Wanted: ID Card spin doctor – Big Issue article

I know that there are many people out there who buy the Big Issue for the jobs pages, but an appointment which appeared on the Civil Service careers website recently may have escaped your attention. If you?re a regular reader you will know that I?ve indulged myself in the occasional rant against David Blunkett?s scheme for a National ID Card. I believe that the scheme is unnecessary, unproven, wildly expensive, and will erode our basic freedoms. But now, for a salary somewhere between £47,000 and £66,000 a year, you could take on the job of convincing me I?m wrong!

At least I assume that?s what the job involves. Mr Blunkett has apparently decided that the tasks involved in selling ID cards to a sceptical public are best described in such terms as ?defining the customer experience and behaviours to support the brand?. The post-holder (or ID Cards Head of Marketing) will also be responsible for ?positioning and promoting ID cards and ID card services to its customers and stakeholders? and ?driving demand and encouraging take-up?.

I suppose I shouldn?t let the marketing bullshit irritate me ? it?s everywhere in our society these days. But it really gets beyond a joke when the Government devises a scheme to force as many people as possible to accept a biometric ID card with the threat of compulsion still hanging over our heads, and then pays someone to come up with strategy documents about ?driving demand and encouraging take-up?!

Encouraging take-up would seem to the easy part, given the possibility of a four-figure fine for those who resist the scheme. Add to this the likelihood that health services will be withheld unless you produce an ID card, and that your old-style passport and driving license will no longer be accepted without one, and you begin to see just how tough a challenge it will be to ?encourage take-up?.

But let?s try ignoring the absurd nature of this job, and think instead about what the Government is doing to the democratic process. Here we have a proposal with a huge price tag (over three billion pounds at current estimates? though some would just call that the initial builder?s quote!) which changes the relationship between state and individual, and opens up the possibility that we?ll be waving goodbye to personal liberty. So you?d have thought that the proposal would have to pass Parliamentary scrutiny before the Home Secretary starts handing round jobs to ?define the customer experience?, ?promote ID cards to customers? or ?encourage take-up?.

Yet no bill has been introduced to Parliament. The Government hasn?t even published the results of the most recent consultation exercise, for what it was worth, or given satisfactory answers to the many questions over the scheme?s operation, design, or purpose.

So the ID Cards Head of Marketing will be in post ? with an explicit mandate to sell the concept not only to the public but to MPs as well ? while the legislation is still being drafted. While the bill makes its progress through Westminster, this spin doctor will be paid by the Civil Service but will be working to promote a highly contentious political objective of the Labour Party.

Over the years Westminster watchers have seen the power and authority of Parliament undermined steadily. Now it appears that MPs are just another audience for the marketing execs, and I?m sure that hopeful applicants for this post will already be sizing them up.
How shallow can Westminster get? This job advert surely marks a new low in Government as a marketing exercise. Doesn?t anyone still think democracy might be worth a try at Westminster?

NEWS RELEASE – Fair trade

GREEN MSP CONGRATULATES FAIR TRADE CAMPAIGN

Green Glasgow MSP Patrick Harvie today said he was delighted that steps are being taken to turn Glasgow into a fairtrade city.

Speaking ahead of a public meeting being held today (22 October) to discuss the city?s strategy for achieving fair trade status [1], Mr Harvie said he was thrilled that the council were taking this issue seriously. The MSP said that many retailers across the city have been campaigning for fair trade status for the city for years.

Mr Harvie said, ?Glasgow?s bid for fair trade status is long overdue. Already Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee are classed as fair trade cities, so I?m pleased to see that Glasgow City Councillors have realised the importance of promoting goods that tackle poverty and inequality in developing countries.?

Fair trade status is awarded to cities by the Fairtrade Foundation. The city must prove that the local council has passed a resolution to support fairtrade and will agree only to serve fair trade tea and coffee at it?s meetings and in the canteen. Furthermore, fairtrade products must be readily available in the city?s shops and cafes, they must be used by local work places and the local media should be encouraged to support fairtrade as much as possible.

Mr Harvie continued, ?Fairtrade ensures a better deal for small-scale, vulnerable producers in developing countries by giving them a secure, guaranteed price which covers the costs of production. This gives them the security of knowing that they can plan for their future. By guaranteeing registered farmers a consistent and fair price that covers the cost of sustainable production and living, fairtrade enables them to strengthen their organisation and invest in social, environmental and business improvements.?

He concluded, ?Many people in Glasgow have realised the benefits of buying fairtrade products. Fairtrade goods are becoming more readily available as demand increases for them. It is our responsibility to make ethical choices when we shop ? hopefully this campaign will raise awareness of how easy is to help in the fight against global poverty.?

ENDS

For more information contact Fiona Barnes on 0141 332 6405

[1] The public meeting will take place in the Williams Room, McIntyre Building, Glasgow University between 12.30 and 1.30 pm on 22nd October. Speakers include Ann McKechin MP, Cllr Irene Graham and Anna McIntyre from People and Planet.

Holyrood

Everyone I?ve met for the last month or so has been asking about the Holyrood building, and even more so since the opening ceremony.

It?s only natural or course that people should want to know about it ? what?s it like? is it really finished? and what about those think pods?! The Scottish people have been landed with a bill far higher then they expected for a building which, now that the wraps are finally off, is provoking mixed reactions. It?s now time to find out if the whole project has been worth the hassle.

Is it a great building? Well many of the spaces inside the complex are wonderful, with surprises around every corner. The diffuse natural light creates an atmosphere which I think will change with the seasons as with the time of day. What strikes me most strongly is the sense of solidity and permanence ? this is a building which will ring with the voices of Scottish politics for generations to come. Politicians yet unborn will work here, speak here, and learn the history of what we do here. This sense of permanence should remind us of the most important reason we?re here ? to hand on a better Scotland to those generations who will come after us.

The exterior of the building was always going to be a bit of a problem. A great deal has been crammed into a smallish site, surrounded by other buildings. So there is no dramatic vista, no profile which sets the building against a skyline, a streetscape or even against the Salisbury crags behind it.

But what the designers have done is to create clear and recognisable images throughout the complex, images which will very quickly come to signify the parliament. Those fancy windows (the ones with the ?think pod? seats inside them) are already almost a logo for the Parliament. They might not be the most practical design for either a window or a seat, but they very clearly say ?Holyrood?.

My overall impression is of a building which is eminently fit for purpose. A heavy responsibility now falls to the MSPs, to the other 800 or so people working in the Parliament, to the Executive, to the media, and to the civic organisations which feed into our work. To all of us falls the responsibility of making devolution a success, and ensuring that our devolved institutions are themselves fit for purpose.

Most people are coming to agree that in the long run further devolution will be necessary ? more powers to the Scottish Parliament. Some of us (myself included) believe that Scotland should itself become the primary layer of government, with Scotland represented on the world stage, and negotiating for itself the terms of any relationships with the rest of Britain, with Europe, with the world. Others see our future as remaining inside the United Kingdom, but with greater confidence in running our own affairs in the areas devolved from Westminster.

But whichever path we take in the future, we will need a Parliament which takes its role seriously, which earns the confidence of the people it serves and which facilitates mature dialogue across party lines.

That?s why I found it so important to be there to mark the opening. I have no time for the rituals of royalty or for meaningless posturing. But that wasn?t the point of the day. We were there, with thousands of people from all walks of Scottish life, to mark a new chapter in the history of our country.

All those who seek election to the Parliament are given a role in writing that history. The role we?ve been given comes with serious responsibility, which is not an optional extra.

NEWS RELEASE – Air Pollution in Glasgow

MSP CALLS ON SMOKING BAN SUPPORTERS TO HELP STAMP OUT DEADLY AIR POLLUTION

After a recent report [1] revealed that the level of emissions from vehicles in Glasgow equates to smoking nearly 15 cigarettes a day, Green MSP Patrick Harvie is calling upon supporters of a possible smoking ban to help raise awareness of the deadly effects of air pollution.

Air pollution, mainly from vehicle exhausts, kills more people every year than die in road accidents, killing more than 600 a people a year in the Central Belt alone [2].
Mr Harvie said today ?Public awareness of the health impacts of passive smoking is at an unprecedented high, yet MSPs passively accept road traffic pollution. However successful a ban on smoking in public places may prove, it will not alter the dangerously high levels of nitrogen oxide pollutants that city dwellers are exposed to.?

Mr Harvie has called on all MSPs who support proposals to ban smoking in public places to also support measures which would lessen the severe effects of road traffic on human health [3].

He explained, ?The political will to ban smoking in public places is strong and getting stronger. Recent comments made by the First Minister suggest he is keen to implement the proposals. Yet the public health cost of air pollution caused by vehicles is not been given the same attention. Traffic reduction measures and improvements to public transport could also save thousands of lives a year. [4]

?Comparing levels of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from vehicle exhausts to the amounts inhaled from a cigarette illustrates the serious impact of these pollutants. Traffic pollution is not an abstract problem ? it seriously affects human health and our quality of life. The Scottish Executive must wake up to these facts and abandon their numerous road building projects, including the M74.?

ENDS
For further information call the Green MSPs? press office on 0771 761 8771.

Notes to Editor

[1] www.calor.co.uk

[2] ?Heading in the wrong direction? JAM74 briefing paper.
Figures originally obtained from the Institute of Occupational Health.

[3] Text of motion S2M-01861 : That the Parliament notes the mass support from the people of Scotland for a ban on smoking in public places due to their concerns about the danger smoking causes to public health; further notes that recent research into levels of nitrogen oxides in the air has shown that breathing the air in Glasgow is the equivalent of smoking more nearly 15 cigarettes a day; is concerned that even if the ban on smoking in public places is implemented, city-dwellers will still be exposed to dangerously high levels of pollutants caused by emissions from motor vehicles; calls upon all those who support a ban on smoking in public places to support all measures which would lessen the severe effects of road traffic on human health, and further calls upon the Scottish Executive and Glasgow City Council to abandon their plans to build the M74 Northern extension and invest the cost of the motorway (currently estimated at between £375m and £1 billion) in traffic reduction measures and improvements to public transport.

[4] Vehicle emissions cause 2000 deaths in Scotland pa (Walter and Fitzroy, 2002).

BREAKING NEWS: US Authorities launch attack on Indymedia

Indymedia, an important source of anti-war and anti-globalisations news with content from many coutries, has had several of its servers raided by US authorities.

Click here for Indymedia UK.

It also seems likely that the UK Home Office has colluded in this attack on freedom of speech.

More news later.

NEWS RELEASE – Civil Partnerships returns to Commons

CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS: BILL DOES NOT END SEXUAL APARTHEID – ?arrogant? Westminster should not decide Scottish family law

The Westminster Civil Partnerships Bill will not bring an end to sexual apartheid in Scotland, Green MSP Patrick Harvie warned today as the House of Commons debated the legislation.

Harvie proposed a civil partnerships bill in the Scottish Parliament last year but the issue was deferred to Westminster with a Sewel motion. The Deputy Minister for Women, Jacqui Smith, today said that the Executive’s decision to send the controversial legislation to Westminster was a success of devolution.

Mr Harvie said, ?This is an absurd claim – the Executive’s increasingly irritating habit of passing the buck on challenging or controversial issues flies directly in the face of devolution. This shows the arrogance of the Westminster government, which still considers itself a ‘higher court’ than the Scottish Parliament, despite its far lower standards of democracy.?

Lord Murray Elder, one of the authors of the Scotland Act, recently attacked the Executive for its over-use of the Sewel motion convention, and there are growing concerns that the level of active scrutiny given to Scottish legislation in Westminster is poor and getting poorer.

On the Bill, Harvie said, ?The Civil Partnership Bill as it is now will maintain sexual apartheid in Scotland, with one law for heterosexuals and another for gays. Same-sex couples are excluded from marriage and opposite-sex partners are excluded from civil partnerships. This may perpetuate unequal pension rights for same sex couples, and prevents mixed sex couples who do not believe in marriage from registering their commitment to each other and gaining legal protections.?

Green MSPs are concerned that:

? The Bill will create a ’separate but equal’ arrangement – marriage for mixed sex couples, partnership for same sex couples. The legal distinction will permit the continued assertion that there is a moral distinction between the people involved.
? Same sex couples may continue to be discriminated against in pensions, as they are in the provision of goods & services, such as hotel accommodation.
? Mixed sex couples who do not agree with marriage as an institution will not be able to register their relationship.

Harvie added, ?Greens want to see human diversity valued in family law. This means overturning any suggestion of value judgements about people’s sexuality by creating new secular institutions such as civil partnership, and through civil marriage, but both institutions should be open to all loving committed couples.?

Reshuffle

It?s musical chairs time at the Scottish Executive. After long denying any plans for a re-shuffle, First Minister Jack McConnell has just given in to the mounting calls to remove Malcolm Chisholm from the difficult Health portfolio. His replacement is already packing his boxes for the office move.

Mr Chisholm himself is not out of the cabinet, but gets the Communities portfolio. In taking over, Andy Kerr will have to establish himself as a new broom in NHS policy if he is to convince anyone that the change is more than cosmetic. The growing concern about health services in Scotland was not so much about the individual Minister, but about the policy.

Centralisation of services is being seen as the only way to go ? huge hospitals are being planned which are more often than not funded by the controversial PFI scheme.

Malcolm Chisholm?s last gasp was to find £100million from behind the sofa to save the Queen Mother?s maternity hospital in Glasgow? at least that?s what you?d have thought if you read the evening papers on the day of the big health debate. The reality, I?m sorry to say, is that the additional money will give the Queen Mum?s a five year reprieve, to allow NHS Greater Glasgow to work on its plans for a mega-hospital for Glasgow, relocating maternity, neonatal, paediatric, and acute adult services on one site.

This idea does address some of the concerns that the Queen Mum?s campaigners had ? they didn?t want the unique link between maternity services and the Yorkhill Sick Children?s Hospital to be broken. Well now they won?t be broken, just relocated together to join the other acute services.

But these weren?t the only concerns. The NHS isn?t just about delivering numbers of treatments, carrying out numbers of procedures, like a production line. It?s about people, and most of us feel better about receiving health services in our local community. Obviously you can?t deliver every specialism in every cottage hospital. Nor can every town have a local hospital which offers the very best cutting edge treatments. But for most of the time, most of us just need care that?s up to a decent standard, treats us like human beings, and is delivered in an environment that?s calm and pleasant enough to feel OK about spending time in.

I worry that the kind of massive hospitals bring planned (bigger than anything we?re used to yet) will be less able to do that.
I?m also sure that the PFI model of financing is unable to achieve it either ? private companies may well be highly skilled and efficient when it comes to making profits, but public service is a fundamentally different activity, and we have seen appalling consequences of applying cost-cutting and the business ethic to public services already.

If we want to reverse the trend toward centralisation, we have only to make the choice. It?s not inevitable. It would mean having some different expectations of the NHS though ? it would mean not expecting that every service you ever need in your life is available in every hospital, but that a standard of care that?s good enough is acceptable. It would mean not putting pressure on health professionals to have every answer, and not leaping to litigation when things go wrong. It would mean all of us taking a bit more responsibility for our own health, rather than trashing our bodies and expecting health services to patch us back together again.

But the choice is there for us to make. Why not email Mr Kerr now and let him know what you want him to do with your NHS?
andy.kerr.msp@scottish.parliament.uk