Small countries are blazing trails for the world to follow
COLUMNIST
WHAT springs to mind when you think of Sweden – Abba, meatballs and Volvos, or perhaps the marvellouslymoustached chef from the Muppets?
The Swedes have another grand claim to fame.
Forty years ago today Sweden became the first country in the world to announce a ban on most aerosols.
The Swedish Government sat up and paid attention when scientists warned that the chemicals then used in aerosols could degrade the earth’s ozone layer.
To their enduring credit, ministers took seriously the evidence that its depletion would let in ultraviolet radiation.
The ban made headlines around the world, raising awareness of the threat of rocketing rates of skin cancer – and fuelling debate about the potential for cataclysmic change. The fifth paragraph of a Reuters report from the time described how “there are also fears that it might even eventually cause the earth to warm up, melting the ice caps and flooding coastal cities”.
Just under a decade later, in September 1987, the world ditched the ozone-destroying chemicals when the Montreal Protocol was agreed. It became the first treaty in the history of the United Nations to achieve universal ratification.
The Swedes knew that they couldn’t single-handedly stop the devastation of the ozone layer. They contributed only a tiny fraction of the perfidious pollutants but they showed the rest of the world what needed to be done.
Stories like this demonstrate the moral power that smaller countries have to lead by example.
In 2002 the Republic of Ireland became the first country to introduce a levy on plastic bags. This was a bold experiment which produced spectacular results – a 90% reduction in bag use.
Ireland delivered the evidence ministers in other countries needed to justify bringing in charges of their own.
Wales became the first UK nation to ban the free giveaway of single use carrier bags in 2011 and England started its own charging scheme in 2015.
Ireland was also the first country to introduce a total ban on smoking in public places. The 2004 ban was a radical move for a nation famed for its pubs but Scotland followed in 2006 and Wales in 2007.
It takes guts to abandon the old way of doing things, even if they are not working. Advocates for change routinely face accusations that their policies are wacky, irresponsible and dangerous.
In the United States, Colorado and Washington became the first American states to vote to legalise the recreational use of marijuana in 2012. Other US states have followed even though cannabis use remains prohibited by the federal government.
Small nations and individual states that have strong law-making powers have the chance to engage in avant-garde policy-making. What initially seems groundbreaking quickly looks like common sense if voters are happy and communities change for the better.
Former First Minister Rhodri Morgan – who oversaw the end of prescription charges in Wales in 2007 – relished such potential for experimentation, telling MPs that “in the USA you have 50 living laboratories, and we have got four living laboratories in the United Kingdom”.
When ministers break with convention and take a risk they may be mocked but you can bet the evidence will be closely scrutinised.
The results of the Welsh Government’s 2015 decision to move to a presumed consent system of organ donation will be studied around the world. If the Welsh model leads to lives being saved it will be easier for policymakers to win the intense ethical debates the subject ignites.
There will be less interest if Wales bans smacking. Britain has lagged behind its neighbours in stopping physical punishment.
The Council of Europe states that 32 of its 47 members have “achieved full prohibition of corporal punishment in all settings, including the home”.
Opponents of smacking will argue the radical move would be to allow another generation of children to be punished in this way and that Wales should introduce a ban and provide a model for England to follow.
Much more international attention will be paid to the results of pilot schemes which see all citizens in an area receive a Universal Basic Income.
In an experiment in Finland, 2,000 citizens receive around £500 a month. There are plans to trial a similar idea in Glasgow and Fife.
The idea of handing out cash to everyone in a community may sound like a highly questionable use of finite public resources but the concept has slowly won supporters – and dramatic changes in society have triggered a new curiosity.
A basic income would allow more people to step out of the workforce to look after for elderly relatives, thus freeing up social care resources. It could enable people in mid-career to go to university to boost their skills and it would make the possibility of unemployment less frightening at a moment when Artificial Intelligence, robotics and driverless cars threaten to wipe out millions of jobs.
Social experiments may fail but a government that takes a brave step to address a pressing crisis deserves respect.
We have a culture where ministers are pilloried for anything that goes wrong on their watch. It is considered reckless to take a decision without proof that there is zilch chance of failure. If businesses operated in this way great inventions would never come to market. If doctors never took risks new treatments would never be pioneered. Yes, policies should be underpinned by as much evidence as possible but values, imagination, and courage should be prized in our politics.
One of the key arguments for increasing the number of Assembly Members is that this would widen the talent pool. But we can also hope that if another score or so of AMs enter the Senedd, there will be mavericks who love the idea of a daring democracy.