more than 100,000 signatures to be debated in Parliament with the expectation that such petitions could eventually shape legislation. The proposals also included a new public reading stage of Government Bills, allowing the general public to input into legislative debate, currently the realm of Parliamentarians. Critics have said this will lead to the “tyranny of the minority” and a deluge of extremist ideas while others have heralded it as the next step along the path to a new age of democracy. But will this really change the way the political system functions or is this just another fad to be lost in the vagaries of the political quagmire?
The Coalition certainly doesn’t get points for originality - a similar initiative has already been approved at EU level in the form of the European Citizen's Initiative, introduced under the Lisbon Treaty. This will require the European Commission to respond to any political petition signed by one million EU citizens. However, it remains to be seen how effective such ‘crowd sourcing’ for policy, as the term is known, will be in affecting real political outcomes.
The evidence so far is not encouraging. Last month a petition in Europe calling for a halt to the approval of any new GM crops gained more than one million signatures only for the Commission to ignore it because of a procedural issue. In the UK, the Coalition set up a Spending Challenge website asking for the public to provide ideas about how to cut the budget deficit but the website eventually had to be screened because of the posting of offensive comments, while nothing much seems to have come from the Your Freedom website which asked the public for views on which laws should be repealed. There is still much to be agreed before the petition initiative is implemented in the UK but it is likely that the Speaker and the House of Commons Procedure Committee will have the final say over how and when a petition can be debated.
In short, this new initiative will merely provide the right to ask for a change to legislation, not to demand it. But isn’t that what representative democracy is all about? MPs already have to respond to the requests of their constituents or pay the price on Election Day. Online petitions are merely a new way of facilitating ongoing dialogue between the public and the political world and not the biggest shake up of democracy as some claim. But that is not to say it is wrong to open up new channels of communication and increase competition for ideas in the political space. The dynamics of the Coalition have certainly opened up general political debate; but is the political system ready for it and is the public ready to exploit this new opportunity? Certainly something for organisations engaging in the political arena to contemplate…
Liane Cresswell, Junior Consultant
2011, a year of no great change?
The old adage that the best way to make God laugh is to tell him your plans for the future, has particular resonance in the world of politics. Those who can predict the future with accuracy should be destined for political greatness, yet most political careers end in failure.
So despite the predictions of the pundits and commentators, 2011, a year heralded as one of great political change, is likely in fact to be one in which the biggest changes don’t happen, at least not on the surface of political life.
The Coalition will hold, not collapse under the pressures it faces but its strength will gradually erode.
As time progresses it will cease to have such great value as a vehicle and it will not bring about the seismic shifts in political life that many have predicted.
Cameron and Clegg will deliver visible political unity, whilst support for the Lib Dems is eroded and they are severely punished electorally in the crucial month of May when local government elections wipe out many of their grassroots supporters in council chambers around the country.
There will be no change in the voting system in May, as the referendum is lost, and the Lib Dems appear much less influential than in the past.
The Euro will not collapse, the political and economic cost is simply too great for that to be allowed. Instead, there will be a fudge with the weaker economies becoming more semi-detached. Greater economic and political minds than mine will find a way to permit this to happen despite all the rules to the contrary.
Ed Miliband will not, this year at least, be replaced as Labour Leader. Despite his weak start, there is no serious alternative candidate now jockeying for that position, the party’s support in the polls gives them (false) encouragement, and the Unions will not let it happen.
Indeed, May will be a good month for Labour as they harvest council seats around the country, do well in Scotland and Wales, and avoid internal rows on the referendum on the polling system, whilst quietly enjoying doing all that they can at local level to stuff the Liberal Democrats whom they loath institutionally and often individually with a vengeance.
Reform of the House of Lords will not proceed as rapidly as Nick Clegg would like. He will face a gradually growing, but ultimately substantial resistance among MPs as much as among Peers to the creation of a second chamber which would rival the democratic legitimacy of the Commons.
Hunting with dogs will not be decriminalised this year. Other priorities are seen as much more important.
So, the tectonic political plates will shift, but incrementally, not with great political, economic, or constitutional earthquakes.
Chris Whitehouse, Managing Director