UK says no to 'Right to be forgotten'?

Do you remember the proposal for a new European Law that would give consumers the right to be forgotten?

As reported by the Telegraph in January 2012 "Embarrassing, inaccurate or simply personal data will have to be deleted from the internet and company databases if consumers ask, under a new set of European laws."

What is less reported is the British Governments opposition to such a law.

The New York Times reported on Friday, 18 January 2013 that "...[d]uring an informal meeting in Dublin, the ministers expressed reservations about elements of the proposal, which would impose new limits on data collection and profiling and give national regulators the ability to levy hefty fines equal to 2 percent of sales on companies that failed to comply...."

And

"..According to [a] memo [and summary of the meeting seen by the International Herald Tribune], representatives of Britain, which has one of the largest advertising industries in Europe, repeatedly objected to many elements, citing concern for how the measure would affect the Internet’s development."

As we have known for a long time when it comes to consumer protection versus business interests - business interest will always have the trump card.

To read the full New York Times article: Ministers Express Doubts on Expanding Data Protection Law

Wylfa B - a cash bonanza?

If in the long term Wylfa B gets built, quite rightly there should be some planning gain for the benefit of the community as a whole. But what can we expect in this regard. Well, a good pointer would be the S106 agreement between the developers of Hinkley C and Somerset councils.

Below is an extract from Somerset County Council website:

Somerset councils and EDF Energy have signed a landmark agreement which will deliver nearly £100 million for local communities to mitigate the impact of the proposed new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C.....

[...which will] pay for a range of measures for communities most affected by the development, including:

• Up to £8.5 million for a housing fund to mitigate potential impacts on the local housing market, including the refurbishment of local properties
• £12.8 million as the balance of a £20 million community fund for measures to enhance the quality of life in local communities. The £12.8 million will be independently administered by the Somerset Community Foundation, with council, community and EDF Energy representation on the awarding panel
• Nearly £16 million on a variety of highway improvement schemes, particularly in and around Bridgwater, to ease traffic and enhance road safety
• Over £7.1 million to improve local skills and training, including a final £2 million instalment for the Energy Skills Centre at Bridgwater College
• Up to £4.6 million towards community safety measures
• Almost £5.5 million to support economic development and tourism initiatives
• More than £3 million to support local education provision and provide extra school places, if necessary
• Almost £1 million to support local health services
• £300,000 to be spent on local heritage
• £350,000 to pay for landscape and visual improvements
• More than £440,000 to support improvements to public rights of way
• Over £865,000 on environmental measures, including contributions towards flood defence measures in Cannington (£500,000), Bridgwater (£220,000) and Stolford (£80,000)
• More than £3.6 million to provide additional resources to the local authorities so that they can monitor and ensure the successful implementation of the development and continue to work closely with local communities

Of course for both Hinkley C and Wylfa B to be built there will have to be some form of public subsidy. An article in the Telegraph says "Subsidies for new nuclear power could add £70 to annual household energy bills, Ian Marchant, the chief executive of SSE warns.

If we carry out a very simple exercise you would say that on Anglesey in 2011 there was 30,600 households, which would need to find £70 more to pay for their electricity annually, that's a total of £2,142,000 - over £2 million. And if we apply that over the likely lifetime of Wylfa B, 20 years that's a grand total of £42,840,000 or nearly £43 million. Or on the same basis for the number of households in Wales a grand total of £1,823,780,000 nearly £2 billion.

As I said a simple exercise, but it rather puts the £20 million community fund at Hinkley C into some sort of context at least, and makes you ask whether this current UK government energy policy is the best way foward to secure a safe and affordable energy supply for the future. 

Should the UK leave the EU and do a Norway?

Norwegian oil field

There is a growing call for a referendum on whether the UK remains an integral part of the European Union, or leave but remain part of the European Economic Area (the YES/NO question). In a recent article in The Telegraph Harriet Alexander reported that Last week, writing in The Sunday Telegraph, David Cameron raised the possibility of a referendum on Britain's membership. And Norway is often cited as a perfect example of how to leave the EU, yet still thrive.

Also "People worry that if Britain left we would lose access to the Single Market and not be able to travel freely," said Robert Oulds, director of the Bruges Group think tank. “But that is not the case. Britain can cancel its membership of the EU and retain the trade benefits, following Norway’s example. The only thing we will lose is the bureaucracy and expense."

But is Norway a perfect example for the UK to follow? - for a start take it's population of around 4.7 million which is more akin to the population of  Scotland.

The following is from the CIA World Factbook (my emphasis):

The Norwegian economy is a prosperous mixed economy, with a vibrant private sector, a large state sector and an extensive social safety net. The government controls key areas, such as the vital petroleum sector, through extensive regulation and large-scale state-majority-owned enterprises. The country is richly endowed with natural resources - petroleum, hydropower, fish, forests, and minerals - and is highly dependent on the petroleum sector, which accounts for the largest portion of export revenue and about 20% of government revenue. Norway is the world's second-largest gas exporter; and seventh largest oil exporter, making one of its largest offshore oil finds in 2011. Norway opted to stay out of the EU during a referendum in November 1994; nonetheless, as a member of the European Economic Area, it contributes sizably to the EU budget. In anticipation of eventual declines in oil and gas production, Norway saves state revenue from the petroleum sector in the world's second largest sovereign wealth fund, valued at over $500 billion in 2011 and uses the fund's return to help finance public expenses. After solid GDP growth in 2004-07, the economy slowed in 2008, and contracted in 2009, before returning to positive growth in 2010-11, however, the government budget is set to remain in surplus.

It has around 5.7 billion gallons of oil in proven reserves compared to UK of around 2.9 billion. And it has has around 2 trillion cubic meters of gas in proven reserves, compared to 256 billion in the UK.

Norway has prospered well, by careful management of its natural resources. Robert Oulds said above "The only thing we will lose is the bureaucracy and expense." but Norway still contributes sizably to the EU budget and the government controls key areas, such as the vital petroleum sector, through extensive regulation and large-scale state-majority-owned enterprises.

Possibly not what the neoliberals and free-marketers of the right had in mind exactly.

No I don't think the UK could use Norway as an example to follow, although it could be a model for Scotland? - after all Scotland with a population of around 5 million and some oil left, with it's close links to Norway through the oil industry, are already practically neighbours.

The former Cllr Calver and human rights.

The Telegraph - (Politicians should have thick skins judge rules in bitchy councillor case) reported on Friday that a judicial review had set aside the decision of the Adjudication Panel for Wales, against an appeal by Mr Calver and former Pembrokeshire County Council Councillor for the Manorbier ward.

I say former County Councillor, for on Thursday he lost his seat on Pembrokeshire County Council.

But back to the judicial review, in brief this is what occurred before:

Mr Calver a Community Councillor for Manorbier had fallen out with fellow Community Councillors over various matters. Whilst investing a claim of a breach of the Code of Conduct made against Mr Hughes another Community Councillor, the Public Service Ombudsman for Wales 'became aware' of a website written by Mr Calver.

The Ombudsman decided to investigate whether comments made by Mr Calver on his website where in breach of the Code of Conduct, which require members to "show respect and consideration for others", and not to "conduct [themselves] in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing [their] office or authority into disrepute".

The Ombudsman decided that there was case to be answered and referred the matter to Pembrokeshire County Council's Standards Committee, whom found that Mr Calver had been in breach of the code of conduct. It censured him and required him to attend a training session with the Council's Monitoring Officer.

Mr Calver appealed to the Adjudication Panel for Wales on various grounds, but the Panel upheld the decision of the Standards Committee. Mr Calver then sought a judicial review of the decision taken by the Panel. And it is the decision of the Panel that Mr Justice Beatson has set aside.

For the full judgment see Calver vs The Adjudication Panel for Wales

Mr Justice Beaston concluded that whilst the Standards Committee and the Panel were right to conclude that in a narrow sense Mr Calver; in his role of Community Councillor, had been in breach of the code of conduct, "the censure was a disproportionate interference with the claimant's rights under Article 10 of the Convention." (para 84)

In other words political expression attracts an enhanced level of protection under Article 10 of the Human Rights Convention.

Article 10

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

Which means for example in robust political debate, language that would otherwise have been considered offensive is protected by Article 10.  Lord Justice Hoffman (see para 56) stated that "surprising as it may perhaps appear to some, the right of freedom of speech does extend to abuse".

Lord Justice Hoffman also observed in R v Central Television Plc [1994] 3 All ER 641 at para 652:-

"Freedom means … the right to say things which 'right-thinking people' regard as dangerous or irresponsible. This freedom is subject only to clearly defined exceptions laid down by common law or statute … It cannot be too strongly emphasised that outside the established exceptions … there is no question of balancing freedom of speech against other interests. It is a trump card which always wins."

Or as stated by Mr Justice Collins in Livingstone v Adjudication Panel for England [2006] EWHC 2533 (Admin) para 39 :-

"However offensive and undeserving of protection the appellant's outburst may have appeared to some, it is important that any individual knows that he can say what he likes, provided it is not unlawful, unless there are clear and satisfactory reasons within the terms of Article 10(2) to render him liable to sanctions."

Or as Voltaire said "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Of course the mere fact that outside established exceptions you may have the freedom to say things which 'right-thinking people' regard as dangerous or irresponsible is not something we as a general rule should condone in a society of decent people. And you would hope that those seeking public office would in the most lead by example, not that we expect them to be beyond reproach at all times.

In Mr Calver case in my opinion (for what it's worth) the comments that he made on his blog and referred to in the above judicial review weren't that particularly offensive. But as to whether Mr Calver was wise to make them is another matter.  As others have quite rightly pointed out to me, when you have a valid point or concern to raise, the use of  offensive or poor  language to mock or  belittle someone else weakens the argument you are trying to make.

And finally as Mr Calver found out in any event the final trump card as to the election of a Councillor lays not in the courts but in the hands of the electorate.

Which is why I think we need to find ways to ensure that on all occasions the electorate are given a choice, and that we should avoid Councillors elected unopposed and without a mandate.

P.S Mr Calver remains a Community Councillor for Manorbier Community Council as he and others standing for election to the Manorbier Community Council were elected unopposed.

UK growth nearly stalled

The UK economy barely grew in the final quarter of 2011, according to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.

The institute estimates that the economy expanded by 0.1 percent in the three months to December, compared with growth of 0.3 percent in the three months to the end of November. According to the institute this implies the economy expanded by 1 per cent in 2011, half the rate of growth experienced in 2010 (2.1 per cent,).

The press release says The National Institute interprets the term “recession” to mean a period when output is falling or receding, while “depression” is a period when output is depressed below its previous peak. Thus, unless output turns down again, the recession is over, while the period of depression is likely to continue for some time.

Reuters reports that whilst George Osborne said there were "signs" the economy was turning a corner and there were reasons to be optimistic in a year when Britain will host the Olympic Games in London...

...Britain is teetering on the edge of recession as global growth slows, government spending cuts bite, and all-important consumers struggle with high inflation, tax hikes and slow wage rises.

You may recall at the beginning of December The Daily Telegraph reported The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) said that a bout of severe weather before the end of year could skew economic activity in such a way that Britain does not experience two quarters of negative growth....

Prof Nickell, a member of the OBR...said....“If you have a huge bout of heavy snow before Christmas that will probably rule out a double-dip recession because GDP will fall in the fourth quarter and bounce back in the first quarter",...but...he warned that disruption in the New Year would mean that the statistical masking of the slowdown could not take place. “It’s got to snow in the fourth quarter.”

Let's hope therefore we don't get a huge bout of heavy snow this month or in the following two months.

We need a balanced debate about organ donation.

In Wales, nearly 300 people are waiting for an organ transplant, many through no fault of their own.

Which brings us on to the "controversial" issue of organ donation. Let me be clear as an atheist my thoughts on the matter are very simple.

When I die I'll no longer need my body or any of its parts. Therefore after my demise, if any of it could be used to enhance the lives of others, what's the problem? - especially if I'm to be cremated, isn't recycling the done things these days.

And that is why I'm a supporter of the "soft" opt out system. But what exactly would a "soft" opt out system of donation mean?

There would be a presumption that a person consented to organ donation on their death, unless they had indicated otherwise (opted out), or their relatives objected.

Which brings me on to some ill thought out comments made yet again by Rob Davies (The Daily Post's Outspoken columnist)

Putting aside the frankly ridiculous statement of "I suspect the drive to introduce presumed consent for organ donation in Wales is fuelled in part by the separatist agenda of Wales-isn't England' lobby".....he goes on to make factually incorrect statements, take for instance in his column of today in the Daily Post he states:

Take this scenario: a young man is fatally injured in a crash. His is not on the organ donor list but lives in Wales and so is presumed to have given consent to the removal of his organs. His distraught parents are duly informed that doctors are to take out his heart...etc...What will haunt them for ever more...that their son had never actively agreed [to organ donation].

But the above scenario is wrong, it would not happen.

In the first as is the practice today, their next of kin would need to be consulted before a decision could be made. As reported in the Telegraph: The new laws would still require doctors to consult with the relatives of the bereaved as part of a "soft" opt-out system.

Whereas today the relatives could agree to organ donation, even though the deceased person when alive objected to do so, it would be similar in a 'soft' opt out system. The relatives could object to the donation of organs, even if the deceased when alive had no such concerns. Or if they had any 'doubt' which would haunt them for ever more they could just say no.

In reality you are more likely to take action if you object to something, as opposed to those who don't think it matters. Let's be honest the vast majority of us are far more concerned about what's happening now, than whats occurring when were dead.

The Christian Archbishop of Wales Dr Barry Morgan says it has to be a choice "that is freely embraced".

Surely, if you decide not to opt out of the organ donation system, you have so to speak "freely embraced" the idea that on your death your organs could be used by others.

There could be a number of safeguard built in, your doctor, health nurse etc could easily explain to those who have not opted out the consequence of not doing so. I'm sure the church could also have a role.

At the end of the day it will still be a personal choice, you could always opt out.

Above all what is important is that we have a balanced debate, and using emotive language or spurious arguments, will not help at all.