Oh no! The Archbishop of Canterbury has lost his inhibitions, thrown caution to the wind, and – in a massive scoop for the media – has slagged off the government in a book to come out after he has left office in 2013. It must be his considered revenge, mustn’t it?

Even the BBC website has him “dismiss[ing] David Cameron’s ‘big society’ initiative as ‘aspirational waffle'”.

The story broke with the Observer claiming to “have obtained” the book. Just how clever is that?

Has it occurred to any of these guys that the book is a collection of speeches and writings already given over the last few years? In other words, the scripts are all public anyway and have been for some time. The headline story about Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ was, I think, delivered before the last election.

So, why is this now puffed up into a sensation story? Why is it presented as if it was anything new? Why did any editor think this could possibly be a ‘story’ unless it was misleadingly represented as ‘new’?

Or, just like (a) when the riots hit England last year and we were constantly asked why the Archbishop of Canterbury was making no comments, and (b) when St Paul’s Cathedral steps were Occupied and we were constantly aksed why the Archbishop of Canterbury was making no comments, why did no journalist go back to their previous ‘scandal’ story and recall that the Archbishop of Canterbury had actually spoken very loudly about all these matters in articles and speeches – not least the New Statesman editorial that politicians and journalists castigated him for?

Is such amnesia deliberate? Or is there some other explanation?

[Note on 25 June: I notice that John Bingham got the story right in the Telegraph.]

I don’t often get the chance to watch much telly. But, surfing through the channels in a hotel at Trafalgar Square in London, I came across the Secret Millionaire. 
Some guy called Charles Allen, a millionaire, goes undercover and pretends to three charities in Leeds that he is writing a book on something relevant to their activity. Eventually he admits who he is and gives each of them £35,000 so they can continue their work. He recognises that they don’t deal in big money, but in single pounds.
What was interesting was his observation at the end that the charity workers he had met were so committed to helping others, but lacked basic resources. His comment was that the Big Society is OK, but “you can’t run it on nothing”.
In other words, how can you create the big society if you want volunteers to serve the vulnerable in their local community whilst at the same time cutting all the funding to enable those charities and local bodies to run. You need some paid people to coordinate, seek funding, run the show, recruit, resource and train the volunteers. No funding, no Big Society.
It’s not rocket science. but it is the bizarre reality that is faced by huge numbers of charities in all our cities and beyond.

There’s a bit in the book of the prophet Jeremiah where the king, Hezekiah, asks Jeremiah: “Does the Lord have a word for us today?” the answer is ‘yes’, but the king doesn’t like it when he hears it. It doesn’t press the right political buttons. It is inconvenient to the dominant ideology. So, it gets dumped. Today it would simply get ridiculed.

The question itself, however, provides the lens through which I look when writing Pause for Thought scripts for BBC Radio 2 (principally these days for the Chris Evans Show). Of course, people don’t articulate it in that language; but, I assume they are asking a similar question: “Will someone help me make sense of this?” or “Will someone shed a different light on this, so I can think it through?” The choice of language – as well as theme – then matters.

When I was asked to go into the studio to do a ‘live’ broadcast a couple of days after 9/11, this was how I thought about it. It was a similar process after the Tsunami, the death of Princess Diana, and other big events. But, it plies to the ordinary times of life, too.

I pick this out now because of what I wrote in the last post about the silence of the Archbishop of Canterbury during the riots in London and other English cities. In one sense, Rowan had nothing new to say that he hadn’t already been saying for years.

Think about his penetrating book, Lost Icons, in which he questioned the consequences of (for example) the sexualisation of children and the refusal of adults to behave like adults (by competing with children in the sexuality market).

Consider his considered thinking and writing in the wake of the Children’s Society ‘Good Childhood Report’ – criticised because he didn’t let adults or parents off the responsibility hook and questioned the destiny of the ‘me’ generation in which ‘personal fulfilment now’ trumps everything else and justifies any behaviour.

Consider what he actually wrote in the New Statesman edition recently and the questions he put to the Government, the Opposition and the rest of us about the values upon which our society is being built. (Ignore the ridiculous media furore and address the actual questions.)

Rather than being silent, in fact he’s been banging on about this stuff endlessly for years. But, people who haven’t listened now turn round and tell him he hasn’t spoken. Bizarre or what?

Rowan once said that when people accuse him of ‘not leading’, what they really mean is that he isn’t going where they want him to take them – and that when they want him to ‘speak out’, they really mean they want him to say loudly what they want to hear.

Unfortunately, that has never been the job of the prophets.

– Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:New York, USA

The Archbishop of Canterbury got another Honorary Doctorate this evening. This time it was from King’s College London and he was given it after he had delivered a typically robust lecture on the ‘Big Society’ in a small and globalised world.

The lecture – entitled ‘Big Society, Small World’ – was the 2011 Commemoration Oration and pulled in a large and mixed audience. The guy next to me clearly had no interest in the lecture and, judging by his constantly turning head and distracted look, little comprehension of Rowan Williams’ argument.

I am not going to attempt to summarise Rowan’s argument – you have to read the text and concentrate. He does offer a sentence in his introduction which does the job, but it demands definition and explication… which is, of course, what the rest of the lecture does. He says:

A politics, national and international, of local co-operation and ‘mutualism’, rooted in a sense of political virtue and appealing to human empathy…

But, in it he raised some questions that go beyond the immediate ‘Big Society’ conundrum and challenge the way we see  and shape (wittingly or otherwise) society. Try these, for example:

  • We need to ask where power is located – where the levers of change and control lie in society. “And this in turn generates a crucial set of questions about political ethics or political virtue: if we need to explore where power lies, we need also to explore what we want power to do and why.  It is in this context that discussion has been developing about – for example – the proper definition of wealth and well-being, about individual and communal goals, about the sort of human character that is fostered by unregulated competition and a focus on individual achievement, and about where we derive robust ideas of the common good and the social compact.”
  • We need the language of character and of virtue; “and no amount of exhortation to pull our weight in society (big or otherwise) is any use without some thinking about what kind of people we are, want to be, and want others to be; what are the habits we want people to take for granted, what are the casual assumptions we’d like people to be working with?”
  • We allowed ‘freedom’ to be defined as “essentially a state in which you have the largest possible number of choices and no serious obstacles to realising any of them.  And politics has accordingly been driven more and more by the competition to offer a better range of choices…  But as our current debates seem to indicate, we have woken up to the fact that this produces a motivational deficit where the idea of the common good is concerned.”

We then get an exploration of empathy, character, human rights, civic responsibility, institutions, the humanities, localism, international development, micro-credit, farming in Zimbabwe, the proper role of the State and theology. It is dense and searching and deserves serious consideration. He concludes:

My concern is that we use this opportunity to the full – and particularly that we do not treat the enthusiasm around some sorts of localism simply as a vehicle for disparaging the state level of action to secure the vulnerable, nationally and internationally.  It is welcome that there is a concern to think about relocating power; but, as we have seen, for this to work well depends on being reasonably clear as to what you want power to do – which includes the ‘backwash effect’ of serious localism in re-energising national and international policy, to the extent that it is building real civic virtue.

This lecture seems to me to push the debate about the ‘Big Society’ in a direction that has theological and philosophical depth whilst identifying the key questions that demand intelligent answers if the ‘Big Society’ is to mean anything useful in reality.

As the Middle East continues to burn and the powers are being shaken by the winds of hope, some domestic matters maintain their importance for the future of British society. The Prime Minister seems to be letting no day go by without some major statement on something. This is not a bad thing in itself – especially as the subject matter is usually important – but it makes me wonder whether everything is being properly thought through before publication.

We all know that the forest sell-off has been embarrassingly dropped – and rightly so, in my humble opinion. But, today the Telegraph has an exclusive article by David Cameron in which he sets out his intention to expand his Big Society by decentralising public services and “replace targets with common sense”.

All this sounds great – giving local people control over the details of their lives – but there is a nagging doubt itching away in the back of my mind about the reality. ‘Decentralisation’ seems usually to increase bureaucracy, not reduce it. ‘Common sense’ of one group is the ‘madness’ of another. And none of this addresses the serious concerns about the impact of the ‘millionaires’ Cabinet’ proposals on the poorest or most vulnerable members of our society.

I don’t necessarily disagree with some of the sentiment behind Cameron’s agenda, but I have little trust that the outworking won’t simply benefit those who are most able to exploit it – at the cost of others for whom the charities will be expected to care.

The Bishop of Huntingdon expressed these concerns well – and with a clear appeal to the prophetic tradition in his sermon in the chapel of St Catherine’s College, Cambridge:

The strength of saying that we want a Big Society not a Big Government is that more people can be empowered and use that power to help others. The weakness, which many of us are worried about, is that for the powerful to say this, but then not take or not be able to take the actions that are necessary to empower others, but only cut their support, is to doubly disempower them: at best a Big Sell-Out – abdicating from government not augmenting society – and at worst a Big Smokescreen, if the benefits of privilege are perceived to stay just where they were, or even grow. If there is one thing that should sometimes keep our Prime Minister awake at night, this should be it.

One of the things I like about David Cameron is that you can usually tell when his own voice is behind the things he says or writes (as opposed to the voices of speechwriters or PR people). Reading his recent speech on terrorism at the Security Conference in Munich he not only wagged his real finger at his audience, but he also kept using the word ‘frankly’. This is good: it suggests openness, honesty and clarity. But, frankly, being frank and convincing isn’t enough when it seems that some thinking is being done on the hoof and without realistic thought being given to the implications.

The start of a new year always feels like we’ve got to the top of a dodgy ladder and fallen off, only to have to start climbing again. No guarantees and no foreknowledge of what exactly is to come.

OK, we can assume that 2011 is going to bring huge challenges to many people and life is going to be tough for individuals, families, businesses, institutions and charities:

  • as unemployment shoots up, so there will be huge pressure on marriages (undermining family stability and affecting large numbers of children)
  • history teaches us that this will put additional pressure on the NHS – particularly mental health services (which are already under-resourced and often hidden)
  • radical public service cuts will have a direct effect on local economies which depend more on public services (particularly in the north of England)
  • private businesses will consequently suffer in the wake of the above
  • crime will increase, but the police will have fewer resources to address either the real situation or public perceptions of it.

And that’s just the miserable stuff for starters. You can add in predictions of continuing public unrest, direct protests against the effects of the cuts, and a growing public instinct for ‘doing something’ about it (an expression of human dignity and responsibility?).

So, no cheer then? Well, that depends. It is unclear whether faith communities and charities will be able to plug the gaps left by local or central government funding withdrawals. Asking people to give more to charity, though always desirable, is no answer to the problem of cuts to essential funding of local agencies who meet needy people where they are. Among others, churches may be deemed the appropriate agencies for rising to new challenges; but, so far, no research has been done into either capacity or competence.

In other words, we are walking blind into uncharted territory. I have sympathy with David Cameron’s vision for the Big Society, but I have serious doubts about it being deliverable in the short term – I can see it being undermined in both practice and theory by an over-ambitious and overly-radical programme of immediate (rather than programmed/staggered) cuts.

So, given the potentially overwhelming challenges that colour our view of the prospects for 2011 – internationally as well as nationally and locally – where might we turn for an overarching theme that might shape our approach to whatever lies ahead?

I think the Guardian put it well this morning in its editorial comment:

The cynicism which pervades public life at the dawn of 2011 is … a creed that ascribes the basest motives to everybody, and dismisses the very possibility of moral improvement. … mistrust is paralysing politics. It is evident in marketopian reforms which treat public servants as knaves to be slapped into line by the self-interested whack of the invisible hand. It is evident, too, in fear and loathing between the governing and governed, and – we admit – in newspapers being too gleeful about catching yet another snout in the trough. The great injustices of the day have at times been buried in a blizzard of dodgy receipts for duck islands and patio doors. The dismal worldview reaches its apogee in the rightwing blogosphere, where pundits parade as anarchists but subtly entrench hopelessness by decreeing every call for public virtue to be a cover for private vice. None of this is to deny the praiseworthiness of doubt and sceptical inquiry, preconditions for both good government and clear thought. But it is to hope, however vainly, for a collective resolution to extend a smidgeon more trust in considering what makes people tick.

Trust is essential and central to any constructive or positive approach to what lies ahead of us – which we have the responsibility to shape and not just to decry as if we are helpless victims. Trust assumes that we will take seriously the Common Good.

This means – taking the context of the Guardian’s piece seriously – that the media have a massive responsibility not only to question and critique, but also to see themselves as ‘players and participants’ of our society and drop the pretence of being disinterested, objective observers of everybody else. The media shape public perceptions of reality and motivation – and that makes them responsible agents in shaping society and the trust or cynicism that infect public life.

In All’s Well That Ends Well Shakespeare put is like this:

Love all, trust a few. Do wrong to none.
We don’t have a right to happiness, despite the assumptions behind the American Declaration of Independence. But, we do have a responsibility to take seriously the well-being of all in our society – especially those least able to secure their own. Trust will either encourage us – or its lack will further destroy us.

In his excellent novel A Week in December, Sebastian Faulks characterises a pretty bleak contemporary Britain, riddled with uncertainty about identity, who ‘belongs’ and which values are driving us as a society. In my last post I briefly described the book. The book is timely because it raises in ‘flesh and blood’ terms the huge challenge to a diverse and disparate society such as ours of identifying the values which we want to shape our future.

This is pertinent because for the first time since the Second World War (in my humble opinion) we are all faced with making defining choices about what we want our society to look like. Having muddled through the relatively affluent post-war decades, the global financial crash has made hard choices unavoidable. We cannot simply go on the way we were; we must now change direction. But that direction should be informed by values and not simply be a reaction to immediate circumstances (such as economic challenge).

Last week we held a consultation in Croydon on the theme of the ‘Big Society’. Leaders of our very many faith communities came together with community and Council leaders to explore what the concept means and how we might engage with it. We met under Chatham House rules, so I will not give a resume of what was said. However, I will outline my speech (in response to the Council Leader) and my perceptions of where we go from here.

As with any concept emerging from the mind of a politician in the run-up to a General Election, the temptation we all face is to critically take apart the concept, question the motives behind it and justify our clever non-engagement by picking holes in it. Of course, it is always easier to critique someone else’s proposals than to come up with our own original and positive ones.

The problem with the ‘Big Society’ concept is that none of us has been sure what was intended by it – even in the minds of those who invented it. Some months ago I rather rudely compared it to the Millennium Dome in Greenwich: build a big tent and then wake up one day and realise we have to actually put something in it. The term ‘Big Society’ began as a rhetorical device to contrast with ‘Big State’ or ‘Big Government’. (Unfortunately, the term ‘big’ evokes memories of the bragging Barclays Bank adverts of just a very few years ago in which the actor Anthony Hopkins captured the hubris of the ultra-Capitalist nineties and noughties with that sneery ‘big is self-evidently right and best’ claim to universal power and identity.)

The further problem we now face is that the debate about the ‘Big Society’ has become confused with the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) and the programme of drastic cuts to public expenditure in Britain (while bankers’ bonuses seem to have resumed after their inconvenient interruption). Whereas the CSR impacts on what society will look like, it says little directly about the value base of the society we are now shaping. ‘Big Society’ is a debate about values – what should characterise our common life, politics, government, economics, education, etc. – and what sort of people we wish to become; it is not primarily or intially about the particular economics of a particular government.

In fact, this is my starting point in engaging positively with the ‘Big Society’ project (which was also debated at last week’s General Synod of the Church of England in London). A couple of opening salvoes to remind me of the nature of the game:

  • Either we shape our future or we become victims of other people’s decisions. It can be easier to opt out and then blame other people for creating what we don’t particularly like – but that is puerile and irresponsible.
  • The language we use matters: and here I think the word ‘Big’ should be dropped and the word ‘Good’ instated in its place. The ‘Good Society’ asks us to question more than its size, compass or mechanics; it goes to the heart of its values and gets the priority right: values should shape our behaviour – our behaviour should not simply be an ad hoc reaction to other stimuli, through which our real values might then be discerned. ‘The common good’ is the term used in Roman Catholic social ethics and it is the right one.
  • The ‘Big Society’ as a descriptor of a way of living that (a) asks people to take responsibility for their lives, (b) takes subsidiarity in decision making seriously, and (c) asks people to be responsible for the well-being of their neighbour is thoroughly commendable. But it is not original. Many thousands of our communities have schools, hospitals and hospices because the Church (of England, usually) saw the need and created them generations ago. This might be an uncomfortable fact, but there it is. Croydon’s schools and hospitals were shaped by the compassionate ingenuity of an Archbishop of Canterbury over 400 years ago: John Whitgift.

How, then, should we engage with the ‘Big Society’ debate? I think the first thing the Christian community needs to do is recover its nerve and remember its history. ‘Big Society’ is what we do – and what we have always done. We are not here to serve only our own Christian community, but the whole of the community in which we live. Every time I institute or license a Vicar I am reminded that he/she is the Vicar of the Parish and not simply the chaplain of their congregation(s). Even if (as was suggested to me) 80% of churches are not ‘volunteering’ enough in our communities, it is still true that nearly 80% of volunteers in the community come from and through the churches. Why? For theological reasons, no doubt; but also because we are there in every community and it is in our blood.

Anyway, to cut to the chase and suggest a dynamic for positive engagement in a rather complex morass of competing ideas about our current social challenges, here goes – as simply as I can make it.

First, we need to identify the values that we want to shape our society and cultures for the next two or three generations (long-term). For example, we might say we want all children to have (a) equal educational opportunity and (b) equal aspiration. We might want to have our economics driven by our moral choices and not by assumed inevitabilities (the personalised ‘Market’, for example). We might want freedom and justice – with proper sanction when the irresponsible abuse that freedom and cause injustice.

Second, we need to ‘earth’ those values in the stuff of (for example) housing, education, transport, access to law, immigration issues, etc. Values cease to be of any value if they do not ‘take flesh’ in the real and mucky world of money, structures and things.

Third, we then shape political action and decisions according to the values we have enjoined. But, in all the detail we keep holding up the bigger picture of the values we commonly hold to be the shapers of our society. It is these that should guide our political judgement and critique.

If you want a good example of where this has not worked thus far, look at (a) Rowan Williams’ critique of ‘childhood’ in (for just one example) Lost Icons and (b) The Good Childhood Report by the Children’s Society in 2009. How might they be used to shape policy and all that goes with implementation of it?

So, there’s a starter for ten. So-called ‘faith communities’ (a misnomer which drives me mad because it ignores differentiation between those communities and assumes that only religious communities have ‘faith’ – which shows woeful ignorance of how world views function) can organise to get this simple three-step process going in focused discussion, debate and communication with those who wield the political and economic axes.

I spent a week in November reading (on and off, obviously) Sebastian Faulks’ excellent A Week in December. Faulks manages to take snapshots of characters and events that characterise something of the nineties and noughties in Britain.

A book to capture today's Britian

The tensions and comprehension gaps between a disillusioned young Muslim man – looking for some certainties and a place to belong – and his parents who have tried hard to assimilate and be accepted into British society is beautifully expressed. Even better is the lack of easy resolution: both end the book still not understanding the other and yet the need for human belonging has to find expression for both.

Many of the women in the book – wives of politicians, footballers and rich businessmen, for example – are depicted as casting around for love, identity and ‘place’. A literary critic shows up the superficial and personal nature of arts criticism: personal agendas and rivalries, jealousies and snobberies, all get exposed. There is a light shone on so many aspects of shallow culture that every page made me wince with both recognistion and embarrassment. Is this what we have really become?

The period covered is, however, epitomised by the character of John Veals, the high-finance money manipulator whose addictive lust is not for money itself (ironically, given his accumulation of the stuff) – and certainly not for his rather regretful wife and neglected children – but for the miserable pursuit of power and ‘winning’. Relationships mean nothing; the world is simply a playground for his exploitation; people are pawns in his trading games; rules are for breaking; laughter is for the sorts of people he despises. The final line of the book sends a chill through the soul as the sheer empty, vacuous, selfish and value-free monster of greed exposes what happens when you gain the whole world but lose your soul.

I guess Faulks could be accused of caricaturing the worst of contemporary Britain without depicting or exploring the best elements of a complicated multicultural society. But, you can’t do everything in a single book – and in this book he paints a picture which only the wilfully blind will fail to recognise. This picture begs many questions of what sort of society we really want Britain to develop in the next few years of the so-called ‘Big Society’… and that will form the subject of my next post.

Where to start?

  • 29 miners dead in New Zealand.
  • South Korea bombed by North Korea and now this most dangerous part of the world likely to be inflamed.
  • Education about to be mucked about with in England (again).
  • Pope saying something about condoms, but still not clear whether a tweak or a revolution.
  • An extra day off for the forthcoming Royal Wedding.
  • Thousands of families about to find their lives changed by government cuts in England.
  • A really interesting debate opening up under the ‘Big Society’ umbrella about values, vision and the shaping of a different sort of society – both opportunity and threat.

So, what do we find ourselves occupied with? The non-‘suspension’ of the Bishop of Willesden for being rude and unepiscopal about the Royal Marriage.

It’s absolutely clear: Pete Broadbent was wrong to say what he said in the way he said it. No question. Nothing is private any more and Facebook certainly isn’t. Pete apologised unreservedly and then was asked to ‘withdraw’ from public office until further notice (whatever that means). And now two things have happened: (a) the Twittersphere is alive with charges that a dying story has been given new life, and (b) a campaign has been launched to get people to boycott the Daily Mail.

Isn’t it just conceivable that anyone who would wish to boycott the Daily Mail for this latest expose of a good bloke might already be boycotting the organ because of its shrill racism, ideological hard edge and willingness to destroy people who don’t share its own prejudiced complexion?

I understand the response to the bishop’s predicament. But, in the grand scheme of world events and the enormity of the Daily Mail’s offensiveness, there might be better reasons for choosing not to pay into the Mail’s coffers than their personal stuffing of the Bishop of Willesden. (Is their coverage of the Synod debate about the ‘Big Society’ useful?)

I hope Pete’s purdah will end and he can continue his excellent and valued episcopal ministry. I also hope the Royal wedding will be the beginning of a great marriage for William and Kate (but I seriously fear for their fate at the hands of the same media who are now defending their honour). And I hope we can recover some sense of proportion about all this stuff. As soon as possible.

Bit of an odd-sounding title, isn’t it? But, it’s the title given to an initiative being explored at present by the Church of England and the Government. Slipped on to the Church of England website the other day (wisely not trumpeted as it is ‘work in progress’), it shows some entrepreneurial spirit on behalf of the Church in testing out the reality of David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ notion. After all, being a ‘good neighbour’ is what Jesus told his people to be.

The Church of England is actively discussing with Government plans for a major extension to the pastoral work of parish churches, particularly in multi-religious neighbourhoods. These propose a variety of ways in which the recognised strengths of the Church of England can contribute to the flourishing of people in these neighbourhoods.  The Church Urban Fund with its 25 years of experience of supporting local communities in deprived urban areas, will oversee the programme. 

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles and Baroness Warsi, Minister in the Cabinet Office, have affirmed the role of the Churches and Faith communities at the heart of local communities and have spoken positively of the unique contribution of the Church of England’s 20,000 local churches, schools and centres at the heart of every neighbourhood.

What is particularly significant about this is the recognition that the Church of England is committed to the thriving of all in our communities, not just those who ‘belong’ to the church. This is rooted in the theological assumption that the church is a means to an end and not the end in itself – the church is called to be a sign of the kingdom (presence) of God and to give its life to that end. We may fail a million times – and need to be recalled to that central vocation – but this remains our commitment.

The statement goes on:

The Church of England’s ethos as the national Church is to have a duty of care for all parishioners irrespective of their religious belief or none. A consequence of this has been its very substantial contribution to inter faith initiatives at local, regional and national levels and with all Faith communities.

 The proposals have the strapline “Being Neighbourly” and could include new support for street and neighbourhood level initiatives; partnerships with national faith based and inter faith organisations and work with young adults.

 The Church of England believe these proposals could be a significant affirmation of the contribution of faith communities to the ‘Big Society’.

This reinforces the point that what is often loosely called ‘establishment’ does not have to do with privilege and status, but with service, obligation and sacrificial commitment to our communities. And rather than whinge about the deficiencies of Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ (is it a con or a concept?) or the slowness of the Church of England as an institution in responding to a changing social scene, it attempts to get on and shape something for the future.

The Minister responsible, Eric Pickles, said:

For years, churches and other faith communities have been quietly making a huge difference day-in and day-out, to every single neighbourhood in the country – something that has not been sufficiently recognised by central Government. We can together build on the huge amount of experience faith groups have in getting out into the community. The Church of England’s proposals to extend their work with communities are very interesting and we are looking at them closely.”

The Church of England gets used to being knocked – often with good reason. This looks to me like a good reason for optimism and support. Detailed proposals are to be discussed in the autumn and we will watch this space to see what emerges in due course.