Lib-Dem Rail Minister, Norman Baker defends massive hike in rail fares, but can he be trusted to support our campaign to #upgradeA27now?

Polegate & Lewes MP Norman Baker (also Rail Minister in the Coalition Government)
has defended the above-inflation rail fare increases that apply to hundreds of thousands of commuters from today.

He says that rail fares are "not that expensive" and argues that the government has done all it can to keep the increases to a minimum.

Mr Baker says the ticket price rises are needed to help fund improvements to the rail service but that the government wants to end the above-inflation annual price rises as soon as possible.

He said: "Once you take the basket of fares, include early advance and off peaks we are not nearly as expensive as is being presented, but the basic premise that we continue to veer on increase above inflation – no we don't want that. We want to end the era of above inflation increases as quickly as we can."

Season ticket price increases are calculated using the Retail Prices Index (RPI) measure of inflation plus a percentage.

The average ticket increase is 3.9 per cent. This is the 10th year in succession that commuters have had to suffer above-inflation rail fare increases.

The problem faced by many East Sussex motorists and businesses is that while some can use the train for journies to Brighton, Gatwick and London, apart from now being more expensive, it takes too long and the journey time from Eastbourne to Victoria is pretty similar to what it would have been in the days of steam.

But for many, they don't have a choice and have to use roads. Roads like the awful A27 between Polegate and Lewes with its deadly accident rate and unpredictable journey times.

Norman Baker has since his election in 1997 been one of the biggest road blocks to vital improvements, apart from the section that became the Beddingham Flyover, involving the compulsory purchase and demolition of his home which he now boasts support for.

Local motorists and businesses will no doubt watch with interest to see if he can be trusted to back their calls for an upgraded A27 in the near future, or return to his old ways and block it and continue making insensitive comments about rail fare increases.

Boris beats PM and Prince to be Most Influential Man in Britain

Boris Johnson has beaten David Cameron, Prince Charles and Sir Bradley Wiggins to be named the most influential British man of the year, following his association with the London 2012 games.

The Mayor of London triumphed over a who's who of politics, royalty and celebrities in a list dominated by Oxford graduates and Old Etonians.

It is the second time he has been awarded the title, awarded by GQ magazine, beating the Prime Minister into third place behind Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary.

The news rounds off a successful year for Mr Johnson, who reached new levels of popularity after his involvement in the Olympic Games.

A series of public appearances, including being left dangling on a zip wire waving Union flags, brought him cheers from the same crowds which booed last year's winner, Chancellor George Osborne.

Other senior Conservatives in the top 10 are Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, in fourth, and Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, in 10th.

Andrew Cooper, founder of the polling company Populus and Downing Street's director of political strategy, took fifth place, with Lord Justice Leveson and Robert Jay QC in joint eighth position.
The top 50 list reflected the two most important events of the last year: the Olympics and the Queen's Diamond Jubilee celebrations.

Bradley Wiggins, awarded a knighthood in the new year honours and his fellow cyclist Sir Chris Hoy, reached 15th place, while Mo Farah, the athlete, made it to 34th following his two gold medals.

The Prince of Wales beat his sons into 12th place, while Prince Harry made it to 18th after a year that included serving his country in Afghanistan and the publication of naked holiday photographs.
A spokesman for GQ magazine said it had consulted with a "star chamber from various industries" that included Matthew Freud, the public relations executive, Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil rights group Liberty, Sir Philip Green, the businessman, Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, Sir Richard Branson, the businessman, and Hans Ulrich Obrist, codirector of the Serpentine Gallery.

She said that after the Leveson Inquiry, "untrammelled power like that wielded by Rupert Murdoch" had been replaced by "institutional scrutiny and new–media guruism".

"In reaction there has been a resurgence of the old guard," she said in a statement. "Meanwhile with the rise in power of web gossip factories, businessmen are much less willing to court the public eye. The flamboyant tycoons of the past have been replaced by more retiring figures."
Mr Johnson, a Daily Telegraph columnist, will be announced winner of GQ's Most Influential Man in Britain 2013 in its February edition, on sale tomorrow.

Return to Westminster for 'Yes, Prime Minister'

After 25 years, 'Yes, Prime Minister’ is back. Original co-writer Antony Jay describes the process of bringing the series up to date

In 1983, Jonathan Lynn and I thought that Yes Minister was pretty much played out. After three series, enough was enough. What brought it back to life was the idea of making Jim Hacker prime minister. The premiership opened up a range of subjects – nuclear defence, MI5, foreign policy, the appointment of bishops – which kept us going happily for another two series.

By 1987 we felt that another series would have us scraping the barrel. We did discuss the possibility of a stage play, but Paul Eddington and Nigel Hawthorne could not commit themselves to more than three months, while producers needed at least six months to recoup their investment. So we called it a day; we were sure we would never go back to it.

But in the entertainment business, as in politics, the word “never” does not take the future tense. We had felt that any revival would be impossible without Paul and Nigel in their original parts – but Paul died in 1995 and Nigel in 2001, and after a few years, the idea of reviving the programme did not look as impossible as it had done in their lifetimes.

We were asked if we would like to adapt some old episodes for the stage. That seemed a bit boring. Why not write a completely new, updated play? We found an enthusiastic producer and in the spring of 2010 it went ahead.

I have to admit that I was apprehensive. I was haunted by Utopia Limited, the disastrous attempt by Gilbert and Sullivan to recapture their past glories, and by the description of these two pathetic old men appearing on stage at the first night to distinctly lukewarm applause for what was clearly a flop. Jonathan was 67 by then, and I was 80 – a dangerous parallel. However, history mercifully did not repeat itself, and the play has been running ever since, alternating London seasons with provincial tours.

We had not thought about another television series, but when the play proved so popular, the idea obviously came up. We did not really feel like going back on to the treadmill, but the idea of expanding the play into six half-hour television episodes was not so daunting. Obviously, it would not consist of free-standing episodes like the original series – it would have to be a six-part serial. But why not?

The BBC insisted on a pilot. We felt that we had already done 38 pilots, apart from the stage version, so we said no. But UK Gold did not want a pilot, so we said yes, and the result starts on the screen this month.

So how much had changed in the 23 years since the last episode of Yes, Prime Minister? We always hoped that the series would be seen as topical, but in fact the topicality was something of an illusion. There were two reasons for this. The first was that, although the series first went on the air in 1980 when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister, it was devised and commissioned in 1977. Jim Hacker could not have been less like Mrs Thatcher – we drew on the Heath/Wilson model, which happily came back in the Blair years in time for the play and the new serial.

The second reason was that the BBC paid so little for the scripts that Jonathan and I could not afford to write them close to transmission; we had to keep our day jobs. That meant we were often writing six months or more before transmission, so topical jokes were out. We had to draw on the permanently recurring problems and crises of government, which had the additional advantage of stopping the episodes from seeming dated. In fact, the incidents often cropped up again just before the show went out, which was a welcome bonus and reinforced the illusion of topicality.

So how different was government in 2010 from government in 1980? There was only one way to find out: research. This meant talking to politicians and civil servants; book research was always of limited value – insider books tended to be essays in self-justification and self-promotion – but a convivial lunch could spark all sorts of ideas. In fact, whenever we found that a plot we were developing was not funny enough, the answer was to do more research; the deeper you dug into the realities of government, the funnier it got.

And our research made it clear that there had been a lot of changes in the 23 years since our last script. To start with, of course, the technology had moved on – it was now a world of tweets, mobiles, laptops and iPads – though the ancient red boxes had still not been replaced. And the people were different, too. The civil servants had lost some of Sir Humphrey’s effortless superiority, though underneath the facade there was still the same patronising attitude to the amateurs who were their political masters.

There was more change in the politicians; back in the Seventies and Eighties many of them had a life outside politics, but now the majority seemed to have very little experience of life beyond Westminster. They had gone from university to jobs as political advisers and public relations consultants and then into Parliament without ever doing real jobs with real people.

And yet, underneath it all, everything was surprisingly unchanged. All sorts and conditions of men may enter politics, with all sorts of motives and purposes, but as they rise to the top, the remorseless logic of power drives them into the same pattern of behaviour. It is not only true of politics. As Bagehot pointed out 150 years ago: “The summits of various business are, like the tops of mountains, much more alike than the parts below – the bare principles are much the same; it is only the rich variegated details of the lower strata that so contrast with one another.”

What had changed, happily, were the issues that plagued the government. We had a welcome selection of new plot lines – financial meltdown, the euro crisis, Scottish independence, BBC antagonism, jobs for retiring permanent secretaries - to keep us going through six episodes.

It was this underlying continuity that made it easy for Jonathan and me to pick up where we left off. It may have been 23 years since we last wrote a script together, but it might just as well have been 23 days. We clicked straight back into the old routine. The rich seam of political hypocrisy was certainly not worked out.

In essence we were exposing the other half of a half-truth. The half displayed to the public was of public-spirited men and women ceaselessly and selflessly labouring for the good of the country and the welfare of their fellow citizens. The half we drew on for our comedy was of self-interested and self-important careerists preoccupied with status, power, publicity and money.

I must say that the MPs’ expenses scandal occurred at a very convenient time to support our version. And there was another half-truth that served us well – the image of docile civil servants loyally and efficiently carrying out the instructions of their masters; the half we displayed was of arrogant and manipulative bureaucrats obstructing ministers and ruthlessly pursuing their own objectives.

Of course, this was only half of the truth, but it did reflect something we discovered: deep in their hearts, most politicians respected civil servants, and deep in their hearts most civil servants despised politicians. Part of the problem of government is that ministers always take the credit for successes, which focuses civil servants on avoiding blame.

The central anomaly is that civil servants have years of experience, jobs for life, and a budget of hundreds of billions of pounds, while ministers have, usually, little or no experience of the job and could be kicked out tomorrow. After researching and writing 44 episodes and a play, I find government much easier to understand by looking at ministers as public relations consultants to the real government – which is, of course, the Civil Service.

'Yes, Prime Minister’ starts on January 15 at 9pm on Gold. The stage version is at the Trafalgar Studios, London SW1, until January 12

If we can’t do a deal with Europe, leaving it should hold no terrors

Daniel Hannan is a writer and journalist, and has been Conservative MEP for South East England since 1999. He speaks French and Spanish and loves Europe, but believes that the European Union is making its constituent nations poorer, less democratic and less free.

In opposition, David Cameron tried to stop his party gnawing at the European question. “Instead of talking about the things that most people care about, we talked about what we cared about,” he told his first Conservative conference as leader in 2006. “While parents were worried about getting the kids to school, we were banging on about Europe”.
In the next couple of weeks, the PM plans to bang on about Europe in an unashamedly radical way. He wants a different settlement with the EU and, if reports are to be believed, he will put that settlement to a referendum, offering us a choice between staying in on his new terms or leaving.

What has changed? Why, having meticulously avoided the subject, is Mr Cameron now proposing the most substantial change in our European policy in 40 years of membership?
One reason is that government has opened many ministers’ eyes to the extent of Brussels jurisdiction. The example that Mr Cameron gave in that 2006 speech – parents worried about getting their kids to school – is instructive. I remember the time well. My elder daughter had just started at school, and what was exercising parents at our school gates was the law that required us to ferry our kids around in car seats until they reached the age of 12 – a law that turned out to have come from Brussels.

Whether or not booster seats are desirable, it is hard to see why they need to be decreed at a continental level. It’s the same story with bin collections, home information packs, driving tests, vitamin supplements and hundreds of other essentially domestic issues which are now decided by Brussels.

In opposition, one Tory moderniser told me that the EU was “an optical issue”. His support for it, he frankly admitted, owed less to any cost-benefit analysis than to a sense that Euroscepticism made the party look out-of-touch and dyspeptic. Now that he is in government, dealing with EU directives, he has changed his tune.
It came as quite a shock to Downing Street, for example, when the plan to pay for various Big Society schemes with money lying unclaimed in bank accounts was challenged by the European Commission.

Just as ministers become frustrated with the EU – in what Nick Clegg, with his addiction to cliché, calls “a perfect storm” – the EU itself is more or less forcing the United Kingdom to reconsider its membership terms.

Monetary union is impelling its participants toward fiscal integration, debt pooling, a common finance ministry and thus, by implication, political federation.
The European Community of which we have been members for four decades is, in practical if not legal terms, ceasing to exist. Since almost no one argues that we should join the single currency, the question arises: what relationship should we have with the new entity that is taking shape?

Commentators talk loosely about being in a single market but not in a political union. The Norwegian and Swiss options are plumped and prodded. Jacques Delors has spoken of offering Britain a “privileged partnership”. The Union of European Federalists prefer the term “associate membership”. But we need to be specific about what a free-trade-plus relationship would look like.

Let’s start with the easy bits. Britain has already announced its intention to opt out of common policies in the field of justice and home affairs. It is almost as straightforward to pull out of joint defence and foreign policy structures.

Leaving the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), and asserting our jurisdiction out to 200 miles or the median line, is tougher, but not unprecedented: until a decade ago, the CFP didn’t apply to the Mediterranean. As for the Common Agricultural Policy, the shift from guaranteed prices to direct support makes repatriation increasingly feasible.
External commerce is more complicated. Norway and Switzerland, to their immense advantage, are able to sign free trade deals with non-EU states. They are not constrained, as we are, by Euro-protectionism. Switzerland, for example, is negotiating a free trade agreement with China, which Britain, bound by the Common External Tariff, cannot do. We would want, ideally, to have a similar deal to the Swiss, namely access to the EU market but also the ability to trade bilaterally elsewhere.

Hardest of all is the issue of the single market. Almost everyone agrees that Britain should remain part of a European free trade area. The trouble is that Brussels defines unrelated matters as single market issues, because doing so makes them subject to majority voting. The 48-hour week is considered a single market, not an employment, measure; the emissions trading scheme is labelled single market, not environment. Since the PM has explicitly called for the repatriation of social and employment policy, and since the other members won’t want to give Britain a competitive advantage, this is where the hardest pounding will be.

Still, it is possible to envisage a solution, whereby the euro countries form a federal union, while Britain, the Efta states and possibly some other existing EU members form a broader free trade nexus around it.
Is such a deal on offer? Plenty of commentators respond to that question with Olympian authority, but no one really knows. I have spent the better part of 14 years in Brussels trying to learn the answer, and have concluded that we’ll only find out when the moment comes. We can be certain of one thing, though: there is absolutely no chance of getting an acceptable deal unless it is clearly understood by all sides that the alternative is withdrawal.

I’ve noticed that even supporters of EU membership are no longer as frightened of that prospect as they used to be. The reason is simple: the EU’s share of our trade is falling by the minute. British exports to the EU fell by 7.3 per cent in the past three months for which we have data, while exports to the rest of the world rose by 13.2 per cent.

The EU remains an important market, but it is increasingly just one market, alongside Asean, Nafta, Mercosur and the rest – and no one argues that we need to join them in order to trade with them.
All of which gives us a credible bottom line. We are in surplus with the rest of the world, but in deficit with the EU. Or, to flip it around, the EU is in surplus with us, selling more to Britain than to the US and Japan combined. Customers generally have the upper hand in their talks with salesmen.

I hope Mr Cameron strikes a deal with the EU which leaves all sides happier: everyone should want good relations with our neighbours. But, if such a deal is not available, leaving should hold no terrors. We are the seventh largest economy on Earth, the fourth military power, a member of the G8 and one of five permanent seat-holders on the UN Security Council. We are connected by law and language, habit and sentiment, to every continent. In the words of Tennyson: “Though we are not now that strength which, in old days, moved Earth and Heaven, that which we are we are.”

The Commonwealth has never been stronger

This great institution promotes trade and freedom – no wonder there’s a queue to join, writes Hugo Swire

The modern Commonwealth came into being in 1949, when many countries were fighting to re-establish their identities in a new world order. In the wake of Second World War turmoil, Commonwealth nations declared themselves to be “united as free and equal members, freely cooperating in the pursuit of peace, liberty and progress”.

But what relevance does this group of countries have in 2013? In this fast-moving, globalised world, has the Commonwealth kept pace with change? I would like to answer these questions with a look back at 2012, the year I became Minister of State for the Commonwealth, and a look ahead to this year.

Nearly a third of the world, over two billion people, is made up of Commonwealth citizens. From India, one of the most populous countries, to Nauru, one of the smallest, the Commonwealth family spans every continent and hosts more than 200,000 listed companies. Collectively they have real clout.

The UK is connected to all of these nations through historical ties but also through our Queen, a strong advocate of the Commonwealth, who in 2012 marked her 60th year as its head. The Royal family unifies the institution, a fact that was most recently shown in the unanimous agreement of Commonwealth realms to amend the Act of Succession. Now the first child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will succeed to the throne regardless of gender. This is, I think, a symbol of a modernising institution that can move with the times.

I met the Queen when she visited the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in December. After a tour of the building she was presented with a book showing all of her Commonwealth visits – more than 150 now – and met staff who work on the modern-day Commonwealth agenda. This demonstrates our continued dedication to building and reinvigorating relationships here. We believe the Commonwealth’s soft power network adds value on the international stage and fulfils a niche role – politically, economically and culturally.

Since joining the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I have had the pleasure of meeting a significant number of Commonwealth High Commissioners. I also attended, with the Foreign Secretary, the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers’ meeting in New York in September. It was here that discussion on the modernisation agenda was concluded, and where we reached agreement on a new charter. This sets out in a single and accessible document the values to which Commonwealth countries agree to adhere. The charter is a valuable benchmark against which to measure our words and deeds; its importance, both symbolic and concrete, should not be underestimated.

Our work on the modernisation agenda has helped to focus the Commonwealth on the importance of democracy and respect for core values. These, together with the rule of law, create the conditions in which businesses can flourish, giving them the confidence to invest and trade.

Trade in the Commonwealth is booming, with member states collectively exporting more than £1.5 trillion of goods and services each year. Research conducted by the Royal Commonwealth Society found that when two trading partners were members, their trade was likely to be a third to a half more than when one or both trade partners was non-Commonwealth. There is clearly the potential to build on this in 2013 and beyond.

With Commonwealth Week in March providing the launch pad for the Commonwealth Charter, and then the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow approaching in 2014, there is much to look forward to.

But there will also be challenges. Ahead of the next meeting of Commonwealth heads of government in Colombo we will look to Sri Lanka, as we would with any host, to demonstrate its commitment to upholding Commonwealth values of good governance and respect for human rights. I also expect the Commonwealth to keep up its work in areas such as election observation, which it recently carried out in Ghana.

Given the collective weight of the Commonwealth, some, including the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, think it is an organisation that should do better. They are right. We all want a strong Commonwealth that makes the most of its considerable assets.

In a world of many bilateral and multilateral regional agreements and associations, we shouldn’t pretend that it is the answer to everything. But it is an important institution that countries are queuing to join and that can, through dedication and reform, become stronger and speak with a louder voice than ever before.

Hugo Swire is Minister of State for the Commonwealth

Happy New Year & Automotive anniversaries galore!

Thanks go to our friends at British motoring enthusiast website, www.aronline.co.uk for a nostalgic look back at the last 50 years

The beginning of a New Year represents the opportunity to look forwards, and make resolutions. I’ve made a few, but am likely not to keep to any of them… plus ça change and all that. But the passing of years also gives us chance to think about anniversaries, birthdays and deaths. And time waits for no man, so consider some of the milestones that kick in during 2013. They’ll have you wondering where on earth the years went – or maybe that’s just me.

Half a century ago: the 2000s revolutionise the business market
After 1962, the big year for the family man – with the arrival of the BMC 1100 and Ford Cortina – the focus of the British wave of modernisation was moved upmarket in ’63. The Rover (below) and Triumph 2000s arrived within months of each other and pretty much changed the face of the executive car market, rendering the more traditional 3-litre opposition obsolete. Both were good to drive, had ample performance (in their day) and oodles of road presence.
Fevered debate ensued as to which was the better two-litre – the Rover or the Triumph – and the opposition didn’t really get a look in. At least until the beginning of the 1970s, and the arrival of the brilliant Ford Granada. Slightly above the Rover and Trumph was the Jaguar S-type, a useful modernisation of the Mk2 saloon, which despite its slightly unhappier styling was a better car to drive. Today, all three are still undervalued, and well worth getting hold of before the anniversary hype takes hold.
It was 40 years ago: the Allegro arrives, oil gets expensive
Without doubt, 1973 was a hugely important for British Leyland Motor Corporation. The company’s best selling car, the 1100/1300 was due for replacement, and when it appeared, the Allegro had the weight of the corporation’s ambitions laying on it. It should have been great – and in the early months its sales weren’t hampered by poor customer demand, but a lack of supply thanks to ongoing industrial action. In short, buyers wanted Allegros, but the dealers weren’t able to supply them quickly enough.
But after the 1100/1300, the Allegro’s sales couldn’t help but disappoint. Even combined with the Marina, the company’s dominance of its home market began to crumble – and it’s almost inescapable to conclude that BL’s slide was signalled by the pudding-like Austin. Still, age has been kind to the Allegro. It’s an interesting looking classic now, and easy to run, so there are many reasons to own one. Make 2013 your year to buy one, if you’re considering.

Other new cars to appear from the stable include the Triumph Dolomite Sprint and MGB GT V8. Both were brilliant variations of existing models, which should have increased sales hugely, but that didn’t prove the case – and it wasn’t entirely down to the cars. In October 1973, OPEC decided to impose an oil embargo, which instantly jacked up prices, and played havoc with the world economy. The Western world took years to recover – and by that time, BL had already been bailed out by the government, and savage rationalisation would ensue.

Again, both are brilliant classic cars today – which just goes to prove that there’s a big difference between contemporary fortunes and classic car status.

Can you believe it was 30 years ago when…

It could be argued that the modern car era kicked off in 1983 – and although the radical Ford Sierra and Audi 100 had appeared the year before to change people’s perceptions of car aerodynamics – the move to universal lightness and efficiency really began to take hold in 1983. The arrival of the Fiat Uno, Peugeot 205 and Vauxhall Nova pushed the supermini forward, unlike the Ford Fiesta Mk2. It was the time that hot hatchback fever was also beginning to reach fever pitch. The Austin Maestro was big news at home, and although its styling was conservative, and some of its detail engineering lacked polish, it emerged as a class leading mid-sized hatchback, which t0day – like the Allegro – seems to have been dealt a kind hand by the passage of time. Are we going to see the Maestro rocket in value in 2013? No.

But again, it was the niche product that came from Austin Rover that has endured so very well. Both the MG Metro Turbo and the fabulous Rover Vitesse when on sale in 1983, and it’s the latter that many pundits decided to call it a classic, even while it remained in production. I’d love another one…

Even more shockingly…
It was 20 years ago that the Ford Mondeo (brilliant), Citroen Xantia (good) and Rover 600 (style over substance) were launched. Twenty years. Can you believe it? Me neither. Still, all three are on the cusp of offering classic variations – the ST24, Activa and 620ti are all about to emerge from the murkiness of the ‘cult’ world once and for all. It’s probably worth recalling for one second, too, that 20 years ago, Rover was strong and people bought them in their droves. We had a great range of desirable cars – 200, 400, 600 and 800 formed the core of a range that seemed to offer something for everyone.

Seems a lifetime ago now, doesn’t it?
If the subject of this blog has made you feel just a lit bit older, I apologise – it’s difficult to reconcile some of those landmarks. But as I said, it’s great to pause and reflect once in a while. Looking forward might not be quite so easy, giving the impending financial storm that’s about to engulf Europe.

Happy New Year!

UK assumes presidency of G8 group

The UK is assuming its year-long presidency of the G8 group of nations.

The presidency - which rotates through the G8 members - means it will host the annual leaders' summit and choose the global priorities that are discussed.

June's summit is to be held at Lough Erne, in County Fermanagh, while topics discussed will include tax havens.

The G8 is made up countries who have, historically, been the richest in the world - France, the US, Russia, Japan, Germany, Italy, Canada and the UK.

As prime minister of the presidency holding nation, David Cameron has said he wants to focus on combating trade protectionism, cracking down on tax havens and promoting greater government transparency.

These topics will be discussed in ministerial meetings ahead of the summit along with urgent issues like the crisis in Syria.

Although G8 summits are renowned for fine communiques, the group increasingly suffers from a credibility problem - some of the world's largest economies like China, India and Brazil are not members, says BBC world affairs correspondent Emily Buchanan.

Our correspondent also adds that organisers will at least be hoping the June summit will be trouble-free.

The last time the UK was the host in 2005, in Gleneagles, more than 200,000 people marched against world poverty.

The proceedings were then overshadowed by the 7/7 bus and underground bombings in London.

Mr Cameron announced in November that the G8 summit would be held at the Lough Erne golf resort near Enniskillen.

It is the first time an event of this size has been held in Northern Ireland.

Speaking at the time, the prime minister said: "I want the world to see just what a fantastic place Northern Ireland is - a great place for business, a great place for investment, a place with an incredibly educated and trained workforce ready to work for international business.