Sunningdale Accountability Lecture

To build on the unique theme of the 1999 IIAS Conference at Sunningdale - accountability with an international dimension - the Consortium established a lecture, entitled The Sunningdale Accountability Lecture, to be held every two years.

The Rt. Hon. Neil Kinnock, Vice President of the European Commission, presented the inaugural lecture at the Royal Society of Arts, London in October 2001. He spoke on the subject of Accountability and the Reform of Internal Control in the European Commission to an invited audience of 100 or so senior figures drawn from the various fields of expertise represented by UKPAC members. These included the senior civil service, senior academics, local government, the accountancy profession, representatives of the IIAS and other European and international figures.

The second Sunningdale Accountability Lecture took place at the Royal Society of Arts on the evening of Monday, 24th November 2003. The Lecture - Accountability and the Media: The Struggle for "Balance" - was presented by Professor Ben Pimlott.

The third lecture, on the theme of  Parliament and the Judiciary: The Problem of Accountability, was presented by Professor Vernon Bogdanor on February 9th 2006.
 
The fourth Sunningdale Accountability lecture – The Act of Union – the next 30 years –was presented on 29 January 2008 by Professor Robert Hazell, head of The Constitution Unit at University College, London.

Sir John Bourn (the Comptroller and Auditor General and UKPAC’s honorary President), introduced the lecture; Dr Rolet Loretan (Director General of the International Institute of Administrative Sciences) made some closing remarks.

Professor Hazell introduced himself as ‘sharply critical of the UK government in its approach to devolution’. His lecture took in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, before asking ‘what would become of England’ and looking for the ‘shared interest that…bind the peoples of Britain together’.

He identified some common hurdles to further independence for the devolved administrations. For example, the necessity for the majority in, say, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly to approve referendums on the issue. And, assuming this was secured, the need for the British government in Westminster to play its part. On a more practical level, Professor Hazell questioned whether the population of these countries would actually vote in favour of independence. In Northern Ireland, for instance, the demographic shift pushing towards a nationalist majority has not been borne out by a shift in the opinion polls.

Professor Hazell went on to discuss what he called the ‘gaping hole in the devolution settlement’ that is England. He asked whether, against the background of devolution, England needs a ‘louder political voice’. He referred to technical difficulties – such as the non existence, strictly speaking, of English law - which he felt would be trumped by ‘political difficulties’.

To safeguard the future of the Union – over the next ‘30, let alone 300, years’ time’ - Professor Hazell offered the following suggestions.

Professor Hazell concluded on the idea of ‘Britishness’. He argued that some of the values often articulated in this regard could be applied to any modern democracy. To these needed to be added the ideas of interest and institutions.