DOCSLIB.ORG

PCC Minutes 29 Jan TRANSCRIPT APPENDIX

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PCC Minutes 29 Jan TRANSCRIPT APPENDIX Appendix 1 Police and Crime Committee – 29 January 2014 Transcript of Item 3: Discussion with the Mayor on the Proposed Deployment of Water Cannon by the Metropolitan Police Service Joanne McCartney AM (Chair): Then we move to our main item, which is looking at proposals for the Metropolitan Police Service to purchase water cannon. Before I start, this is the first of a series of three meetings we have. We have this meeting today to question the Mayor. Tomorrow we are questioning the Deputy Mayor [for Policing and Crime, Stephen Greenhalgh] and the Deputy Commissioner [Craig Mackey]. Then next week we have Sir Hugh Orde [President, Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)] and a representative from Liberty and an academic as well who we are talking to, looking at some of the broader issues around this. Perhaps I could start the questioning today and my question is to the Mayor initially. In December 2010 you said you had no plans to bring in water cannon in London. You stated at that time that you did not want to see an arms race developing between the police and protesters. Can I ask what has changed your mind? Boris Johnson (Mayor of London): Very simply, I reiterate what I said. I do not want to see an arms race and I do not think that necessarily would be caused by having water cannon at the disposal of the Metropolitan Police Service. What has changed, really, is that ACPO has done a study about some of the situations in which water cannon might be used and it has concluded that there could be circumstances in which life could be saved and serious injury could be prevented. Those circumstances might be very rare, but the question for us as policymakers is, if we say no to what is an operational request for a capability by the police, how can we justify that in the event that circumstances arise later on when actually such a facility or such a tool might have been useful? That is very hard to justify. There might be - and I pray there will not be - some event such as we saw in August 2011 when there could be, for a brief period, advantage to the public in terms of protecting life and in terms of avoiding injury in having water cannon at the disposal of the police. I cannot imagine that this is going to be something that will be regularly on the streets of London. It is simply a question for us as to what the consequences are of not making it available. How will we feel if we fail to give the police that option in the vanishingly rare occasions when they may think it absolutely necessary? Londoners should reassure themselves that I think it highly likely that we will very rarely see these things on the streets of London, if ever, and they will be very rarely used, if ever. The question is how we can live with ourselves if we fail to give the police the capability, at least in certain circumstances, to prevent loss of life or injury. Joanne McCartney AM (Chair): Mr Mayor, that is an argument that could be made for any tactical weaponry that the police force might use: what would happen if we had not done this? Your job as a decision-maker representing the public is to actually establish whether there is sufficient evidence. Looking at the ACPO briefing that you have on your website, you state that you want it in by the summer because there is concern about future protest. Then, in that same briefing, it states that there is no intelligence that there will be disorder. Why are you making decisions based on assumptions which do not seem to have any great credibility behind them? Boris Johnson (Mayor of London): There is a bit of a non sequitur there. If we go ahead with it, if the Home Secretary [Theresa May MP] licences it and if the consultation is successful, the aim is to get it in by the summer. This is going to be a very, very, very rare beast, indeed, water cannon. I cannot imagine in the normal run of events - for crowd control at football matches, nothing of that kind, normal demonstrations - you are going to see it deployed. You are even less likely to see it used. I think I am right in saying that ACPO’s conclusions were really driven by, say, for instance, what happened in Croydon. I might ask Mark Rowley [Assistant Police Commissioner, Metropolitan Police Service] to comment on this in more detail, but there was a moment in Croydon where I think the argument is it would actually have been helpful to have been able to deploy them in August 2011. The cost is reasonable. These are second-hand machines. They are perfectly good. If you can do it at a reasonable cost, if it can save life, if it is something the police believe is operationally necessary, it is very difficult for us as policymakers to say, “No, that is not a tool you should have at your disposal”, particularly given that baton rounds are already available to the Metropolitan Police Service, as I understand it. They already use baton rounds and indeed, as we know, they already have firearms at their disposal, as everybody in this city understands. Joanne McCartney AM (Chair): Can I just clarify? There has been no request to you from the police to have these in time for the summer? It is not time-urgent? I am wondering why there is this rush to push it through as your so-called ‘interim solution’ when the Home Office is already engaged in a process. Boris Johnson (Mayor of London): I do not think there is any expectation that we are going to need this for some particular purpose in the summer. Joanne McCartney AM (Chair): Why are you pushing the Home Office to have them for the summer? The Home Office already has a two-year programme looking at this. Perhaps I could turn to Mark Rowley. Has the Metropolitan Police Service requested this for the summer? Mark Rowley (Assistant Police Commissioner, Metropolitan Police Service): Just a couple of things on timing. If it is useful - albeit it is going to be rarely used - the sooner you have it the better. Of course, we have to go through the proper process. It is not a new request inasmuch as we said in February 2012, on the back of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) saying similar things in December 2011, that there was probably a place for water cannon in a small number of highly violent incidents of disorder. There is quite a lengthy bureaucratic process that we have been going through with the Home Office in terms of their willingness to licence them, which is perfectly proper and understandable. It has now reached the stage of consultation. Disorder is simply more likely in summer than it is in winter, so here we are approaching a summer three on from 2011 and ideally we would like it by then if that is achievable. However, it is not just based on an assessment of the riots in 2011. There was very serious disorder a couple of times at the back end of 2010. We can see a small number of incidents, maybe 5 or 6 over 12 or 13 years, in which it might have been a credible tactic. You cannot second-guess exactly what would have happened on the day, but those occasions would have met all the criteria that we can see legally and the HMIC laid out. We simply want it as soon as is sensible. We have no specific intelligence on the summer, to answer your question, but likewise the disorder/threat environment is no different to how it was over the last three or four years when we have had some incidents break out into massively serious disorder. The potential for a spark and an incident to create that we think is still the same. Jenny Jones AM (Deputy Chair): Water cannon are known not to be very good for fast, agile disorder, the sort that we generally experience in London. Can you tell me, Mr Rowley, during those disturbances in August 2011 when on one evening there were disturbances in 22 boroughs, where would you have sent the water cannon? Mark Rowley (Assistant Police Commissioner, Metropolitan Police Service): You are exactly right in your statement that for most of the disorder and riots it would not have been a useful tactic and we are not presenting it as a silver bullet for all serious disorder. That is not what water cannon are. It is useful in terms of creating distance in more static situations, whether that is distance between two sets of opposing people who are fighting, whether that is football hooligans or the situation you see in Northern Ireland or whether it is about creating a safe area around a high-threat environment. One of the examples the HMIC uses in its 2011 report is basically, if there are serious threats to the ambulance service and the fire service that is preventing them saving life, if it helps you create a sterile and safe area - such as at Reeves furniture store in Croydon - that would be a legitimate and sensible use. Jenny Jones AM (Deputy Chair): Let me repeat my question because you seem to be saying you would send these water cannon. You are going to need three to deal with a normal incident.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • London 2030 and Beyond Report of the King’S Commission on London
    The Policy Institute at King’s London 2030 and beyond Report of the King’s Commission on London MARCH 2018 About the Policy Institute at King’s The Policy Institute addresses complex policy and practice challenges with rigorous research, academic expertise and analysis focused on improving outcomes. Our vision is to contribute to building an ecosystem that enables the translation of research to inform policy and practice, and the translation of policy and practice needs into a demand-focused research culture. We do this by bringing diverse groups together, facilitating engagement between academic, business, philanthropic, clinical and policy communities around current and future societal issues. kcl.ac.uk/sspp/policy-institute @policyatkings The Policy Institute at King’s King’s College London Virginia Woolf Building 22 Kingsway London, WC2B 6LE For more information about this report, please contact Tony Halmos at [email protected] or on +44 (0)20 7848 2749 © The Policy Institute at King’s College London 4 London 2030 and Beyond | Report of the King’s Commission on London INTRODUCTION About the Commission The King’s Commission on London was convened in February 2016 by the Policy Institute at King’s College London. As stated in King’s Vision 2029, King’s is a civic university at the heart of London. The project was conceived as a time-limited, multi-disciplinary investigation of the major challenges faced by the university’s home city. The Commission was designed to connect research by world-leading academics at King’s with oversight from high-profile figures and experts from across the capital.
    [Show full text]
  • London 2030 and Beyond Report of the King’S Commission on London
    The Policy Institute at King’s London 2030 and beyond Report of the King’s Commission on London MARCH 2018 About the Policy Institute at King’s The Policy Institute addresses complex policy and practice challenges with rigorous research, academic expertise and analysis focused on improving outcomes. Our vision is to contribute to building an ecosystem that enables the translation of research to inform policy and practice, and the translation of policy and practice needs into a demand-focused research culture. We do this by bringing diverse groups together, facilitating engagement between academic, business, philanthropic, clinical and policy communities around current and future societal issues. kcl.ac.uk/sspp/policy-institute @policyatkings The Policy Institute at King’s King’s College London Virginia Woolf Building 22 Kingsway London, WC2B 6LE For more information about this report, please contact Tony Halmos at [email protected] or on +44 (0)20 7848 2749 © The Policy Institute at King’s College London 4 London 2030 and Beyond | Report of the King’s Commission on London INTRODUCTION About the Commission The King’s Commission on London was convened in February 2016 by the Policy Institute at King’s College London. As stated in King’s Vision 2029, King’s is a civic university at the heart of London. The project was conceived as a time-limited, multi-disciplinary investigation of the major challenges faced by the university’s home city. The Commission was designed to connect research by world-leading academics at King’s with oversight from high-profile figures and experts from across the capital.
    [Show full text]
  • Contents Theresa May - the Prime Minister
    Contents Theresa May - The Prime Minister .......................................................................................................... 5 Nancy Astor - The first female Member of Parliament to take her seat ................................................ 6 Anne Jenkin - Co-founder Women 2 Win ............................................................................................... 7 Margaret Thatcher – Britain’s first woman Prime Minister .................................................................... 8 Penny Mordaunt – First woman Minister of State for the Armed Forces at the Ministry of Defence ... 9 Lucy Baldwin - Midwifery and safer birth campaigner ......................................................................... 10 Hazel Byford – Conservative Women’s Organisation Chairman 1990 - 1993....................................... 11 Emmeline Pankhurst – Leader of the British Suffragette Movement .................................................. 12 Andrea Leadsom – Leader of House of Commons ................................................................................ 13 Florence Horsbrugh - First woman to move the Address in reply to the King's Speech ...................... 14 Helen Whately – Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party ............................................................. 15 Gillian Shephard – Chairman of the Association of Conservative Peers ............................................... 16 Dorothy Brant – Suffragette who brought women into Conservative Associations ...........................
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity and Democracy: Race and the 2015 General Election
    June 2015 Intelligence for a multi-ethnic Britain Diversity and Democracy: Race and the 2015 General Election Summary Table 1. Top 15 Labour vote share increases in diverse seats, 2015 • In 2015, Labour remained the first preference for most Labour Minority Black and minority ethnic voters, with around 60% choosing Constituency increase population Labour. The Conservatives have increased their vote share Birmingham, Hall Green 26.9% 64% significantly, from around 16% in 2010 to over 25% in 2015 Brent Central* 20.9% 61% • The Liberal Democrats got around 5% of the BME vote, and Poplar and Limehouse 18.6% 57% the Greens less. Only 2% of BME voters chose UKIP Bethnal Green and Bow 18.3% 53% • There is increasing variation in how different ethnic minority Birmingham, Ladywood 18.0% 73% groups vote, as well as regional differences Walthamstow 17.0% 53% • There are now 41 BME MPs, a significant rise, suggesting a Manchester, Gorton 17.0% 48% future BME Prime Minister could now be sitting in Parliament Birmingham, Hodge Hill 16.4% 64% • The success of Britain’s democracy depends not only on BME Leyton and Wanstead 15.0% 51% voter participation and representation, but on policymakers Ilford South 14.6% 76% responding to ethnic inequalities Leicester South 14.2% 51% Bradford East 13.8% 47% Introduction Bermondsey and Old Southwark* 13.8% 42% The 2015 General Election saw the Conservative Prime Ealing Southall 13.5% 70% Minister David Cameron returned with his party’s first overall Ealing Central and Acton* 13.1% 37% majority since John Major’s win in 1992.
    [Show full text]
  • Christine Keeler and Me JERRY HAYES 12 John Bercow’S Unspeakable Memoirs
    ME ER M M B E R R O S F H S O N U S O E M Order! Order! OF COM The Official Journal of the Association of Former Members of Parliament SPRING 2020 ALSO IN THIS EDITION... NICHOLAS BENNETT 6 Number crunching the General Election TERESA PEARCE 7 The abuse MPs suffer threatens democracy IVAN LAWRENCE 11 How the National Lottery began Christine Keeler and ME JERRY HAYES 12 John Bercow’s Unspeakable memoirs Two former MPs remember the young woman at the centre of the Sixties sex scandal p. 4 & 5 Order! Order! Spring 2020 Note From the Editor By Andy McSmith here are 165 more former MPs than before, and that the Conservatives were Parliamentary Constituencies – now in Tthere were since the last issue of Order likely to benefit from “having sucked at its 27th edition – at a 50 % discount for Order, many of whom were not expecting the pool of Brexit support”. Association members. their circumstances to change so suddenly. He added that – ominously for Labour * * * Five who were, because they chose to – the single word that cropped up most n a magazine written and read by stand down, have contributed to the on the doorstep was ‘Corbyn’, and the Iformer MPs, the books reviewed in the current issue. Many thanks to Stephen most common phrases were “this time” back are all about politics. But late last Pound – whose father, Pelham Pound, and “not this time” – but he detected year I received one delightful book by is pictured on the front cover, with his signs that Labour was retaking some of that polymath ex-MP, Gyles Brandreth friend Stephen Ward – Jeremy Lefroy, the Remain vote back off the Liberal – Dancing by the Light of the Moon, How Teresa Pearce, Paul Farrelly and Sarah Democrats.
    [Show full text]
  • HPRU PPI & PPE Presentation
    Patient and Public Involvement & Engagement PPI Objectives To make research available to people in their ‘own backyard’ by forging links with local communities. Develop good practice guidance for researchers and scientists on engaging the community in translational research. Expand our communication of research activities and findings Develop the scope of our interactive education activities with a programme based on the National Beacons Programme for Public Engagement 12/11/2014 [email protected] PPI Strategic Oversight Group (SOG) Mireille Toledano (Lead) Ian Mudway (Deputy) Epidemiological assessment of low level environmental exposures THEME 1: Tony Fletcher Modes and Mechanisms of Toxicity THEME 2: Toby Athersuch Health Impact of low dose non-ionising and ionising radiation NGOs THEME 3: Antony Young Government General Public General Patient Groups Patient Health effects of noise and air pollution including nanoparticles THEME 4: Rachel Smith Community Advisory Board Arlean Rohde: concawe Barry Dennis: environmental services association John Cooke: mobile operators association Councillor Paul Braithwaite: Camden Borough Council Andrew Marszal: Freelance journalist Katherine Murphy: The Patients Association Emily Jesper: sense about science Monica Robb: Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise Councillor Victoria Borwick: London Assembly (Dep Mayor) Dissemination Educational Resources SCAMP Study Interactive Website & Education Resources Educational experience EXHALE: 4,500 children provided with 3hr of science education
    [Show full text]
  • Strong Mayors' Leadership Capital: New York, London & Amsterdam
    STRONG MAYORS’ LEADERSHIP CAPITAL: NEW YORK, LONDON & AMSTERDAM (2000-2016) by Max William Stafford Canterbury Christ Church University Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2019 1 Abstract This thesis examines mayors and their interaction with their institutional limits. In particular, it considers, from the perspective of political leadership studies, how far mayors fitting the strong-mayor typology are able to assert their will in the face of these institutional limits. David Sweeting’s expositions on the strong-mayor model, supplemented by those of other theorists, form the thesis’ theoretical framework. This framework is applied to three original case studies (Michael Bloomberg in New York and Ken Livingstone & Boris Johnson in London). A fourth case study, of Job Cohen in Amsterdam, follows these and offers alternative perspectives (based upon the application a model of an appointed mayoralty). The analytical tool chosen – the Leadership Capital Index (LCI) – is a recent innovation in political leadership studies. The thesis’ findings demonstrate that there was clear potential for all of the mayors within the systems examined to assert their political will. What varies is how far mayors in different forms of strong-mayor systems can do this and how they achieve it. With regard to the LCI, the study concludes that it needs further development if it is to achieve longevity in terms of its place in the field. The thesis ends by outlining the future research agenda emerging as a result of this study. 2 Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................ 2 Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. 7 List of Tables and Figures ..................................................................................................... 8 List of Interviewees* ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Full Authority 24 Nov 11 Transcript
    Transcript of the meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority held on Thursday, 24 November 2011 at 10am in the Chamber, City Hall, SE1. Present: Members: Reshard Auladin (Vice Chair) Tony Arbour, Jennette Arnold, John Biggs, Faith Boardman, Chris Boothman, Victoria Borwick, Valerie Brasse, Cindy Butts, James Cleverly, Dee Doocey, Toby Harris, Kirsten Hearn, Jenny Jones, Clive Lawton, Joanne McCartney, Steve O’Connell, Amanda Sater, Valerie Shawcross and Graham Speed. MPA Officers: Catherine Crawford (Chief Executive) and Jane Harwood (Deputy Chief Executive) MPS Officers: Bernard Hogan-Howe (Commissioner), Cressida Dick (Assistant Commissioner), Anne McMeel (Director of Resources) and Gary Pugh (Director of Forensic Services). United Families and Friends Campaign: Samantha Rigg-David Reshard Auladin (Chair): Good morning, colleagues. It is 10am. We are going to start the meeting. The first item on the agenda is apologies for absence. We have apologies from Kit Malthouse, Bob Atkins and Neil Johnson. Kirsten Hearn (AM): Reshard, can we go round? I would like to know who is in the room. Reshard Auladin (Chair): I bg your pardon, Kirsten. Before we start can we just go round the table? I am Reshard Auladin, Vice Chair of the Authority. Catherine Crawford (Chief Executive): Catherine Crawford. Jane Harwood (Deputy Chief Executive): Jane Harwood. Graham Speed (AM): Graham Speed. Toby Harris (AM): Toby Harris. Clive Lawton (AM): Clive Lawton. Amanda Sater (AM): Amanda Sater. Tony Arbour (AM): Toby Arbour. Joanne McCartney (AM): Joanne McCartney. Jenny Jones (AM): Jenny Jones. Victoria Borwick (AM): Victoria Borwick. Steve O’Connell (AM): Steve O’Connell. Faith Boardman (AM): Faith Boardman. Dee Doocey (AM): Dee Doocey Cindy Butts (AM): Cindy Butts.
    [Show full text]
  • London's Political
    CONSTITUENCY MP (PARTY) MAJORITY Barking Margaret Hodge (Lab) 15,272 Battersea Jane Ellison (Con) 7,938 LONDON’S Beckenham Bob Stewart (Con) 18,471 Bermondsey & Old Southwark Neil Coyle (Lab) 4,489 Bethnal Green & Bow Rushanara Ali (Lab) 24,317 Bexleyheath & Crayford David Evennett (Con) 9,192 POLITICAL Brent Central Dawn Butler (Lab) 19,649 Brent North Barry Gardiner (Lab) 10,834 Brentford & Isleworth Ruth Cadbury (Lab) 465 Bromley & Chislehurst Bob Neill (Con) 13,564 MAP Camberwell & Peckham Harriet Harman (Lab) 25,824 Carshalton & Wallington Tom Brake (LD) 1,510 Chelsea & Fulham Greg Hands (Con) 16,022 This map shows the political control Chingford & Woodford Green Iain Duncan Smith (Con) 8,386 of the capital’s 73 parliamentary Chipping Barnet Theresa Villiers (Con) 7,656 constituencies following the 2015 Cities of London & Westminster Mark Field (Con) 9,671 General Election. On the other side is Croydon Central Gavin Barwell (Con) 165 Croydon North Steve Reed (Lab [Co-op]) 21,364 a map of the 33 London boroughs and Croydon South Chris Philp (Con) 17,410 details of the Mayor of London and Dagenham & Rainham Jon Cruddas (Lab) 4,980 London Assembly Members. Dulwich & West Norwood Helen Hayes (Lab) 16,122 Ealing Central & Acton Rupa Huq (Lab) 274 Ealing North Stephen Pound (Lab) 12,326 Ealing, Southall Virendra Sharma (Lab) 18,760 East Ham Stephen Timms (Lab) 34,252 Edmonton Kate Osamor (Lab [Co-op]) 15,419 Eltham Clive Efford (Lab) 2,693 Enfield North Joan Ryan (Lab) 1,086 Enfield, Southgate David Burrowes (Con) 4,753 Erith & Thamesmead
    [Show full text]
  • Conservative Group Budget Amendment
    Conservative Group Amendment Blue paper Report to the Assembly on the Mayor’s Draft Consolidated Budget for 2012 – 2013 Report to: London Assembly Date: 25th January 2012 Report of: Conservative Group Proposed by: Gareth Bacon Seconded by: James Cleverly PART A: INTRODUCTION & COMMENTARY1 1 This report is made up of two Parts, A and B. The text in Part A does not form part of the formal budget amendments, which are set out in Part B. 1 Conservative Group Amendment Blue paper (This page has been deliberately left blank) 2 Conservative Group Amendment Blue paper Conservative Alternative Greater London Authority Budget 2012 – 2013 By the London Assembly Conservative Group: James Cleverly Richard Tracey Tony Arbour Gareth Bacon Richard Barnes Andrew Boff Victoria Borwick Brian Coleman Roger Evans Kit Malthouse Steve O’Connell January 2012 3 Conservative Group Amendment Blue paper Introduction The Conservative Assembly Group is producing its third alternative budget under a Conservative Mayor and administration in City Hall. Whereas under the previous administration we proposed wide-ranging alterations across all of the GLA Group to hold the Council Tax precept down to a more reasonable and realistic level in the face of a belligerent Mayor keen to squeeze every penny out of Londoners, we now have in Boris Johnson a far more responsible Mayor who is pressing down on costs across all the functional bodies and favouring a more realistic budget than his predecessor. We welcome the freeze in the precept for an unprecedented fourth year running. Ken Livingstone never got close to achieving a precept freeze or of even trying to do so even despite his Mayoralty coinciding with a time of financial prosperity.
    [Show full text]
  • Kensington Constituency Study
    Kensington Constituency Study Methodology Kensington Constituency Study Page 4 27 Apr 2017 Table 1 Q1. Normal weightings Q1. The next General Election is due to be held on 8th June 2017. On a 0 to 10 scale, where 0 = definitely not going to vote and 10 = definitely going to vote, how likely do you think you will be to vote in your Kensington constituency at the next General Election? Base: All Respondents EU Referendum EU Referendum Victoria Borwick Total Sex Age Wards General Election Voting Intention 2015 General Election Past Vote Past Vote Past Vote Favourability Borwick, Abouharb, McGhee, Bovill, Rose, Favour- Unfavour- Male Female 18-34 35-54 55+ North South OTHER UND Leave Remain CON LAB LD UKIP Other Leave Remain CON LAB LD UKIP Green able able Unweighted Total 522 242 280 107 222 193 302 220 169 116 62 6 26 - 107 132 351 187 133 29 17 21 117 322 119 118 Weighted Total 522 258 264 172 199 150 234 288 175 112 63 5 27 - 110 127 361 203 120 21 17 25 112 330 126 113 10 = certain to vote 390 192 198 119 148 124 165 225 142 86 54 3 22 - 73 102 269 172 101 19 11 22 89 260 105 85 74.7% 74.5% 74.9% 68.9% 74.0% 82.2% 70.4% 78.2% 81.0% 77.1% 85.3% 59.1% 81.6% - 66.3% 80.6% 74.4% 84.6% 83.7% 89.7% 62.8% 86.5% 79.7% 78.9% 83.0% 75.5% 9 22 14 9 10 6 7 12 10 5 7 3 2 1 - 4 6 14 7 5 2 1 3 8 14 5 5 4.3% 5.3% 3.3% 5.7% 3.0% 4.4% 5.2% 3.5% 3.1% 6.3% 4.7% 40.9% 2.0% - 3.9% 4.5% 3.9% 3.4% 3.8% 7.6% 3.5% 10.8% 7.1% 4.3% 4.3% 4.6% 8 24 12 11 10 10 4 13 11 8 6 3 - - - 6 3 20 10 1 - 2 - 2 15 4 4 4.6% 4.8% 4.3% 5.9% 5.1% 2.4% 5.7% 3.7% 4.5% 5.5% 4.4% - -
    [Show full text]
  • A-Federal-Uk-Council-2
    3 November 2016 1 It is both logical and appropriate for all the political parties to seek to unite the UK after the nationwide referendum vote to leave the EU in June 2016. If the new Conservative Prime Minister, Theresa May, sees merit in the constitutional development of a Federal UK Council, and she combines it with her interest in Joseph Chamberlain’s city government model she can find the methodology for reaching a consensus on a cross party basis. Theresa May started well by making her first visit as Prime Minister to Scotland to meet with its First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon. She may well move on limited but useful devolved measures; like a better needs based assessment to replace the Barnett formula, on how Scotland will have more control under Article 50 negotiations and have substantial additional policy control over fishing and agriculture; mechanisms surrounding Income Tax being assigned in Scotland and Wales, the Silk Report which has dealt with devolving Corporation Tax to Wales and also discussions of how central and reserved powers will be further exercised by new devolved authorities in England. But all this will not provide an intellectual challenge to separatist thinkers. They need to be offered a federal future in the UK. The big political question is how to establish a federal structure for the UK and what is the best approach. A Constitutional Convention in all its different forms or even a Royal Commission are suggested. Whatever the forum, I am convinced it needs a specific, not a general mandate if it is to be capable of attracting full SNP participation.
    [Show full text]