PM must take debate to SNP

IF David Cameron is so convinced that it is in the best interests of the Scottish people to shun independence and remain an integral part of the United Kingdom after this September’s referendum vote, perhaps the time has come to seize the initiative and engage in a head-to-head debate with SNP supremo Alex Salmond.

His apparent reluctance, for whatever reason, does seem slightly at odds with his bullish persona after a frenetic day of campaigning north of the border in which the Prime Minister and Scottish First Minister both held meetings of their respective Cabinets just a few miles apart.

On every key argument, the Tory leader holds the upper hand at present. Mr Salmond’s economic plan has been unravelled after it was made clear that the Scots could not retain the pound. Defence policy would be left in disarray if UK nuclear submarines could no longer be based on the Clyde. And the repercussions for future North Sea oil and gas supplies would be profound, as Mr Cameron made clear yesterday.

Yet, on matters of constitutional importance, the public now have a right to expect the type of debates that characterised the 2010 election. As Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Mr Cameron should have no reason to be afraid of defending the interests of the whole country against Mr Salmond’s agenda that threatens to politically marginalise, further, regions like Yorkshire.

One argument being put forward by Conservatives is that their leader under-performed against Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg four years ago. However, this appraisal misses the point. If the Tories are to have a better chance of winning the next election, they need to attract greater support across the whole of the UK and Mr Cameron is still his party’s best asset.

A final point also needs to be made. At a time when Prime Minister’s Questions finds itself in danger of losing its credibility and relevance, the main parties need to do far more to engage with the public on the key issues – whether it be Scottish devolution or the EU. As such, they should embrace the concept of setpiece debates whenever they can.

Parking penalties

Time for joined-up transport policy

THE anger being expressed by those West Yorkshire commuters who could have to pay for the privilege of parking at their local station is compounded by the short-sighted manner in which this issue is being considered – and how it only came to public attention in a letter sent to Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin, and seen by this newspaper.

If the plan being advocated by the Department for Transport was likely to raise significant sums to invest in additional rolling stock to ease the overcrowding endured on rush-hour services in the region, there might – just – be an element of justification. However it is already clear that the parking upheaval at 18 stations will not be a large revenue-raiser, but will have a significant impact on surrounding areas.

The reason is this. Because more motorists will attempt to park in side streets and so on, it is likely to put the pressure on local authorities like Leeds Council to introduce restrictions at great expense – and then pay wardens and others to ensure that rules, like permit schemes for local residents, are enforced. In short, not only will commuters be out of pocket but taxpayers too.

Three points should be made in conclusion. First, this plan reveals the limitations of those transport policies that pay lip service to concepts like “value for money” and “customer service”. Second, this interference makes a mockery of government plans to devolve transport powers to the regions. Third, it exposes the fragmented nature of policy-making when Northern Rail, Metro and councils should be working together to not only improve access to local stations, but to increase capacity on busy routes like the Airedale and Wharfedale Lines.

‘A waste of money’

Deputy police commissioners in dock

WEST Yorkshire’s Mark Burns-Williamson is not the only crime commissioner to come under criticism for cronyism over the appointment of political colleagues. Before the November 2012 elections, the Home Office did not make it sufficiently clear that the successful candidates would be entitled, if they so wished, to appoint deputies on the not inconsiderable salary of £50,000 a year.

However, Mr Burns-Williamson cannot escape the criticisms made by Alison Lowe, the head of the West Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel which scrutinises his work.

Fifteen months on and she maintains that the appointment of Isabel Owen, the wife of the Labour Party’s regional director, is a “waste of taxpayers’ money”. This remark carries more assertion because Ms Lowe, herself, is also a Labour activist locally.

But it also begs this question: why did would-be commissioners not reveal their choice of deputy before polling day? If it is good enough for US presidential elections, potential police chiefs should not be afraid of such scrutiny. The only conclusion is that this is another example of self-interest being put first by the political establishment. For there is nothing in the rules that compels Mr Burns-Williamson to appoint a deputy.