Robert Buckland Weblog

The recent announcement by the Conservative Party that in future,  much of the detail of local Government expenditure such as salaries for senior officers will be put firmly into the public domain, is an excellent example of the Party’s commitment to openness and accountability.   This comes on top of our proposal to publish any expenditure proposals that involve the use of over 25ooo pounds of public money, which in my opinion could be the biggest single brake to excessive and cavalier spending that has ever been applied.  It will put a definite spoke in further attempts to waste money on madcap database schemes, for example. 

The latest Tory announcement is clear recognition that the public increasingly demand openness and accountability applies at all levels of our government.  The debate in the local media about the Swindon Wi Fi project is part of this.  In a nutshell,   Swindon Council is the holder of a 35% stake in a company that aims to set up a Wi Fi network throughout the Borough.  The Council is loaning this company 450,000 pounds and the aim is to share in any profits made from this joint venture. 

There is no doubt that the rolling out of Wi Fi services across Swindon is a welcome initiative.   Many local residents  still do not have the benefit of wireless internet links,  and the speed by which many link to the net is far too slow.   The prospect of a few hours of free internet access per day could be of real benefit to people who at present have no way of accessing the net.  Businesses, too, could benefit from this service.   It can be used for reading household meters and as a way of improving the care  of vulnerable people.  I understand that there are savings to be made by organisations such as the Council itself in using Wi Fi.

I very much hope that the project is a success.  The main cause of concern in the debate, however, has been about the process used in order to set up the project.   The decision to enter into the contract to participate in this joint venture was conducted in private.  It was not brought to the Council’s Cabinet for discussion or approval.   As this decision has involved the use of public money,  this process has been the subject of criticism.

My understanding is that the matter has been referred to an internal audit of the Council,  and that there has also been a complaint made to the District Auditor.  We have yet to learn whether the District Auditor will intervene.   I would expect  full co-operation from the Council if this does happen.

Tomorrow night’s  Swindon Council Cabinet will consider whether or not to allow payment of the rest of the loan by amending some of the terms of the original deal, to take account of the fact that some of the requirements of the loan have not been met.  I would like to thank the Conservative administration for taking this course of action, allowing for public scrutiny at the time the decision is made, and suggest that if the balance of the loan is to be paid, that all the existing requirements are double checked to make sure that they are realistic and can be ahered to.   

I am sure that on reflection, it would be agreed by all involved that a decision-making process that was as open as possible at all stages of this proposal would have been the best way to deal with things.   I fully understand that there were concerns about issues of commercial sensitivity, and I do not think that we have reached this situation because of deliberate subtefuge by anyone. 

In the arena of public life, whether it be the world of Criminal Justice that I have inhabited for many years or the world of government,  openness should be the default position, I suggest.  This is the way proposed by David Cameron and the Conservative Party, and it is something that I strongly support.

The death of Michael Foot at the ripe old age of 96 this week has undoubtedly robbed the political world of one of its giant Parliamentarians.  I enjoyed being reminded of his rhetorical triumphs this week, such as his strong defence of the doomed Labour Government in March 1979, his demolition of Sir Keith Joseph’s industrial policy by ridicule and his firey advocacy of unilateral nuclear disarmament at many a rally. 

Was Foot anything more than an inspired rhetorician, however?  As a historian, literary figure and journalist he excelled.  Despite suggestions to the contrary, he was not a unifying political figure, however.  He came to the Labour leadership as a compromise candidate, but his election split the Party apart.  His adoption of Conference resolutions as the basis for the 1983 General Election manifesto demonstrated his lack of willingness to face political reality. 

Foot had even managed to be expelled from Labour in the early 1960s for his stance on nuclear disarmament.  When his idol, Aneurin Bevan, eschewed dreamy idealism for hard nosed reality at the 1956 Labour Conference, Foot did not support him.   When he finally came to the Front Bench in the early 1970s, he did put his idealism behind him and proved to be a tough party manager.  There is no doubt that he played a vital role in keeping the Labour Government on track with its wafer-thin majority under Callaghan. 

As Employment Secretary, however, he presided over huge public sector pay rises that helped fuel the rampant inflation of that decade.  Foot spent his time placating the Unions whilst Harold Wilson ensured that the Royal Family received their Civil List increases.  This was a Labour Government that faced both ways, and which was prepared to spend whatever it took to get it out of trouble. 

Whether it is the fierce polemic of “Guilty Men”, the damning indictment of the policies that led to the surrender at Munich in September 1938, which Foot helped to write under the pseudonym “Cato”,  the carefully crafted biography (hagiography, but we can forgive him) of Bevan or the doughty defence of a lost cause in the 1983 election, I am left admiring a politician who in my view was on the wrong side of almost every significant political debate since the War. 

He was a man with a hinterland; not for him the sounbites or spin of modern Labour politics.   His direct approach may not be as old-fashioned as we think it is,  bearing in mind what I hear on the doorsteps week in, week out.

The pre-election season is generating predictable heat in the media, but all too little light.  Taiwanese TV news’s decision to stage a  cartoon re-construction of the Prime Minister’s alleged behaviour towards his staff was the final straw for me.  This election will not be won or lost on issues such as this.   A plain-spoken and direct approach that offers change and hope is a better plan for success, I think.

Today, David Cameron did a very good job outlining the nature of the choice at this election.  I wasn’t in Brighton for the Spring Forum this weekend – instead,  I have been out on the doorsteps listening and talking to local residents.   They are concerned about the prospect sof higher interest rates if Britain fails to come up with a credible package for dealing with Britain’s phenomenal debt.  They are keen to see that the NHS is supported and allowed to flourish.   Many remain concerned about council tax, which is why comments by Swindon’s Labour Leader last week about people being prepared to pay more in council tax demonstrate how out of touch they are with reality.

Another concern is the huge pressure on local infrastructure that comes from inappropriate development.  On Thursday, I was a guest speaker at a public meeting held at Holy Trinity Church, Shaw, that was organised by West Swindon Councillors to mobilise opposition to the developmentof 3000 houses to the West and North of Sparcells and Peatmoor. The land in question falls within Wiltshire Council boundaries, and the proposals are part of Wiltshire’s Planning draft Core Strategy.  My Labour opponent seeks to lay the blame entirely with Wiltshire, but the reality is that these proposals stem from Labour’s flawed regional planning system.

The Regional Spatial Strategy (or RSS as it is referred to) is supposed to provide sustainable and truly “spatial” development.  It will not.  The number of houses that Swindon is supposed to build between now and 2026 is a huge 37,000.  Blog readers will have read about the Eastern Development Area of 12,000 homes which is part of this madness.   Wiltshire’s proposals are part of all of this.  Insated of delivering truly spatial development, this plan involves the creation of an urban extension that will place enormous presure on West Swindon’s roads, drains, schools and other infrastructure.   To9 add insult to injury,  it is Wiltshire, rather than Swindon, that will receive all the developer’s financial (or S106) contributions.

The meeting was a follow up to one held at the Woodland Edge Pub in January.  This time, Councillors had come up with a plan that involves residents lobbying a list of local politicians, whose name s and contact details were provided on a sheet to everyone.

I spoke about the feeling of powerlessness that many residnets feel about planning issues, and the unfairness of a “top down” system that seems to favour developers too much.  Only a few days before the meeting, the Conservatives had published their long-awaited Planning Green Paper.  It offers a radical departure from the past.  One of the proposals that interests me greatly is a reform to the current appeal system.  I have often been told by planningofficers that the regular overturning of their decisions on appeal by developers with deep pockets was a depressingly familiar aspect of the system.

In its stead, both developers and residents will have two grounds of appeal, firstly that the decision was an abuse of process and secondly that it does not accord with the council’s Local Plan. There will be a sifting process that will only allow those appeals with merit to be determined.  The Local Government Ombudsman will deal with appeals based on abuse of process, and willbe given more powers of redress.  The expensive option that is Judicial Review will no longer be the only option.

Cllr Nick Martin, Conservative Councillor for Shaw and Nine Elms and meeting convenor, said that the Conservative alternative offered residents a chink of light.  I agree.  Removing regional housing targets and the RSS will be a good start, but the figures that have been used to assess housing need, gathered in the midst of an economic boom, look hollow and unsustainable in these more difficult times.  They must be revised downwards, and quickly.

The title of the Minstry of Justice  report about Juries may have been an unintentional reminder of the agenda of at least some in Government.  “Are Juries Fair?” was a question that I did not think needed asking, but in attempting to answer the question, the report has thrown a large dose of cold water over some of the assumptions people made about Juries.  Firstly, there is no evidence of racism when it comes to Jury decisions.  The assertion that rape cases mainly  end up in aquittals was also challenged.  55% of rape trials end up with a conviction.  Finally,  it revealed a system where Jurors strove to be fair in their deliberations,  even if there is a significant number who do not fully understand judicial directions of law. 

The last finding came as no surprise to me whatsoever – getting anyone to understand the standard direction about a Defendant’s failure to give an account in police interview is a task beyond Hercules himself, I have always thought.  The use of written directions, already widespread in serious cases, can and should be extended to all but the most straightforward case. 

There was much discussion in the report about the influence of the internet.  Already, Judges are told to direct Juries not to conduct any internet research about the case or as part of their deliberations.  It has been suggested that at the beginning of trials, a “jurors guide” could be handed to each member of the Jury.  Not a bad idea, but it would be wrong to think that Jurors appear to be sworn in Court without having had any information about the process.  Each of them will have been taken into a court by a member of staff and shown a short film on video which gives them a helpful overview of the task ahead. 

My experience of Juries is that, very often, a point will have to be repeated before it is fully absorbed.  When you think about it, this is only to be expected, bearing in mind the fact that Jurors have been placed in an environment that to the vast majority of them will be wholly alien.  It sometimes happens that a Juror, despite the fact that he or she was told the name of a witness at the beginning of the case so that anyone with direct personal knowledge of the people in the case could be excused from serving on that Jury,  only realises that they know a witness or other connected person after the trial has begun.    I put this down to the “sensory overload” that can affect some Jurors at the beginning of cases.  They are asked to swear a Juror’s Oath, which for those who have forgotten their reading glasses or who have other difficulties, can be a nerve-wracking and embarrassing experience. 

Modern Courts and Judges are trained to do their very best to make Jurors feel comfortable, informed and valued.   I welcome the Report’s findings and believe that they go a long way to re-inforce the vitally important principle of Trial by Jury.

For the report, which is written by Professor Cheryl Thomas of University College London, go to http://www.justice.gov.uk/latest-updates/are-juries-fair.htm

A rare visit to the Palace of Westminster on Tuesday night to take part in a meeting of the newly-formed London Welsh Laywers Association.  Chaired by Winston Roddick QC, Leader of the Wales and Chester Circuit, I shared a panel with Lord Morris of Aberavon, former Welsh Secretary and Attorney-General, Elfyn Llwyd MP, Leader of Plaid in the Commons and Gwyn Griffiths, Senior Legal Advisor to the Welsh Assembly.   The debate was about the future of devolution after the General Election.

There was a degree of crystal ball gazing, which is a dangerous pastime for politicians.  The consensus was that a new Conservative Government would not be seeking to pick fights witht the Welsh Assembly or the Welsh Assembly Government.  The debate was held on the same day that Assembly members voted to trigger a referendum to be held later this year or early next year on the assumption of primary lawmaking powers by the Assembly.

My argument was that in the context of recent developments, the danger was that turnout at the referendum could be low.  The move to primary lawmaking powers in devolved areas is a small step forward from the current fudge of “Legislative Competence Orders”, which involve debates about whether or not Cardiff should have the power to legislate in the first place.  Gwyn Griffiths made the point that some of these processes had already affected the Government of Wales Act 2006, so that the precise structure upon which people would be asked to vote was unclear.

The two points of dissention that appeared were firstly the point about referendums being the resort of parties that were divided about the issue.  Labour in Wales are clearly divided about the extent of devolution.  There are many in the Conservative Party who do not share the view of the Assembly Group that more power should be conferred to Cardiff.   My view is that referendums shoudl only be used for really important issues, such as independence or tax raising powers.  Elfyn Llwyd thought that in fact, this was an important constitutional point and that the referendum mechanism was appropriate.

The second point of dissention came when I suggested that people were shying away from a proper debate about tax raising powers, and about who pays for Wales.   It became a discussion abou the Barnett Formula,which as John Morris reminded us had been written on the back of envelope by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Joel Barnett.   Really, it should have been a discussion about how  much political power Wales really wanted, recognising the English dimension.  As a Welshman standing in an English seat, I have an unusual perspective on all of this.  

When asked by audience members what I thought the Tory apporach to the Assembly would be, I suggested that it would be constructive and conciliatory, rather than aggressive and confrontatinoal. The Tories in Wales are popular, having won the European Elections last year.  There is no reason why there cannot be a good working relationship.  There will be a temptation amongst non Tory parties in Wales to adopt the “wicked Tories” rhetoric of the 1980s and 1990s, but this simply will not wash in 2010.

Last night, I was the guest of the Swindon Amnesty Group , who hold regular meetings at the Friends Meeting House on Eastcott Hill. I Whilst I am not in agreement with many of the standpoints taken by Amnesty, a round table discussion with members revealed that there was much that we could agree upon as individuals. The debate ranged from discussion and information about countries such as Burma and Sri Lanka and the tragedy of Tibet to a debate about what I perceive to be the dangers of an “ethical foreign policy” or “foreign policy with an ethical dimension” as outlined by Robin Cook when he took office in 1997.   My problem with that approach is that this implies adoption of a particular set of values that often are of no assistance when it comes to understanding and dealing with other countries or regions of the world.

The logical conclusion of all of this is the sort of  “neocon” approach that assumes that military intervention in order to impose a set of values is acceptable.  Supporters of the Cook approahc will no doubt cite the example of Sierra Leone in support of this approach, but although Mr Cook famously resigned over the neocon adventure that was the invasion of Iraq, it can be said that there was a certain, albeit unintended, irony about all of that.

This does not mean that British Minsters and diplomats should shy away from raising thorny human rights isues when talking to China, for example,  or that we should not use options such as sanctions against regimes that fall below accepted international standards.   The approach taken by Lord Patten when he was Governor of Hong Kong is one that I identify with; a clear understanding about the reality of the situation (namely that China would be taking over in a matter of a few years) but nevertheless a firm insistence that democratic institutions were to be developed prior to the handover.    All too late and at a time when it didn’t really matter, some would say.   As an expression of what we should be standing for in the world, it was clear and eloquent.  A balance between ethics and realpolitik is the best approach to foreign policy.   

There was much agreement about the need for the erosion to our civil liberties at home to be reversed.  I was asked about my personal commitment to human rights.   My answer is that in my professional life, I deal with them every day.

The date of the General Election remains a secret known only to the Prime Minister.   The smart money is still on May 6th, but there remains a chance of a March election, which is why the national campaigns began before the last Christmas decorations were taken down.  These weeks and months require unusual stamina from Parliamentary candidates, and here in South Swindon my team is working hard to secure as much support as possible.

There is no doubt that people’s trust in politicians and the entire process has been eroded by the expenses scandal.   The wish for change is almost tangible.   Memories of the flawed decision-making process that led to the war in Iraq are being stirred by the Chilcot Inquiry, and the emergence from the shadows of Gordon Brown will be an event even more interesting than the evidence of his predecessor.

I spoke to a number of local residents today who had never voted before.  It may not be the best time to encourage people to participate, but is it lack of participation that has got us into this mess?   Opinion is divided as to whether turnout will go up or down at the General Election.   My hunch is that turnout will increase.  Anger at politicians does not necessarily mean abstention.  I believe that the best way to register concern about the mess that Parliament has got itself into is to vote for a fresh start.

There have been many moments in our history when our Parliament has fallen short of the standards expected of it.  Equally, there have been many moments when Parliament has risen to the challenge and led the way.   The only way to go from this situation is up, surely?

The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee has published its report on the procurement of Legal Aid in England and Wales by the Legal Services Commission.   It does not make for pleasant reading if you are a senior official in the LSC.   You may be expecting me to launch into a diatribe about the fate of criminal barristers;  the Report expresses the concern of the PAC that the long term future of the junior criminal bar is under threat.  I am very worried about the future of the criminal bar, but there are some more fundamental problems with the LSC itself.

A brief recital of some facts and figures gives immediate cause for concern.  2.1 billion pounds is spent by the LSC on civil and criminal legal aid.  A further 125 million pounds is spent on administration. The Ministry of Justice spends more than 2 million pounds per year on legal aid policy matters  and overseeing the LSC.   The LSC’s accounts for 2008-09 were qualified because of an estimated overpayment by the LSC to solicitors of 25m.  In short, this is an organisation that has weak internal controls and is not on top of its financial management.   Whilst the LSC has been working to a budget at the level reached in 2006, there are inadequate means of checking the ways in which the money is being spent.

The much vaunted Very High Cost Case system, introduced in 2001 and involving a plethora of civil servants ”managing” cases and authorising work done by barristers and solicitors, remains a mystery when it comes to value for money.  The LSC have no idea whether this bureaucratic and often Kafkaesque system is better value than paying a graduated fee for a particular case. 

There is also confusion between the Ministry of Justice and the LSC that is leading to duplication of work, notes the committee.    I was particularly concerned to read about the 1.5 million pound cost of  changes to senior management in the LSC.   The LSC has now abandoned the lamentable Best Value Tendering Scheme.  It knows that further savings will have to be made but does not know where these could come from.  My advice to them is: Physician, heal thyself.

A freezing but bright Saturday morning made for brisk door knocking in the Lawns today.  I was out and about with local ward Councillors Brian Mattock and Fionuala Foley and a team of helpers that allowed us to talk with a large number of local residents.   We also bumped in to Alan Nix, Chair of the Lawn Residents Association who invited us in to speak to local residents at a reception in the Community Centre.   Alan and his team have worked very hard to improve facilities at the Centre, and thanks to Lottery funding and sheer willpower, new rooms and facilities have been added.  We recently held a meeting of the Swindon SEN Network in one of those new rooms, which had formerly been a store area but which is now ideal for group meetings such as ours.

A number of residents were talking with me today about Tony Blair and his evidence to the Iraq Inquiry.  I was surprised and disappointed that he did not express regret for the lives of servicemen and others that were lost during the war and its aftermath, even if he asserted that he believed that he made the right decision.

I had forgotten how self-righteous and evangelical Mr. Blair can sound at times when justifying himself.  This style may have worked with many people in the late 1990s, but it is utterly out of kilter with modern politics.  The expenses scandal may have accelerated the rise of cynicism with all politicians, but Tony Blair did much to damage relations between the political class and the public.   A war that was not in Britain’s national interest was entered into upon a false prospectus.   Try as he might, his premiership will be defined by this act of folly.

Today’s news has the UK economy finally, but only by the narrowest of margins, emerging from the longest recession on record.  Whether the figure of 0.1% growth, which is based upon an analysis of only 40% of the available economic data, is in fact the true figure is something that will not be revealed for some time.  Whatever the margin of error, it may well be the case that we are experiencing some form of recovery, but the fact remains that the economy has shrunk by nearly 5% over the last year or so.  In short,  we have a lot of ground to make up and are at risk of being left behind by our major competitors. 

There seem to be lots of crime stories in the Swindon Advertiser at the moment.  I often hear complaints that the local newspaper concentrates too much on crime and not enough on the positive aspects of life in Swindon.  It is a tough call, but the public needs to have information about local incidents because very often an investigation can be helped by an appeal in the local paper.  The problem with extensive crime coverage comes in the form of an increase in the fear of crime amongst readers.  It is very often the case that the most serious crimes occur for a specific reason, rather than being the result of random targeting.  The exceptions are house burglary and street robbery, which are oftent he product of opportunism and mischance.  

There is no doubt, however, that fear of crime has affected the lives of thousands of residents, which is why reassurance in the form of visible and responsive policing is essential.  Visible policing isn’t merely a question of making people feel safer – it is also about crime prevention, which to my mind is the best cure.   Crime prevention has to involve all of us too – it requires vigilance and an awareness that there is much we can do to protect ourselves and our property.   Swindon remains a relatively safe place to live, but it is everyone’s responsibility to help keep it that way.