Jan
25
As part of the Global Poverty Project (sponsored by The Co-operative) I am one of the Global Poverty Ambassadors for 2012. I’ll be delivering the ‘1.4bn reasons‘ presentation throughout London. If you’d like me to deliver the presentation at one of your events, please do contact me.
Permanent link to this article: http://ianadderley.com/?p=52
Jun
24
(Written for Europe Direct Leeds)
Fairtrade is a movement built upon principles of international co-operation and solidarity. It grew within the UK as a grassroots movement- fought for by those who believed the inequity in the trade system should exist no longer. It was soon realised that to help those in developing countries we needed not simply to provide aid, but to revolutionise the system of trade. Only with fair trade would a lasting positive impact be made.
That was the 1960’s as part of the ‘Trade not Aid’ movement. What about now?
If anything, trade has become more international as the decades have passed. With advances in technology the world is on our doorstep. No longer can we exist in ‘splendid isolation’- what happens in other countries can affect us; and our actions can impact upon others.
Within Europe there has been great change, supported by political will. In 1994 the European Parliament adopted the “Resolution on promoting fairness and solidarity in North South trade” realising the problem – and acknowledging solidarity and fair trade as part of the solution.
It is this pan-European approach -one of international co-operation- that brings me to report on where the Fairtrade movement is now.
Earlier this month Lille, twinned with Leeds, played host to a large international Fairtrade conference “forum national du commerce equitable”. I was asked to speak at the conference on behalf of Fairtrade Leeds. There I not only joined speakers from across France, but also from places such as Morocco and Palestine. I shared our experiences from Leeds: talking about how we became a Fairtrade City; the nature of the movement in the UK; and about international co-operation.
As well as hearing first hand from those who are perhaps one of the newest Fairtrade producers-makers of Palestinian olive oil—I also got chance to discuss the similarities and differences between the Fairtrade movement in the UK and France.
In the UK the Fairtrade movement is just that, a movement. It came about after years of grassroots activism and organisation. You only have to look at Fairtrade Towns, where unprompted by others Garstang set about making themselves the first Fairtrade Town, to see how our movement has maintained its bottom-up approach. From speaking to those involved in Fairtrade in France it would seem that for them, the opposite is the case. At present it seems to be led by governance at various local and regional levels.
France has some of its own unique challenges to overcome. Take for instance Fairtrade wine. Here it is hugely popular. In France however things are a bit different! It’s pitching against French wine, not only hugely popular throughout France, but also an economically important export.
But putting those differences aside, the need for international co-operation and solidarity has never been more vital. I attended workshop on public procurement with representatives from Leeds City Council and Ville de Lille. It was clear that many of the problems we face here when it comes to sustainable procurement are exactly the same in France as we fall under the same regulations. As recent as 20th May we’ve seen the European Parliament, in its “New Developments in Public Procurement” report, call on the EU Commission to support Fair Trade in public procurement.
With such a need for international co-operation across Europe it was therefore pleasing to see such strong international relations between Lille and Leeds- particularly on the topic of Fairtrade. Only with an international outlook will we achieve further reform to bring about fair trade.
Find out more about Fairtrade Leeds.
Permanent link to this article: http://ianadderley.com/?p=26
Jan
31
Taken from my article featured on Labour List:
By Ian Adderley
I read with interest the article published yesterday calling for a codified constitution. It is clear that our current written but uncodified constitution – made up of an array of legislation, case law, and convention – isn’t perfect, far from it. However codification, or an attempt to create a new constitution, is not the way forward.
Whilst an uncodified constitution does not provide an easily accessible document detailing governance of the country and the rights of the individual, it does provide a living constitution. It is a constitution that can adapt and evolve with the ever-changing conditions in which we live. It is a constitution that has allowed, taking only recent examples: our entry to the European Community in 1973; the use of referenda as first seen in 1975; devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; the Human Rights Act in 1998; the removal of most hereditary peers from the Lords (unfortunately 92 remain); freedom of information; and separation of powers, to name but a few examples.
Therefore it is not rigidity or the inability to enact change that is the problem. On the contrary, perhaps the real problem is that the constitution, in its current state, is too flexible. If this is the case then we must seek to ensure safeguards are put in place. But we need not to codify our constitution to achieve this.
Our entry into the European Community in 1973, bringing with it the European Court of Justice (ECJ), has provided a safeguard against infringement of rights since the decision in Factortame. The European Court of Human Rights, deciding on breaches of the Convention of Human Rights, acts as a further safeguard (although I admit its decisions are not binding).
Importantly, the separation of powers provides further safeguards. We have a judiciary, which – thanks to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 – will soon be fully separated from the legislature. It is free from political manipulation and the whims of whatever party governs and ensures that abuses of power do not take place – cases that involved detention of foreign subjects suspected of terrorism is just one example.
However many argue for a codified constitution neither on the basis that the current uncodified constitution is too restrictive, nor that the alternative is too flexible, but on the basis that we need a statement of values. We need to assert positive rights to make us feel British. If only there were a list of positive rights then people would come to understand the constitution, know what they are entitled to, and be able to emulate the citizens of America in their ability to recite their rights.
But we already have such a list. It is the Human Rights Act. Yet despite it clearly laying out a list of positive rights I can probably say with some degree of certainty that outside the bubble in which the legal and political apparatchik spend their time the majority of people cannot name even 5 of those rights.
Some argue that we should codify our constitution to outline basic entitlements, to education and healthcare, for instance. However, this presupposes that the UK is still a unitary state. It forgets that in a system of asymmetrical devolution, Parliament no longer legislates on education and healthcare in Scotland; unless of course we intend to go back on, or weaken, the policy of devolution.
Even if devolution hadn’t occurred and we were still a unitary state, then such entitlements would be meaningless without the right and ability to enforce them. We would need a constitutional court, similar to the Supreme Court in the US to be able to strike down contravening legislation.
Yet this goes against the very safeguards the Labour Government has strengthened since the enactment of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. It would weaken and undermines the separation of power; the second we give judges the power to strike down legislation we would spark a flurry of political interest in their appointment. And we would see situations such as those in the US – fierce political battles of judicial appointments; Conservative judges blocking Labour policy and vice-versa.
Perhaps instead we may just have rights, or entitlements, that aren’t tangibly enforceable? But were this to be the case, those rights may as well be written on the back of a cigarette packet. For what is a right if it cannot be enforced?
The current constitution isn’t ideal, but a codified version is certainly not the answer.
Posted on Aug 06, 2009 at 02:01pm
Permanent link to this article: http://ianadderley.com/?p=16
Jan
30
Taken from my article featured on Labour List:
By Ian Adderley / @IanAdderley
Last week Gordon Brown, in announcing a manifesto policy compelling all young people to complete 50 hours of ‘community service’ before the age of 19, stated:
“We can achieve a step change in the participation of young people in community service. It is my ambition to create a Britain in which there is a clear expectation that all young people will undertake some service to their community, and where community service will become a normal part of growing up”.
It is excellent to see that a commitment to increase volunteering will make it into the manifesto, particularly as alongside it is the development of an accreditation scheme – ensuring the work of young people is properly recognised.
However, the inclusion of the compulsory element does little to bring around a ‘step change in participation’. If anything, it damages it.
Making ‘volunteering’ compulsory (oxymoronic I know!) changes the whole ethos and spirit behind voluntary community involvement. Many young people currently volunteer in their community. They choose to give up their time to help others and usually this is greatly appreciated. It is seen that they are volunteering because they want to and as such it is valued. As soon as you bring in compulsory community service much of that value and appreciation associated with volunteering will vanish. Young people will no longer be helping because they want to, they’ll only be doing it because they have to – at least that’s what the arguments will be.
If we really want to achieve a ‘step change’ in volunteering, and create a society where ‘community service will become a normal part of growing up’ then we should be trying to inspire young people into community involvement.
We need a strong and well-recognised accreditation system for volunteering. We want young people to be able to have something to show for their work. But we also need to make volunteering easier. Compulsory community service fails to go to the heart of the issue. It fails to address and tackle the barriers to volunteering.
We need a manifesto commitment that goes across government departments. We need to ensure that the whole system is geared up to encouraging and recognising volunteering. We need to ensure schools are actively promoting community involvement and providing the opportunities for young people to get involved. The same can be said for the youth service as well. We need business to get on board and start to give due weight and credit to the voluntary work young people do when it comes to applying for jobs.
Further, why are we only targeting young people? We not only need more young people to get involved in their local communities but we need all people to get involved. We need a scheme that encourages people over 19 to get involved in their communities as well. Volunteering is an excellent way to develop peoples’ skills and is hugely beneficial.
Whilst it is positive to see a manifesto commitment on volunteering, the compulsory element needs to be removed.
Don’t force, inspire!
Permanent link to this article: http://ianadderley.com/?p=1
|
Loading tweets...
